Remedial Law (QuAMTO)

University of Santo Tomas
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW (1734)
REMEDIAL LAW
Questions Asked More Than Once
QuAMTO 2023
The UST GOLDEN NOTES is the annual student-edited bar review material of
the University of Santo Tomas, Faculty of Civil Law. Communications
regarding the Notes should be addressed to the Academics Committee of the
Team: Bar-Ops.
Address: Academics Committee

UST Bar Operations
Faculty of Civil Law
España, Manila 1008
Tel. No: (02) 8731-4027

(02) 8406-1611 loc. 8578
Academics Committee
Faculty of Civil Law
España, Manila 1008
All rights reserved by the Academics Committee of the Faculty of Civil Law of the Pontifical and Royal
University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines.
2023 Edition.
No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes,
whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devises or in any other
form, for distribution or sale, without a written permission.
A copy of this material without the corresponding code either proceeds from an illegal source or is in
possession of one who has no authority to dispose the same.
Released in the Philippines, 2023.

Faculty of Civil Law (1734)
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2023

ANGELA BEATRICE S. PEÑA KATHERINE S. POLICARPIO
SECRETARIES-GENERAL
RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO CRIMINAL LAW
HERLENE MAE D. CALILUNG LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
POLITICAL LAW AND

PATRISHA LOUISE E. DUMANIL
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH

ALEXANDRA MAUREEN B. GARCIA
PRACTICAL EXERCISES
HANNAH JOY C. IBARRA COMMERCIAL LAW
JEDIDIAH R. PADUA CIVIL LAW
PAULINNE STEPHANY G. SANTIAGO TAXATION LAW
DIANNE MICAH ANGELA D. YUMANG REMEDIAL LAW
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PAULA ANDREA F. PEÑAFLOR COVER DESIGN ARTIST

REMEDIAL LAW COMMITTEE 2023

MIKKAH F. FACTOR
REMEDIAL LAW SUBJECT HEAD
SANTIAGO U. VITUG ASST. HEAD, CIVIL PROCEDURE

MIGUEL JOSHUA G. AGUIRRE ASST. HEAD, SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
CAMILLE RAZEN D. SUMERA ASST. HEAD, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SHARMAINE ELIZA T. MACASERO ASST. HEAD, EVIDENCE
REMEDIAL LAW ASSISTANT SUBJECT HEADS
MEMBERS
PATRICIA CLARISSE H. BERNABE
JEANINE ANDREA V. BUENAVENTURA
DANIELLE LOUISE CLEO C. ESQUILLO
CAMILLE RAZEN D. SUMERA
ADVISERS
JUDGE MYRA B. QUIAMBAO
JUDGE KATLYN ANNE C. AGUILAR-BILGERA
ATTY. IAN JERNY E. DE LEON
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
ACADEMIC OFFICIALS
ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.
DEAN REGENT
ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

FACULTY SECRETARY
ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

LEGAL COUNSEL
UST CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTO CONCEPCION LEGAL AID CLINIC
JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

SWDB COORDINATOR
LENY G. GADIANA, R.G.C.

GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

MENTORS AND INSPIRATION
Justice Roberto A. Abad Judge Gidget Rose V. Duque
Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo† Judge Leilani Marie D. Grimares
Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh Judge Gener M. Gito
Justice Magdangal M. De Leon Dean Jose I. Dela Rama
Justice Myra V. Fernandez Dean Lope E. Feble
Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. Dean Ma. Soledad D. Mawis
Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier Dean Salvador N. Moya II
Justice Zenaida G. Laguilles Dean Carlos M. Ortega
Justice Carlito B. Calpatura Dean Willard B. Riano†
Justice Jose Lorenzo R. De La Rosa Dean Ferdinand A. Tan
Justice Georgina D. Hidalgo Atty. Irene D.T. Alogoc
Justice Ronald B. Moreno Atty. Ian Jerny E. De Leon
Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. Atty. Gregorio Gerry F. Fernandez
Justice Selma Palacio-Alaras Atty. Elmar B. Galacio
Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol Atty. Benigno G. Par, Jr.
Judge Myra B. Quiambao Atty. Christian G. Villasis
For being our guideposts in understanding the intricate sphere of Remedial Law.
– Academics Committee 2023
DISCLAIMER
THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

REVIEW MATERIAL SHALL BE
BORNE BY THE USER
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
(a) What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?
I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A: The doctrine of hierarchy of courts provides that where
there is a concurrence of jurisdiction by courts over an
action or proceeding, there is an ordained sequence of
CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW
recourse to such courts beginning from the lowest to the
(2006, 1998 BAR)
highest. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
jurisdiction should be allowed only when there are special
Q: What is the concept of Remedial Law? (2006 BAR)
and important reasons therefor. (Montes v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 143797, 04 May 2006)
A: The concept of Remedial Law is that it is a branch of
public law which prescribes the procedural rules to be
(b) What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to
observed in litigations, whether civil, criminal, or
appeals?
administrative, and in special proceedings, as well as the
remedies or reliefs available in each case. (Bustos v. Lucero
A: The harmless error rule in relation to appeals provides
G.R. No. L-2068, 20 Oct. 1948)
that the appellate court should not reverse a judgment as a
result of any error or defect which does not affect the
Q: How are remedial laws implemented in our system
substantial rights of the parties. (Sec. 6, Rule 51, ROC, as
of government? (2006 BAR)
amended; Bersamin, 2000)
A: Remedial Laws are implemented in our system of

Q: A wants to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data
government through the pillars of the judicial system,
against the AFP in connection with threats to his life
including the prosecutorial service, our courts, and quasi-
allegedly made by AFP intelligence officers. A needs
judicial agencies. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
copies of AFP highly classified intelligence reports
collected by Sgt. Santos who is from AFP. A can file his
Q: How shall the Rules of Court be construed? (1998
petition with:
BAR)
a. RTC where AFP is located;

A: The Rules of Court should be liberally constructed in
b. RTC where Sgt. Santos resides;
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy,
c. Supreme Court;
and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
d. Court of Appeals. (2012 BAR)
(Sec. 6, Rule 1, ROC, as amended)
A: d. Court of Appeals
A. SUBSTANTIVE LAW vs. REMEDIAL LAW In accordance with the principle of judicial hierarchy of the
(2006 BAR) courts, A should file the petition with the Court of Appeals.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
Q: Distinguish between substantive law and remedial
law. (2006 BAR) b. RTC where Sgt. Santos resides
c. Supreme Court
A: Substantive law is that part of the law which creates,
defines, and regulates rights and obligations, the violation The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court
of which gives rise to a cause of action. On the other hand, where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
remedial law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
obtaining redress for their invasion. (Bustos v. Lucero G.R. information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of
No. L-2068, 20 Oct. 1948) the petitioner. The petition may also be filed with the
Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the
Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files
B. RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT of government offices. (A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
D. DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE/
JUDICIAL STABILITY
C. PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY
(2003 BAR)
(2017 BAR)
Q: In rendering a decision, should a court take into

Q: Give brief answers to the following: (2017 BAR)
consideration the possible effect of its verdict upon the
1 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

REMEDIAL LAW
political stability and economic welfare of the nation? On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that
(2003 BAR) the area where the alleged actionable neglect or
omission subject of the petition took place in the City of
A: NO. A court is required to take into consideration only Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of
the legal issues and the evidence admitted in the case. The Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the
political stability and economic welfare of the nation are petition for lack of jurisdiction.
extraneous to the case. They can have persuasive influence
but they are not the main factors that should be considered Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the
in deciding a case. A decision should be based on the law, RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to dismiss the
rules of procedure, justice and equity. However, in petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal
exceptional cases the court may consider the political the issuance of the ECC and to exhaust administrative
stability and economic welfare of the nation when these are remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations.
capable of being taken into judicial notice of and are Should the court dismiss the petition? (2015 BAR)
relevant to the case. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
A: YES. The court should dismiss the petition because the
proper procedure to question defect in an ECC is to follow
II. JURISDICTION the DENR administrative appeal process in accordance with
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
(Dolot v. Hon. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, 27 Aug. 2013; Paje v.
Casiño, G.R. No. 207257, 03 Feb. 2015)
A. CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION
C. JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS PHILIPPINE COURTS

AND TRIBUNALS
1. ORIGINAL vs. APPELLATE (2022, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2009, 2008,
2006, 2004, 2001 BAR)
2. GENERAL vs. SPECIAL
1. SUPREME COURT
3. EXCLUSIVE vs. CONCURRENT
(2014, 2012, 2004 BAR)
Q: If the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in

B. DOCTRINES OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS opinion covering an original action, the case shall be:
AND ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION (2012 BAR)
(2015 BAR)
A: Where the Court en banc is equally divided in option or
the necessary majority vote cannot be had, the Court shall
Q: A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a deliberate on it anew. If after such deliberation still no
protected area since it was a major watershed. The decision is reached, the Court shall, in an original action
protected area covered a portion located in filed with it, dismiss the case.
Municipality A of the Province I and a portion located in
the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of In all matters incidental to the main action where the
Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a Court en banc is equally divided in opinion, the relief sought
people's organization. He learned that a portion of the shall be denied. (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC)
mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was
extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled Q: Distinguish Questions of Law from Questions of Fact.
to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut (2004 BAR)
down and burned by workers of World Pleasure
Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and A: A question of law is when the doubt or difference arises
golf course. Upon inquiry with the project site engineer as to what the law is on a certain set of facts, while a
if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown question of fact is when the doubt or difference arises as to
a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certificate the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. (Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola
(ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD- Bottling Co. of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22533, 09 Feb. 1967)
DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a
petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing Q: Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al
mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court, as complaint for specific performance against Robert
the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint,
Robert White filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 2

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
the ground of lack of the appropriate board resolution cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
from the Board of Directors of Good feather perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
Corporation to show the authority of Al Pakino to issues cases which fall within its original and appellate
represent the corporation and file the complaint in its jurisdiction;
behalf. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss and,
accordingly, it ordered the dismissal of the complaint. f. The Court of Appeals can grant a new trial based on the
Al Pakino filed a motion for reconsideration which the ground of newly discovered evidence (Sec. 14, Rule 124,
RTC denied. As nothing more could be done by Al ROC, as amended);
Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before the
Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White moved for g. The Court of Appeals, under Sec. 6, Rule 46 of the Rules
dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same of Court, whenever necessary to resolve factual issues,
involved purely a question of law and should have been may conduct hearing thereon or delegate the reception
filed with the Supreme Court (SC). However, Al Pakino of the evidence of such issues to any of its members or
claimed that the appeal involved mixed questions of to an appropriate agency or office.
fact and law because there must be a factual
determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized Q: Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review
by Goodfeather Corporation to file the complaint. the Decisions in criminal and administrative cases of
Whose position is correct? Explain. (2014 BAR) the Ombudsman? (2006 BAR)
A: Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal involved A: YES, but only in administrative cases. In administrative
mixed questions of fact and law. There is a question of law and disciplinary cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules
a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of Court. Conversely, the Supreme Court has exclusive
of fact, when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in
falsehood of alleged facts. (Mirant Philippines Corporation v. criminal cases. (Lanting v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, 06
Sario, G.R. No. 197598, 21 Nov. 2012) Since the complaint May 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 16 Sept. 1998;
was dismissed due to the alleged lack of appropriate board Sec. 14, R.A. No. 6770)
resolution from the Board of Directors of Goodfeather
Corporation, the appeal will necessarily involve a factual 3. COURT OF TAX APPEALS
determination of the authority to file the Complaint for the (2022, 2006 BAR)
said corporation. Hence, the appeal before the Court of
Appeals is correct. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
Q: Fides filed a case before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) questioning the authority of the local
2. COURT OF APPEALS government unit (LGU) to assess real property taxes
(2008, 2006 BAR) (RPT) on a certain property she owns. She also prayed
for a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to restrain
Q: Give at least three instances where the Court of the LGU from collecting the RPT. The LGU moved to
Appeals may act as a trial court. (2008 BAR) dismiss Fides’ case arguing that since the matter
involves RPT, her remedy was to file an appeal to the
A: Local Board of Assessment Appeals. (2022 BAR)
a. In annulment of judgment under Secs. 5 and 6, Rule 47 (a) Is the LGU correct? Explain briefly.
of the Rules of Court. Should the Court of Appeals find
prima facie merit in the petition, the same shall be given A: NO. The LGU is not correct. The Supreme Court has held
due course and summons shall be served on the that an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals is
respondent, after which trial will follow, where the not required where the taxpayer is questioning the very
procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed; authority and power of the LGU to assess and collect the real
property tax and that a court case in such a situation may be
b. When a motion for new trial is granted by the Court of properly resorted to. (Ty v. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, 01 Dec.
Appeals, the procedure in the new trial shall be the 1995; Riguera, 2023)
same as that granted by a Regional Trial Court (Sec. 4,
Rule 53, ROC, as amended); (b) If the RTC issues an order denying the application
c. A petition for habeas corpus shall be set for hearing for a WPI, and thereafter denies Fides’ subsequent
(Sec. 12, Rule 102, ROC, as amended); motion for reconsideration, what is her remedy?
d. In a petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data, a A: Fides’ remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule
hearing can be conducted; 65 with the Court of Tax Appeals. The Supreme Court has
held that the remedy of an aggrieved party from an
e. Under Sec. 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal interlocutory order of the RTC in a local tax case is a petition
Procedure, the Court of Appeals has the power to try

REMEDIAL LAW
for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Court of Tax A: NO. While it is true that by reason of the death of Gov.
Appeals. Matigas, there is no longer any public officer with whom he
can be charged for violation of R.A. No. 3019, it does not
Here, the order denying the application for a WPI is an mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between
interlocutory order since it does not completely dispose of them can no longer be proved or that their alleged
the case. Fides should show that the denial of the conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing
application for a WPI was made with grave abuse of extinguished by the death of Gov. Matigas is his criminal
discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. liability. His death did not extinguish the crime, nor did it
Hence, Fides’ remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him
Rule 65 with the Court of Tax Appeals. (City of Manila v. and Carpintero. The requirement before a private person
Grecia-Cuerdo, G.R. No. 175723, 04 Feb. 2014) may be indicated for violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019,
among others, is that such private person must be alleged
Q: Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law,
complaint for refund of taxes paid, but it was not acted however, does not require that such person must, in all
upon. So, he filed a similar complaint with the Court of instances, be indicated together with the public officer.
Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions. Mark’s Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators
complaint was dismissed. Thus, he filed with the Court in an indictment for conspiracy. (People v. Go, G.R. No.
of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Does 168539, 25 Mar. 2014)
the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over Mark’s
petition? (2006 BAR) 5. REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
(2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 BAR)
A: NO. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 9282,
which provides that decisions of a division of the Court of
Q: State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the
Tax Appeals must be appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
en banc. Further, the CTA now has the same rank as the
Courts (RTCs). (2016 BAR)
Court of Appeals and is no longer considered as a quasi-
judicial agency. It is likewise provided in the said law that
A:
the decisions of the CTA en banc are cognizable by the
(1) Subject matter of action not capable of pecuniary
Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
estimation; (Genesis Investment, Inc. v. Heirs of
Procedure. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
Ceferino Ebarasabal, G.R. No. 181622, 20 Nov. 2013)
4. SANDIGANBAYAN (2) Actions involving title or possession of real

