Remedial Law Blue Tips 2022 Unlocked

ATENEO CENTRAL
BAR OPERATIONS 2022 REMEDIAL & LEGAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS
PRAYER FOR THE BAR EXAMINATIONS
O God, we come before You this day,

as we are preparing/studying for the bar examinations.
This is the most important event in our lives,

one full of consequences for our own future,
and for the hopes and expectations of many who love us and
are concerned for us: our parents and relatives, our friends,
our professors who have worked hard to prepare us for it.
We ask for help.

Make our memories ready to recall all the
knowledge we have stored in them by our study.
Help us to understand the full meaning of the questions and
to see the exact answers.
Give us the facility of expression to answer
clearly and accurately.
Give us peace of soul
that we may not get upset under the pressure of the task.
We do not ask this by our own merits.

We cannot point to our faithful service
in the past as deserving of this special help.
We have in fact been careless and disobedient.
We ask this from Your Fatherly mercy and compassion through

Your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Listen to our prayers through the intercession of our Blessed Mother,
patroness of our University and of St. Thomas More,
patron of our Law School.
Amen.
What is a red flag in life but not in rem?

Attachment.
Special thanks to Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, Dean Lily K. Gruba, Atty. Erdelyne C. Go, Atty. Axel Rupert
M. Cruz, Atty. Terence Conrad H. Bello, Atty. Eugene T. Kaw, Atty. Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat.
THE BLUE TIPS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE USE OF ATENEO BAR TAKERS FOR THE 2022 BAR
EXAMINATIONS. UNAUTHORIZED USE AND REPRODUCTION OF THIS MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED.
PAGE 1 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
PART 1: FIRST LEVEL COURTS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Q1: What courts have jurisdiction over small claims?

A1: [NOTE: R.A. 11576 was passed July 30, 2021, which is past the cut-off date of June 30, 2021]
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) Does not exceed P400,000, exclusive of
interests and costs
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), Municipal Trial Does not exceed P300,000, exclusive of
Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) interests and costs
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q2: Distinguish failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action.
A2:
Failure to state a cause of action Lack of cause of action
• Refers to insufficiency of the allegations in the • Refers to insufficiency of the factual basis for
pleading the action
• Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action • Dismissal for lack of cause of action may be
may be raised at the earliest stages of the raised any time after the questions of fact
proceedings through a motion to dismiss under have been resolved on the basis of
Rule 16 of the ROC stipulations, admissions or evidence
• Remedy: move for dismissal of the pleading presented by the plaintiff
• Remedy: demurrer to evidence
(Zuniga-Santos v. Santos-Gran, 2014)
Q3: What is the splitting of a single cause of action? Is it allowed?

A3: Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action.
The pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one
of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate action. (Quadra v. Court of Appeals,
2006).This contravenes the “one suit for a single cause of action” rule (Rule 2, Sec. 3). It is to be noted
that splitting a cause of action is NOT allowed by the Rules of Court and such prohibition applies not only
to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims. (Mariscal v. CA, 1999)
Q4: What are the remedies of the defendant where a single cause of action has been split?
A4: If two or more suits are instituted for a single cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any of one is available as a ground for dismissal of others. The remedy then of the defendant is
to raise the affirmative defense through a Motion to Dismiss of either:
1. Litis Pendentia; or
2. Res Judicata
If the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on LITIS
PENDENTIA. If a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second action is filed, the
latter may be dismissed based on RES JUDICATA. Note that it need not be the second action filed that
should be dismissed.
Q5: Give the jurisprudential pronouncements respecting noncompliance with the requirements on, or
submission of defective, verification and certification.
A5: 1) A distinction must be made between non- compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective
verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against
forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading
fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends
of justice may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the
truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the
petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
PAGE 2 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non- compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a
need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum
shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must
execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf. (Jacinto v.
Gumaru, 2014, cited in RIGUERA 2020).
Q6: What is a joinder of causes of action?

A6: Joinder of Causes of Action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against
another in one pleading alone. It is not compulsory, but merely permissive. 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:
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties
2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
3. 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
4. Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
Q7: What is a misjoinder of causes of action?

A7: Misjoinder of causes of action 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 severed and proceeded with separately. (Rule 2,
Sec. 6) The judge can order severance, but NOT to join the causes of action.
Q8: Can a misjoinder of causes of action be a ground for a Motion to Dismiss?

A8: No. A misjoinder is not a ground for a Motion to Dismiss, unlike the splitting of a single cause of action.
Q9: What is the difference between an indispensable party and a necessary party?
A9:
Indispensable Party Necessary Party
A real party-in-interest without whom NO FINAL A necessary party is not an indispensable party. He is
DETERMINATION can be had of an action. They are those with ought to be joined as a party if COMPLETE RELIEF is to
such an interest in the controversy that a final adjudication be accorded as to those already parties; he should be
cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that joined whenever possible.
interest. (Rule 3, Sec. 7)
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does NOT prevent
the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party. (Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 117660, 2000)
Must be joined under any and all conditions Should be joined whenever possible
No final decree can be had in case of absence A final decree can be had despite absence
Without whom there can be no FINAL determination of the action Without whom there can be no COMPLETE determination
Q10: Is the non-joinder of necessary or indispensable parties a ground for a motion to dismiss?
PAGE 3 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A10: No. Non-joinder of necessary or indispensable parties is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Remedy of
the opposing party is to move that the Court order the plaintiff to in plead the indispensable party and if the
other side fails to comply then to move to dismiss under Section 3 Rule 17. (Vesagas v. CA, 2001). The
court itself may sua sponte direct the plaintiff to include the indispensable party. Failure to comply is a
ground for dismissal under Sec. 3 Rule 17. (Uy v. Court of Appeals, 2006, cited in Riguera 2020)).
Q11: What is the result if an indispensable party is not in pleaded in a suit?

A11: The court cannot proceed without their presence. However, the Supreme Court has characterized the
failure to in plead an indispensable party as a curable error. Hence the court, instead of dismissing the
case, should order the plaintiff to amend his complaint by in pleading the indispensable party or allowing
the intervention of the indispensable party. These measures may be taken even after rendition of judgment.
(Pacana-Contreras V. Rovila Water Supply, Inc., 2 December 2013, cited in Riguera 2020). The judge,
either on its own or by motion, will order the plaintiff to amend the complaint to implead all the indispensable
parties. If the plaintiff refuses to obey this court order, then will constitute a ground for dismissal. (Rule 17,
Sec. 3). Amendment or intervention, however, is no longer available if there has already been entry of
judgment. In such a case the judgment would be null and void. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v.
Alejo, 2001, cited in Riguera 2020).
Q12: What is the venue of real actions?

A12: In the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion
thereof, is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial
court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Rule 4,
Sec. 1)
Q13: What is the venue of personal actions?

A13: At the election of the plaintiff:
1. Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs reside;
2. Where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides; or
3. In the case of a non-resident defendant, where he may be found.
RESIDENCE means physical or actual habitation or actual residence or place of abode, (Fule v. CA,
1976) whether permanent or temporary as long as he resides with continuity and consistency therein.
(Dangwa Transportation Co v. Sarmiento, 1977) When there is more than one plaintiff in a personal action
case, the residences of the principal parties should be the basis for determining proper venue.
Q14: May the trial court dismiss a complaint motu proprio on the ground of improper venue?
A14: No, since if the defendant does not raise the objection of improper venue in the answer, he is deemed to
have waived it. However, in cases governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure and in ejectment cases,
the trial court instead of issuing the summons may from an examination of the allegations in the' complaint
and such evidence as may be attached thereto dismiss the case outrig.ht on any of the grounds for
dismissal of a civil action which are apparent therein, including improper venue. (Section 4, Revised Rules
on Summary Procedure, Sec. 5 Rule 70).
Under the Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, after the court determines that the case
falls under such rules, 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, including improper venue.
If during the hearing the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for the 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. (Sec. 11, Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases).
(cited from Riguera Civil Procedure, 2020)
Q15: When can the parties agree, in case of litigation, to an exclusive venue to an action?
A15: The stipulation on venue must be:
1. In writing
2. Made before the filing of the action
3. Exclusive as to the venue.
PAGE 4 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
The mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in
other venues. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely
an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. (Sps. Lantin v. Lantion,
2006)
Q16: Can the rule on venue be waived?

A16: Yes. It may be waived through express waiver and implied waiver:
1. Express waiver is when the parties agree, in case of litigation, to an exclusive venue to an action.
(See the previous question)
2. Implied waiver is when the defendant failed to [either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper
venue or] include the same as an affirmative defense.
Q17: What are the affirmative defenses?

A17:
1. Rule 6, Sec. 5(b)(1)
a. Fraud;
b. Statute of limitations;
c. Release;
d. Payment;
e. Illegality;
f. Statute of frauds;
g. Estoppel;
h. Former recovery;
i. Discharge in bankruptcy; and
j. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
2. Rule 6, Sec. 5(b)(2)
a. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
c. That the action is barred by prior judgment.
3. Rule 8, Sec. 12
a. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
b. That the venue is improperly laid;
c. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
d. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
e. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
Q18: Nature and purpose of summons in relation to actions in personam, in rem, and quasi in rem?
A18: In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is
required in actions in personam because they seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a
person. [On the other hand,] Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis in in rem and
quasi in rem actions. Actions in rem or quasi in rem are not directed against the person based on his or
her personal liability. (De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corp., 2014)
Q19: When is personal service required?

A19: Personal service within the forum is MANDATORY in actions in personam to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is the
preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. (Imelda
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 2006)
Q20: How is jurisdiction acquired against a non-resident of the Philippines?

A20: Against a non-resident, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by service upon his person while said
defendant is within the Philippines. If the non-resident defendant is not in the Philippines, and the action is
an action in personam, Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the defendant, unless he
voluntarily appears in court. (Macasaet v. Co, G.R. No. 156759)
NOTE: If the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, the suit can be properly
maintained against him in the Philippines, it being in rem or quasi in rem.
Q21: How do you convert actions in personam to actions in rem or quasi in rem?
PAGE 5 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A21: An action in personam may be converted into an action in rem or quasi in rem, through attachment of the
properties under Rule 57. Examples are actions for partition and foreclosure of real estate mortgages.
Q22: How is the purpose of the summons to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process done
in actions in rem and quasi in rem?
A22: It is done not to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant; in actions in rem and quasi in rem, the court can
acquire jurisdiction by acquiring jurisdiction over the res (the thing). In actions in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, although summons must be served upon the defendant in
order to satisfy the due process requirements. (Gomez v. CA, 2004)
Q23: When is extraterritorial service allowed?

A23: GR: Extra-territorial service involves a NON-RESIDENT defendant who CANNOT be found in the
Philippines and the action against him is IN REM or QUASI IN REM. (Rule 14, Sec. 17)
XPN: When service may be effected out of the Philippines (as provided in extra-territorial service) for ANY
ACTION involving residents who are TEMPORARILY out of the Philippines. (Rule 14, Sec. 18)
Q24: Instances when extra-territorial service may be availed of?

A24: (PLEA)
1. Actions that affect the Personal status of the plaintiff;
2. Actions which relate to, or the subject matter of which is property within the Philippines, in which
defendant claims a Lien or interest, actual or contingent;
3. Actions in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part in Excluding the defendant from an
interest in the property located in the Philippines; and
4. When defendant’s property has been Attached in the Philippines. (Perkin Elmore vs. Dakila Trading,
2007)
Q25: What are the modes of Extraterritorial Service?

