SYLLABUS FOR THE 2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS • Patdu v.

Carpio-Morales GR 230171 (2021) – the proper mode to assail the

OMB’s finding of probable cause in criminal cases is by filing a petition for
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL certiorari under Rule 65 before the SC, Sec 14 RA 6770 was struck down as
EXERCISES (25%) unconstitutional; If admin case, should file petition for review under Rule 43
before the CA
NOTE: All Bar candidates should be guided that only laws, rules, issuances, and jurisprudence pertinent to the topics • Palajos v. Abad GR 226272 (2022) – possession in forcible entry cases refers
in this syllabus as of June 30, 2022 are examinable materials within the coverage of the 2023 Bar Examinations. to prior physical possession or possession de facto; title is not an issue;
possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact
PART ONE: REMEDIAL LAW that a thing is subject to the action of one’s will or by the proper acts and legal
formalities established for acquiring such right
CHAIR’S CASES • Palafox v. Mendiola GR 209551 (2021) – applied hierarchy of courts;
exceptions: (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of
• Ramirez v. Elomina GR 202661 (2021) - MR was filed out of time; appeal is public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when
merely a statutory privilege the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional
• Radaza v. Sandiganbayan GR 201380 (2021) – reiteration of Villa-Gomez v. and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct
People handling prosecutor’s lack of prior written authority from the head handling of the case ***
prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not affect the trial court’s • Ngo v. Gabelo GR 207707 (2020) – referral of lupon to institute action is
acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter acts as de facto officer coated precondition to filing of complaint in court – should now be alleged in affirmative
with a color of authority to exercise acts that remain valid and official; deficiency defense, MTD not allowed
remains formal, non-jurisdictional, and curable at any stage of the criminal • Morada v. Rias GR 222226 (2022) – Writ of Amparo should be dismissed. Third
proceedings *** and Fourth element were absent. (a) that there be an arrest, detention,
• PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco GR 196323 (2021) – cancellation of abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty; (b) that it be carried out by, or
mortgage is a personal action (right to foreclose) no transfer or disposition of with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
real property rights; mortgagor is a real party-in-interest in a representative organization; (c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's
capacity; authority to mortgage is act that would benefit the principal refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
• Pineda v. Miranda GR 204997 (2021) – revival of judgment is different and person subject of the amparo petition; and (d) that the intention for such refusal
distinct from the original judgment, cause of action is the decision itself and not is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period
the merits of the action of time
• PNB v. Fontanoza GR 213673 (2022) – writ of possession is ex-parte. XPNs: • Monterde v. Jacinto GR 214102 (2022) – remedy should be Rule 43 to be filed
(a) gross inadequacy of the purchase price; (b) third party claiming right before the CA; AM 99-2-02-SC any appeal by way of petition for review from a
adverse to the mortgagor; and (c) failure to pay surplus proceeds of the sale to decision, final resolution, or order of the Ombudsman in administrative cases,
the mortgagor or by way of special civil action relative to such decision, resolution, or order,
• PNB v. Daradar GR 180203 (2021) – First Order of the RTC dismissing the case must be denied or dismissed
provisionally without prejudice is void, hence did not attain finality; no • Seming v. Alamag GR 202284 (2021) – the genuineness of the signature may
provisional dismissal in civil case; in the nature of an interlocutory order; Second be proved in a manner provided by Section 22 Rule 132; there was no
Order sans appeal became final and executory; adjudication on the merits comparison at all and no other evidence was presented to validate
• People v. Tuyay GR 206579 (2021) – if the remedy of an appeal is available, • MRT v. Trackworks Rail Transit GR 204452 (2021) – while it is true that the
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 will not prosper as it is not a substitute for promulgation is moot, the rule admits certain exception as when the orders
a lost appeal; should have filed Petition for Review under Rule 45. complained of were completely null and void because it violated the doctrine of
• People v. Sergio GR 240053 (2019) –Rule 23 ROC may be applied in criminal judicial stability and litis pendencia***
cases in extra-ordinary circumstance and in the interest of justice; testimony • Mega Fishing Corp v. Estate of Gonzales GR 214781 (2022) – the mistakes
was in a form of a dying declaration and accused’s right to confrontation was of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it
not violated *** would result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where
• People v. Sandiganbayan GR 239878 (2022) – there is inordinate delay taking the interest of justice so requires. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities
into the parameters in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (1) speedy disposition of take a backseat against substantive rights of litigants. Corollary, if the strict
cases; (2) a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, this
to a conduct of a preliminary investigation; (3) courts must first determine which Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules
party carries the burden of proof. of procedure.
• People v. Mallari GR 197164 (2019) – receipt of the lawyer is receipt of the • Spouses Liu v. Espinosa GR 238513 (2019) – SC is not a trier of facts. Re-
party examination of facts for the findings of the MTCC and RTC are in conflict with