(2014, 2009 BAR) property or interest therein where the assessed
value exceeds P400,000.00 except forcible entry
Q: TRUE or FALSE. In the exercise of its original and unlawful detainer; (R.A. No. 11576, effective 21
jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for Aug. 2021)
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. (2009 BAR)
(3) Actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
A: FALSE. The Sandiganbayan may grant petitions for where demand or claim exceeds P2,000,000.00;
habeas corpus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (R.A. (R.A. No. 11576, effective 21 Aug. 2021)
No. 7975, as amended by R.A. No. 8249), not in the exercise
of “original” jurisdiction. (4) Matters of probate, testate, or intestate, where
Q: The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite gross value of estate exceeds P2,000,000.00; (R.A.
preliminary investigation, found probable cause to No. 11576, effective 21 Aug. 2021)
charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a
private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic (5) Cases not within exclusive jurisdiction of any
Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as courts, tribunal or person or body exercising
amended). Before the information could be filed with judicial or quasi-judicial function;
the Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an
ambush. This, notwithstanding, an information was (6) Actions involving personal property valued at
filed against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero. more than P2,000,000.00; (R.A. No. 11576, effective
21 Aug. 2021)
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel,
filed a Motion to Quash the information, on the ground (7) Other cases where demand, exclusive of interest,
of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and
that with the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public costs, or value or property in controversy exceeds
officer charged in the information. P2,000,000.00. (R.A. No. 11576, effective 21 Aug.
2021) However, if the claim of damages is the main
Is the Motion to Quash legally tenable? (2014 BAR) cause of action, the amount thereof shall be

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
considered in determining the jurisdiction of the A: I would file the petition in the Regional Trial Court of
court. Makati City, where the corresponding civil registry is
located. (Sec. 1, Rule 108, ROC, as amended)
Q: Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an
action for specific performance praying for the delivery (c) What is the essential requisite that you must
of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. comply with for the purpose of establishing
Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently jurisdictional facts before the court can hear the
raffled to an RTC designated as a special commercial petition?
court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era,
who, upon realizing that the trial court was not a A: For the Rule 108 petition, the jurisdictional facts are the
regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a following:
petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of
jurisdiction. What advice would you give to Era? a. Joinder of the local civil registrar and all persons who
Explain your answer. (2017 BAR) have or claim any interest which would be affected by
petition.
A: The advice I would give to Era is that the petition for b. Notice of the order of hearing to the persons named in
annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction will not the petition.
prosper. It has been held that a special commercial court is c. Publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of
still a court of general jurisdiction and can hear and try a general circulation in the province.
non-commercial case. (Concorde Condominium Inc. v.
Baculio, Gr. 203678, 17 Feb. 2016) Q: Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King
Kong over a commercial building where the former
Hence, the special commercial court has jurisdiction to try conducted his hardware business. The lease contract
and decide the action for specific performance and to stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of
render a judgment therein. P50,000.00 for a four (4)–year period commencing on
01 Jan. 2010. On 01 Jan. 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin II
Q: Hades, an American citizen, through a dating Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of
website, got acquainted with Persephone, a Filipina. Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals
Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio for the months of January to June 2013 despite King
City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone Kong’s written demands. Thus, on 01 July 2013, King
contracted marriage, solemnized by the Metropolitan Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action
Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the wedding, for rescission of contract with damages and payment of
Hades flew back to California, United States of America, accrued rentals as of 30 June 2013.
to wind up his business affairs. On his return to the
Philippines, Hades discovered that Persephone had an Can Kin II Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the
illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since the
to the United States and was able to obtain a valid amount claimed is only P300,000.00? (2014 BAR)
divorce decree from the Superior Court of the County of
San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction A: NO. Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the Complaint.
against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, An action for rescission of contract with damages and
also a Filipina, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay payment of accrued rentals is considered incapable of
City. (2015 BAR) pecuniary estimation and therefore cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court. (Ceferina De Ungria v. Court of Appeals,
(a) As Hades’ lawyer, what petition should you file in G.R. No. 165777, 25 July 2011)
order that your client can avoid prosecution for
bigamy if he desires to marry Hestia? 6. FAMILY COURTS
(2015, 2001 BAR)
A: As Hades’ lawyer, I would file a petition for cancellation
of entry of marriage under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
Q: How should the records of child and family cases in
with prayer for recognition of foreign divorce judgment. In
the Family Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme
a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that a
Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt
foreign divorce decree must first be recognized before it can
with? Under what conditions may the identity of parties
be given effect. The Supreme Court stated that the
in child and family cases be divulged? (2001 BAR)
recognition may be prayed for in the petition for
cancellation of the marriage entry under Rule 108 of the
A: The records of child and family cases in the Family Courts
Rules of Court. (Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, 11 Aug.
or Regional Trial Court designated by the Supreme Court to
2010)
handle Family Court cases shall be dealt with utmost
confidentiality and shall not be divulged unless necessary
(b) In what court should you file the petition?
and with authority of the judge (Sec. 12, Family Courts Act
of 1997).

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Absolute Sale between him and Estrella. After the filing
Against Women and their Children filed with the RTC of John’s answer, the MTC observed that the real issue
designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a was one of ownership and not of possession. Hence, the
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO
against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO, On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his a full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was
opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on
of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law the assessed value of the property, it was the court of
authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a
protection and due process clauses of the 1987 judgment declaring John as the owner of the land and,
Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the hence, entitled to the possession thereof. (2014 BAR)
motion for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court (a) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint
judge reasoned that Family Courts are without for lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not?
jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a
special court of limited jurisdiction, and R.A. No. 8369, A: NO. It is well settled that jurisdiction is determined by
the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for the allegations contained in the complaint. The contention
such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct of defendant in his Motion to Dismiss has nothing to do in
when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. the determination of jurisdiction.
No. 9262? (2015 BAR)
Relative thereto, the MTCs has exclusive original
A: NO. The Family Court Judge is not correct when it jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. detainer (Sec. 33, B.P. 129). Hence, the MTC is not correct in
dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. At any rate,
In Garcia v. Drilon (G.R. No. 179267, 25 June 2013) the the rules allow provisional determination of ownership in
Supreme Court held that the Family Courts have authority ejectment cases when the defendant raises the defense of
and jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute. ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
In spite of its designation as a family court, the RTC remains cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership
to possess the authority as a court of general original (Sec. 16, Rule 70, ROC, as amended). Accordingly, the inferior
jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether civil, courts have jurisdiction to resolve questions of ownership
criminal, special proceedings, land registration, whenever it is necessary to decide the question of
guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. This possession in an ejectment case. (Serreno v. Spouses
authority is embraced in the general definition of judicial Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, 10 Nov. 2006)
power to determine the valid and binding laws in
conformity with the fundamental law. (UPLC Suggested (b) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the
Answers) assessed value of the property, the case was within
its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a
7. METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was
COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, originally filed with it? Why or why not?
AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
R.A. No. 11576, An Act Further Expanding A: NO. It is settled that forcible entry and unlawful detainer
the Jurisdiction of First-Level Courts cases are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
(2014 BAR) MTC. Moreover, all cases decided by the MTC are generally
appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amounts involved.
(Sec. 22, B.P. 129)
Q: Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of
land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet.
However, when she visited the property after she took
a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that D. ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION
her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation (2009 BAR)
house on her property. Both Estrella and John were
residents of the same barangay.
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for
ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in
alleging that she is the true owner of the land as
New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a
evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration
Complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land
which showed the assessed value of the property as
against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto.
P21,000.00. On the other hand, John refuted Estrella’s
Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in
claim of ownership and submitted in evidence a Deed of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of
P19,700.00. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s E. JURISDICTION vs. EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
verification and certification of non-forum shopping (2012 BAR)
executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph
Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New York.
Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
Q: Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of
following grounds:
judgment. (2012 BAR)
The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action involving real property with an
A: An error of judgment is one which the court may commit
assessed value of P19,700.00; exclusive and original
in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an error does not
jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court where
deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by
the defendant resides. Rule on the foregoing ground.
appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction is one in which the
(2009 BAR)
court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an
error renders an order or judgment void or voidable and is
A: The ground that the RTC does not have subject matter
correctible by the special civil action of certiorari. (Dela Cruz
jurisdiction is without merit. A complaint for rescission of a
v. Moir, G.R. No. 12256, 06 Feb. 1917; Cochingyan, Jr. v.
contract of sale is an action incapable of pecuniary
Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27070-71, 22 Apr. 1977; Fortich v. Corona,
estimation and hence within the jurisdiction of the RTC
G.R. No. 131457, 24 Apr. 1998; Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v.
pursuant to B.P. 129. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s Association, Inc., G.R. Nos.
167583-84, 16 June 2010)
2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
(2009 BAR)
F. JURISDICTION vs. VENUE
Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in (2006 BAR)
New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a
Complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land
against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction from venue. (2006 BAR)
Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in
Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of
A: Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to decide a case on
P19,700.00. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s
the merits, while venue refers to the place where the suit
verification and certification of non-forum shopping
may be filed. In criminal actions, however, venue is
executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph
jurisdictional. Jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a
Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New York.
court by consent through waiver, but venue may be waived
Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
except in criminal cases. (Nocum, et al. v. Tan, G.R. No.
following grounds:
145022, 23 Sept. 2005; Santos III v. Northwest Airlines, G.R.
No. 101538, 23 June 1992)
The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person
of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of the
Philippines. Rule on the foregoing ground. (2009 BAR)
G. JURISDICTION OVER CASES COVERED
A: The first ground raised lacks merit because jurisdiction BY BARANGAY CONCILIATION, AND CASES
over the person of a plaintiff is acquired by the court upon COVERED BY THE RULES ON EXPEDITED PROCEDURES
the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint therewith. Residency or IN THE FIRST LEVEL COURTS
citizenship is not a requirement for a filing of a complaint, (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended,
because plaintiff thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the approved on 01 Mar. 2022)
court. (UPLC Suggested Answers) (2018, 2017, 2016, 2009, 2004 BAR)
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

Q: Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of
Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
4. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint
OR THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay
Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property, which is located
in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of
PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s
certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao
City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary
public.

REMEDIAL LAW
Should the complaint be verified or is the certification recognized without prejudice to the applicable provisions
sufficient? (2018 BAR) of the Local Government Code. (Sec. 399, R.A. No. 7160) As a
consequence, the customs and traditions of indigenous
A: YES. Considering that the action is for unlawful detainer, cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes
the Rules on Summary Procedure will apply. Sec. 3(B) of the between members of the cultural communities (Sec. 412,
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure requires that all R.A. No. 7160); thus, the confrontation between Pedro and
pleadings submitted to the court be verified; hence, a mere Juan before the Council of Elders of their barangay is
certification on non-forum shopping, the complaint being sufficient compliance with the precondition for filing the
an initiatory pleading is insufficient. (UPLC Suggested case in court under Sec. 412 of R.A. No. 7160. (Zamora v. Heirs
Answers) of Izguierdo, G.R. No. 146195, 18 Nov. 2004)
Q: Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Be that as it may, it is well-settled that the mode of
Louie. When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate enforcement of an amicable settlement under the
the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an Katarungang Pambarangay Law does not rule out the right
action for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to of rescission under Art. 2041 of the Civil Code. (Crisanta
answer the complaint within the reglementary period. Miguel v. Montanez, G.R. No. 191336, 25 Jan. 2014)
Accordingly, Juan filed a complaint for sum of money in the
Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. MTC, he is deemed to have rescinded the compromise
Should the motion be granted? Explain your answer. agreement reached before the Council of Elders of the
(2017 BAR) barangay. Henceforth, Pedro is incorrect in alleging that the
RTC, not the MTC has jurisdiction over Juan's claim.
A: NO. The motion should not be granted because it is a Considering that the claim is only for P50,000.00, the case
prohibited pleading. Under Sec. 19(h) of the Revised Rules on is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC pursuant to
Summary Procedure, a motion to declare defendant in R.A. No. 11576, which extended the jurisdictional amount of
default is among the pleadings that are prohibited in cases MTC to P2,000,000.00.
covered by said Rule: Considering that an action for
unlawful detainer is covered by the Rules on Summary Q: Mariano, through his attorney-in-fact, Marcos, filed
Procedure, Louie’s motion to declare Laura in default is a with the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for annulment
prohibited pleading, and thus, should not be granted. (UPLC of sale against Henry. Marcos and Henry both reside in
Suggested Answers) Asin Road, Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao
City. Henry filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
Q: Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug, the ground of prematurity for failure to comply with the
Municipality of Dupaci Mountain Province. Pedro owes mandatory barangay conciliation. Resolve the motion
Juan the amount of P50,000,00. Due to non-payment. with reasons. (2009 BAR)
Juan brought his complaint to the Council of Elders of
said barangay which implements the bodong justice A: The motion to dismiss should be denied because the
system. Both appeared before the council where they parties in interest, Mariano and Henry, do not reside in the
verbally agreed that Pedro will pay in installments on same city/municipality, or is the property subject of the
specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his promise. Juan controversy situated therein. The required
filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal conciliation/mediation before the proper Barangay as
Trial Court (MTC). Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on mandated by the Local Government Code governs only
the ground that the case did not pass through the when the parties to the dispute reside in the same city or
barangay conciliation under R.A. No. 7160 and that the municipality, and if involving real property, as in this case,
RTC, not the MTC, has jurisdiction. In his opposition, the property must also be situated in the same city or
Juan argued that the intervention of the Council of municipality. (Sec. 408, Local Government Code of 1991;
Elders is substantial compliance with the requirement UPLC Suggested Answers)
of R.A. No. 7160 and the claim of P50,000.00 is clearly
within the jurisdiction of the MTC. As MTC judge, rule Q: Charged with the offense of slight physical injuries
on the motion and explain. (2016 BAR) under an information duly filed with the MeTC in
Manila which in the meantime had duly issued an order
A: The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. As a general declaring that the case shall be governed by the Revised
rule, no complaint involving any matter within the authority Rule on Summary Procedure, the accused filed with
of the Lupon shall be instituted or filed directly in court for said court a motion to quash on the sole ground that the
adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation officer who filed the information had no authority to do
between the parties in the barangay and no settlement was so. The MeTC denied the motion on the ground that it is
reached. (Sec. 412(a), R.A. No. 7160; April Wolf, G. Martinez, a prohibited motion under the said Rule. The accused
G.R. No. 162084, 28 June 2005) However, in barangays thereupon filed with the RTC in Manila a petition for
where majority of the inhabitants are members of certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the nullification
indigenous cultural communities, local systems of settling of the MeTC’s denial of his motion to quash. The RTC in
disputes through their councils of datus or elders shall be due time issued an order on the ground that it is not