A25: Service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by:
1. Personal service as under Section 6; or
2. As provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or
3. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court
may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered
mail to the last known address of the defendant, or
4. In any other manner the court may deem sufficient. (Rule 14, Section 17)
NOTE: EXTRA-TERRITORIAL service [by personal service effected out of the Philippines OR by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order]
MAY be resorted to WITH LEAVE OF COURT. (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, 2d ed.,
2009, p. 400). Furthermore, Rule 14, Sec. 17, as amended, has added “as provided for in international
conventions” as another mode of extraterritorial service.
Q26: What are the characteristics of a dismissal upon notice by the plaintiff?
A26: Characteristics
1. A matter of right;
2. Made by mere notice;
3. Made by plaintiff only;
4. Made before service of answer OR motion for a summary judgment;
5. Confirmation of dismissal by order of court is required;
6. Dismissal is without prejudice to the re-filing of the same action by the plaintiff.
Exceptions
1. When otherwise stated in the notice.
2. Where the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same case in a court of competent jurisdiction. (Two-
Dismissal Rule)
Q27: What is the Two-Dismissal rule?
PAGE 6 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A27: The rule states that two dismissals of the same claim before a competent court will bar a subsequent (3rd)
action on the same claim or on a claim included therein. (Handbook on Civil Procedure, Gayo) The
requirements of Two-Dismissal Rule are: (1) Twice dismissed actions; (2) Based on or including the same
claim; and (3) In a court of competent jurisdiction.
NOTE: If the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal providing therein a reason that prevents the refilling of the
complaint, the dismissal must be deemed one with prejudice even if the notice does not state that the
dismissal is with prejudice. (Riano, Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, 2nd ed., 2009)
Q28: What is the effect of dismissal upon motion of the plaintiff on existing counterclaims?
A28: The dismissal of the complaint does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim,
compulsory or otherwise. The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the right of the defendants
to prosecute the counterclaim. (Pinga v. Santiago, 2006).
Q29: When will the case be dismissed motu propio or on motion due to the fault of the plaintiff? (Rule
17, Sec. 3)
A29: When, if for no justifiable cause, plaintiff FAILS to:
1. Appear on the date of presentation of his evidence in chief;
2. Prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time;
3. Comply with the Rules of Court;
4. Comply with any order of the Court; or
5. Appear at pre-trial
Q30: What is the effect of a dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff?
A30: The dismissal of the complaint will be deemed as a FINAL judgment on the merits and is therefore WITH
PREJUDICE to a refilling of the same action by the plaintiff UNLESS otherwise stated in the order of the
court.
NOTE: Unless the court states that the dismissal is without prejudice, the dismissal should be understood
as adjudication on the merits and is with prejudice to refiling. (PNB vs. de Guzman, 2010)
Q31: What is the remedy for a dismissal for failure to prosecute?

A31: Dismissal for failure to prosecute is an adjudication on the merits. Therefore, such dismissal should be
challenged by APPEAL within the reglementary period. (3A Apparel Corporation vs. Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Co., 2010)
Q32: X filed a case for Collection of Sum of Money with a Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment
against Corporation A, on the ground that Corporation A defaulted in paying its obligation to X.
The writ of preliminary attachment was granted by the RTC hence a real property belonging to
Corporation A was secured in favor of X. Y then filed a Motion to Intervene with Leave of Court in
the Collection of Sum of Money case. Y alleges that he is the registered owner of the lot and that
Corporation A was merely a nominal owner. The RTC ruled in favor of X in the Collection of Sum
of Money Case. The decision had attained finality so the Motion to Intervene filed by Y was
consequently dismissed. Y contested the decision of the RTC through a special civil action for
certiorari to the CA. The CA ruled that the issue on whether the Motion to Intervene be granted had
already been rendered moot by the finality of the decision in the Collection of Sum of Money Case.
Is the CA Correct?
A32: The CA is correct. Jurisprudence provides that Intervention can no longer be granted when the case is
already terminated by final judgment. It should be noted also that Preliminary Attachment is an action
adjunct to the main suit. It cannot have an existence of its own. Hence, the preliminary attachment has
attained finality along with the Collection of Sum of Money case. Furthermore, Y filed his Intervention in
the Collection of Sum of Money Case despite the fact that he was not a party to the transaction. Y grounded
his intervention on his alleged ownership over the real property attached. The issue on the ownership of
the said real property is not necessary in order to build up a Cause of Action in the Collection of Sum of
Money case. The interest of Y is therefore merely incidental. He is not an indispensable party but is merely
a necessary party. It must be stressed that the non-inclusion of necessary parties does not prevent the
court from proceeding in the action. (J. CAGUIOA, Yu v. Miranda, March 27, 2019)
PAGE 7 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Q33: Decedent A was survived by her husband, Husband B, and children. Years later, Child X died and
was survived by his 4 children. Husband B died testate and was survived by his remaining children
and the children of Child X. M, the child of Child X, filed a petition to probate the wills of Decedent
A and Husband B in RTC-218. The petition to probate the will of Child X was filed in RTC-101. The
wife of Child X filed a motion for intervention in both cases, claiming to have legal interest over the
estates, as she is the surviving spouse of Child X. M opposed this petition claiming that the wife
no longer had interest in the probate of wills of Decedent A and Husband B, not being a blood
relative, and that her marriage to Child X was bigamous. RTC-101 allowed her intervention. RTC-
218 denied her intervention, stating that she has no legal interest in the estates of Decedent A and
Husband B. The wife appealed the denial. Should the intervention of the wife of Child X in the
probate proceeding in RTC-218 be granted?
A33: No. Intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the trial court's sound discretion. The trial court must
not only determine if the requisite legal interest is present, but also take into consideration the delay and
the consequent prejudice to the original parties that the intervention will cause. Both requirements must
concur. The court which has jurisdiction to decide any controversy as to who are the lawful heirs of Child
X is RTC-101. RTC-218 cannot rule on the issue of who are the heirs of Child X because it only has
exclusive jurisdiction over the estates of Decedent A and Husband B. Since intervention is not a matter of
right but depends on the sound discretion of the court, the wife’s intervention in the probate proceeding in
RTC-218 is unnecessary because her right or interest in the estate of Child X can be fully protected in a
separate proceeding — namely, the settlement of Child X’s estate proceeding pending before RTC-101.
The second parameter to be considered in granting of intervention under Section 1, Rule 19 — whether
the intervenor's right may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding — is wanting in the instant case.
Another reason in disallowing the intervention of the wife in the probate proceeding in RTC-218 is the legal
precept that an independent controversy cannot be injected into a suit by intervention. The issue as to
whether the wife is a lawful heir will enlarge the issues in the probate proceeding and involve determination
of facts peculiar only to her, which have nothing to do with the original parties. (J. CAGUIOA, Tirol v.
Nolasco, Aug 2020)
Q34: Compare demurrer to evidence in a civil case and in a criminal case.

A34:
Civil Case Criminal Case
Leave of court is not required before filing Filed with or without leave of court (Rule 119, Sec. 23)
If demurrer is granted, the order of dismissal is Not appealable (will violate the right against double
appealable (Rule 33 Sec. 1) jeopardy)
If demurrer is denied, the defendant may proceed to Accused may adduce his evidence only if the demurrer is
present evidence (Rule 33 Sec. 1) filed with leave of court (Rule 119, Sec. 23)
Court cannot motu proprio make a demurrer Court may motu proprio do so
Q35: What is the effect of denial of demurrer to evidence?

A35: Defendant CAN present his evidence as a matter of right EVEN IF he did NOT obtain leave of court or
reserve his right to do so.
Effect of Denial in Civil Case Effect of Denial in Criminal Case
The defendant will present his If demurrer was with express leave of court, accused may present evidence.
evidence
If demurrer was without express leave of court, accused can NO longer present
evidence and the case is submitted for decision based on prosecution’s evidence.
An order denying a demurrer to the evidence is INTERLOCUTORY and is therefore NOT appealable. It can
be the subject of a Petition for Certiorari in case of grave abuse of discretion or an oppressive exercise of
judicial authority. (Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan, 2003)
Q36: What is the effect of grant of demurrer to evidence?
PAGE 8 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A36: Court will render judgment on demurrer to evidence by DISMISSING the case. This order is APPEALABLE.
Effect of Grant in Civil Case Effect of Grant in Criminal Case
The complaint will be dismissed The accused will be acquitted. Judgment of acquittal is NOT appealable
Q37: When may the court render judgment on the pleadings?

A37: The court may motu proprio or on motion render judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the answer
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings (Sec.
1 Rule 34). The motion shall be subject to the provisions of R15 (Sec. 2 Rule 34). Note that unlike in the
1997 Rules, the court may motu proprio render judgment on the pleadings. The court may motu proprio
include in the pre- trial order that the case be submitted for judgment on the pleadings. (Sec. 10 Rule 18,
cited in Riguera 2020)
Q38: Can the Court render a summary judgment motu proprio?

A38: The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment on an action is in order. The defending
party or claimant, as the case may be, must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filling a motion. The
adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary judgment and furnished with supporting,
affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is conducted. (Pineda v. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara,
2007)
The party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any
genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to
constitute a genuine issue for trial. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested,
proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. (Tan v. De la Vega, 2006)
Q39: What is the remedy for Court’s action on motion for summary judgment?
A39: Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be subject of an appeal or petition for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus (Sec. 3, Rule 35). The proper remedy is to appeal the decision itself.
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
Q40: How may the government be authorized to immediately enter into real property it wishes to
expropriate?
A40: Requisites for Authorizing Immediate Entry
1. The filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and
2. The deposit of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property to be expropriated based
on its current tax declaration (Bardillon v. Barangay Masili, 2003)
Q41: Where should the deposit be made? Does this apply in all cases?
A41: The deposit shall be made with the authorized government depositary, i.e., depository bank (PNB). (Sec.
2, Rule 67). However, this system of payment does not apply in the acquisition of right-of-way, site or
location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation. Under RA No. 8974,
payment shall be made to the owner instead of deposited.
Q42: Distinguish between Rule 67 and R.A. No. 8974 on expropriation.

A42:
RULE 67 R.A. NO. 8974
Application
Expropriation in general When National Government expropriates for National Gov’t Infrastructure projects.
For Writ of Possession to Issue
Government required to Government required to make immediate payment to the owner upon filing of the complaint.
make an initial deposit.
PAGE 9 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Basis of Computing Amount to be Paid
Assessed Value of the Market Value of the property stated in the tax declaration OR the current relevant zonal value
property for purposes of of the BIR, whichever is higher, and the value of the infrastructures/improvements using the
taxation. replacement/cost method.
Q43: Distinguish between judicial foreclosure and extrajudicial foreclosure.

A43:
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE (Rule 68) EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE (Act No. 3135)
Complaint is filed with the courts. No complaint is filed. No court intervention.
There is only an equity of redemption. No right of There is a right of redemption. Mortgagor has a right of
redemption except when mortgagee is a banking redemption for one year from registration of the sale (except
institution; equity of redemption is 90 to 120 days, and where the mortgagee is a bank and the mortgagor is a juridical
any time before confirmation of foreclosure sale. entity, the right to redeem may be exercised until, but not after,
Exception: Where the mortgagee is a bank, the right of the registration of the certificate of sale/foreclosure with the
redemption may be exercised within 1 year after the sale Register of Deeds, which in no case shall be more than three (3)
of the property (General Banking Law of 2000, Sec. 47) months after the foreclosure, whichever is earlier. (General
Banking Law, Sec. 47)
Mortgagee can move for deficiency judgment in the Mortgagee has to file a separate action to recover any
same action. deficiency.
Buyer at public auction becomes absolute owner only Buyer at public auction becomes absolute owner only after
after confirmation of the sale. finality of an action for consolidation of ownership.
Mortgagee need not be given a special power of Mortgagee is given a special power of attorney in the mortgage
attorney. contract to foreclose the mortgaged property in case of default.
Q44: In judicial foreclosure, does the mortgagee have to file a separate action to recover deficiency? Is
the rule the same for extrajudicial foreclosure?
A44: No. If there be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon motion,
shall render judgment against the defendant for any such balance. No independent action need be filed to
recover the deficiency from the mortgagor. The deficiency judgment shall be rendered upon motion of the
mortgagee.
Q45: Is there a right of redemption available in a judicial foreclosure?

A45: In general, no. The exception is in cases of judicial foreclosure by banks, in which case there is a one year
redemption period. (Cayton v. Zeonnix Trading Corp., 2009; Sec. 47, General Banking Law of 2000)
Q46: What is equity of redemption?