RLN notes | Page 1 of 6 RLN notes | Page 2 of 6

 that of the CA (factual-issue bar rule); elements of unlawful detainer (a) Initially, must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases,
the plaintiff; (b) Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (c • Tiña v. Sta. Clara Estate GR 239979 (2020) – MTC in ejectment case can
Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived resolve the issue of ownership; the adjudication of the issue of ownership is only
the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (d) Within 1 year from the last provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title
demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the to the property
complaint for ejectment. • TESDA v. Abragar GR 201022 (2021) – failure to implead an indispensable
• Meralco v. AAA Cryogenics GR 207429 (2020) – SC is not a trier of facts. party. The joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the
Exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, exercise of judicial power. While the failure to implead an indispensable party is
surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, not per se a ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said party
absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own
the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to those essential — as it is jurisdictional — that any indispensable party be impleaded
of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of in the proceedings before the court renders judgment. The absence of an
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for
petitions as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
the respondent; and (1) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed present.
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. • Taningco v. Fernandez GR 215615 (2020) - Notice to counsel is notice to
• Linden Suites v. Meridien Far East Properties GR 211969 (2021) – doctrine parties. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and
of separate juridical personality finds no application in the case at bar; remedy notices must be made upon said attorney. Notice sent to counsel of record binds
is to file motion for the examination of judgment debtor*** the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
• Leones v. Corpuz GR 204106 (2021) – final and executory Decision in Court judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting
may be modified by compromise agreement that was voluntary, freely, and aside a judgment, valid and regular on its face.
intelligently executed by the parties, and not contrary to law, morals, good • Santos Ventura v. Mabalacat Institute GR 211563 (2021) – no forum
customs and public policy shopping. The elements of forum shopping are: (i) identity of parties, or at least
• Land Bank v. Spouses De Jesus GR 221133 (2021) – status quo order is in such parties representing the same interest; (ii) identity of rights asserted and
the nature of a “cease-and-desist order” and is “intended to maintain the last, relief prayed for, the latter founded, on the same facts; and (iii) any judgment
actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action; any
controversy”; only SC may issue status quo order; no urgency for prayer for PI; judgment rendered in ejectment cases of forcible entry or unlawful detainer will
revisit the requisites of issuance of writ of preliminary injunction not amount to res judicata in a civil case of collection of sum of money for unpaid
• Land Bank v. Quilit GR 194167 (2021) – DARAB being a quasi-judicial agency rent of the same property and vice versa.
has no power to exercise certiorari as it belongs only to the court of justice; • Silva v. Lo GR 206667 (2021) – partition case has 2 phases: determination of
executive encroachment into the judiciary; it violates the separation of powers coownership and actual partition
and unconstitutional • Sabado v. Sabado GR 214270 (2021) – Jay voluntarily submitted himself to
• Philam Homeowners v. De Luna GR 209437 (2021) – the CA, in its judicial the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed the Entry of Appearance with
review pursuant to Rules 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, is nonetheless Opposition to the Issuance of the PPO on January 17, 2013. By seeking
empowered to examine the records and evaluate the pieces of evidence in order affirmative relief in his opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial
to confirm their materiality and significance, and to disregard the labor tribunal's court, he thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction. The trial court
factual findings whenever its conclusions were not substantiated by the evidence acquired jurisdiction over Jay through his voluntary appearance when he sought
on record the lifting of the TPO and the denial of the issuance of PPO in his opposition,
• Land Bank v. Del Moral GR 187307 (2020) – res judicata requisites are without raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. By such conduct,
present. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must he can no longer subsequently object to the court's jurisdiction.
concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it • Jorgenetics v. Thick and Thin Agri GR 214270 (2021) – voluntarily submitted
must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a themselves to the jurisdiction of the court if they seek affirmative relief from the
judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, court; order dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction over the parties to the
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action case is cognizable under a special civil action for certiorari; under the new
• Villaroman v. Estate of Arciaga GR 210822 (2021) – res judicata requisites amendment, it is an affirmative defense; the chairperson and president of a
are present. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must corporation may sign the verification and certification without need of board
concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it