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
allowed by the said Rule. The accused forthwith filed
with said RTC a motion for reconsideration of its said III. CIVIL PROCEDURE
order. The RTC in time denied said motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the same is also a
prohibited motion under the said Rule. Were the RTC’s
orders denying due course to the petition as well as
denying the motion for reconsideration correct? A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Reason. (2004 BAR) (RULE 1)
A: The RTC’s orders denying due course to the petition for

certiorari as well as denying the motion for reconsideration
are both not correct. The petition for certiorari is a B. KINDS OF ACTION
prohibited pleading under Sec. 19(g) of the Revised Rule on (2016, 2009, 2006 BAR)
Summary Procedure and the motion for reconsideration,
while it is not prohibited motion (Lucas v. Fabros, A.M. No.
MTJ-99- 1226, 31 Jan. 2000, citing Joven v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 80739 20 Aug. 1992), should be denied because the 1. IN REM
petition for certiorari is a prohibited pleading. (UPLC
Suggested Answers) 2. IN PERSONAM
3. QUASI IN REM
(2009, 2006 BAR)
Q: TRUE or FALSE. A suit for injunction is an action in

rem. (2009 BAR)
A: FALSE. A suit for injunction is an action in personam. In

the early case of Auyong Hian v. Court of Tax Appeals (G.R.
No. L-28782, 12 Sept. 1974), it was held that a restraining
order, like an injunction, operates upon a person. It is
granted in the exercise of equity jurisdiction and has no in
rem effect to invalidate an act done in contempt of an order
of the court except whereby statutory authorization, the
decree is so framed as to act in rem on property. (Air
Materiel Wing Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Manay,
G.R. No. 175338, 09 Oct. 2007)
PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS

(2016, 2006 BAR)
Q: What do you mean by a) real actions; and b) personal

action? (2006 BAR)
A: Real actions are actions affecting title to or possession of

real property or an interest therein. All other actions are
personal actions. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)
Q: Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint for
the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he
signed in favor of Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the
consequent foreclosure and auction sale on his
mortgaged Makati property. Galaxy filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that
the complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati
since the complaint involves the ownership and
possession of Eduardo’s lot. Resolve the motion with
reasons. (2016 BAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. An action for against ABC Corporation to deliver the agreed Volvo Sedan
nullification of the mortgage documents and foreclosure of in the contract free from any damage or defects, with
the mortgaged property is a real action that affects the title corresponding damages will lie against ABC Cars.
to the property; thus, venue of the real action is before the
court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the Q: Mr. C sued Mr. D for reconveyance of property and
property lies. (Chua v. Total Office Products and Services, G.R. damages, claiming that Mr. D, through fraud and
152808, 30 Sept. 2005) forgery, was able to obtain the title to Lot No. 1234,
which was previously registered in Mr. C's name. The
Being a real action, it shall be commenced and tried in the complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court.
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area where the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Sec. Instead of filing an answer, Mr. D moved to dismiss the
1, Rule 4, ROC, as amended) Consequently, the complaint complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. In
should be filed in the RTC of Makati where the mortgaged opposition, Mr. C argued that lack of cause of action is
property is situated. not a ground for a motion to dismiss as the ground
provided under Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Court is failure to state a cause of action.
The motion to dismiss should be denied. An action for the Distinguish the concepts of lack of cause of action and
annulment of a real estate mortgage is a personal action, failure to state a cause of action. Based on this
which may be commenced and tried where the defendant distinction, is Mr. C's opposition tenable? Explain.
or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where (2019 BAR)
the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides or may be found,
at the election of plaintiff. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC, as amended; A: Mr. C’s opposition is tenable because the ground of lack
Chua v. Total Office Products & Services, 30 Sept. 2005; of cause of action is not among the grounds for a motion to
Orbeta v. Orbeta, G.R. No. 166837, 27 Nov. 2006) Since the dismiss under Sec. 1(g), Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. Lack of
plaintiff resides in Manila, the complaint was properly filed cause of action is different from failure to state cause of
in the RTC of Manila. action.
Jurisprudence provides that failure to state a cause of action

C. CAUSE OF ACTION and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a
(RULE 2) particular action. The former refers to the insufficiency of
(2022, 2019, 2017, 2005, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1997 BAR) the allegations in the pleading, while the latter to the
insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for
failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest
stages of the proceedings through a motion to dismiss
Q: Distinguish Cause of Action from Action. (1999, 1997
under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack
BAR)
of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions
of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations,
A: An action is one by which a party sues another for the
admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
(Westmont Bank v. Funai Philippines Corporation, G.R. No.
redress of a wrong (Sec. 3(a), Rule 2, ROC, as amended). A
175733, 08 July 2015)
cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another (Sec. 2, Rule 2, ROC, as amended).
SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION
An action must be based on a cause of action (Sec. 1, Rule 2,
AND ITS EFFECTS
ROC, as amended)
(2022, 2017, 2005, 2002, 2000, 1999 BAR)
Q: A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC Cars for P 5.0M.
Q: What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and
ABC Cars, before delivering to A, had the car rust-
its effect on the respective rights of the parties for
proofed and tinted by XYZ Detailing. When delivered to
failure to comply with the same? (1999 BAR)
A, the car’s upholstery was found to be damaged. ABC
Cars and XYZ Detailing both deny any liability. Who can
A: The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect
A sue and on what cause(s) of action? Explain. (2012
is that if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the
BAR)
same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon
the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
A: A can file an action for specific performance and damages
dismissal of the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC, as amended).
against ABC Cars since the damage to the Volvo sedan’s
upholstery was caused before delivery of the same to A, and
Q: Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant
therefore prior to the transfer of ownership to the latter
Bank. Aside from executing a promissory note in favor
(Article 1477, NCC). Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code,
of Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate
those who contravene the tenor of the obligation are liable
mortgage over her house and lot as security for her
for damages. Hence, an action for specific performance

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; Q: Jimuel filed against his wife Jewel a petition for the
hence, Merchant Bank filed an action against Elise to declaration of nullity of their marriage, alleging as
foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month after, and ground therefor Jewel's psychological incapacity under
while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank Article 36 of the Family Code. The court denied the
also filed an action to recover the principal sum of P3 petition for insufficiency of the evidence presented at
Million against Elise based on the same promissory the trial. Much later, Jimuel again filed a petition
note previously executed by the latter. In opposing the against Jewel for the declaration of nullity of their
motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the marriage. This time, the basis of Jimuel’s petition was
ground of splitting of a single cause of action, Merchant the absence of a marriage license at the time their
Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was marriage was celebrated. Upon Jewel's motion, the
devoid of any legal basis considering that the two court dismissed the petition on the ground of res
actions were based on separate contracts, namely, the judicata by virtue of the judgment in the first suit.
contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and
the deed of real estate mortgage. Is there a splitting of Was the denial of the petition on the ground of res
a single cause of action? Explain your answer. (2017 judicata proper? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
BAR)
A: Yes, the denial of the petition on the ground of res
A: YES. There is a splitting of a cause of action. A creditor judicata was proper. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure on
cannot file a civil action against the debtor for collection of res judicata, a judgment is conclusive not only with respect
the debt and subsequently file an action to foreclose the to the matter directly adjudged but also as to any other
mortgage. This is an example of splitting a single cause of matter that could have been raised in relation thereto. (Sec.
action, a practice that is vexatious and oppressive. (Danao v. 47(b), Rule 39, ROC, as amended)
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-48276, 06 June 2001)
Here, the ground of lack of a marriage license could have
Q: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against been raised by Jimuel in the first petition for declaration of
V Corporation, X Corporation, and Y Corporation to nullity of marriage. Not having been so raised, the judgment
compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the in the first case was conclusive as to the validity of the
three corporations claimed title and right of possession marriage. (Mallion v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, 31 Oct.
over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he 2006) Hence, the denial of the petition on the ground of res
was uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods. judicata was proper.
After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the
court declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the Q: AB, as mother and in her capacity as legal guardian
goods. The decision became final and executory. of her legitimate minor son, CD, brought action for
Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the support against EF, as father of CD and AB’s lawfully
payment of P100,000.00 for storage charges and other wedded husband. EF filed his answer denying his
advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to paternity with counterclaim for damages.
dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Subsequently, AB filed a manifestation in court that in
Corporation alleged that Raphael should have view of the denial made by EF, it would be futile to
incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his pursue the case against EF. AB agreed to move for the
claim for storage fees and advances that for his failure dismissal of the complaint, subject to the condition that
he was barred from interposing his claim. Raphael EF will withdraw his counterclaim for damages. AB and
replied that he could not have claimed storage fees and EF filed a joint motion to dismiss. The court dismissed
other advances in his complaint for interpleader the case with prejudice. Later on, minor son CD,
because he was not yet certain as to who was liable represented by AB, filed another complaint for support
therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 BAR) against EF. EF filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
of res judicata. Is res judicata a valid ground for
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should dismissal of the second complaint? Explain your
have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his answer. (2000 BAR)
claim for storage fees and advances, the amounts of which
were obviously determinable at the time of the filing of the A: NO. Res judicata is not a defense in an action for support
complaint. They are part of Raphael’s cause of action which even if the first case was dismissed with prejudice on a joint
he may not split. Hence, when the warehouseman asks the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff’s mother agreed to the
court to ascertain who among the defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint for support in view of the
the goods, he also has the right to ask who should pay for defendant’s answer denying his paternity with
the storage fees and other related expenses. The filing of the counterclaim for damages. This was in the nature of a
interpleader is available as a ground for dismissal for the compromise of the right to support which is prohibited by
second case. (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC, as amended). It is akin to a law. (Art, 2035, NCC; De Asis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
compulsory counterclaim which, if not set up, shall be 127578, 15 Feb. 1999)
barred (Sec. 2, Rule 9, ROC, as amended; Arreza v. Diaz, G.R.
No. 133113, 30 Aug. 2001)

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Rolando filed a petition for declaration of the nullity (a) Splitting a single cause of action; and
of his marriage to Carmela because of the alleged
psychological incapacity of the latter. After trial, the A: The effect of splitting a single cause of action is found in
court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the the rule as follows: If two or more suits are instituted on the
ground that Rolando failed to prove the psychological basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
incapacity of his wife. The judgment having become judgment on the merits in any one is available as a ground
final, Rolando filed another petition, this time on the for the dismissal of the others. (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC, as
ground that his marriage to Carmela had been amended)
celebrated without a license. Is the second action
barred by the judgment in the first? Why? (2002 BAR) (b) Non-joinder of a necessary party.
A: NO. The second action is not barred by the judgment in A: The effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party may be
the first because they are different causes of action. The first stated as follows: The court may order the inclusion of an
is for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may
incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code, while the second be obtained. The failure to comply with the order for his
is for the declaration of nullity of the marriage in view of the inclusion without justifiable cause is a waiver of the claim
absence of a basic requirement, which is a marriage license. against such party. The court may proceed with the action,
(Arts. 9 & 35(3), FC) They are different causes of action but the judgment rendered shall be without prejudice to the
because the evidence required to prove them are not the rights of such necessary party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3, ROC, as
same. (Pagsisihan v. CA, G.R. No. L-34885, 28 Jan. 1980) amended)
Q: A purchased a lot from B for P1,500,000.00. He gave Q: Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin
a down payment of P500,000.00, signed a promissory are residents of Batangas City. They are the co-owners
note payable thirty days after date, and as a security for of a parcel of residential land located in Pasay City with
the settlement of the obligation, mortgaged the same lot an assessed value of P100,000.00. Perry borrowed
to B. When the note fell due and A failed to pay, B P100,00.00 from Ricky which promised to pay on or
commenced suit to recover from A the balance of before December 1, 2004. However, Perry failed to pay
P1,000,000.00. After securing a favorable judgment on his loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin’s
his claim, B brought another action against A before the proposal to partition the property. Ricky filed a
same court to foreclose the mortgage. A now files a complaint against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay
motion to dismiss the second action on the ground of City for the partition of the property. He also
bar by prior judgment. Rule on the Motion. (1999 BAR) incorporated in his complaint his action against Perry
for the collection of the latter’s P100,000.00 loan, plus
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. When B interests and attorney’s fees. State with reasons
commenced suit to collect on the promissory note, he whether it was proper for Ricky to join his causes of
waived his right to foreclose the mortgage. B split his cause action in his complaint for partition against Perry and
of action. (UPLC Suggested Answers) Marvin in the RTC of Pasay City. (2005 BAR)
JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION A: It was not proper for Ricky to join his causes of action
(2005, 1999 BAR) against Perry in his complaint for partition against Perry
and Marvin. The causes of action may be between the same
Q: What is the rule on joinder of causes of action? (1999 parties, Ricky and Perry, with respect to the loan but not
BAR) with respect to the partition which includes Marvin.
Moreover, the supposed joinder includes a special civil
A: The rule on joinder of causes of action is that a party may action, thus, not allowed under Sec. 5(b), Rule 2 of the Rules
in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as of Court. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
many causes of action as he may have against an opposing
party, provided that the rule on joinder of parties is Q: A secured two loans from B. One for P500,000.00 and
complied with; the joinder shall not include special civil the other for P1,000,000, payable on different dates.
actions or actions governed by special rules, but may Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to file only one
include causes of action pertaining to different venues or complaint against A for the recovery of both loans?
jurisdictions provided one cause of action falls within the Explain. (1999 BAR)
jurisdiction of a Regional Trial Court and venue lies therein;
and the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of A: NO. Joinder is only permissive since the loans are
jurisdiction where the claims in all the causes of action are separate loans which may be governed by different terms
principally for the recovery of money. (Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC, as and conditions. The two loans give rise to two separate
amended) causes of action and may be the basis of two separate
complaints. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
Q: Give the effects of the following: (1998 BAR)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
(b) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg
D. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS being impleaded as a party to the case, what is his
(RULE 3) remedy to protect his interest? (2015 BAR)
(2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2008, 2002, 2000,
1999, 1998 BAR) A: If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being
impleaded as a party, he may intervene in the action (Sec. 1,
Rule 19, ROC, as amended). He may also file a petition for
annulment of judgment under Rule 46 of the Rules of Court,
REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST; INDISPENSABLE
should a judgment be already rendered.
PARTIES; REPRESENTATIVES AS PARTIES;
NECESSARY PARTIES; INDIGENT PARTIES;
In Metrobank v. Hon. Floro Alejo, (G.R. No. 141970, 10 Sept.
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
2001) the Supreme Court held that in a suit to nullify an
(2016, 2015, 2008, 2005, 2002 BAR)
existing Torrens Certificate of Title (TCT) in which a real
estate mortgage is annotated, the mortgagee is an
Q: Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children
indispensable party. In such suit, a decision cancelling the
ages 15, 12, and 7, who are studying at public schools.
TCT and the mortgage annotation is subject to a petition for
They have a combined gross monthly income of
annulment of judgment, because the non-joinder of a
P30,000.00 and they stay in an apartment in Manila
mortgagee deprived the court of jurisdiction to pass upon
with a monthly rent of P5,000.00. The monthly
the controversy. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
minimum wage per employee in Metro Manila does not
exceed P13,000.00. They do not own any real property.
Q: X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya
The spouses want to collect a loan of P25,000.00 from
Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit
Jojo but do not have the money to pay the filing fees.
and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L,
(2016 BAR)
who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to
V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a
(a) Would the spouses qualify as indigent litigants
fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a
under Section 19, Rule 141 on Legal Fees?
metal plate to his wrist bone. On the complaint of V, a
criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
A: NO. The spouses would not qualify as indigent litigants
Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the
under Sec. 19, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court since their
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the
combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 exceeds
private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a
P26,000, the amount double the monthly minimum wage.
separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint
(UPLC Suggested Answers)
for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial
Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In
(b) If the spouses do not qualify under Rule 141, what
his "Certification Against Forum Shopping," V made no
other remedy can they avail of under the rules to
mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta.
exempt them from paying the filing fees?
Maria.
A: The other remedy the spouses can avail of under the