A46: This is simply the right of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and retain ownership of the
property by paying the secured debt within the 90-day period after the judgment becomes final, in
accordance with Rule 68, or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to its confirmation. (Huerta Alba Resort
v. CA, 2000)
Q47: Distinguish between accion interdictal, accion publiciana, and accion reinvidicatoria.
A47:
ACCION INTERDICTAL ACCION PUBLICIANA ACCION REINVIDICATORIA
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Summary action for the recovery of physical A plenary action (i.e., full trial An action for the recovery of
possession where the dispossession has proceeding) for the recovery of the ownership, which necessarily
not lasted more than one (1) year. This REAL right of possession when the includes the recovery of
includes forcible entry and unlawful dispossession has lasted for more than possession.
detainer. one (1) year.
PAGE 10 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
JURISDICTION
Under MTC’s jurisdiction only. RTC’s jurisdiction if the value of RTC’s jurisdiction if the value of
property exceeds P20,000, or P50,000 property exceeds P20,000, or
Amount of rents and damages claimed does in Metro Manila. P50,000 in Metro Manila.
not affect the jurisdiction of the MTC
because they are only incidental or
accessory to the main action.
Q48: The Rules require that forcible entry and unlawful detainer actions be filed within one year after
such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. What are the rules regarding the counting
of the one-year period?
A48: For Forcible Entry, the general rule is that the period is reckoned from the date of the entry or taking of
possession by use of force, intimidation, threat, or strategy The mere act of going to the property and
excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force. (Bunyi v. Factor, 2009)
The exception is in cases of stealth, in which case the one-year period should be counted from the demand
to vacate upon knowledge or discovery of such entry. For unlawful detainer, there is a distinction between
unexpired lease contracts, and in cases of occupation by mere tolerance. For unexpired lease contracts,
the general rule is that the one-year period is counted from the date of the last demand to pay and vacate
in case of nonpayment of rent or non-compliance with the conditions of the lease. (Esteban v. MERALCO,
2013). An exception is When subsequent demands were merely reminders of the original demand, the
one-year period starts from the original demand. (Desbarats v. Vda. de Laureano, 1966) Meanwhile, in
occupation by mere tolerance, the period is counted from the date of revocation of permit. (see Republic
v. Sunvar Realty, 2012)
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS
Q49: What court has jurisdiction over a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan?
A49: Supreme Court or Court of Appeals only.
Q50: Can a writ of kalikasan be availed of when there is no clear violation of environmental laws?
A50: No. Where there is no clear showing that respondents committed an act or omission violative of any
environmental law which resulted or will result in an environmental damage of such magnitude that
would infringe the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology (Alyansa ng mga Grupong Haligi
ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Mamamayan v. Japan Tobacco International (Philippines), Inc., June
15, 2021).
Q51: Can the Writ of Kalikasan be availed of when the environmental damage affects an island with only
municipalities?
A51: No. It is settled that magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine qua non in a petition for the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan and must be contained in the verified petition. So extraordinary is the nature
of the remedy of a writ of kalikasan that this Court, in promulgating the RPEC, has expressly reserved its
issuance only for cases which are sufficiently grave in terms of territorial scope.
Here, after listing the allegedly "innumerable" safety, health and environmental hazards posed by the diesel
power plant, petitioners failed to allege how its construction would cause damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. …The
defect in petitioners' pleading becomes even more apparent when they went on to argue that it would be
unfair to deny the benefit of the writ of kalikasan to the inhabitants of Camiguin solely on account of the
island's "unique" location ("far from the nearest cities or provinces"). (Citizens for a Green and Peaceful
Camiguin, Sulog, Inc. v. King Energy Generation, Inc., June 29, 2021)
Q52: When is a Writ of Kalikasan available?

A52: The Writ of Kalikasan is a highly prerogative writ that issues only when there is a showing of actual or
imminent threat and when there is such inaction on the part of the relevant administrative bodies that will
make an environmental catastrophe inevitable. The writ of kalikasan is not a remedy that may be
availed when there is no actual threat or when the imminence of danger is not apparent to justify
judicial intervention. The writ of kalikasan should only be availed in extraordinary circumstances that
require the immediate attention of the Court and cannot be arbitrarily invoked when remedies are available
PAGE 11 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
in administrative agencies to properly address and resolve concerns involving protection of ecological
rights. (Villar v. Alltech Contractors, Inc., May 11, 2021)
Q53: Can the right to health be involved in a petition for Writ of Kalikasan?
A53: Yes. The rights provided in [Article II] Sections 15 and 16 are actionable in and of themselves, and while
appearing in separate constitutional provisions, the rights to health and to a balanced and healthful
ecology are inextricably linked. This characterization is consistent with the nature of
the writ of kalikasan as a remedy against "environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
[rights to] life, health or property." It is likewise consistent with the concept of the "indivisibility of human
rights and environmental rights."
As further stated in the Rationale to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, "[a] clean, healthy
environment is integral to the enjoyment of many other human rights such as the right to life, the right to
health and food, and the right to adequate housing." In other words, a petition for the issuance of
a writ of kalikasan may be brought if actual or threatened violation to the right to health may be
proved. (Dela Cruz v. Manila Electric Co., 2020)
NOTE: There must still be proof of environmental damage. In the case of Dela Cruz, the Writ was denied
for failure to prove environmental damage leading to infringement of the right to health.
Q54: Can the Writ of Continuing Mandamus be issued to require the implementation of a principle?
A54: No. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that
are discretionary, and the official can only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act one way or the
other. The duty being enjoined in mandamus must be one according to the terms provided in the
law itself. Thus, the recognized rule is that, in the performance of an official duty or act involving discretion,
the corresponding official can only be directed by mandamus to act, but not to act one way or the other. In
this case, there is no showing of unlawful neglect on the part of the respondents to perform any act that
the law specifically enjoins as a duty — there being nothing in the executive issuances relied upon by the
petitioners that specifically enjoins the bifurcation of roads to implement the Road Sharing Principle. To
the opposite, the respondents were able to show that they were and are actively implementing projects
and programs that seek to improve air quality. (Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, 2017)
Q55: Can an adopted child avail of the remedy under Rule 103 to change his surname to that of his
biological father?
A55: NO. While petitioner may factually identify and associate with his biological father and his family, he
remains to be the legitimate son of Patrick Santos by virtue of the adoption. The latter and not the former
is thus his true legal identity. As adoption severs all legal ties between the adoptee and his or her
biological parents, there is no basis to allow petitioner to change his name to "Revilla" simply
because he is, biologically, the son of Bong Revilla and wants to associate himself with the Revilla
family.
A change of name is a privilege not a matter of right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which
has the duty to consider carefully the consequences of a change of name and to deny the same unless
weighty reasons are shown. The mere fact that petitioner began using a different name, i.e., "Luigi Revilla,"
when he joined show business does not constitute a proper and reasonable cause to legally authorize a
change of name. (Santos v. Republic, May 5, 2021)
Q56: Summarize the Rules for Changes in Name.

A56:
1. A person seeking 1) to change his or her first name, 2) to correct clerical or typographical errors in
the civil register, 3) to change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or 4) to
change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error
or mistake, must first file a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or
municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance
with the administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A. 10172. A person may
only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 in the aforementioned
entries after the petition in the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied.
2. A person seeking 1) to change his or her surname or 2) to change both his or her first
name and surname may file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided that the
jurisprudential grounds are present.
PAGE 12 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
3. A person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a
petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108. (Santos v. Republic, May 5, 2021)
NOTE: Rule 103 is an action in rem. Publication is a jurisdictional requisite.
Q57: Is a prior judicial declaration of heirship (special proceeding) required before the heirs can institute
an ordinary action for reconveyance?
A57: No. The party does not seek to establish his/her right as an heir because the law itself already establishes
that status. What he/she aims to do is to merely call for the nullification of a deed, instrument, or
conveyance as an enforcement or protection of that right which he/she already possesses by virtue
of law.
That the private respondents do not really seek in their Complaint the establishment of their rights as
intestate heirs but, rather, the enforcement of their rights already granted by law as intestate heirs
finds basis in Article 777 of the Civil Code, which states that the rights of succession are transmitted
from the moment of the death of the decedent.
Thus, in filing their Complaint, they do not seek to have their right as intestate heirs established, for the
simple reason that it is the law that already establishes that right. What they seek is the enforcement
and protection of the right granted to them under Article 1001 in relation to Article 777 of the Civil Code by
asking for the nullification of the Affidavits of Self-Adjudication that disregard and violate their right as
intestate heirs.
A prior declaration of heirship in a special proceeding should not be required before an heir may assert
successional rights in an ordinary civil action aimed only to protect his or her interests in the estate. Indeed,
the legal heirs of a decedent should not be rendered helpless to rightfully protect their interests in the
estate while there is yet no special proceeding."
The successional rights of the legal heirs of Rosie are not merely contingent or expectant — they vest
upon the death of the decedent. By being legal heirs, they are entitled to institute an action to protect their
ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession and are thus real parties in interest in the instant case.
To delay the enforcement of such rights until heirship is determined with finality in a separate special
proceeding would run counter to Article 777 of the Civil Code which recognizes the vesting of such rights
immediately — without a moment's interruption — upon the death of the decedent. (Treyes v. Larlar, 2020)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Q58: When may injunction be issued to restrain a criminal prosecution?

A58: As a general rule, writs or injunction or prohibition to restrain a criminal prosecution are NOT available.
However, in extreme cases, the Court has laid the following exceptions:
1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance
10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and the motion to quash on that
ground has been denied. (Samson v. Guingona, G.R. No. 123504, 2000).
Q59: What is the effect if the information is filed by someone not authorized by law?
A59: The court does not acquire jurisdiction. The accused’s failure to assert lack of authority on the part of the
prosecutor in filing the information does not constitute a waiver thereof. (People v. Garfin, G.R. No. 153176,
2004. Quisay v. People, 2016).
Q60: Must the elements of the crime be alleged in the information?
PAGE 13 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A60: Yes. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts and circumstances are
necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the
specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the
accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense.
The presumption is that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.
(People v. Valdez, 2013)
Q61: When are amendments formal or substantial?

A61: An amendment is merely formal if it did not change the essence of the offense or cause surprise as to
deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to meet the new information. If the amendment only states with
precision something that was already included in the original Information, it is merely a formal amendment.
(Omar Villarba v. CA, 2020)
The amendment is substantial “when a defense of the accused, under the original complaint or information,
would no longer be available after the amendment is made, and when any evidence the accused might
have would be inapplicable to the complaint or information, as amended. (Kummer v. People, 2013)
Q62: What is the rule on the implied institution of civil action with criminal action?
A62: General Rule: The institution or filing of the criminal action includes therein the institution of civil action for
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)
Exception/s: When the offended party:

Waives the civil action;
Reserves his right to institute the civil action separately; or
Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)
Q63: Does the acquittal of the accused bar the filing of a civil case against the accused?
A63: The acquittal of petitioner does not bar the offended party from pursuing a subsequent civil case based on
the delict, UNLESS, the judgment of acquittal expressly declares that the act or omission from which the
civil liability may arise did not exist. (Coscuella v. Sandiganbayan, 2013)
Q64: Distinguish probable cause to be determined by Prosecutor from that determined by a Judge.
A64: Determination of probable cause is either executive or judicial in nature. The first pertains to the duty of
the public prosecutor during preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing an information in court. At
this juncture, the investigating prosecutor evaluates if the facts are sufficient to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
On the other hand, judicial determination of probable cause refers to the prerogative of the judge to
ascertain if a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. At this stage, the judge makes a
preliminary examination of the evidence submitted, and on the strength thereof, and independent from the
findings of the public prosecutor, determines the necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody
in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. (People v. Young, 2016)
Q65: When is a warrantless arrest valid and lawful?

A65:
1. When in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense (in flagrante delicto) (Rule 113, Sec. 5[a])
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (hot pursuit)
(Rule 113, Sec. 5[b])
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. (escaped prisoner) (Rule 113, Sec. 5[c])
4. When a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued (Rule 113, Sec. 13)
5. By the bondsman for the purpose of surrendering the accused (Rule 114, Sec. 23)
6. Where the accused released on bail attempts to leave the country without permission of the court (Rule
114, Sec. 23)
Q66: Is there a valid warrantless arrest when police officers arrested the accused after seeing him in a
street holding a plastic sachet?
PAGE 14 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A66: No. The acts of the accused standing on the street and holding a plastic sachet, are not by themselves
sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity or to create probable cause enough to justify a warrantless
arrest. Thus, the shabu seized from him cannot be used in evidence for it was not incidental to a valid
warrantless arrest. (J. Caguioa, Dominguez v. People, 2019)
Q67: When can it be said that the person to be arrested has just committed an offense (hot pursuit)?
A67: There must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time
of the arrest, and if there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the
crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. Hence, where the arrest took place a day after the commission
of the crime, it cannot be said that an offense has just been committed (People v. Del Rosario, 1999)
Q68: Immediately after a shooting, the policemen arrived at the scene where the bystanders pointed to
the accused as the one who had shot the victim. The police arrested the accused. Was there a valid
warrantless arrest?
A68: Yes. The arresting officers acted on the basis of personal knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts
indicating that the accused was the culprit. (People v. Jayson, 1997)
Q69: What are the exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant?