RLN notes | Page 3 of 6 RLN notes | Page 4 of 6

 resolution, under the new amendment, proof of such authority must be attached same by deliberately diverting the delivery of the goods covered by the L/Cs to
to the pleading a location different from that indicated in the sales invoice. This act of
• Inter-Island Information System v. CA GR 187323 (2021) – wrong mode of misappropriation demonstrates a clear intent of fraud.
appeal; an extraordinary remedy of certiorari will not lie if there is a plain, • Calubad v. Aceron and Soriano GR 188029 (2020) – An action for annulment
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner should of judgment is an independent action where the judgment or resolution sought
have availed of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and not a petition to be annulled is rendered and is not an appeal of the judgment or resolution
for certiorari under Rule 65 as its petition was dismissed by the appellate court therein.
based on Section 3 of Rule 117 which is an adjudication on the merits and not • Brual v. Brual GR 205451 (2022) - while it not necessary that a notice of appeal
merely an interlocutory order. and a record of appeal be filed simultaneously, the is unequivocal that the notice
• Heirs of Casino v. DBP GR 204052-53 (2020) – res judicata is present of appeal and record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the notice of
• Harbour Center v. La Filipina GR 240984 and 241120 (2021) – petition for judgment or final order; should have filed both within the period prescribed by
indirect contempt is civil in nature does not constitute double jeopardy the rules.
• Gemina v. Heirs of Espejo Jr GR 232682 (2021) – only when both the party- • Gaoiran v. CA GR 215925 (2022) – reconstitution of title; certificate of title
litigant (plaintiff or defendant) and his counsel fail to appear in pre-trial that cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for annulment of judgment under
there be the concomitant consequence of either a dismissal (plaintiff and counsel Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
were absent), or presentation of evidence ex parte (defendant and counsel were • Ancheta v. Cambay GR 204272 (2021) – Lack of jurisdiction being a valid
absent). ground for annulment of a judgment, and one which may negate the court's
• Gabutina v. Office of the Ombudsman GR 205572 (2020) - If admin case, acquisition of jurisdiction, including defective service of summons, it is a well-
should file petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA founded cause for an action for annulment of a judgment.
• EastWest Banking Corp v Cruz GR 221641 (2021) – determination whether
the complaint state a cause of action is an issue of law which must be brought ***possible Bar exam question per Judge Gito
up by way of Petition for Review under Rule 45 as the allegations in the
complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted already
• Dy Buncio v. Ramos GR 206120 (2022) – petition for Certiorari was improper;
Buncio to await DARAB’s resolution whether an agrarian dispute exists; If admin
case, should file petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA ***
• Dumaran v. Llamedo GR 217583 (2021) – writ of attachment; (1) non-
payment of a debt or non-performance of an obligation does not automatically
equate to a fraudulent act; (2) 2 remedies a party can avail of to discharge their
attached property (a) make a cash deposit equal to the claim or give a counter-
bond which will take place of the attached property; (b) file a motion to
discharge the attachment on the following grounds – improperly issued,
improperly enforced or bond was not sufficient
• CIR v. Standard Insurance Co, Inc. GR 219340 (2021) – RTC does not have
jurisdiction to hear and decide petition for declaratory relief the subject of which
is tax laws or legislation prohibited by Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 55 ***
• COA v. Pampilo GR 188760 (2020) – an action for declaratory relief may no
longer be allowed considering that private respondents are actually asking RTC
to determine whether there was a violation of Section 11 of RA 8479, for which
the Big 3 may be prosecuted and found criminally liable. And since there is
already an alleged breach, it cannot be the subject of a declaratory relief. RTC
therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the Amended
Petition.
• Chua v. China Banking Corp GR 202004 (2020) – grounds for issuance of writ
of attachment; A perusal of the allegations in the affidavit reveals fraud in the
violation of trust receipt agreements. According to China Bank, it advanced a
total of ₱189 Million as payment for the goods of Nestle in favor of Interbrand.
These goods are considered highly saleable thus they naturally expected
immediate and regular remittance of the sales proceeds. However, instead of
remitting the sales proceeds to China Bank, Interbrand misappropriated the

RLN notes | Page 5 of 6 RLN notes | Page 6 of 6