Suppose only X was named as defendant in the
rules to exempt them from paying the filing fees is to apply
complaint for damages, may he move for the dismissal
for an exemption pursuant to the “indigency test” under Sec.
of the complaint for failure of V to implead Y as an
21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court if they can prove that they
indispensable party? (2010 BAR)
have no money or property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for themselves and their
A: NO. X may not move for dismissal of the civil action for
family. (Sps. Algura v. City of Naga, 30 Oct. 2006)
damages on the contention that Y is an indispensable party
who should be impleaded. Y is not an indispensable party
Q: Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for
but only a necessary party. At any rate, nonjoinder and
cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss the
misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of actions.
complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the
property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not
impleaded as defendant.
Q: Half-brothers Roscoe and Salvio inherited from their
father a vast tract of unregistered land. Roscoe
(a) Should the complaint be dismissed?
succeeded in gaining possession of the parcel of land in
its entirety and transferring the tax declaration
A: NO. The complaint should not be dismissed because the
thereon in his name. Roscoe sold the northern half to
mere non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground
Bono, Salvio's cousin. Upon learning of the sale, Salvio
for the dismissal of the action. (Sec. 11, Rule 3, ROC, as
asked Roscoe to convey the southern half to him.
amended; Republic v. Hon. Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, 07
Roscoe refused as he even sold one-third of the
July 2010)
southern half along the West to Carlo. Thereupon,
Salvio filed an action for the reconveyance of the

REMEDIAL LAW
southern half against Roscoe only. Carlo was not before the RTC notwithstanding that his position is
impleaded. After filing his answer, Roscoe sold the contrary to that of the majority? (2002 BAR)
middle third of the southern half to Nina. Salvio did not
amend the complaint to implead Nina. After trial, the A: YES. The OSG may represent the COMELEC Chairman
court rendered judgment ordering Roscoe to reconvey before the RTC notwithstanding that his position is contrary
the entire southern half to Salvio. The judgment to that of the majority of the Commission members in the
became final and executory. A writ of execution having COMELEC. Being an independent office, the hands of the
been issued, the Sheriff required Roscoe, Carlo and Nina OSG are not shackled to the cause of its client agency. In the
to vacate the southern half and yield possession thereof discharge of its task, the primordial concern of the OSG is to
to Salvio as the prevailing party. Carlo and Nina refused, see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld.
contending that they are not bound by the judgment as This is regardless of the fact that what it perceived as the
they are not parties to the case. Is the contention “best interest of the government” runs counter to its client
tenable? Explain fully. (2008 BAR) agency’s position. (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No.
151992, 18 Sept. 2002)
A: YES. In case of transfer of interest pending litigation, the
action may be continued by or against the original party
unless the court, upon motion, directs a person to be MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
substituted in the action or joined with the original party (2019, 2017 BAR)
(Sec. 19, Rule 3, ROC, as amended). The owners of property
over which reconveyance is asserted are indispensable Q: Ms. A filed a complaint for damages against Ms. B,
parties and must be joined in the action. Accordingly, the alleging that Ms. B negligently caused the demolition of
contention of Carlo who is such party to the action filed by her house's concrete fence, the top half of which fell on
Salvio, is tenable. He is not bound by the judgment because the front portion of Ms. A’s car and permanently
he became a co-owner of the land before the case was filed damaged its engine. In her answer, Ms. B denied any
and yet he has not been included as a party thereto. personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. A's car,
(Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. Court of averring that she merely acquiesced to the advice of her
Appeals, G.R. No. 98310, 23 Oct. 1996; Ma. Valentia Santana- contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete
Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120176, 20 July 2001) Nina, fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be
however, is a successor-in-interest of Roscoe and privy to collected from it.
the case. Hence, she is bound by the judgment as against
Roscoe although she is not a party to the case. (Sec. 19, Rule Thereafter, Ms. A filed a motion for judgment on the
3, ROC, as amended; Cabresos v. Tero, G.R. No. L-46843, 18 pleadings, alleging that Ms. B's statement in her answer
Oct. 1988) A judgment is conclusive between the parties and is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. B opposed the
their successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the case. motion, reiterating her defense in her answer which
(Sec. 47, Rule 39, ROC, as amended) purportedly rendered judgment on the pleadings
improper. Ms. B also moved for the dismissal of the case
Q: In 1996, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, on the ground of non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co.,
otherwise known as the Voter’s Registration Act of which she alleged is an indispensable party to the case.
1996, providing for the computerization of elections.
Pursuant thereto, the COMELEC approved the Voter’s Assuming that XYZ Construction Co. is an indispensable
Registration and Identification System (VRIS) Project. It party, is its non-joinder a ground for the dismissal of
issued invitations to pre-qualify and bid for the project. the case? Explain. (2019 BAR)
After the public bidding, Fotokina was declared the
winning bidder with a bid of P6 Billion and was issued A: NO. The non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co. as an
a Notice of Award. But COMELEC Chairman Gener Go indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of the
objected to the award on the ground that under the case. The remedy is to implead the party claimed to be
Appropriations Act, the budget for the COMELEC’s indispensable, considering that the parties may be added by
modernization is only P1 Billion. He announced to the order of the court, on motion of the party, or on its own
public that the VRIS project has been set aside. Two initiative at any stage of the action. The non-joinder of
Commissioners sided with Chairman Go, but the indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an
majority voted to uphold the contract. Meanwhile, action. (Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, 31 Mar. 2009)
Fotokina filed with the RTC a petition for mandamus to
compel the COMELEC to implement the contract. The Q: Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing partition of a large tract of land located in Oriental
Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the ground that Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers John and
mandamus does not lie to enforce contractual Adrian as defendants but did not implead Leica and
obligations. During the proceedings, the majority of the Agatha, her two sisters who were permanent residents
Commissioners filed a manifestation that Chairman Go of Australia. Arguing that there could be no final
was not authorized by the COMELEC En Banc to oppose determination of the case without impleading all
the petition. May the OSG represent Chairman Go

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to certificate of Gringo and informing the RTC that he
dismiss the complaint. cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo did not disclose
any information on his family. As counsel for Chika,
Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? what remedy can you recommend to your client so the
Explain your answer. (2017 BAR) case can move forward, and she can eventually recover
her money? Explain. (2016 BAR)
A: YES. The trial court has reason to deny the motion. Sec.
11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states that neither misjoinder A: The remedy I can recommend to my client Chika is to
nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an procure the appointment of an executor or administrator
action. The petitioner can still amend his initiatory pleading for the estate of Gringo in accordance with Sec. 16, Rule 3 of
in order to implead Leica and Agatha, for under the same the Rules of Civil Procedure. Chika as a creditor is an
rule, such amendment to implead an indispensable party interested person who can file the petition for settlement of
may be made on motion of any party or on the trial court’s Gringo’s estate. Once the executor or administrator is
own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms appointed, the action shall be allowed to continue until
as are just. (Ablaza v. Republic; G.R. No. 158298, 11 Aug. entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by
2010) the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
CLASS SUIT against the estate of a deceased person. (Sec. 20, Rule 3, ROC,
(2005 BAR) as amended; UPLC Suggested Answers)
Q: Distinguish a derivative suit from a class suit. (2005 Q: Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King
BAR) Kong over a commercial building where the former
conducted his hardware business. The lease contract
A: A derivative suit is a suit in equity that is filed by a stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of
minority shareholder on behalf of a corporation to redress P50,000.00 for a four (4)–year period commencing on
wrongs committed against it, for which the directors refuse 01 Jan. 2010. On 01 Jan. 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin II
to sue, the real party in interest being the corporation itself. Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of
(Lim v. Lim-Yu, G.R. No. 138343, 19 Feb. 2001) A class suit is Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals
filed on behalf of many persons so numerous that it is for the months of January to June 2013 despite King
impracticable to join all as parties. (Sec. 12, Rule 3, ROC, as Kong’s written demands. Thus, on 01 July 2013, King
amended) Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY-LITIGANT for rescission of contract with damages and payment of
(2016, 2014, 2000, 1999, 1998 BAR) accrued rentals as of 30 June 2013.
Q: What is the effect of the death of a party upon a If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince
pending action? (1999 BAR) Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for sum
of money during that time, will the action be
A: When the claim in a pending action is purely personal, dismissible upon Prince Chong’s death during the
the death of either of the parties extinguishes the claim and pendency of the case? (2014 BAR)
the action is dismissed. When the claim is not purely
personal and is not thereby extinguished, the party should A: NO. The action will not be dismissible upon Prince
be substituted by his heirs or his executor or administrator Chong’s death during the pendency of the case. When the
(Sec. 16, Rule 3, ROC, as amended). If the action is for action is for recovery of money arising from contract, and
recovery of money arising from contract, express or defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final which the action was pending at the time of such death, it
judgment in the court in which the action was pending at shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced under Rule 86
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be (Sec. 20, Rule 3, ROC, as amended). Relative thereto, since the
enforced in the manner provided in the rules for complaint for sum of money filed by King Kong survives the
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. death of Prince Chong, the case shall not be dismissed and
(Sec. 20, Rule 3, ROC, as amended) the Court shall merely order the substitution of the
deceased defendant. (Sarsaba v. Vda. De Te, G.R. No. 175910,
Q: Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. 30 July 2009)
The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC)
rendered a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika Q: PJ engaged the services of Atty. ST to represent him
P50,000.00 plus legal interest. During the pendency of in a civil case filed by OP against him which was
the appeal before the RTC, Gringo died of acute docketed as Civil Case No. 123. A retainership
hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty. Perfecto, counsel of agreement was executed between PJ and Atty. ST
Gringo, filed a manifestation attaching the death whereby PJ promised to pay Atty. ST a retainer sum of

REMEDIAL LAW
P24,000.00 a year and to transfer the ownership of a
parcel of land to Atty. ST after the presentation of PJ’s E. VENUE
evidence. PJ did not comply with his undertaking. Atty. (RULE 4)
ST filed a case against PJ which was docketed as Civil (2022, 2017, 2015, 2008, 1997 BAR)
Case No. 456. During the trial of Civil Case No. 456, PJ
died. (2000 BAR)
Q: Lebron, a Makati resident, obtained a PhP

(a) Is the death of PJ a valid ground to dismiss the
350,000.00 loan from a bank secured by a real estate
money claim of Atty. ST in Civil Case No. 456?
mortgage (REM) over his lot located in Quezon City with
Explain.
an assessed value of PhP 500,000.00. Lebron failed to
pay despite written demands. The bank intends to file
A: NO. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, when the
an action for judicial foreclosure of the REM.
action is for recovery of money arising from contract,
express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of
Where should the action for judicial foreclosure of the
final judgment in the court in which the action is pending at
REM be filed and in which court? Explain briefly. (2022
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall
BAR)
instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.
A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be
A: The action for judicial foreclosure should be filed in
enforced in the manner especially provided in the Rules for
Quezon City and with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Under
prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased
the Rules of Civil Procedure, the venue of a real action is in
person. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area
wherein the real property is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as
(b) Will your answer be the same with respect to the
amended)
real property being claimed by Atty. ST in Civil Case
No. 456? Explain.
Here, the action is one for judicial foreclosure which is a real
action as held by the Supreme Court. (Roldan v. Barrios, G.R.
A: YES. An action to recover real property in any event
No. 214803, 23 Apr. 2018) The land or real property is
survives the death of the defendant (Sec. 1, Rule 87, ROC, as
situated in Quezon City. Hence, the venue is laid in Quezon
amended). However, a favorable judgment may be enforced
City and the action should be filed there.
in accordance with Sec. 7(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
against the executor or administrator or successor in
The action should be filed with the RTC. Under B.P. Big. 129,
interest of the deceased. (Ibid.)
the RTC has jurisdiction over real actions wherein the
assessed value of the real property involved exceeds
Q: A filed a complaint for the recovery of ownership of
PS0,000. Hence, the RTC has jurisdiction over the action for
land against B who was represented by her counsel X.
judicial foreclosure. (Riguera, 2023)
In the course of the trial, B dies. However, X failed to
notify the court of B’s death. The court proceeded to
Q: Water Builders, a construction company based in
hear the case and rendered judgment against B. After
Makati City, entered into a construction agreement
the judgment became final, a writ of execution was
with Super Powers, Inc., an energy company based in
issued against C, who being B’s sole heir, acquired the
Manila, for the construction of a mini hydroelectric
property. If you were the counsel of C, what course of
plant. Water Builders failed to complete the project
action would you take? (1998 BAR)
within the stipulated duration. Super Powers canceled
the contract. Water Builders filed a request for
A: As counsel of C, I would move to set aside the writ of
arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration
execution and the judgment for lack of jurisdiction and lack
Commission (CIAC). After due proceedings, CIAC
of due process in the same court because the judgment is
rendered judgment in favor of Super Powers, Inc.
void. If X had notified the court of B’s death, the court would
ordering Water Builders to pay the former P 10 million,
have ordered the substitution of the deceased by C, the sole
the full amount of the down payment paid, and P2
heir of B (Sec. 16, Rule 3, ROC, as amended). The court
million by way of liquidated damages. Dissatisfied with
acquired no jurisdiction over C upon whom trial and the
the CIAC's judgment, Water Builders, pursuant to the
judgment are not binding (Ferreria v. Ibarra Vda. De
Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Gonzales, G.R. No. L-11567, 17 July 1958; Vda. De la Cruz v.
Resolution (ADR Rules) filed with the RTC of Pasay City
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41107, 28 Feb. 1979; Lawas v.
a petition to vacate the arbitral award. Super Powers,
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45809 12 Dec. 1986). I could also
Inc., in its opposition, moved to dismiss the petition,
file an action to annul the judgment for lack of jurisdiction
invoking the ADR Rules, on the ground of improper
because C, as the successor of B, was deprived of due
venue as neither of the parties were doing business in
process and should have been heard before judgment. (Rule
Pasay City. Should Water Builders' petition be
47, ROC, as amended)
dismissed? (2015 BAR)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: YES. The petition should be dismissed. Under Rule 11.3 on the mortgage of the same parcels of land, what is the
of the Special ADR Rules, the petition for vacation of a proper venue for the action? (2008 BAR)
domestic arbitral award may be filed with the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the place in which one of the A: YES. The action may prosper because improper venue
parties is doing business, where any of the parties reside or can be waived, and there appears to be no objection from
where arbitration proceedings were conducted. Here the defendant. An action for reconveyance of parcels of land
neither of the parties were doing business in Pasay City nor partakes of an action to recover title to or possession of such
was there a showing that arbitration proceedings were land; hence, a real action should be filed in the place where
conducted in Pasay City. (UPLC Suggested Answers) the parcels of land are situated in Tarlac and Nueva Ecija.
Q: A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a If the action was for foreclosure of mortgage, the action may
protected area since it was a major watershed. The be filed either in Tarlac or Nueva Ecija where any of the
protected area covered a portion located in parcels of land is situated. Only one action for foreclosure
Municipality A of the Province I and a portion located in needs to be filed as only one contract had been instituted.
the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of (BPI. v. Green, G.R. No. 35125, 12 Dec. 1932)
Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a
people's organization. He learned that a portion of the EFFECTS OF STIPULATIONS ON VENUE
mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was (2017, 1997 BAR)
extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled
to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut Q: After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan
down and burned by workers of World Pleasure returned to the Philippines to retire in Manila, the place
Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and of his birth and childhood. Ten years before his
golf course. Upon inquiry with the project site engineer retirement, he bought for cash in his name a house and
if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he
a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certificate learned that his house and lot were the subjects of
(ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD- foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on
DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a the basis of a promissory note and a deed of real estate
petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mortgage he had allegedly executed in favor of ABC
mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the Bank five years earlier. Knowing that he was not in the
RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court, as country at the time the promissory note and deed of
the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. mortgage were supposedly executed, Evan forthwith
On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that
the area where the alleged actionable neglect or the subject documents be declared null and void. ABC
omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Bank filed a motion to dismiss Evan's complaint on the
Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of ground of improper venue on the basis of a stipulation
Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the in both documents designating Quezon City as the
petition for lack of jurisdiction. exclusive venue in the event of litigation between the
parties arising out of the loan and mortgage. Should the
Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your
petition? (2015 BAR) answer. (2017 BAR)
A: NO. The court was not correct in motu propio dismissing A: NO. ABC Bank’s motion to dismiss should be denied. In
the petition. While it appears that the alleged actionable Briones v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 204444, 24 Jan. 2015),
neglect or omission took place in the City of Z of Province II the Supreme Court ruled that a complaint directly assailing
and, therefore, cognizable by the RTC of Province II, the validity of the written instrument itself should not be
nonetheless, venue is not jurisdictional, and it can be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein
waived in a special civil action for continuing mandamus. and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on
(Dolot v. Hon. Paje, G.R. No. 199199 12 Aug. 2013) venue. The Supreme Court ruled that it would be inherently
inconsistent for a complaint of this nature to recognize the
Besides, under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails
defenses and objections not pleaded in the answer or in the the validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is
motion to dismiss are deemed waived. Hence, the court contained.
cannot motu propio dismiss the case on the ground of
improper venue. In this case, Evan’s complaint directly assails the validity of
the promissory note and deed of mortgage, which contains
Q: Angela, a resident of Quezon City, sued Antonio, a said venue stipulation; hence, said venue stipulation is not
resident of Makati City before the RTC of Quezon City binding on him. Evan correctly filed his complaint with the
for the reconveyance of two parcels of land situated in Manila RTC pursuant to Rule of the Rules of Court. (UPLC
Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, respectively. May her action Suggested Answers)
prosper? Assuming that the action was for foreclosure