A69:
1. Search incidental to lawful arrest
2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view”
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
6. Stop and frisk (Terry searches)
7. Checkpoints
8. Exigent and emergency circumstances
9. Search of vessels and aircraft
10. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations (People v. Bacla-an Lapitaje, February 19, 2003)
11. Inventory searches (Colorado v. Bertine, 479 US 367).
Q70: Can an anonymous tip be the basis of a warrantless search?

A70: Exclusive reliance on an unverified, anonymous tip (text message) cannot engender probable cause that
permits a warrantless search of a moving vehicle that goes beyond a visual search. (J. Caguioa, People
v. Sapla, 2020)
Q71: When can a search warrant be issued?

A71: No search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (PHIL. CONST.
art. III, § 2)
Q72: Is there a need to examine both the complainant and the witnesses before any search warrant may
be issued?
A72: No. There is no need to examine both the complainant and the witness/es if either one of them is sufficient
to establish probable cause. It is immaterial whether the judge examined the complainant only or the
witness only for the primordial consideration is that the judge is convinced that there is probable cause to
disturb the particular individual’s privacy. (J. Caguioa, People v. Gabiosa, 2020)
Q73: What is the procedure when there is non-compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21(1) of R.A.
9165?
A73:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with
the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the
justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the
investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer
PAGE 15 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable
cause.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to
either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of
probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court. (People v. Lim, G.R. No.
231989, 2018)
Q74: When is bail a matter of right?

A74:
1. Before or after conviction by the MTC; and
2. Before conviction by RTC for all offenses punishable by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, death,
or life imprisonment. (Rule 114, Sec. 4)
Q75: When is bail a matter of discretion?

A75:
1. Before conviction, in offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
2. After conviction by the RTC of a non-capital offense. (Rule 114, Sec. 5)
Q76: When may accused enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense?

A76: During Arraignment. During arraignment, the accused may be allowed by the court to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense PROVIDED there is consent of the offended party AND of the prosecutor to the
plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. The accused may also
enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense if the offended party was notified and did not appear in the
arraignment of the accused. (Rule 116, Sec. 2)
After arraignment but before trial. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to
plead guilty to a lesser offense after withdrawing his previous plea of not guilty. No amendment to the
complaint or information is necessary. (Rule 116, Sec. 2)
Once trial has begun. After the prosecution has rested its case, a change of plea to a lesser offense may
be granted by the judge, with the approval of the prosecutor and the offended party only if the prosecution
does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the crime charged. (People vs.
Kayanan, 1978)
Q77: Section 23 of R.A. 9165 prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases. Is this valid?
A77: No. This is unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court, given that
plea bargaining is a rule of procedure which only the Supreme Court has the sole prerogative to allow or
disallow. (Estipona v. Lobrigo, 2017)
Q78: Can the court allow an accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense in drugs cases without the
prosecutor’s consent?
A78: No. The conformity of the prosecutor to the proposed plea bargaining in drugs cases is not optional, for
the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions. His duty is to always prosecute the
proper offense, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain. (People v. Borras, 2021)
Q79: What are the grounds for a motion to quash?

A79:
1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense
2. Court has no jurisdiction over offense charged
3. Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused
4. Officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
5. Does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
6. More than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offense is prescribed
by law
7. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished by prescription
8. Contains averments w/c, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
9. Accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of offense charged, or case has been dismissed
or otherwise terminated w/o the express consent of the accused (double jeopardy). (Rule 117, Sec. 3)
PAGE 16 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Q80: What is the effect of failing to assert any grounds for quashal of the Information prior to
arraignment?
A80: Failure to assert or timely assert a motion to quash shall be deemed a waiver of any objections (Rule 117,
Sec. 9)
EXCEPTION: When the Motion to Quash is based on any of the following grounds:
1. Facts charged do not constitute an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of action or liability
4. Double Jeopardy
Q81: Would an order sustaining the motion to quash bar another prosecution for the same offense?
A81: No. An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense unless
the motion was based on the ground of: (1) the extinction of action or liability or (2) double jeopardy. (Rule
117, Sec. 6)
Q82: Distinguish Motions to Quash from Demurrers to Evidence.

A82:
MOTION TO QUASH DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
Filed before the defendant enters his plea Filed after the prosecution has rested its case
Does not require prior leave of court May be filed either with or without leave of court
Based on matters found on the complaint or information Predicated upon matters outside of the complaint or information
such as the evidence or lack of it
If granted, dismissal of the case will not necessarily follow If granted, is deemed an acquittal of the accused and subsequent
prosecution will violate the rule on double jeopardy
[See Sections 5 and 6 of this Rule, where another complaint or
information may be filed by order of the court]
If denial is with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or If denied, shall not be reviewable by appeal or certiorari before
prohibition lies judgment but may be reviewable via Rule 65 (Choa v. Choa,
2002).
Q83: What is the effect of a grant of a demurrer to evidence in a criminal case?

A83:
WITH LEAVE OF COURT WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT
Accused may still adduce evidence in his defense. Accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case
for judgment. (Rule 119, Sec. 23).
Q84: Distinguish Demurrers in Civil and Criminal cases:

A84:
CIVIL CASE CRIMINAL CASE
Based on plaintiff’s failure to prove his entitlement to relief Predicated upon insufficiency of evidence
Requires no prior leave of court May be filed with or without leave of court
Defendant may still adduce evidence if denied If denied, accused may adduce evidence only if the demurrer was
filed with leave of court
Plaintiff may appeal if granted, and if reversed, defendant is No appeal if granted, as it results in the acquittal of the accused.
deemed to have waived his right to present his evidence
PAGE 17 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
It is the defendant who invokes a demurrer by moving for the The court may, in its own initiative, dismiss the action after giving
dismissal of the case. The court does not do so on its own the prosecution an opportunity to be heard.
initiative.
Q85: What are the effects of the accused’s failure to appear at the promulgation of judgment?
A85: The accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of conviction loses the remedies
available under the Rules of Court against the judgment, specifically: (a) the filing of a motion for new trial
or for reconsideration (Rule 121), and (b) an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Rule 122).
However, the Rules of Court permits him to regain his standing in court in order to avail himself of these
remedies within 15 days from the date of promulgation of the judgment conditioned upon: (a) his surrender;
and (b) his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail himself of the remedies, stating therein the reason
for his absence. Should the trial court find that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he should be allowed
to avail himself of the remedies within 15 days from notice of the order finding his absence justified and
allowing him the available remedies from the judgment of conviction (Rule 120, Sec. 6) (Salvador v. Chua,
2015)
EVIDENCE
Q86: What are actionable documents?

A86: A document is actionable when an action or defense is grounded upon such written instrument or
document. (Ridao v. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc., February 3, 2021)
To qualify as an actionable document pursuant to Section 7, Rule 8 of the Rules, the specific right or
obligation which is the basis of the action or defense must emanate therefrom or be evident therein. A copy
of a page of a ledger is not an actionable document. The ledger merely indicates that money was received
as payment, but it is not an evidence of the transaction between the parties. The ledger does not provide
for the terms and conditions of the loan transaction from which a right or obligation may be established.
(Ridao v. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc., February 3, 2021)
Q87: What is the effects of failure to expressly/specifically deny under oath of an actionable document?
A87: If the document or instrument so qualifies and is pleaded in accordance with Section 7 — the substance
set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy is attached to the pleading as an exhibit — then the
genuineness and due execution are deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically
denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts. (Ridao v. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc.,
February 3, 2021)
Q88: Young Builders Corporation (YBC) sued Benson Industries Inc. (Bll) for payment under a
construction contract where YBC would construct a building for BIL In its complaint YBC averred
that it had accomplished work on the building in the amount of P54 million of which BII had paid
only P40 million. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the accomplishment billing. During the
trial, YBC failed to authenticate the accomplishment billing. Thus the court ruled in favor of Bll. On
appeal, YBC contends that there was no need to authenticate the accomplishment billing since Bll
failed to specifically deny it under oath and thus impliedly admitted its genuineness and due
execution. Is YBC's contention meritorious?
A88: No. The actionable document which was the basis of YBC's action is the construction contract between
the parties. The accomplishment billing is merely an evidentiary document. Thus the implied admission
rule does not apply and hence YBC needs to authenticate the accomplishment billing. (Young Builders
Corp. V. Benson Industries Inc., 19 June 2019, Caguioa, J., cited in Riguera 2020).
Q89: What is the Original Document Rule?

A89: The original document rule applies only when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document. The
rule requires that the original of the writing must be produced. It is also known as the “original document
rule” or the “primary evidence” rule. (National Power Corporation v. Codilla, 2007)
The rule now also applies if the contents of a writing, reading, photograph or other record is the subject of
inquiry. (Rule 130, sec. 3)
PAGE 18 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Q90: When is the Original Document Rule applicable?

A90: The original document must be produced when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of a document.
Q91: When is the Original Document Rule not applicable?

A91:
1. When the original has been 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 or 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 a controlling issue. (Rule 130, Sec.3)
6. When the issue relates to the execution or existence of the document.
Q92: What effect arises in case the proponent fails to adduce the original documents?
A92: (CAGUIOA) The Original Document Rule requires that the original document be produced whenever its
contents are the subject of inquiry, except in certain limited cases laid down in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the
Revised Rules of Evidence. As such, mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible. (Buencamino v.
People, 2020)
Q93: What is Secondary Evidence?

A93: Evidence used to prove a document’s contents which are not the original itself but
1. A copy;
2. A recital of its contents in some authentic document; or
3. The testimony of witnesses.
- in the order stated (Rule 130, Sec. 5)
Q94: When may secondary evidence be admitted?

A94: Secondary evidence may be admitted:
1. When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court;
2. The offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence, the cause of its unavailability is without bad faith
on his or her part (Rule 130, Sec. 5)
NOTE: the correct order of proof is as follows- existence, execution, loss, and contents (EELC) (MCMP
Construction v. Monark, 2014).
Q95: What facts must be shown by the party offering Secondary Evidence when original is under the
adverse party’s custody or control?
A95:
1. The adverse party’s custody or control of the original document;
2. That reasonable notice was given to the adverse party who has the custody or control of the document;
3. Satisfactory proof of its existence;
4. Failure or refusal by the adverse party to produce it in court. (Rule 130, Sec. 6)
Q96: What is the order in the presentation of secondary evidence for lost or unavailable originals?
A96:
1. A copy of the document;
2. Recital of its contents in an authentic document;
3. The recollection or testimony of witnesses. (Rule 130, Sec. 5)
Q97: What is the rule on Hearsay?

A97: 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:
PAGE 19 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
(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 Rules.
Q98: What are the elements of hearsay?

A98: There must be an out-of-court statement, whether oral or written, or a conduct intended as an assertion,
and
The statement made out of court is repeated and offered by the witness to prove the truth of the matters
asserted in the statement.
Q99: When is a statement not hearsay?

A99: 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:
1. 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
2. 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
3. One of identification of a person made after perceiving him or her (Rule 130, Sec. 37)
Q100: What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?

A100:
1. Dying declarations;
2. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind;
3. Declaration against interest;
4. Act or declaration about pedigree;
5. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree;
6. Common reputation;
7. Part of the res gestae;
8. Records of regularly conducted business activity;
9. Entries in official records;
10. Commercial lists and the like;
11. Learned treatises;
12. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding; and
13. Residual exception
Q101: What are the elements for a dying declaration exception?

A101:
1. Declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of declarant's death;
2. Made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death;
3. Dying declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify to;
4. Dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of inquiry involves the declarant's death (People
vs. Bautista, 1999)
Q102: What is the rule on res gestae?

A102: Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or
subsequent thereto, under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the
circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received
as part of the res gestae (Rule 130, Sec. 44)
Q103: What are the 2 types of res gestae utterances?

A103:
a. Spontaneous Statements
Requisites:
1. There must be a startling occurrence;
2. The statement must be made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood, and
3. The statement must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances.
(People v. Estibal, 2014)
PAGE 20 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
b. Verbal Acts – utterances which accompany some equivocal act or conduct to which it is desired
to give a legal effect.
Requisites:
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 statement gives a legal significance to the equivocal act.
(Talidano v. Falcon Maritime & Allied Services, Inc., 2008)
Q104: Distinguish spontaneous statements from verbal acts.

A104:
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS VERBAL ACTS
Res gestae is the startling
Res gestae is the equivocal act
occurrence
Statement may be made prior, or Statement must be
immediately after, the startling contemporaneous with or must
occurrence accompany the equivocal act
Q105: Distinguish Res Gestae from Dying Declaration.

A105:
RES GESTAE DYING DECLARATION
It is the event itself which is speaking through the A sense of impending death takes the place of an oath and
witness (People v. Peralta, 1994) the law regards the declarant as testifying (People v.
Peralta, 1994)
A statement as part of the res gestae may be that of Made only by the victim (Regalado, 2008 ed.)
the killer himself during or after the killing or that of a
third person (Regalado, 2008 ed.)
The rule of res gestae has its justification in the The trustworthiness of a dying declaration is based upon
spontaneity of the statement (Regalado, 2008 ed.) its being given under the awareness of impending death
(Regalado, 2008 ed.)
It may precede, accompany or follow the events Confined to matters surrounding or occurring after the
occurring as a part of the principal act (People v. homicidal act (People v. Peralta, 1994)
Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, 1994)
Q106: What are the two classes of Independently Relevant Statements?

A106:
1. Those statements which are the very facts in issue.
2. Those statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
Examples:
- Statement of a person showing his state of mind;
- Statement of a person showing his physical condition;
- Statement of a person to infer a state of mind of another person;
- Statements which may identify the date, place and person in question;
- Statements to show a lack of credibility of a witness. (Estrada v. Desierto, 2001)
Q107: What is the rule on residual exception?

A107: X A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that:
1. The statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
2. 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
3. The general purposes of these 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 a
main case, to provide the adverse party with fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention
to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant. (Rule 130,
Sec. 50)
PAGE 21 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Q108: What is the chain of custody rule in Dangerous Drug-related cases?

A108: Persons who actually handled or had custody of the object must show through testimony that there is no
possibility that the evidence was tampered with and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved
throughout the course of gathering, collecting and storing the evidence. This is done to ensure that the
evidence presented in court is the same evidence seized from the defendant or recovered from the crime
scene or elsewhere.
Q109: What is the effect of non-compliance with the doctrine of chain of custody?
A109: General Rule: Non-compliance renders the seizure and custody over the illegal drugs as void and invalid.
(People v. Del Rosario y Niebres, June 22, 2020)
Exception: Non-compliance is not fatal and will not make the accused’s arrest illegal nor render the items
seized as inadmissible, provided:
1. There is justifiable ground; and
2. The integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved (R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 21; People
v. Dela Cruz, 2016; People v. Del Rosario y Niebres, 2020)
Q110: What should be done by the apprehending team of the drugs confiscated?
A110: The officers should, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Sec 21 [1])
Q111: Who should be present during the inventory of the confiscated substance?
A111: The inventory shall be done presence of:
1. The accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized; or his/her
representative or counsel;
2. A representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ); and
3. Any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Sec 21 [1])
Q112: What should be done with the substance after confiscation?

A112: X Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Sec 21 [2])
A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s.
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Sec 21 [3])
Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory. (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, Sec 21 [3])
Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours. (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, Sec 21 [3])
PART 2: APPELLATE PRACTICE, PROCEDURE IN THE CA, CTA, AND SC
APPEALS; GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Q113: The spouses B and Corporation X then acquired a property covered by a homestead patent, and
the OCT was cancelled and a TCT was issued in their favor. The Republic of the Philippines then
filed a complaint for cancellation of title and reversion against Sps. B and Corp. X. The Republic
alleged that from the time that the Homestead Survey Plan was approved in 1924 until the cadastral
survey in 1987, Blocks 35 to 36 of the subject property had been washed out and eaten up by the
sea waters. Per the ocular inspection, Blocks 35 to 36 formed part of the public domain. Sps. B and
Corp. X denied all of this. The RTC ordered the partial cancellation of the title and reversion of
PAGE 22 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Blocks 35 to 36. Thus, the Republic appealed to the CA, raising the following grounds for the first
time: (i) that there were inconsistencies between the TCT and Survey Plan pertaining to the land
area of the property; and (ii) Corp. X, being a corporation, is ineligible to acquire the Subject
Property under the "Public Land Act." The Republic prays for the reversion of the entire subject
property. Will the appeal prosper?
A113: No. It has been a long-standing principle that issues not timely raised in the proceedings before the lower
court are barred by estoppel. As a rule, new issues can no longer be considered by the appellate court
because a party is not permitted to change his theory on appeal; to allow him to do so would be offensive
to the rules of fair play, justice and due process. The Republic only raised the issues pertaining to the
reversion of the entire subject property for the first time on appeal. (Republic v. Capital Resources Corp.,
November 7, 2016; Caguioa, J.)
Q114: What is the doctrine of finality/immutability of judgment? What are the exceptions?
A114: This doctrine provides that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified
in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest
court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the
judgment. The exceptions are: (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause
no prejudice to any party, (3) void judgments, and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the
finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. (Heirs of Gabule v. Jumuad, 2020)
Note: A wrong/erroneous judgment is not a void judgment, provided the court which renders it had
jurisdiction to try the case. (Davao ACF Bus Lines, Inc. v. Ang, 2019, Caguioa, J.)
POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES OTHER THAN APPEAL
Q115: What is the effect of a judgment of annulment under R47?

A115: X The judgment of annulment 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.
However, 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. (Sec. 7, Rule 47).
The prescriptive period for the refiling of the original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of
such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. The exception would be where the
extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action. (Sec. 8, Rule 47).
Q116: When is a collateral attack on a judgment proper?

A116: As a rule, a judgment could not be collaterally impeached or called in question if rendered in a court of
competent jurisdiction, but must be properly attacked in a direct action. A collateral attack is defined as an
attack, made as an incident in another action, whose purpose is to obtain a different relief. This
is proper only when the judgment, on its face, is null and void, as where it is patent that the court which
rendered said judgment has no jurisdiction. But "[w]here a court has jurisdiction of the parties and the
subject matter, its judgment, is conclusive, as long as it remains unreversed and in force, and cannot be
impeached collaterally." The reason is that public policy forbids an indirect collateral contradiction or
impeachment of such a judgment. It is not a mere technicality, but is a rule of fundamental and substantial
justice which should be followed by all courts. (Pacasum, Sr. v. Zamoranos, 2017)
Q117: Your client received an unfavorable judgment in their case. They come to you asking what they can
do, however the reglementary period has already lapsed and the judgment has become final and
executory. What would you advise?
A117: I would advise my client to avail of one of the three remedies, depending on the ground and the period.
MODE GROUND PERIOD
Petition for Relief under When the judgment has been taken against Within 60 days after knowledge but not
Rule 38 the party through FAME more than 6 months after entry of judgment
(date of finality).
Non-extendible; uninterrupted
PAGE 23 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Action for annulment of Extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of Extrinsic fraud: 4 years from discovery
judgment under Rule 47 due process Lack of jurisdiction: before barred by laches
or estoppel
Direct action, as Certiorari – when there is grave abuse of 60 days from notice of the judgment, order
certiorari, OR collateral discretion amounting to lack or excess of or resolution
attack under Rule 65 jurisdiction. A challenged judgment, void
upon its face, can be the subject of a MR/MNT will trigger fresh period from
collateral attack. receipt of order of denial
Q118: Petitioners X and Y were accused of estafa. During trial, the prosecution presented several
testimonies, including one from one of the victims. After the prosecution had rested its case, the
defense filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which the RTC granted. The RTC explained that the
testimonies were supposedly inconsistent and that there were irregularities during the arrest, when
Petitioners X and Y were caught. The Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to assail the
denial of their demurrer. How would you rule on the petition?
A118: I would deny the petition. The Demurrer could not be entertained without offending the petitioners’
constitutional right against double jeopardy. Jurisprudence has provided that for the right against double
jeopardy to attach, the following requisites must be present: 1) a valid indictment, 2) a court of competent
jurisdiction, 3) the arraignment of the accused, 4) a valid plea entered by him, and 5) the acquittal or
conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case against him without his express
consent. This is also enshrined the finality-of-acquittal doctrine, which provides that a judgment of acquittal,
whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon
its promulgation. This means that not every error in the trial or evaluation of the evidence by the court in
question that led to the acquittal of the accused would be reviewable by certiorari. The only exception to
this doctrine would be if the prosecution was denied due process. In this case, the exception is not present,
thus the finality-of-acquittal rule applies, regardless of whether the Court, or any appellate court, believes
that the accused should have been convicted. (Raya v. People, 2021).
Q119: X, an employee of Corp A, was involved in an accident where he hit another vehicle with a company-
owned bus. A case was filed, and as a result, X was convicted and ordered to pay the victim
damages. However, the judgment could not be satisfied because X did not have any properties to
pay for the damages. Hence, upon motion, the MTCC issued a writ of execution against Corp A, as
X’s employer. With this, Corp A filed a Motion to Recall and Quash the Writ of Execution against it.
Upon the MTCC’s denial of their motion, Corp A filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the
RTC, which was denied. Corp A then appealed to the CA, which denied both Corp A’s appeal and
its Motion for Reconsideration. Was Corp A correct in filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari
before the RTC?
A119: No. A Rule 65 certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
judgment. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive
it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was committed. Even if the findings of the court are
incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of
certiorari. In the instant case, the primary argument of Corp A is centered on the supposed erroneous
award of damages against Corp A’s employee, X, made by the MTCC. Such supposed errors merely
pertain only to mistakes of law and not of jurisdiction, thus putting them beyond the ambit of certiorari.
(Davao ACF Bus Lines, Inc. v. Rogelio Ang, 2019).
Q120: The RTC dismissed the complaint for a sum of money by Bank X for failure to file the appropriate
docket fees. The Bank, after an MR on the initial dismissal, filed a Notice of Appeal to the CA which
was disallowed by the RTC for being an “improper remedy”. The Bank then proceeded to file a
petition for certiorari and mandamus with the CA on the order denying the Notice of Appeal. The
CA affirmed the denial. Bank X then filed a Rule 65 petition to the SC.
a. Is the remedy of Bank X correct?
b. Assuming the remedy is correct, will the case of Bank X prosper?
A120: a.) No. In Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration (as cited in Philippine Bank of Communications
v. Court of Appeals, 2017, J. Caguioa) the proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court
of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions,
final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action
or proceedings involved, may be appealed to us by filing a petition for review, which would be but a
continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under
PAGE 24 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule,
cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule
45. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, such as in this case, his petition may be
dismissed outright.
b.) Yes. In Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso (as cited in Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals,
2017, J. Caguioa), this Court ruled that a trial court's order disallowing a notice of appeal is tantamount to
a disallowance or dismissal of the appeal itself and is not a decision or final order from which an appeal
may be taken. The suitable remedy for the aggrieved party is to elevate the matter through a special civil
action under Rule 65. Clearly, contrary to the CA's finding, Bank X availed itself of the correct remedy in
questioning the disallowance of its notice of appeal.
Further, while dismissals of appeal may also be had upon the grounds specified by Rule 50 of the Rules
of Court, the judgment being unappealable; it is the Court of Appeals, not the trial court, which is explicitly
authorized to dismiss appeals on said grounds. Therefore, the RTC erred in dismissing the Notice of
Appeal. (Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 2017, J. Caguioa)
Q121: Once the decision of a court in an application for original registration of land ordering the LRA to
issue the decree of registration has become final, will mandamus lie to compel the LRA to issue
the decree of registration?
A121: Yes. However mandamus does not lie to compel LRA to Issue the decree of registration where it appears
that there is an existing title over the same land. (Rodriguez v. CA, 13 June 2013). The reason is that it
would violate the principle that a certificate of title is not subject to a collateral attack pursuant to the
Property Registration Decree. (cited from Riguera Civil Procedure, 2020)
APPEALS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q122: In what instances is an ordinary appeal not available?