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: X, a resident of Angeles City, borrowed PhP 300, Mr. H still owed him rental arrearages for the lease of
000.00 from A, a resident of Pasay City. In the loan his apartment also amounting to PhP 500,000.00.
agreement, the parties stipulate that “the parties agree
to sue and be sued in the City of Manila.” (1997 BAR) It has come to Mr. H's attention that Mr. I did not pay
any filing fees when he filed his answer. As such, Mr. H
(a) In case of non-payment of the loan, can A file his moved to dismiss the counterclaim. In response to Mr.
complaint to collect the loan from X in Angeles City? H's motion, Mr. I averred that the non-payment of filing
fees was purely based on inadvertence and that the said
A: YES, because the stipulation in the loan agreement that filing fees had already been paid as of date, as evinced
“the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila” by the official receipt issued by the clerk of court
does not make Manila the “exclusive venue thereof.” (Sec. 4, therefor.
Rule 4, ROC, as amended). Hence, A can file his complaint in
Angels City where he resides. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC, as What is the nature of Mr. l's counterclaim? Is the
amended) payment of filing fees required for such counterclaim to
prosper? Explain. (2019 BAR)
(b) Suppose the parties did not stipulate in the loan
agreement as to the venue, where can A file his A: Mr. I’s counterclaim is permissive. It is permissive
complaint against X? because the rental arrearages for the lease of his apartment
amounting to PhP 500,000 do not arise out of or are not
A: If the parties did not stipulate the venue, A can file his necessarily connected with the subject matter of the
complaint either in Angeles City where he resides or in opposing party’s claim which is the recovery in the amount
Pasay City where X resides. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC, as amended) of PhP 500,000 based on their contract of service. Thus, the
permissive counterclaim of Mr. I is essentially an
(c) Suppose the parties stipulated in their loan independent claim that may be filed separately in another
agreement that “venue for all suits arising from this case. (Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Ogsos, Sr., G.R. No. 221062, 06
contract shall be the courts in Quezon City,” can A Oct. 2016)
file his complaint against X in Pasay City?
Q: Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the
A: NO. If the parties stipulated that the venue “shall be in amount of PhP 750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC
the courts in Quezon City,” A cannot file his complaint in in Quezon City for the latter's alleged breach of their
Pasay City because the use of the word “shall” makes contract of services. Salvador promptly filed his
Quezon City the exclusive venue thereof. (Hoechst answer, and included a counterclaim for P250,000.00
Philippines v. Torres, G.R. No. L- 44351, 18 May 1978) arising from the allegedly baseless and malicious
claims of Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to
engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to
F. PLEADINGS suffer mental anguish. Noting that the amount of the
(2019, 2017, 2010, 2004, 2000, 1999, 1997 BAR) counterclaim was below the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the RTC, Abraham filed a motion to
dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground.
Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed?
1. KINDS Explain your answer. (2017 BAR)
(RULE 6)
(2019, 2017, 2010, 2004, 2000, 1999, 1997 BAR) A: NO. The counterclaim of Salvador should not be
dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In an
Q: What is counterclaim? Distinguish a counterclaim original action before the RTC, the RTC has jurisdiction over
from a crossclaim. (1999 BAR) a compulsory counterclaim regardless of its amount. (Sec. 7,
Rule 6, ROC, as amended) Here Salvador’s counterclaim for
A: A counterclaim is distinguished from a cross-claim in that damages arising from the alleged malicious and baseless
a cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party claims of Abraham is a compulsory counterclaim as it arises
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the from Abraham’s complaint. Hence the RTC has jurisdiction
subject matter either of the original action or of a over Salvador’s counterclaim even if it did not exceed the
counterclaim therein (Sec. 8, Rule 6, ROC, as amended). A jurisdictional amount of P400,000.
counterclaim is against an opposing party while a cross-
claim is against a co-party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6, ROC, as amended) NOTE: Republic Act No. 11576 was enacted in 2021
increasing the jurisdiction of the RTCs in all actions and
Q: Mr. H filed a complaint against Mr. I to recover the maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims exceeds
amount of PhP 500,000.00 based on their contract of P2,000,000.
services. In his answer, Mr. I admitted that he has yet to
pay Mr. H for his services based on their contract but Q: Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1,000,000 from
nevertheless, interposed a counterclaim alleging that antique collector Benjamin. Mercedes issued a

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
postdated check in the same amount to Benjamin to in the determination of the counterclaim, the court shall
cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin order the defendant’s counsel to be brought in since
deposited it, but it was dishonored. As despite jurisdiction over him can be obtained. (Sec. 12, Rule 6, ROC,
demands, Mercedes failed to make good the check, as amended; Aurelio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90742, 06
Benjamin filed in January 2009 a complaint for May 1991) Here, the counterclaim was against both the
collection of sum of money before the RTC of Davao. plaintiff and his lawyer who allegedly maliciously induced
Mercedes filed in February 2009 her Answer with the plaintiff to file the suit. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
Counterclaim, alleging that before the filing of the case,
she and Benjamin had entered into a dacion en pago Q: X files a complaint in the RTC for the recovery of a
agreement in which her vintage PhP 1,000,000 Rolex sum of money with damages against Y. Y files his
watch which was taken by Benjamin for sale on answer denying liability under the contract of sale and
commission was applied to settle her indebtedness; praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the
and that she incurred expenses in defending what she ground of lack of cause of action because the contract of
termed a “frivolous lawsuit.” She accordingly prayed sale was superseded by a contract of lease executed and
for PhP 50, 000 damages. (2010 BAR) signed by X and Y two weeks after the contract of sale
was executed. The contract of lease was attached to the
Benjamin soon after moved for the dismissal of the answer. X does not file a reply. What is the effect of non-
case. The trial court accordingly dismissed the filing of a reply? Explain. (2000 BAR)
complaint. And it also dismissed the Counterclaim.
Mercedes moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal A: A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, the new
of the Counterclaim. Pass upon Mercedes’ motion. matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted.
(Sec. 10, Rule 6, ROC, as amended). However, since the
A: Mercedes’ Motion for Reconsideration is impressed with contract of lease attached to the answer is the basis of the
merit: the trial court should not have dismissed her defense, by not filing a reply denying under oath the
counterclaim despite the dismissal of the Complaint. Since genuineness and due execution of the said contract, the
it was the plaintiff (Benjamin) who moved for the dismissal plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
of his Complaint, and at a time when the defendant due execution thereof. (Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8, ROC, as
(Mercedes) had already filed her Answer thereto and with amended; Toribio v. Bidin, G.R. No. L-57821, 17 Jan. 1985)
a counterclaim, the dismissal of the Complaint should not
carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim without the Q: B and C borrowed PhP 400,000.00 from A. The
conformity of the defendant-counterclaimant. Under Rule promissory note was executed by B and C in a joint and
15, Section 2, if a counterclaim has been pleaded by a several capacity. B, who received the money from A,
defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s gave C PhP 200,000.00. C, in turn, loaned PhP
motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the 100,000.00 out of the PhP 200, 000.00 he received to D.
complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the (1997 BAR)
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim. (UPLC
Suggested Answers) (a) In an action filed by A against B and C with the RTC
of Quezon City, can B file a cross-claim against C for
Q: PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In his answer, the amount of PhP 200,000.00?
DY incorporated a counterclaim for damages against PX
and AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit, alleging in the A: YES. B can file a cross-claim against C for the amount of
said counterclaim, inter alia, that AC, as such counsel, PhP 200,000.00 given to C. A cross-claim is a claim filed by
maliciously induced PX to bring the suit against DY one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
despite AC’s knowledge of its utter lack of factual and occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action
legal basis. In due time, AC filed a motion to dismiss the or a counterclaim therein and may include a claim that the
counterclaim as against him on the ground that he is not party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the
a proper party to the case, he being merely plaintiff’s cross- claimant for all or part of a claim asserted against the
counsel. Is the counterclaim of DY compulsory or not? cross-claimant. (Sec. 8, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
Should AC’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim be
granted or not? Reason. (2004 BAR) (b) Can C file a third-party complaint against D for the
amount of PhP 100,000.00?
A: YES. The counterclaim of DY is compulsory because it is
one which arises out of or is connected with the subject A: NO. C cannot file a third-party complaint against D
matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require because the loan of PhP 100,000 has no connection with the
for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom opponent’s claim. C could have loaned the money out of
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction (Sec. 7, Rule 6, ROC, as other funds in his possession. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
amended). The motion to dismiss of plaintiff’s counsel
should not be granted because bringing in plaintiff’s counsel
as a defendant in the counterclaim is authorized by the
Rules. Where it is required for the grant of complete relief

REMEDIAL LAW
2. PARTS OF A PLEADING presenting a common defense, then the signature of one of
(RULE 7) the petitioners or complainants, acting as a representative,
is sufficient compliance (Irene Marcos-Araneta v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 154096, 22 Aug. 2008). Evidently, since
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
there is a commonality of interest among tailors Toto,
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
Nelson, and Yenyen, there is substantial compliance with
(2016, 2014, 2010, 2006, 2000 BAR)
the rules on verification and certification against forum
shopping, when Toto signed the verification and
Q: What is Forum Shopping? (2006 BAR)
certification, and Atty. Arman signed the same for Nelson.
(Ibid.)
A: Forum-shopping is the act of filing multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
Q: Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of
a complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC,
obtaining a favorable judgment. (Executive Secretary v.
after due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the
Gordon, G.R. No. 134171, 18 Nov. 1998)
complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to
Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before
Q: Tailors Toto, Nelson, and Yenyen filed a special civil
the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision.
action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse
Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humpty’s motion for
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTC’s
(NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against
order granting execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty
Empire Textile Corporation. They were terminated on
filed with the CA another case, this time a special civil
the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed
action for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a
production quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC
violation of the rule against forum shopping
decision was assailed in a special civil action under Rule
considering that two (2) actions emanating from the
65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification
same case with the RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with
and certification against forum shopping, only Toto
the CA? Explain. (2014 BAR)
signed the verification and certification, while Atty.
Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to
A: There is no violation of the rule against forum shopping.
dismiss on the ground of defective verification and
In Philippines Nails and Wires Corporation v. Malayan
certification. Decide with reasons. (2016 BAR)
Insurance Company, Inc. (G.R. No. 143933, 14 Feb. 2003), the
Supreme Court held that one party may validly question a
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. The verification
decision in a regular appeal and at the same time assail the
and certification against non-forum shopping were not
execution pending appeal via certiorari without violating
signed by all petitioners. There was no showing that Toto
the rule against forum shopping. This is because the merits
nor Atty. Arman was duly authorized by the other
of the case will not be addressed in the Petition dealing with
petitioners through a special power of attorney to sign on
the execution and vice versa. Since Ms. Dumpty merely filed
their behalf; hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
a special civil action for certiorari, the same will not
constitute a violation of the rules on forum shopping
because the resolution or a favorable judgment thereon will
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
not amount to res judicata in the subsequent proceedings
between the same parties. (Benedicto v. Lacson, G.R. No.
The motion to dismiss should be denied, because there is
141508, 05 May 2010)
substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules.
Verification is not a jurisdictional but merely a formal
Q: Honey filed with the Regional Trial Court Taal,
requirement which the court may motu proprio direct a
Batangas, a complaint for specific performance against
party to comply with or correct, as the case may be. On the
Bernie. For lack of certification against forum shopping,
other hand, regarding the certificate of non-forum
the judge dismissed the complaint. Honey’s lawyer filed
shopping, the general rule is that all the petitioners or
a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto an
plaintiffs in a case should sign it.
amended complaint with the certification against
forum shopping. If you were the judge, how will you
However, the Supreme Court has time and again stressed
resolve the motion? (2006 BAR)
that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to
promote the orderly administration of justice, do not
A: If I were the judge, the motion should be denied after
interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under
hearing because, as expressly provided in the Rules, failure
justifiable circumstances. As ruled by the Court, the
to comply with the requirement of forum shopping is not
signature of any of the principal petitioners or principal
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
parties would constitute substantial compliance with the
initiatory pleading, but shall be cause for dismissal of the
rule on verification and certification of non-forum
case, without prejudice, unless otherwise provided (Sec. 5,
shopping. And should there exist a commonality of interest
Rule 7, ROC, as amended). However, the trial court in the
among the parties, or where the parties filed the case as a
exercise of its sound discretion, may choose to be liberal
collective, raising only one common cause of action or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
and consider the amendment as substantial compliance. 3. MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS
(Great Southern Maritime Services Corp. v. Acuna, G.R. No. (RULE 8)
140189, 28 Feb. 2005; Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga del Norte, (2018, 2017, 2004 BAR)
G.R. 149253, 15 Apr. 2004; Uy v. Land Bank, G.R. 136100, 24
July 2000)
a) IN GENERAL
Q: As counsel for A, B, C and D, Atty. XY prepared a

b) ACTION OR DEFENSE BASED ON DOCUMENT
complaint for recovery of possession of a parcel of land
against Z. Before filing the complaint, XY discovered
c) SPECIFIC DENIAL
that his clients were not available to sign the
certification of non-forum shopping. To avoid further
d) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
delays in the filing of the complaint, XY signed the
(2018, 2017, 2004 BAR)
certification and immediately filed the complaint in
court. Is XY justified in signing the certification? Why?
Q: Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc.
(2000 BAR)
(Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of Manila for
recovery of sum of money. The complaint alleged that,
A: NO. The counsel cannot sign the anti-forum shopping
on 14 Oct. 2017, Debra obtained a loan from Dorton in
certification because it must be executed by the “plaintiff or
the amount of PhP 10 million with an interest of 9% per
principal party” himself (Sec. 5, Rule 7, ROC, as amended),
annum. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note
since the rule requires personal knowledge by the party
(PN) payable on demand signed by Daniel and Debbie,
executing the certification, unless the counsel gives a good
the principal stockholders of Debra, who also executed
reason why he is not able to secure his client’s signatures
a Surety Agreement binding themselves as sureties.
and shows that his clients will be deprived of substantial
Copies of both the PN and the Surety Agreement were
justice (Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127393, 04 Dec.
attached to the complaint. Dorton further alleged that it
1998) or unless he is authorized to sign it by his clients
made a final demand on 01 Mar. 2018 for Debra and the
through a special power of attorney.
sureties to pay, but the demand was not heeded.
Q: X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya

Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised
Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit
the affirmative defense that, while the PN and the
Surety Agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie
who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to
were uncertain whether the signatures on the
V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a
documents were theirs. The PN and the Surety
fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a
Agreement were pre-marked during pre-trial,
metal plate to his wrist bone. On the complaint of V, a
identified but not authenticated during trial, and
formally offered.
Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the
Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the Surety
private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a
Agreement in rendering its decision? (2018 BAR)
separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint
A: YES. The RTC of Manila may consider the PN and the
Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In
surety agreement in rendering its decision.
his "Certification Against Forum Shopping," V made no
The PN and the surety agreement are actionable
Maria. (2010 BAR)
documents, defined under Sec. 7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
as a written instrument upon which an action is founded
Is V guilty of forum shopping?
upon. Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, moreover, provides
that when an action is founded upon a written instrument,
A: NO. V is not guilty of forum shopping, because the case in
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading, the
Sta. Maria, Bulacan is a criminal action filed in the name of
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be
the People of the Philippines, where civil liability arising
deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath
from the crime is deemed also instituted therewith;
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be
whereas the case filed in Urdaneta, Pangasinan is a civil
the facts.
action for quasi-delict in the name of V and against both X
and Y for all damages caused by X and Y to V, which may be
In this case, Debra, Daniel, and Debbie are parties to the PN
beyond the jurisdiction of MTC. Hence, the tests of forum
and the surety agreement. Since the PN and surety
shopping, which is res judicata or litis pendencia, do not
agreement are attached to the complaint, Debra, Daniel, and
obtain here. Moreover, substantive law (Art. 33, NCC) and
Debbie are deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
Sec. 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, expressly authorize the
due execution thereof for their failure to: (a) deny the
filing such action for damages entirely separate and distinct
genuineness and due execution of these documents under
from the criminal action.
oath; and (b) to set for what they claim to be facts.

REMEDIAL LAW
The court, therefore, may consider the PN and the surety plaintiff’s allegation no. 1 as well as no. 2 sufficiently
agreement in rendering its decision. raise an issue of fact? Reason briefly. (2004 BAR)
Q: On the basis of an alleged promissory note executed A: As to plaintiff’s allegation no. 1, defendant does not
by Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter filed a complaint sufficiently raise an issue of fact, because he cannot allege
for PhP 950,000.00 against the former in the RTC of lack of knowledge of the mortgage deed since he should
Davao City. In an unverified answer, Harold specifically have personal knowledge as to whether he signed it or not
denied the genuineness of the promissory note. During and because he did not deny under oath the genuineness
the trial, Harold sought to offer the testimonies of the and due execution of the mortgage deed, which is an
following: (1) the testimony of an NBI handwriting actionable document. As to plaintiff’s allegation no. 2,
expert to prove the forgery of his signature; and (2) the defendant did not properly deny liability as to plaintiffs
testimony of a credible witness to prove that if ever contracting with a lawyer for a fee. He did not even deny for
Harold had executed the note in favor of Ramon, the lack of knowledge. (Sec. 10, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
same was not supported by a consideration. May
Ramon validly object to the proposed testimonies? Give 4. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
a brief explanation of your answer. (2017 BAR) (RULE 9)
(2017, 2006, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 BAR)
A: YES. Ramon may validly object to the proposed
testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove forgery.
DEFAULT; RELIEF FROM AN ORDER OF DEFAULT
The alleged promissory note attached to Ramon's
(2017, 2006, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 BAR)
complaint is an actionable document since it is a written
instrument upon which an action or defense is grounded.
Q: When may a party be declared in Default? What is the
Under Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness
effect of an Order of Default? (1999 BAR)
and due execution of an actionable document are deemed
admitted by the adverse party if he fails to specifically deny
A: A party may be declared in default when he fails to
such genuineness and due execution.
answer within the time allowed therefor and upon motion
of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and
Here, the genuineness and due execution of the promissory
proof of such failure (Sec. 3, Rule 9, ROC, as amended). The
note, which is an actionable document, was impliedly
effect of an Order of Default is that the court may proceed to
admitted by Harold when he failed to deny the same under
render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
oath, his answer being unverified. Hence Harold is
pleading may warrant unless the court in its discretion
precluded from setting up the defense of forgery and thus
requires the claimant to submit evidence. The party in
Ramon may object to the proposed testimony seeking to
default cannot take part in the trial but shall be entitled to
prove forgery.
notice of subsequent proceedings. (Sec. 3(a), Rule 9, ROC, as
amended)
However, Ramon may not validly object to the proposed
testimony showing that the note was not supported by a
Q: Mario was declared in default but before judgment
consideration.
was rendered, he decided to file a motion to set aside
the order of default. (2001 BAR)
The Supreme Court has held that an implied admission
under Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court does not preclude
(a) What should Mario state in his motion in order to
the adverse party from introducing evidence that the
justify the setting aside of the order of default?
actionable document was not supported by a consideration.
The reason is that such evidence is not inconsistent with the
A: In order to justify the setting aside of the order of default,
implied admission of genuineness and due execution.
Mario should state in his motion that his failure to answer
(Acabal v. Acabal, G.R. No. 148376, 31 Mar. 2005) The fact
was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
that the defense of lack of consideration is inconsistent with
and that he has a meritorious defense. (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9, ROC,
Harold’s defense of forgery is also not objectionable.
as amended)
Q: In his complaint for foreclosure of mortgage to which

(b) In what form should such motion be?
was duly attached a copy of the mortgage deed, plaintiff
PP alleged inter alia as follows: (1) that defendant DD
A: The motion should be under oath. (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9, ROC,
duly executed the mortgage deed, copy of which is
as amended)
Annex “A” of the complaint and made an integral part
thereof; and (2) that to prosecute his complaint,
Q: What are the available remedies of a party declared
plaintiff contracted a lawyer, CC, for a fee of PhP 50,000.
in Default: (1998 BAR)
In his answer, the defendant alleged, inter alia, that he
had no knowledge of the mortgage deed, and he also
(a) Before the rendition of judgment;
denied any liability for plaintiffs contracting with a
lawyer for a fee. Does defendant’s answer as to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: Before the rendition of judgment (a) he may file a motion
under oath to set aside the order of default on the grounds A: YES. There is substantial compliance with the rule.
of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that Although the motion is unverified, the answer attached to
he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9, ROC, as the motion is verified. The answer contains the motion to
amended); and if it is denied, he may move to reconsider, lift the order of default and the affidavit of merit should
and if reconsideration is denied, he may file the special civil contain, which are the reasons of the movant’s failure to
action of certiorari for grave abuse of discretion tantamount answer as well as his defenses (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9, ROC, as
to lack or excess of the lower court's jurisdiction (Sec. 1, Rule amended; Citibank, N.A. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61508,
65, ROC, as amended); or (b) he may file a petition for 17 Mar. 1999).
certiorari if he has been illegally declared in default, e.g.,
during the pendency of his motion to dismiss or before the Q: Jojie filed with the RTC of Laguna a complaint for
expiration of the time to answer. (Matute v. CA, G.R. No. damages against Joe. During the pretrial, Jojie and her
26751, 31 Jan. 1969; Acosta-Ofalia v. Sundiam, G.R. No. L- counsel failed to appear despite notice to both of them.
42648, 30 Sept. 1978) Upon oral motion of Jojie, Joe was declared in default
and Jojie was allowed to present her evidence ex parte.
(b) After judgment but before its finality; and Thereafter, the court rendered its Decision in favor of
Jojie. Joe hired Jose as his counsel. What are the
A: After judgment but before its finality, he may file a remedies available to him? Explain. (2006 BAR)
motion for new trial on the grounds of fraud, accident,
mistake, excusable negligence, or a motion for A: Before the rendition of judgment;
reconsideration on the ground of excessive damages,
insufficient evidence, or the decision or final order being Before the rendition of judgment (a) he may file a motion
contrary to law (Sec. 2, Rule 37, ROC, as amended); and under oath to set aside the order of default on the grounds
thereafter. If the motion is denied, appeal is available under of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that
Rule 40 or 41 of the Rules of Court, whichever is applicable. he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9, ROC, as
amended); and if it is denied, he may move to reconsider,
(c) After the finality of judgment? and if reconsideration is denied, he may file the special civil
action of certiorari for grave abuse of discretion tantamount
A: After finality of the judgment, there are three ways to to lack or excess of the lower court's jurisdiction. (Sec. 1,
assail the Judgment, which are: (a) a petition for relief under Rule 65, ROC, as amended); or (b) he may file a petition for
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of fraud, certiorari if he has been illegally declared in default, e.g.,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence; (b) annulment during the pendency of his motion to dismiss or before the
of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court for extrinsic expiration of the time to answer. (Matute v. CA, G.R. No.
fraud or lack of jurisdiction; or (c) certiorari if the judgment 26751, 31 Jan. 1969; Acosta-Ofalia v. Sundiam, G.R. No. L-
is void on its face or by the judicial record. (Balangcad v. 42648, 30 Sept. 1978)
Justices of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83888, 12 Feb. 1992)
After judgment but before its finality; and
Q: Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by
Louie. When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate After judgment but before its finality, he may file a motion
the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an for new trial on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake,
action for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to excusable negligence, or a motion for reconsideration on
answer the complaint within the reglementary period. the ground of excessive damages, insufficient evidence, or
the decision or final order being contrary to law (Sec. 2, Rule
Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. 37, ROC, as amended); and thereafter. If the motion is
Should the motion be granted? Explain your answer. denied, appeal is available under Rule 40 or 41 of the Rules
(2017 BAR) of Court, whichever is applicable.
A: NO. A Motion to declare the defendant in default is a After the finality of judgment
prohibited motion in ejectment cases pursuant to Sec. 13,
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. After finality of the judgment, there are three ways to assail
the Judgment, which are: (a) a petition for relief under Rule
Q: For failure of K.J. to file an answer within the 38 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of fraud, accident,
reglementary period, the Court, upon motion of LM, mistake, or excusable negligence; (b) annulment of
declared KJ in default. In due time, KJ filed an unverified Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court for extrinsic
motion to lift the order of default without an affidavit of fraud or lack of jurisdiction; or (c) certiorari if the judgment
merit attached to it. KJ however attached the motion in is void on its face or by the judicial record. (Balangcad v.
his answer under oath, stating in said answer his Justices of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83888, 12 Feb. 1992)
reasons for his failure to file an answer on time, as well
as his defenses. Will the motion to lift the order of Q: The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC for the
default prosper? Explain. (2000 BAR) damage allegedly caused by the latter’s encroachment

REMEDIAL LAW
on the plaintiff’s lot. In his answer, the defendant to pay the balance of their indebtedness after account
denied the plaintiff’s claim and alleged that it was the verification. In a written manifestation, spouses
plaintiff who in fact had encroached on his Demapilis stated that, in order to buy peace, they were
(defendant’s) land. Accordingly, the defendant willing to pay the sum of PhP 250,000, but without
counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a
resulting from the alleged encroachment on his lot. The Motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter,
plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for extension of time Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging that the
to answer the defendant’s counterclaim, but the court total purchases of construction materials were PhP
denied the motion on the ground that it should have 280,000 and only PhP 20,000 had been paid. Daribell
been set for hearing. On the defendant’s motion, also served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for
therefore, the court declared the plaintiff in default on admission asking them to admit the genuineness of the
the counterclaim. Was the plaintiff validly declared in statement of accounts, delivery receipts and invoices,
default? Why? (2002 BAR) as well as the value of the principal obligation and the
amount paid as stated in the amended complaint.
A: NO. The plaintiff was not validly declared in default. A
motion for extension of time may be filed ex parte and need Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The
not be set for hearing. (Amante v. Sunga, G.R. No. L-40491, 28 amendment modified the period covered and
May 1975) confirmed the partial payment of PhP110,000 but
alleged that this payment was applied to the spouses’
Q: For failure to seasonably file his Answer despite due other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated
notice, A was declared in default in a case instituted that the principal amount remains unchanged. (2018
against him by B. The following day, A’s mistress who is BAR)
working as a clerk in the sala of the Judge before whom
his case is pending, informed him of the declaration of (a) Is the request for admission deemed abandoned or
default. On the same day, A presented a motion under withdrawn by the filing of the second amended
oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that complaint?
his failure to answer was due to fraud and he has a
meritorious defense. Thereafter, he went abroad. After A: NO. The second amended complaint merely supersedes
his return a week later, with the case still undecided, he the first amended complaint and nothing more, pursuant to
received the order declaring him in default. The motion Sec. 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court; thus, the Request for
to set aside default was opposed by B on the ground that Admission is not deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the
it was filed before A received notice of his having been filing of the Second Amended Complaint. (Spouses Villuga v.
declared in default, citing the rule that the motion to set Kelly Hardware and Construction Supply, Inc., G.R. No.
aside may be made at any time after notice but before 176570, 18 July 2012)
judgment. Resolve the Motion. (1999 BAR)
(b) Can the amendment of the complaint be allowed if
A: Assuming that the motion to set aside complies with the it substantially alters the cause of action?
other requirements of the rule, it should be granted.
Although such a motion may be made after notice but before A: Such amendment could still be allowed when it is sought
judgment (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9, ROC, as amended), with more to serve the higher interest of substantial justice, prevent
reason may it be filed after discovery even before receipt of delay, and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition
the order of default. of actions and proceedings. (Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 131175, 28 Aug. 2001). The amended complaint may
5. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS be allowed if it will not prejudice the rights of the parties.
(RULE 10)
(2018, 2008, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000 BAR) Q: Arturo lent P1 Million to his friend Robert on the
condition that Robert will execute a promissory note
for the loan and a real estate mortgage over his
AMENDMENT
property located in Tagaytay City. Robert complied. In
(2018, 2008, 2003, 2002 BAR)
his promissory note dated 20 Sept. 2006, Robert
undertook to pay the loan within a year from its date at
Q: Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of
12% per annum interest. In June 2007, Arturo
money and damages against spouses Dake and Donna
requested Robert to pay ahead of time, but the latter
Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction
refused and insisted on the agreement. Arturo issued a
materials in the sum of PhP 250,000. In their answer,
demand letter and when Robert did not comply, Arturo
spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from
filed an action to foreclose the mortgage. Robert moved
Daribell, but alleged that they could not remember the
to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action as
exact amount since no copies of the documents were
the debt was not yet due. The resolution of the motion
attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claimed
to dismiss was delayed because of the retirement of the
that they made previous payments in the amounts of
judge. (2008 BAR)
PhP 110,000 and PhP 20,000 and that they were willing