A122: Rule 41 Sec. 1 states the following instances where an ordinary appeal may not be taken:
a. An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment; (b) An
interlocutory order;
b. An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
c. An 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;
d. An order of execution;
e. A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the
court allows an appeal therefrom; and
f. An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
The proper remedy in any of the foregoing circumstances is to file an appropriate special civil action as
provided in Rule 65.
Q123: Can a Rule 45 petition raise questions of fact?

A123: Generally, no. Rule 45 Section 1 states that “[t]he petition shall raise only questions of law which must be
distinctly set forth”. The exceptions wherein the petition may raise questions of fact are:
1. An appeal from a final order in a writ of amparo or writ of case may be taken to the Supreme Court
under Rule 45 The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both. (Sec. 19, Rule on the Writ of
Amparo, Sec. 19, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data).
2. When the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation.
3. The inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible.
4. There is grave abuse of discretion.
5. The judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
6. The findings of facts are conflicting.
7. The Court of Appeals, in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellate.
8. The findings are contrary to those of the trial court.
9. The findings of fact are conclusions without citations of specific evidence on which they are based.
10. The facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondents.
PAGE 25 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
11. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
contradicted by the evidence on record. (cited from Riguera Civil Procedure, 2020)
Q124: Is the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the court's or quasi-judicial body's decision, order,
or ruling a requirement for the filing of a special civil action for certiorari?
A124: Yes, the general rule is that the person filing a special civil action for certiorari should first have moved for
the reconsideration of the court or quasi- judicial body's decision since a motion for reconsideration is
considered a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The reason is to afford the
court or body an opportunity at the first instance to correct the imputed error. (Republic v. Quiñonez, 2020,
J. Caguioa)
In the following instances, as exceptions to the general rule, a prior motion for reconsideration is not
necessary:
1. where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
2. where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by
the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
3. where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable;
4. where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
5. where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
6. where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the
trial court is improbable;
7. where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
8. where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
9. where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (Philippine Bank of
Communications v. Court of Appeals, 2017, J. Caguioa)
APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES
Q125: What is the effect of an appeal by any of several accused?

A125: An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to him. Appeal of the offended
party of the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
Upon perfection of appeal, the execution of judgment or final order appealed from shall be stayed as to
the appealing party. (Rule 122, Sec. 11)
Q126: Does the Neypes Rule (fresh period rule) apply to criminal cases?
A126: The Neypes Rule applies in criminal cases under Rule 122, Sec. 6 (Yu vs. Tatad, 2011)
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF APPEAL TO HOW
Filing notice of appeal with the MTC and
MTC RTC serving copy of notice to the adverse
party
Filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and
RTC (original jurisdiction) CA serving copy of notice to the adverse
party
RTC (appellate jurisdiction) CA Petition for review under Rule 42
RTC (penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment or where a
lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses
Filing a notice of appeal with the RTC and
committed on the same occasion or
CA serving copy of notice to the adverse
which arose out of the same occurrence
party
that gave rise to the more serious offense
for which death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment is imposed)
Automatic review (no need for notice of
RTC (death penalty imposed) CA
appeal)
CA (imposes penalty other than death, Petition for review on certiorari under
SC
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment) Rule 45
PAGE 26 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
CA (penalty imposed is reclusion
SC Filing a notice of appeal with the CA
perpetua, or life imprisonment)
Automatic review (CA shall refrain from
making an entry of judgment and
CA (where the CA finds that the penalty
SC forthwith certify the case and elevate its
of death should be imposed)
entire record to the Supreme Court for
review) (Rule 124, Sec. 13)
Q127: Which remedy may an aggrieved party avail of against resolutions of the Ombudsman in criminal
or non-administrative cases?
A127: The law is silent. Hence, appeal is not available as a remedy because the right to appeal is a statutory
privilege and may be availed of only if there is a statute to that effect. However, an aggrieved party is not
without remedy, as he can resort to the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. Absent any showing
of grave abuse of discretion, the SC will not interfere and overturn the Ombudsman’s findings of probable
cause in investigating criminal complaints. (Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan, 2020)
Q128: Which remedy may an aggrieved party avail of against decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases?
A128: Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is
public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month
salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. (Rule III, Sec. 7, Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman)
In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review
under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the written Notice of Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. (Rule III,
Sec. 7, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman)
Q129: What is the remedy for resolutions issued by the prosecutor?

A129: The prosecutor’s ruling is reviewable by the Secretary of Justice who has the power to reverse, modify, or
affirm the prosecutor’s determination. (Shu v. Dee, 2014)
The appeal does not prevent the filing of the corresponding information in court based on the finding of
probable cause in the appealed resolution, unless the Secretary of Justice directs otherwise. However, the
pending resolution of the appeal, the appellant and prosecutor shall see it to it that the proceedings in court
should are held in abeyance (Sec. 9, DOJ Department Circular No. 70)
Q130: What is the remedy for resolutions issued by the Secretary of Justice?
A130: As a rule, the action of the Secretary of Justice is not subject to the review of courts unless there is a
showing that he committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged resolution. (Salapudin v.
Court of Appeals, 2013)
A petition for review under Rule 43 is not allowed (for quasi-judicial functions only). Instead, a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 is allowed on the ground that that the Secretary committed grave abuse of
discretion. (Alcaraz v. Gonzales, 2006)
Q131: What is the method for an appeal in criminal cases decided by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction?
A131: The appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases decided in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall
be by notice of appeal filed with the Sandiganbayan. (Rule XI, Sec. 1(a), 2018 Revised Internal Rules of
the Sandiganbayan)
Q132: What is the method for an appeal in criminal cases decided by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction?
A132: The appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases decided in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall
be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rule XI, Sec. 1(a),
2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan)
PAGE 27 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES
Q133: What are the prescriptive periods for collection of taxes?

A133: For assessments issued within the three-year ordinary period, the CIR has another three years to collect
reckoned from the issuance of the assessment (i.e., the date the assessment has been released, mailed
or sent to the taxpayer). For assessments issued within the extraordinary period of 10 years, the CIR has
five years following the assessment of the tax. (Sec. 222(c), 1997 NIRC).
Note that the running of the statute of limitations on the making of assessment or commencing of collection
shall be suspended, and for sixty days thereafter when:
1. The CIR is prohibited from making the assessment or beginning the distraint or levy or a proceeding
in court – during such period and for 60 days thereafter;
2. The taxpayer requests for a reinvestigation which is granted by the CIR;
3. The taxpayer cannot be located in the address given by him in the return, unless he informs the
CIR of any change in his address;
4. The warrant of distraint or levy is duly served, and no property is located; and
5. The taxpayer is out of the Philippines. (NIRC, Sec. 223)
Q134: Where the BIR issued a second letter of authority (LOA) to investigate anew a taxable year that has
been previously investigated by the BIR in an earlier LOA resulting in an assessment which the
taxpayer (TP) settled and paid, may the CTA take cognizance of a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 to question the legality of the second LOA?
A134: Yes, the CTA may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari to determine whether there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the BIR in issuing a second LOA.
(Golden Donuts, Inc. v. CIR, 2021).
Q135: Is a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the Revenue District Officer (who reports to the Regional
Director), authorizing new revenue officer/s to continue a tax investigation originally covered by
an LOA valid?
A135: No. In CIR v. McDonald's Realty Corp., G.R. No. 242670 (May 10, 2021), the SC ruled that the practice of
reassigning or transferring revenue officers originally named in the LOA and substituting or replacing them
with new revenue officers to continue the audit or investigation without a separate or amended LOA (i)
violates the TP's right to due process in tax audit or investigation; (ii) usurps the statutory power of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) or his duly authorized representative to grant the power to
examine the books of account of a TP; and (iii) does not comply with existing Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) rules and regulations on the requirement of an LOA in the grant of authority by the CIR or his duly
authorized representative to examine the TP's books of accounts. Under Secs. 6, 10(c), and 13 of the 1997
NIRC, as implemented by relevant BIR issuances, only the following BIR officers are authorized to sign
LOAs for the purpose of conducting a tax audit or investigation: (i) the CIR; (ii) the four Deputy
Commissioners; (iii) relevant Asst. Commissioners with audit functions; and (iv) Regional Directors. Thus,
McDonald's Realty further held that "[t]he use of Memorandum of Assignment, Referral Memorandum, or
such equivalent document, directing the continuation of an audit or investigation by an unauthorized
revenue officer usurps the functions of the LOA." Hence, a Memorandum of Assignment signed merely by
the Revenue District Officer (who reports to the Regional Director), authorizing a new revenue officer/s to
continue a tax investigation originally covered by an LOA, is invalid.
Q136: On Jan. 7, 2014, TP received a preliminary assessment notice (PAN). On Jan. 13, 2014, the BIR
issued a final assessment notice with a formal letter of demand (FAN/FLD), which the TP protested.
Is the FAN/FLD null and void on the ground of denial of TP's right to due process notwithstanding
that TP was given the opportunity and in fact filed a protest against the FAN/FLD?
A136: The FAN/FLD is null and void. The CIR is duty bound to wait for the expiration of 15 days from the date of
receipt of the PAN before issuing the FAN/FLD. (CIR v. Pacific Bayview Properties, 2018)
Q137: The seller in a sale of realty paid the 6% capital gains tax (CGT) on July 13, 2014. Due to a contract
dispute that led the buyer to annotate adverse claims against the land, the seller-TP filed a case to
cancel the adverse claim. On July 12, 2016, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement where
the parties agreed to rescind the sale. On July 3, 2018, the seller-TP filed an administrative claim
for refund followed by a judicial claim for refund on July 6, 2018 owing to the BIR's inaction on the
claim for refund. TP asserts that the two-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund of the CGT
should be reckoned from the rescission of the sale. Was the claim for refund timely made?
PAGE 28 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
A137: No. Sec. 229 of the 1997 NIRC provides that the two-year prescriptive period applies "regardless of any
supervening cause that may arise after payment." (CIR v. Manila Electric Co., 2004)
Q138: A FAN/FLD issued by the BIR states that "you are requested to pay your aforesaid tax liabilities
using BIR Payment Form 0605 ..." Is this a valid assessment?
A138: No. An assessment should contain not only computation of tax liabilities, but must also demand for
payment within a prescribed period. (Tupaz v. Ulep, 1999). A FAN must contain a definite and actual
demand to pay to be valid. (CIR v. Fitness by Design, Inc., 2016). A "request to pay" is not a definite and
actual demand to pay.
Q139: Should a FAN address the explanations set forth by the TP in his/her reply to the PAN?
A139: Yes. A FAN that does not address the explanation of TP set forth in the reply to PAN is null and void for
violation of TP's right to due process. (CIR v. Avon Products Mfg., Inc., 2018).
Q140: Can an injunction be issued to restrain the collection of any national internal revenue tax, fee or
charge?
A140: The RTC cannot issue an injunction against the collection of national internal revenue taxes under Sec.
218 of the 1997 NIRC. (Games and Amusement Board and Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Klub Don Juan
de Manila, Inc., 2020). As a general rule, no court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to restrain
the collection of any national internal revenue tax, fee, or charge (Sec. 218, NIRC).
As an exception, an injunction may be issued by the CTA to restrain the collection of taxes when, in the
opinion of the Court, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer. The
Court at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either
1. To deposit the amount claimed; or
2. To file a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court. (Sec. 9, RA 9282 amending
Sec. 11, RA 1125)
Further, the prohibition on the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin the collection of taxes is applied
only to national internal revenue taxes, not to local taxes. However, the Supreme Court noted that such
injunctions enjoining the collection of local taxes are frowned upon. (Angeles City v. Angeles Electric
Corporation, 2010)
Q141: May the bond requirement for purposes of suspending the collection of taxes be dispensed with?
A141: Yes, when the collection means employed by the BIR is not sanctioned by law. (Tridharma Marketing Corp.
v. CIR, 2016).
Q142: Who has the burden of proving the existence of fraud?

A142: The BIR has the burden of proof to establish the existence of fraud. However, if there is a finding or
showing, based on actual facts, of substantial underdeclaration of income or substantial overstatement of
deductions, there is a presumption of filing of a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade the payment
of taxes. Sec. 248(B), 1997 NIRC. In such a case, the BIR need not immediately present evidence to
support the falsity or fraudulence of the return. The burden of proof then shifts to the taxpayer to refute or
overcome the presumption of falsity or fraudulence by adducing clear and convincing evidence.
Note that the fraud contemplated by law is actual and not constructive. CIR v. Javier, (1991). Fraud is not
presumed; it must be established by clear and convincing evidence and mere allegation without
substantiation is not acceptable. CIR v. Japan Airlines, Inc.(1991).
Q143: What are the prescriptive periods for making assessments of internal revenue taxes?
A143: 1. Three (3) years from the last day within which to file a return or from the time when the return was
actually filed, whichever is later (Sec. 203, NIRC);
2. Ten (10) years from discovery of failure to file the tax return or discovery of falsity or fraud in the return
(Sec. 222(a), NIRC); or
3. Within the period agreed upon between the government and the taxpayer where there is a waiver of the
prescriptive period of the assessment. (Sec. 222(b), NIRC)
Q144: What is the difference between Preliminary Assessment Notice, Final Assessment Notice and Final
Decision on Disputed Assessment?
A144:
It is a communication issued by the Regional Assessment Division or by the Commissioner or his duly authorized
PAN
representative informing the taxpayer who has been audited of the findings of the Revenue Officer following the review
PAGE 29 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
and evaluation of these findings. It shall be in writing and shall show in detail the facts and the law, rules and regulations
or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based; otherwise, the assessment is void. (Sec. 228, NIRC; RR
No.18-13)
It is a declaration of deficiency taxes issued to a taxpayer who fails to respond to a PAN within the prescribed period,
or whose reply is found to be without merit. Like the PAN, shall be in writing and shall show in detail the facts and the
FAN
law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which the proposed assessment is based; otherwise, the assessment is
void. (RMC No. 18-13)
It indicates the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative and it shall state
FDDA the facts and the law, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which the decision is based; otherwise, it is void. (RMC
No. 18-13)
Q145: What is the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals?

A145:
Jurisdiction of CTA in Division Jurisdiction of CTA en Banc
Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal:
1. Decisions of the CIR in cases involving disputed

assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or
other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the 1997 Tax Code or other laws
administered by the BIR.
2. Inaction by the CIR in cases involving: Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal:
Decisions or resolutions on motions for reconsideration or
new trial:
1. Disputed assessments
2. Refunds of internal revenue taxes, 1. Of the CTA Division in the exercise of its exclusive
fees or other charges or penalties in relation thereto, appellate jurisdiction
3. Other matters arising under the Tax Code
4. Other laws administered by the BIR where the Tax Code
or other applicable law provides a specific period for a. over tax collection cases decided by the RTC in
action. the exercise of their original jurisdiction involving
final and executory assessments for taxes, fees,
charges and penalties, where the principal
Exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses: amount of taxes and penalties is less than P1M;
b. over cases involving criminal offenses arising
1. All criminal offenses arising from the Tax Code or other laws from violations of the Tax Code and other laws
administered by the BIR where the principal amount of taxes and administers by the BIR.
fees, exclusive of charges and penalties claimed is
2. Of the CTA Division in the exercise of its exclusive and
1. P1M or more – Original Jurisdiction original jurisdiction
2. P1M or less or where there is no specified amount
claimed – Appellate Jurisdiction a. over tax collection cases;
b. over cases involving criminal offenses arising
from violations of the Tax Code and other laws
Exclusive jurisdiction over tax collection cases: administered by the BIR.
1. Tax collection cases involving final and executory 3. Of the RTC in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties,
where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive
of charges and penalties claimed is a. over tax collection cases
b. over criminal offenses.
a. P1M or more – Original Jurisdiction
2. Appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the judgments,

resolutions or orders of the RTC in tax collection cases
originally decides by them within their respective
territorial jurisdiction
Q146: Can a taxpayer appeal a decision of the CTA division to the Supreme Court?
A146: No. The Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to review decisions rendered by a division of the CTA. The
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the said case is vested in the CTA En Banc. With the enactment
PAGE 30 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
of RA 9282, which took effect on 23 April 2004, it elevated the rank of the CTA to the level of a collegiate
court, making it a co- equal body of the Court of Appeals. (Duty Free Philippines v. BIR, 2014)
Q147: What is the status of the findings and conclusions of the CTA?
A147: The findings and conclusions of the CTA are accorded the highest respect and will not be lightly set aside
because by its very nature, it is dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems and has accordingly
developed an expertise on the subject. (Edison (Bataan) Cogeneration Corporation vs. Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, 2017)
Q148: What is the remedy when the BIR did not decide on a protest within 180 days?
A148:
Letter of Authority (LA) Pre-assessment notice Assessment and demand Submit Supporting Docs - if
*(NIRC, Section 13; Audit/ * (NIRC, Section 228 (e);RR 18-2013 * (NIRC, Section 228 (e); RR 18-2013 Section request for reinvestigation
RMO 44-2010) Examination Section 2& RMO 26-2016) 2& RMO 26-2016) * (NIRC, Section 228 (e); RR 18-2013
No more need for Section 2&RMO 26-2016)
notice of informal ))
conference Respond Protest
* (RR 18-2013)
* (NIRC, Sec. 228 (e); RR 18-2013 * (NIRC, Sec. 228 (e);RR 18-2013
Sec. 2& RMO 26-2016) Sec. 2& RMO 26-2016)
30 days 180/240 days
15 days 30 days 60 days
Appeal to CTA Decision of CTA Div. Decision of CTA Div. Decision of en banc
No decision by the BIR Motion for Appeal to CTA Appeal to SC

* (NIRC, Section 228 (e); RR 18-2013 en banc
Section 2& RMO 26-2016)
Recon.
180 days 30 days 15 days 15 days 15 days

* (NIRC, Section * (NIRC, Section * (A.M. No.05- * (A.M. *(Rules of
228 (e) & RR 18- 228 (e) & RR 18- 11-07-CTA, Rule No.05-11-07- Court,
2013 Section 2)) 8, Sec. 3 (b)) CTA, Rule 8, Rule 45)
2013 Section 2))
Sec. 3 (c))
PAGE 31 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Q149: What is the remedy when the BIR decided within 180 days?
A149:
Letter of Pre-assessment notice Assessment and demand
Authority (LA) Audit/ Submit Supporting Docs - if
* (NIRC, Section 228 (e);RR 18-2013 * (NIRC, Section 228 (e); RR 18-2013 Section
*(NIRC, Section Examination request for reinvestigation
Section 2& RMO 26-2016) 2& RMO 26-2016)
13; RMO 44- * (NIRC, Section 228 (e); RR 18-2013
2010) Section 2&RMO 26-2016)
Protest ))
Respond
* (NIRC, Sec. 228 (e); RR 18- * (NIRC, Sec. 228 (e);RR 18-2013
Sec. 2& RMO 26-2016)
180/240 days
2013 Sec. 2& RMO 26-2016)
30 days
A
15 days 30 days 60 days
Decision of the BIR Decision of CTA Div. Decision of CTA Div. Decision of en banc
Motion for Appeal to CTA Appeal to SC

Appeal to CTA Recon. en banc
30 days 15 days 15 days 15 days

* (NIRC, Section * (A.M. No.05-11- * (A.M. No.05-11- * (Rules of
228 (e) & RR 18- 07-CTA, Rule 8, 07-CTA, Rule 8, Court, Rule 45)
2013 Section 2)) Sec. 3 (b)) Sec. 3 (c))
PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SUPREME COURT
Q150: Plaintiff sued Defendant for collection of a P45,000 loan plus interest of 12% per annum from 2
March 1991 until full payment. Defendant's counsel did not file an answer and Defendant was
accordingly declared in default. After Plaintiff presented his evidence ex parte, the RTC rendered
judgment ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff P45,000 plus interest of 5% per month from 2 March
1991 until full payment. Defendant's counsel failed to file an appeal in behalf of his client.
Subsequently Defendant filed a" petition for annulment of judgment regarding' the portion thereof
that awarded 5% per month interest rather than 12% per annum interest. The Plaintiff contends that
the judgment has already become final and executory and that there are only two grounds for a
petition for annulment, that -is, extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, none' of which is present.
The plaintiff also argues that the remedy of annulment of judgment is not available to Defendant
since the remedy of appeal was no longer available because of Defendant's fault. May the petition
for annulment of judgment prosper?
A150: Yes. A petition for annulment of judgment is an exception to the final judgment rule, which states that final
and executory judgments can no longer be set aside. While under S2 R47 a Petition for Annulment of
Judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, jurisprudence
recognizes lack of due process as additional ground to annul a judgment. A final and executory judgment
may still be set aside if, upon mere inspection thereof, its patent nullity can be shown for having been
issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law. Here the grant of 5% monthly interest is way
beyond the 12% per annum interest sought in the Complaint and smacks of violation of due process. The
reason is that under S3(d) R9, a judgment rendered against a party in default shall not exceed the amount
or be different in kind from that prayed for.
While Sec. 1 Rule 47 requires that annulment of judgment may be availed of in instances where the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner, the Plaintiff may be excused here since the remedy of appeal
was not lost due to his fault but to the fault of his lawyer who was grossly negligent. The lawyer's gross
PAGE 32 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
negligence started from his failure to file an answer right up to his failure to file an appeal. Defendant
cannot be blamed for relying too much on his former counsel. Clients have reasonable expectations that
their lawyer would amply protect their interest during the trial of the case. Here Defendant is a plain and
ordinary person who is totally ignorant of the intricacies and technicalities of law and legal procedures.
Being so, he completely relied upon and trusted his former counsel to appropriately act as his interest may
lawfully warrant and require. (Drona v. Balangue, 2013, cited in Riguera 2020)
LEGAL ETHICS
THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Q151: What are the obligations of the lawyer as trustee of the client’s money and properties?
A151: Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides the following rules:
1. To account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client (Rule 16.01, CPR);
2. To keep the client’s funds separate and apart from the lawyer’s own funds and those of others
(Rule 16.02, CPR);
3. To deliver funds and property to client when due or upon demand, subject to a lien necessary to
satisfy the lawful fees and disbursements after giving notice promptly to the client (Rule 16.03,
CPR); and,
4. Not to borrow from the client unless the client’s interest are fully protected by the nature of the
case or by independent advice (Rule 16.04, CPR).
5. Not to lend money to the client except, when in the interest of justice, to advance necessary
expenses in a legal matter (Rule 16.04, CPR).
Q152: Is advancing payment under Rule 16.04 subject to reimbursement?

A152: YES. The money lending must always be subject to reimbursement, otherwise it becomes a champertous
contract and is void. While Rule 16.04 does not expressly prohibit the lawyer from advancing payment “in
the interest of justice,” it should nevertheless not work to the prejudice of the client in a pending case.
Q153: What is the rationale for the prohibition of a lawyer from contracting with the client?
A153: The rule of the profession that forbids a lawyer from contracting with his client for part of the thing in
litigation in exchange for conducting the case at the lawyer’s expense is designed to prevent the lawyer
from acquiring an interest between him and his client. To permit these arrangements is to enable the lawyer
to "acquire additional stake in the outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery
rather than that of his client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to
the sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to his client’s cause.” (Sps.
Cadavedo v Lacaya, 2014)
This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability
of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney's favor. (HDI Holdings v. Cruz, 2018)
Q154: Must a law specify that its violation by a lawyer will subject him to disciplinary action?
A154: NO. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law of and
legal processes. (Canon 1, CPR) A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct (Rule 1.01, CPR). A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system (Rule 1.02, CPR). Thus, ANY violation of the law will subject the
lawyer to a violation of the code of professional responsibility.
Q155: What are the professional obligations of the lawyer while in the government service?
A155: A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties. (Rule 6.02, CPR)
A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection
with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. (Rule 6.03, CPR)
Q156: When is something considered as a “matter in which the lawyer had intervened in” under Rule
6.03?
A156: “Matter” – As defined by Formal Opinion 342 of the American Bar Association, is the discrete, isolatable
act as well as identifiable transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and not
PAGE 33 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws,
or briefing abstract principles of law.
“Intervene” – Must be a substantial (not merely innocuous or insignificant) intervention that must affect the
interests of parties. (PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, 2005)
Q157: What is the non-encroachment principle?

A157: A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer,
however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. (Rule 8.02, CPR)
Q158: Are there exceptions to the non-encroachment principle?