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
(a) On 01 Oct. 2007, pending resolution of the motion A: NO. The plaintiff was not validly declared in default. A
to dismiss, Arturo filed an amended complaint motion for extension of time may be filed ex parte and need
alleging that Robert's debt had in the meantime not be set for hearing. (Amante v. Sunga, G.R. No. L-40491, 28
become due, but that Robert still refused to pay. May 1975)
Should the amended complaint be allowed
considering that no answer has been filed? AMENDMENTS TO CONFORM TO OR AUTHORIZE
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
A: NO. Even though an amendment of complaint before (2004 BAR)
answer is a matter of right, lack of a cause of action at the
commencement of the suit is not cured by the accrual of a Q: In a complaint for a sum of money filed before the
cause of action subsequent thereto, such that an MM RTC, plaintiff did not mention or even just hint at
amendment setting up the after-accrued cause of action is any demand for payment made on defendant before
not allowed. (Swagman Hotel and Travel, Inc. v. Court of commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff duly offered
Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, 08 Apr. 2005) Exh. “A” in evidence for the stated purpose of proving
the making of extrajudicial demand on defendant to
(b) Would your answer be different had Arturo filed pay P500.000, the subject of the suit. Exh. “A” was a
instead a supplemental complaint stating that the letter of demand for defendant to pay said sum of
debt became due after the filing of the original money within 10 days from receipt, addressed to and
complaint? served on defendant some two months before suit was
A: NO. A complaint whose cause of action has not accrued begun. Without objection from defendant, the court
yet when filed, does not gain any standing in court such that admitted Exh. “A” in evidence. Was the court’s
no amendment, whether by amended or supplemental admission of Exh. “A” in evidence erroneous or not?
pleading, can cure the deficiency. The subsequent cause of Reason. (2004 BAR)
action that arose may only be subject of a different suit but
cannot be pleaded as a supplement to the complaint where A: The court’s admission of Exhibit “A” in evidence is not
no cause action exists. Simply put, no amended or erroneous. It was admitted in evidence without objection on
supplemental complaint is allowed. (Id.) the part of the defendant. It should be treated as if it had
been raised in the pleadings. The complaint may be
Q: After an answer has been filed, can the plaintiff amended to conform to the evidence, but if it is not so
amend his complaint, with leave of court, by changing amended, it does not affect the result of the trial on this
entirely the nature of the action? (2003 BAR) issue. (Sec. 5, Rule 10, ROC, as amended)
A: YES. The present rules allow amendments substantially EFFECT OF AMENDED PLEADING
altering the nature of the cause of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 10, (2000 BAR)
ROC, as amended; Heirs of Marcelino Pagobo v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 121687, 16 Oct. 1997) This should only be Q: X, an illegitimate child of Y, celebrated her 18th
true, however, when the substantial change or alteration in birthday on 02 May 1996. A month before her birthday,
the cause of action or defense shall serve the higher Y died. The legitimate family of Y refused to recognize
interests of substantial justice and prevent delay and X as an illegitimate child of Y. After countless efforts to
equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is convince them, X filed on 25 Apr. 2000 an action for
to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of recognition against Z, wife of Y. After Z filed an answer
every action and proceeding. (Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, on 14 Aug. 2000, X filed a motion for leave to file an
G.R. No. 131175, 28 Aug. 2001) amended complaint and a motion to admit the said
amended complaint impleading the three (3) legitimate
Q: The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC for the children of Y. The trial court admitted the amended
damage allegedly caused by the latter’s encroachment complaint on 22 Aug. 2000. What is the effect of the
on the plaintiff’s lot. In his answer, the defendant admission of the amended complaint? Has the action of
denied the plaintiff’s claim and alleged that it was the X prescribed? Explain. (2000 BAR)
plaintiff who in fact had encroached on his
(defendant’s) land. Accordingly, the defendant A: NO. The action filed 25 Apr. 2000 is still within the four-
counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages year prescriptive period which started to run on 02 May
resulting from the alleged encroachment on his lot. The 1996. The amended complaint impleading the three
plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for extension of time legitimate children, though admitted on 22 August 2000
to answer the defendant’s counterclaim, but the court beyond the four-year prescriptive period, retroacts to the
denied the motion on the ground that it should have date of the filing of the original complaint. Amendments
been set for hearing. On the defendant’s motion, impleading new defendants retroact to the date of the filing
therefore, the court declared the plaintiff in default on of the complaint because they do not constitute a new cause
the counterclaim. Was the plaintiff validly declared in of action. (Verzosa v. CA, G.R. Nos. 119511-13, 24 Nov. 1998)
default? Why? (2002 BAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
6. WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS A: YES. The motion for reconsideration was properly
(RULE 11) served. Under the 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
(2002 BAR) requirement of an explanation on why personal service was
not resorted to in serving a motion or other paper was
deleted. (Riguera, 2023)
Q: The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC for
damages allegedly caused by the latter’s encroachment
b. What shall be considered as proof of service of this
on the plaintiff’s lot. In his answer, the defendant
motion? Explain briefly.
denied the plaintiff’s claim and alleged that it was the
plaintiff who in fact had encroached on his
A: Proof of service by an accredited courier service shall be
(defendant’s) land. Accordingly, the defendant
made by an affidavit of service executed by the person who
counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages
brought the motion to the service provider, Samurai
resulting from the alleged encroachment on his lot. The
Express, together with Samurai Express' official receipt or
plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for extension of time
document tracking number. (Sec. 17(c), Rule 13, ROC, as
to answer the defendant’s counterclaim, but the court
amended; Riguera, 2023)
denied the motion on the ground that it should have
been set for hearing. On the defendant’s motion,
Q: Atty. X fails to serve personally a copy of his motion
therefore, the court declared the plaintiff in default on
to Atty. Y because the office and residence of Atty. Y and
the counterclaim. Was the plaintiff validly declared in
the latter's client changed, and no forwarding
default? Why? (2002 BAR)
addresses were given. Atty. X's remedy is to: (2012
BAR)
A: NO, the plaintiff was not validly declared in default. A
motion for extension of time to file an answer may be filed
A: Deliver copy of the motion to the clerk of court with proof
ex parte and need not be set for hearing. (Amante v. Sunga,
of failure to serve. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
G.R. No. L-40491, 28 May 1975)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 1. RULES ON PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES;

EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENT
The general rule is that a counterclaim must be answered (2022, 2019 BAR)
within ten (10) days from service. (Now twenty (20) days
under Sec. 4, Rule 11, ROC, as amended) However, a Q: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision
counterclaim that raises issues which are deemed against Kat. She received a copy of the decision on 26
automatically joined by the allegations of the Complaint Dec. 2021. Kat’s counsel filed with the Supreme Court a
need not be answered. (Gojo v. Goyala, G.R. No. L-26768, 30 petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 by
Oct. 1970) registered mail on 10 Jan. 2022. The petition was
dismissed for failure to pay the docket fees within the
In this case, the defendant’s counterclaim is a compulsory reglementary period. Kat’s counsel challenged the
counterclaim which arises out or is connected with the dismissal arguing that: (i) the intention was to pay the
transaction and occurrence constituting the subject matter docket fees after the same is assessed upon the court’s
of the plaintiff’s claim. It raises the same issue of who receipt of the petition by registered mail; and (ii) the
encroached on whose land. Hence, there was no need to dismissal of the petition effectively rendered nugatory
answer the counterclaim. a party’s statutory right to appeal by registered mail
under the rules. Kat’s counsel also added that she did
not want to include cash money in the mail.
G. FILING AND SERVICE
(RULE 13) Is Kat’s counsel correct? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
(2022, 2012 BAR)
A: NO, Kat’s counsel is incorrect.
(i) The argument of Kat’s counsel that the intention

Q: Attorney Woo, the newly hired lawyer of a law firm,
was to pay the docket fees after the same is
booked Samurai Express, a duly accredited courier
assessed upon the court’s receipt of the petition by
service within the National Capital Judicial Region, to
registered mail is untenable. Under the Rules of
serve a copy of a motion for reconsideration to Attorney
Civil Procedure, the docket and other lawful fees
Han, counsel for the adverse party, whose office is in the
for a petition for review on certiorari must be paid
City of Manila. Attorney Han moved to deny the motion
before or at the time of the filing of the petition.
for failure to contain a written explanation as to why
(Sec. 3, Rule 45, ROC, as amended) The Supreme
the motion was not served personally. (2022 BAR)
Court has held that the payment of the appellate
docket fee is mandatory and jurisdictional.
a. Was the motion for reconsideration properly
(National Transmission Corp. v. Heirs of Ebesa, G.R.
served? Explain briefly.
No. 186102, 24 Feb. 2016)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
(ii) The argument of Kat’s counsel that the dismissal of
the petition effectively rendered nugatory a party's H. SUMMONS
statutory right to appeal by registered mail under (RULE 14)
the Rules is also untenable. The Supreme Court has (2022, 2017, 2016, 2013, 2011, 2006, 1999 BAR)
held that while appeal is a statutory right, it must
be exercised in accordance with the law or rule
granting such right; a party cannot complain that
he is deprived of the opportunity to appeal if he 1. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF SUMMONS
loses such opportunity by his own fault or IN RELATION TO ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, IN REM,
negligence. AND QUASI IN REM
Here, Kat's counsel failed to pay the docket fee due 2. WHO MAY SERVE SUMMONS
to his own fault or negligence. He could have
inquired as to the docket fee and sent payment by
a postal money order. Hence, Kat's counsel is not 3. VALIDITY OF SUMMONS
correct. (Riguera, 2023) AND ISSUANCE OF ALIAS SUMMONS
(2011, 1999 BAR)
Q: Mr. H filed a complaint against Mr. I to recover the
amount of PhP 500,000.00 based on their contract of Q: What is the effect of absence of summons on the
services. In his answer, Mr. I admitted that he has yet to judgment rendered in the case? (1999 BAR)
pay Mr. H for his services based on their contract but A: The effect of the absence of summons on a judgment
nevertheless, interposed a counterclaim alleging that would make the judgment null and void because the court
Mr. H still owed him rental arrearages for the lease of would not have jurisdiction over the person of the
his apartment also amounting to PhP 500,000.00. defendant, unless the defendant voluntarily appeared
before the court, which is deemed equivalent to the service
It has come to Mr. H's attention that Mr. I did not pay of summons. (Sec. 23, Rule 14, ROC, as amended)
any filing fees when he filed his answer. As such, Mr. H
moved to dismiss the counterclaim. In response to Mr. Q: When an additional defendant is impleaded in the
H's motion, Mr. I averred that the non-payment of filing action, is it necessary that summons be served upon
fees was purely based on inadvertence and that the said him? Explain. (1999 BAR)
filing fees had already been paid as of date, as evinced
by the official receipt issued by the clerk of court A: YES. Summons must be served on an additional
therefor. defendant impleaded in the action so that the court can
acquire jurisdiction over him unless he makes a voluntary
Should Mr. I's counterclaim be dismissed? Explain. appearance. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
(2019 BAR)
Q: Is summons required to be served upon a defendant
A: NO. It has long been settled that while the court acquires who was substituted for the deceased? Explain. (1999
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the BAR)
prescribed docket fees, its non-payment at the time of filing
of the initiatory pleading does not automatically cause its A: NO. A defendant who was substituted for the deceased
dismissal provided that: the fees are paid within a need not be served with summons because it is the court
reasonable period; and there was no intention on the part which orders him as the legal representative of the
of the claimant to defraud the government. (Sy-Vargas v. deceased to appear and substitute the deceased. (Sec. 16,
Estate of Ogsos, Sr., G.R. No. 221062, 06 Oct. 2016; Manchester Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
Development Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. L-75919, 07 May
1987) Q: Summons was served on “MCM Theater,” a business
entity with no juridical personality, through its office
In this case, Mr. I already paid the docket fees, as shown by manager at its place of business. Did the court acquire
the official receipt therefor, and there was no intention on jurisdiction over MCM Theater’s owners? (2011 BAR)
his part to defraud the government. (UPLC Suggested
Answers) A: YES. An unregistered entity like MCM Theater may be
served with summons through its office manager. Sec. 7,
2. EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER RULE; E-FILING Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that when persons
(A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC, as revised, associated with an entity without juridical personality are
approved on 22 Feb. 2022) sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known, service may be effected upon all the
defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the
person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind

REMEDIAL LAW
individually any person whose connection with the entity A: NO, there was no valid substituted service of summons.
has, upon due notice, been severed before the action was Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, substituted service of
filed. summons effected by leaving the summons with the chief
security officer would be valid provided the chief security
4. PERSONAL SERVICE officer is of a homeowners' community or of a condominium
(2017 BAR) building and the defendant is found in such community or
building. (Sec. 6(c), Rule 14, ROC, as amended)
Q: Teddy filed against Buboy an action for rescission of