A158: YES. Lawyers may:
1. Accept employment to handle a matter previously handled by another lawyer:
a. Provided the previous lawyer has been given notice of termination of service (Laput v.
Remotigue, 1962); or
b. In the absence of a notice of termination from the client, provided he has obtained the conformity
of the counsel whom he would substitute; or
c. In the absence of such conformity, a lawyer must at least give sufficient notice to original counsel
so that original counsel has the opportunity to protect his claim against the client.
2. Give advice or assistance to any person who seeks relief against an unfaithful or neglectful lawyer
3. Associate as a colleague in a case, provided he communicate with the original counsel before making
an appearance as co-counsel
a. Should the original lawyer object, he should decline association but if the original lawyer is
relieved, he may come into the case
b. Should it be impracticable for him, whose judgment has been overruled by his co- counsel to
cooperate effectively, he should ask client to relieve him.
Q159: What is the sub judice rule?

A159: Sub judice refers to matters under or before a judge or court; or matters under judicial consideration. In
essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial proceedings.
The restriction applies to litigants and witnesses, the public in general, and most especially to members of
the Bar and the Bench. The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue. influencing the court or obstructing the administration
of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court, (Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision Dated May 11, 2018 in Republic of the
Philippines, Represented by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, 2018).
Publishing a news article lambasting a judge while the case was still pending in court with that judge
violates Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that "a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party." (Re: Suspension of Atty.
Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State Prosecutor, ADM. Case No. 7006, October 9, 2007).
Q160: What duties does a lawyer owe to the courts regarding candor, fairness, and good faith?
A160:
1. A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court. (Canon 10 of the CPR).
2. To not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor to mislead or allow the court
to be misled by any artifice. (Rule 10.1, CPR)
3. To not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language of the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
(Rule 10.2, CPR)
4. To observe the rules of procedure and to not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. (Rule 10.3,
CPR)
Q161: May a lawyer befriend or extend extraordinary hospitality to a judge?

A161: NO. A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating
familiarity with Judges. (Rule 13.01, CPR)
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge — or a judge evincing a willingness — to
discuss, in private, a matter related to a case pending in that judge's sala cannot be over-emphasized… A
PAGE 34 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a favorable outcome for his or her client
violates Canon 13 of the Code. (Dumlao v. Camacho, 2018).
Q162: Are conflicts of interest absolutely prohibited?

A162: NO. The general rule is that lawyers must avoid conflicts of interest at all times. However, a lawyer may
represent conflicting interests as long as all parties give their express written consent after a full disclosure
of the facts. (Rule 15.03, CPR)
Q163: What are the indicators of conflict of interest?

A163: Conflict of duty – Whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of one client and,
at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client.
Inviting suspicion – Whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-
dealing in the performance of that duty
Using prior knowledge – Whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a
former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
(Celedonio v. Estrabillo, 2017 (citing Jimenez v. Francisco, 2014))
Q164: May a lawyer advertise their talent?

A164: NO. Advertisements are not allowed. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the
establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. (Canon 27, CPE;
In re: Tagorda, 1929)
Q165: Are there exceptions to the prohibition on advertising?

A165: YES. The cases of Ulep v. Legal Clinic and Khan v. Simbillo provide for the following rules on allowable
advertising (Yellow Legal RACE)
1. Yellow pages/telephone directories containing the firm name, addresses and contact numbers
2. Advertisements or announcement in any Legal publication, including books, journals, and legal
magazines.
3. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canons, of
brief biographical and informative data, are allowed.
4. A simple Announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates,
firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not objectionable
5. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law
firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and the special branch of law practiced
(Id.)
6. Advertisements or simple announcement of the Existence of a lawyer or his law firm posted
anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or residence except courtrooms and government
buildings. (Ulep v. Legal Clinic, 1993; Khan v. Simbillo, 2003)
Q166: What is the rule with respect to paying for advertising on mass media?
A166: A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or
in return for, publicity to attract legal business. (Rule 3.04, CPR)
Q167: Does this rule apply for social media?

A167: YES. Advertising is prohibited if the social media post is sponsored or boosted (i.e. the lawyer paid for the
post to better reach a certain demographic). However, an ordinary post would not violate Rule 3.04. As
such, a mere post on a firm’s website regarding the lawyer’s credentials is not prohibited.
Q168: What are the duties of the lawyer regarding the client’s confidences?
A168: Canon 21 of the CPR provides that the lawyer shall preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is terminated. This comes with the following duties:
1. To not reveal client’s secrets, unless authorized by the client, required by law, or necessary for the
lawyer to collect fees or defend themselves (Rule 21.01, CPR)
2. To not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment nor to
his own advantage or that of a third person (Rule 21.02, CPR)
3. To not give information from his files to an outside agency (Rule 21.03, CPR)
PAGE 35 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
4. To not disclose information to partners or associates of the firm if prohibited by the client (Rule 21.04,
CPR)
5. To adopt such measures as may be required to prevent others from disclosing or using confidences or
secrets of the client (Rule 21.05, CPR)
6. To avoid indiscreet conversation about a client's affairs even with members of his family. (Rule 21.06,
CPR)
7. To not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of
interest. (Rule 21.07, CPR)
Q169: When is communication confidential?

A169: It is when information is transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure between attorney and client in confidence
and by a means of which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third person other
than one reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the
purpose it was given. (Agpalo, citing Brown v. Saint Paul City R. Co., 1954; Mercado v. Vitriolo, 2005)
Q170: When does the duty to keep the client’s secret end?
A170: The general rule is never. The duty to keep secret is a perpetual duty that continues even after the attorney-
client relationship has been terminated (Canon 21, CPE; Canon 37, CPR) or the death of the client. Once
professional confidence is reposed, it cannot be divested by either event.
However, there are recognized exceptions:

1. When removed by the client himself (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p.266, 2009)
2. When removed after the death of the client by his heir or legal representative (Id.)
3. When a supervening act done pursuant to the purpose of the communication causes such
communication to lose its privileged character such as:
a. Communication sent by client through his attorney once it has reached third party
recipient (Uy Chico v. Union Life Assurance Society, 1915); or
b. The contents of a pleading before it is filed. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p.266,
2009)
Q171: What is the work product doctrine?

A171: The work products of a lawyer, contained in his files, are privileged matters that neither the lawyer nor his
heir or legal representative may give out without his client’s consent. This is in line with Rule 21.03, which
states that “A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an
outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose.”
Q172: Would you defend someone who was guilty?

A172: YES. A lawyer shall not refuse services to the needy (Canon 14, CPR). A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person. (Rule 14.01, CPR). It is a lawyer’s ethical responsibility to provide
legal services to an accused regardless of the lawyer’s opinion on the accused’s guilt.
Q173: When may a lawyer terminate their services?

A173: A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is
handling
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the
employment effectively
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to public office
(g) Other similar cases.
(Rule 22.01, CPR)
In all the above cases, the lawyer must file a written motion with an express consent of his client and
must wait for the approval of the court.
PAGE 36 OF 37
ATENEO CENTRAL
Q174: When may a client terminate the services of the lawyer?

A174: ANY TIME. A client has the absolute right to discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause. But
this right of the client is not unlimited because good faith is required in terminating the relationship… The
right is also subject to the right of the attorney to be compensated. (Malvar v. Kraft Food Phils., 2013)
Q175: Can a lawyer retain a portion of the funds he is holding for the client?
A175: YES. This is a retaining lien. A lawyer shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements (Rule 16.03, CPR).
Q176: Can a lawyer retain the money judgment?

A176: YES. This is a charging lien. A lawyer shall have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions
he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court (Rule 16.03, CPR).
SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT, AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS
Q177: Against whom may disbarment procedures be initiated?

A177: Complaints for disbarment, suspension and discipline may be filed against incumbent Justices of the Court
of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against lawyers in the
government service, whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other respondents, and whether
or not such complaint deals with acts unrelated to the discharge of their official functions. (Rule 139-B,
Sec. 1, par. 2 as amended by B.M. No. 1645)
Q178: Can the Supreme Court motu proprio institute disciplinary proceedings?
A178: YES. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu propio, or upon the filing of a verified complaint of any person before the Supreme Court or the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). (Rule 139-B, Sec. 1, par. 1 as amended by B.M. No. 1645)
In proceedings initiated motu propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest of
justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to
any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in
the same manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof,(verification and service of answer; appointment of
administrative counsel; investigation; taking of depositions if any; report of the investigator; effect of
defects) save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme
Court (Rule 139-B, Sec. 13)
Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator
designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of
fact and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court. (Rule 139-B, Sec. 14)
Q179: Does an affidavit of desistance or withdrawal from the complaint exonerate the lawyer?
A179: NO. No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,
compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same,
unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors,
determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings
against the respondent. (Rule 139-B, Sec. 5 as amended by B.M. No. 1645)
Q180: Can any court discipline and remove lawyers from the roll?
A180: NO. Only the Supreme Court has the power to discipline lawyers. Article VIII Section 5(5) of the 1987
Constitution provides that the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission
to the practice of law. Admission to the law inherently includes the power to discipline and remove from
the practice of law. The decisions if the Office of the Court Administrator or the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines are merely recommendatory; it is always the Supreme Court who has the final say on this
matter.
PAGE 37 OF 37

Remedial Law Blue Tips 2022 Unlocked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Blue Tips 2022 Unlocked

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Remedial Law Blue Tips 2022 Unlocked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATENEO CENTRAL

BAR OPERATIONS 2022 REMEDIAL & LEGAL ETHICS BLUE TIPS

PRAYER FOR THE BAR EXAMINATIONS

O God, we come before You this day,

This is the most important event in our lives,

We ask for help.

We do not ask this by our own merits.

We ask this from Your Fatherly mercy and compassion through

What is a red flag in life but not in rem?

PART 1: FIRST LEVEL COURTS

Q1: What courts have jurisdiction over small claims?

Q3: What is the splitting of a single cause of action? Is it allowed?

Q6: What is a joinder of causes of action?

Q7: What is a misjoinder of causes of action?

Q8: Can a misjoinder of causes of action be a ground for a Motion to Dismiss?

Q11: What is the result if an indispensable party is not in pleaded in a suit?

Q12: What is the venue of real actions?

Q13: What is the venue of personal actions?

Q16: Can the rule on venue be waived?

Q17: What are the affirmative defenses?

Q19: When is personal service required?

Q20: How is jurisdiction acquired against a non-resident of the Philippines?

Q23: When is extraterritorial service allowed?

Q24: Instances when extra-territorial service may be availed of?

Q25: What are the modes of Extraterritorial Service?

Q27: What is the Two-Dismissal rule?

Q31: What is the remedy for a dismissal for failure to prosecute?

Q34: Compare demurrer to evidence in a civil case and in a criminal case.

Q35: What is the effect of denial of demurrer to evidence?

Q36: What is the effect of grant of demurrer to evidence?

Q37: When may the court render judgment on the pleadings?

Q38: Can the Court render a summary judgment motu proprio?

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES AND SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Q42: Distinguish between Rule 67 and R.A. No. 8974 on expropriation.

For Writ of Possession to Issue

Basis of Computing Amount to be Paid

Q43: Distinguish between judicial foreclosure and extrajudicial foreclosure.

Complaint is filed with the courts. No complaint is filed. No court intervention.

Q45: Is there a right of redemption available in a judicial foreclosure?

Q46: What is equity of redemption?

NATURE OF THE ACTION

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS

Q52: When is a Writ of Kalikasan available?

Q56: Summarize the Rules for Changes in Name.

NOTE: Rule 103 is an action in rem. Publication is a jurisdictional requisite.

Q58: When may injunction be issued to restrain a criminal prosecution?

Q60: Must the elements of the crime be alleged in the information?

Q61: When are amendments formal or substantial?

Exception/s: When the offended party:

Q65: When is a warrantless arrest valid and lawful?

Q69: What are the exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant?

Q70: Can an anonymous tip be the basis of a warrantless search?

Q71: When can a search warrant be issued?

Q74: When is bail a matter of right?

Q75: When is bail a matter of discretion?

Q76: When may accused enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense?

Q79: What are the grounds for a motion to quash?

Q82: Distinguish Motions to Quash from Demurrers to Evidence.

Q83: What is the effect of a grant of a demurrer to evidence in a criminal case?