Here, the chief security officer was of a hotel and not of a
a contract for the sale of a commercial lot. After having
homeowners’ community or condominium building.
been told by the wife of Buboy that her husband was out
Moreover, Kobe was no longer in the hotel at the time the
of town and would not be back until after a couple of
sheriff left the summons and the complaint with the chief
days, the sheriff requested the wife to just receive the
security officer. Hence, the substituted service of summons
summons on behalf of her husband. The wife acceded to
was not valid. (Riguera, 2023)
the request, received the summons and a copy of the
complaint, and signed for the same. (2017 BAR)
Q: Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto
knew that Juan was going to file the case, so he went out
Was there a valid service of summons upon Buboy?
of town and temporarily stayed in another city to avoid
Explain your answer briefly.
service of summons. Juan engaged the service of Sheriff
Matinik to serve the summons, but when the latter went
A: NO. There was no valid service of summons in this case
to the residence of Roberto, he was told by the
since the summons was not personally received by Buboy.
caretaker thereof that his employer no longer resides
For substituted service of summons to be available, there
at the house. The caretaker is a high school graduate
must be several attempts by the sheriff to personally serve
and is the godson of Roberto. Believing the caretaker’s
the summons within a reasonable period. “Several
story to be true, Sheriff Matinik left a copy of the
attempts: means at least three tries, preferably on at least
summons and complaint with the caretaker. Was there
two different dates.” (Mancha. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
a valid substituted service of summons? Discuss the
130974, 16 Aug. 2006)
requirements for a valid service of summons. (2016
BAR)
NOTE: Sec. 6, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, under the
amendments, provides that substituted service of summons
A: NO. There was no valid substituted service of summons.
may be done when, for justifiable causes, the defendant
In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the
cannot be served personally after at least (3) attempts on
defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by
two (2) different dates (2019 Amendments to the Rules of
handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person.
Civil Procedure).
If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with
the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted
5. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE service can be resorted to.
(2022, 2016, 2013, 2006 BAR)
In case of substituted service, the Sheriff’s Return must
Q: Asya, Inc. sued Kobe, a resident of Bukidnon. To show that serious efforts or attempts were exerted to
serve summons, the sheriff waited in the lobby of personally serve the summons and that said efforts failed,
Makati Hotel (MH), where Kobe stays whenever he is in indicating therein:
Manila. The sheriff failed to serve the summons because
Kobe left the hotel for an emergency. Hours later, the (1) The impossibility of prompt personal service
sheriff asked the front desk about Kobe’s whereabouts within a period of thirty (30) calendar days from
and his room number. The hotel refused to disclose on issue and receipt of summons;
grounds of confidentiality. The sheriff tried again the
next day, but Kobe was in a conference until midnight. (2) The date and time of the three (3) attempts on at
So, the following day, the sheriff left the summons and a least two (2) different dates to cause personal
copy of the complaint with MH's chief security officer service and the details of the inquiries made to
(CSO), even as the CSO refused because Kobe had locate the defendant residing thereat; and
already checked out by then. The sheriff thereafter filed
his return, stating the dates, times and places of his (3) The name of the person at least eighteen (18) years
attempts, the name of the CSO, and the fact that the of age and of sufficient discretion residing thereat,
complaint was served with the summons. When Kobe name of competent person in charge of the
did not file an Answer, Asya, Inc. moved to declare him defendant’s office or regular place of business, or
in default. name of the officer of the homeowners’ association
or condominium corporation or its chief security
Was there a valid substituted service of summons? officer in charge of the community or building
Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
where the defendant may be found. (Sec. 20, Rule ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
NO. The RTC Judge is not correct in ordering service of
In this case, there has been three (3) attempts on at least summons by publication. It is well-settled that in an action
two (2) different dates to cause personal service and the in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who
details of the inquiries made to locate the defendant. does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the
(Answered under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil court, personal service of summons within the state is
Procedure) essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over his or her
person. This method of service is possible if such defendant
Q: Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against is physically present in the country. If he is not found
Arthur King and/or Estate of Arthur King for therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
reconveyance of a lot declared in the name of Arthur person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case
King under TCT No. 1234. The complaint alleged that” against him. (Spouses Belen v. Chavez, G.R. No. 175334, 26
on account Arthur King’s residence abroad up to the Mar. 2008). Accordingly, the RTC Judge is not correct in
present and the uncertainty of whether he is still alive ordering service of summons by publication.
or dead, he or his estate may be served with summons
by publication.” Summons was published and nobody Q: Alfie Bravo filed with the Regional Trial Court of
filed any responsive pleading within sixty (60) days Caloocan, a complaint for a sum of money against
therefrom. Upon motion. Defendants were declared in Charlie Delta. The claim is for PhP 1.5 million. The
default and judgment was rendered declaring Tristan complaint alleges that Charlie borrowed the amount
as legal owner and ordering defendants to reconvey from Alfie and duly executed a promissory note as
said lot to Tristan. evidence of the loan. Charlie’s office secretary, Esther,
received the summons at Charlie’s office. Charlie failed
Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Arthur to file an answer within the required period, and Alfie
King’s estate, filed a petition for annulment of judgment moved to declare Charlie in default and to be allowed to
before the CA praying that the decision in favor of present evidence ex parte. Ten days later, Charlie filed
Tristan be declared null and void for lack of his verified answer, raising the defense of full payment
jurisdiction. He claims that the action filed by Tristan is with interest.
an action in personam and that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over defendants Arthur King and/or his Was there proper and valid service of summons on
estate. On the other hand, Tristan claims that the suit is Charlie? (2013 BAR)
an action in rem or at least an action quasi in rem. Is the
RTC judge correct in ordering service of summons by A: NO. There is no showing that earnest efforts were
publication? Explain. (2016 BAR) exerted to personally serve the summons on the defendant
before substituted service was resorted to; the service of
A: YES. The RTC Judge is correct in ordering the service of summons was improper.
summons by publication. An action for declaration of nullity
of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re- In an action strictly in personam like a complaint for sum of
conveyance, is not a real action but it is an action in money, personal service on the defendant is the preferred
personam, for it binds a particular individual only although mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons
it concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable
therein is binding only upon the parties properly reasons, cannot be served with summons within a
impleaded. (Heirs of Lopez v. Enriquez, as cited in Muñoz v. reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted
Yabut, G.R. No. 142676, 06 June 2011) to. (Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, 16 Aug.
2006). Otherwise stated, it is only when the defendant
Under Sec. 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, (now Sec. 16, Rule cannot be served personally within a reasonable time that a
14, ROC, as amended) in any action where the defendant is substituted service may be made. (Galura v. Math-Agro
designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever Corporation, G.R. No. 167230, 14 Aug. 2009)
his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by
diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected Since there was no prior attempt to serve the summons in
upon him by publication in a newspaper of general person, the substituted service to Charlie’s secretary is
circulation and in such places and for such time as the court invalid.
may order. This rule applies to any action, whether in
personam, in rem or quasi in rem. (Santos v. PNOC Q: Tina Guerrero filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Exploration Corporation, G.R. No. 170943, 23 Sept. 2008). Bifian, Laguna, a complaint for sum of money
Clearly, since the action for re-conveyance is an action in amounting to PhP 1 million against Carlos Corro. The
personam, the RTC Judge is correct in ordering service of complaint alleges, among others, that Carlos borrowed
summons by publication. from Tina the said amount as evidenced by a
promissory note signed by Carlos and his wife, jointly
and severally. Carlos was served with summons which

REMEDIAL LAW
was received by Linda, his secretary. However, Carlos In the course of the trial, Charisse admitted that she was
failed to file an answer to the complaint within the 15- a US citizen, residing in Los Angeles, California and that
day reglementary period. Hence, Tina filed with the she was temporarily billeted at the Pescado Hotel in
court a motion to declare Carlos in default and to allow Lapu-Lapu City, drawing the bank to file another
her to present evidence ex parte. Five days thereafter, motion to dismiss, this time on the ground of improper
Carlos filed his verified answer to the complaint, venue, since Charisse is not a resident of Lapu-Lapu
denying under oath the genuineness and due execution City. Charisse opposed the motion citing the “omnibus
of the promissory note; and contending that he has fully motion rule.” Rule on the motion. (2010 BAR)
paid his loan with interest at 12% per annum. (2006
BAR) A: The bank’s second motion to dismiss which is grounded
on improper venue should be denied. The improper venue
(a) Was the summons validly served on Carlos? of an action is deemed waived by the bank’s filing an earlier
motion to dismiss without raising improper venue as an
A: The summons was not validly served on Carlos because issue, and more so when the bank filed an Answer without
it was served on his secretary and the requirements for raising improper venue as an issue after its first motion to
substituted service have not been followed, such as a dismiss was denied. Under the “omnibus motion rule” (Sec.
showing that efforts have been exerted to serve the same on 8, Rule 15, now Sec. 9, Rule 15, ROC, as amended) which
Carlos and such attempt has failed despite due diligence. governs the bank’s motion to dismiss, such motion should
(Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. 126947, 15 July 1996) include all objections then available; otherwise, all
objections not so included shall be deemed waived.
(b) If you were the judge, will you grant Tina's motion
to declare Carlos in default? NOTE: Under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil
Procedure, motions to dismiss, including one on the ground
A: If I were the judge, I will not grant Tina’s motion to of improper venue, are generally prohibited.
declare Carlos in default because summons was not
properly served and anyway, a verified answer to the 2. NON-LITIGIOUS MOTIONS
complaint had already been filed. Moreover, it is better to
decide a case on the merits rather than on technicality.
3. LITIGIOUS MOTIONS
6. CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE 4. PROHIBITED MOTIONS

(2022, 2016, 2010, 2000, 1997 BAR)
7. EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE
Q: Ten days after service of summons, defendant Kay
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for collection of
8. PROOF OF SERVICE sum of money against her on the ground of improper
service of summons, on the basis of which the court did
not acquire jurisdiction over her person.
I. MOTIONS
If you were the judge, how would you rule? Explain
(RULE 15)
briefly. (2022 BAR)
(2022, 2018, 2016, 2010, 2008, 2003, 2000, 1997 BAR)
A: If I were the judge, I would deny the motion to dismiss.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss on a
1. IN GENERAL ground other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction, res
(2010 BAR) judicata, lis pendens, or prescription is a prohibited motion
and thus should be denied outright. (Sec. 12(a), Rule 15, ROC,
OMNIBUS MOTION RULE as amended)
(2010 BAR)
Here, the motion to dismiss was based on the improper
Q: Charisse, alleging that she was a resident of Lapu- service of summons or lack of personal jurisdiction, which
Lapu City, filed a complaint for damages against Atlanta is not among the four grounds allowable in a motion to
Bank before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, following the dismiss. The motion to dismiss is thus a prohibited motion.
dishonor of a check she drew in favor of Shirley against Hence, I would deny the motion to dismiss. (Riguera, 2023)
her current account which she maintained in the bank’s
local branch. The bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the Q: Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug,
complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of Municipality of Dupac, Mountain Province. Pedro owes
action, but it was denied. It thus filed an Answer. Juan the amount of P50,000.00. Due to nonpayment,
Juan brought his complaint to the Council of Elders of
said barangay which implements the bodong justice

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
system. Both appeared before the council where they the same parties on a different cause of action. (Sec. 47(c),
verbally agreed that Pedro will pay in installments on Rule 39, ROC, as amended)
specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his promise. Juan
filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal 5. MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Trial Court (MTC). Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on (RULE 12)
the ground that the case did not pass through the (2018, 2008, 2003 BAR)
barangay conciliation under R.A. No. 7160 and that the
RTC, not the MTC, has jurisdiction. In his opposition,
Q: When can a bill of particulars be availed of? What is
Juan argued that the intervention of the Council of
the effect of non-compliance with the order of a bill of
Elders is substantial compliance with the requirement
particulars? (2003 BAR)
of R.A. No. 7160 and the claim of P50,000.00 is clearly
within the jurisdiction of the MTC. As MTC judge, rule
A: Before responding to a pleading, a party may move for a
on the motion and explain. (2016 BAR)
bill of particulars of any matter which is not averred with
sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him
A: As MTC judge, I would deny the motion to dismiss. Under
properly to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading
the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, a motion to
is a reply, the motion must be filed within ten (10) calendar
dismiss on whatever ground is a prohibited motion. Here
days from service thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 12, ROC, as amended).
the complaint falls under the coverage of the Rules of
If the order is not complied with, the court may order the
Procedure for Small Claims Cases since the claim for sum of
striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof to which
money did not exceed P100,000. Hence the motion to
the order was directed or make such other order as it deems
dismiss filed by Pedro is a prohibited motion and should
just. (Sec. 4, Rule 12, ROC, as amended)
thus be denied.
Q: The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a

NOTE: Pursuant to 1 Mar. 2022 Resolution in A.M. No. 08-
complaint with the Sandiganbayan in connection with
8-7-SC, the jurisdictional amount for small claims cases has
the sequestered assets and properties of Demo
been increased to P2,000,000.00.
Companies Inc. (Demo) and impleaded its officers and
directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as
Q: What is “res judicata in prison grey”? What are the
defendant, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution
essential requisites of res judicata? (2000, 2010 BAR)
where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter,
the Republic filed an amended complaint naming Demo
A: “Res judicata in prison grey” is the criminal concept of
as additional defendant, which amendment was later
double jeopardy, as “res judicata" is the doctrine of civil law.
admitted. Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for
(Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, 04
the Republic to clarify certain matters in its amended
Dec. 2007) Described as “res judicata in prison grey,” the
complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted
right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of a
the motion. Upon submission of the bill of particulars
person for a crime of which he has been previously
by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss arguing
acquitted or convicted. The purpose is to set the effects of
that the answers in the bill of particulars were
the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused
indefinite and deficient responses to the question of
that he shall not thereafter be subjected to the danger and
what the alleged illegally acquired funds or properties
anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense.
of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case.
(Caes v. IAC, G.R. Nos. 74989-90, 06 Nov. 1989) The essential
(2018 BAR)
requisites of res judicata are:
(a) Was the Sandiganbayan correct in dismissing the

a. The judgment or order rendered must be final;
case?
b. The court rendering the same must have
jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties;
A: NO. The Sandiganbayan is incorrect in dismissing the
c. It must be a judgment or order on the merits; and
case. An action cannot be dismissed on the ground of
d. There must be between the two cases identity of
vagueness or indefiniteness. (Galeon v. Galeon, G.R. L-30380,
parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of
28 Feb. 1973)
causes of action. (San Diego v. Cardona, G.R. No.
46655, 27 June 1940)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Q: Distinguish bar by prior judgment from

YES. The Sandiganbayan was correct in dismissing the case.
conclusiveness of judgment. (1997 BAR)
Under Sec. 4, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, the consequence

A: Bar by prior judgment is the doctrine of res judicata,
of insufficient compliance with the court’s order for a bill of
which bars a second action when there is identity of parties,
particulars or a more definite pleading is that the court may
subject matter and cause of action. (Sec. 47(b), Rule 39, ROC,
order the striking out of said pleading or the portions
as amended) Conclusiveness of judgment precludes the
thereof.
relitigation of a particular issue in another action between

REMEDIAL LAW
In this case, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case upon
non-compliance with its order for a definite pleading. The J. DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
dismissal of the case was made by the striking out of the (2018, 2017 BAR)
pleading, which in this case was the complaint by the
Republic. In striking out said pleading, no complaint
existed; thus, the Sandiganbayan effectively dismissed the
case. 1. WITH PREJUDICE vs. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(2018, 2017 BAR)
The Sandiganbayan, therefore, correctly dismissed the case,
as the bill of particulars was deemed insufficient leading to Q: Dick Dixson had sons with different women — (i)
the striking out of the complaint. Dexter with longtime partner Delia and (ii) Dongdong
and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick
(b) What can the defendant, in a civil case, do in the fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his property titles and
event that his motion for bill of particulars is shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in
denied? turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After the
death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and Dingdong
A: Under Sec. 5, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, after notice of to sign an agreement and waiver of their right to Dick’s
denial of his motion, the moving party may file his estate in consideration of P45 million. As Dexter
responsive pleading within the period to which he was reneged on his promise to pay, Dongdong and Dingdong
entitled at the time of filing his motion, which shall not be filed with the RTC of Manila a complaint for annulment
less than five (5) calendar days in any event. If tainted with of the agreement and waiver. The summons and
grave abuse of discretion, the moving party may question complaint were received by Dalia, the housemaid of
the denial through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of Dexter, on the day it was first served. Hence, Dexter
the Rules of Court. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the
Q: Within the period for filing a responsive pleading, motion to dismiss.
the defendant filed a motion for bill of particulars that
he set for hearing on a certain date. However, the Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new
defendant was surprised to find on the date set for complaint against Dexter for annulment of the
hearing that the trial court had already denied the agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his
motion on the day of its filing, stating that the answer, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a motion to
allegations of the complaint were sufficiently made. withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed
(2008 BAR) without prejudice. An Order was issued granting the
motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis that
(a) Did the judge gravely abuse his discretion in acting the summons had not yet been served on Dexter. Dexter
on the motion without waiting for the hearing set filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of
for the motion? dismissal. He argued that the dismissal should have
been with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” of
A: NO. The judge did not gravely abuse his discretion when Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in view of the
he denied the motion for bill of particulars without waiting previous dismissal of the first case.
for the hearing set for the motion. Sec. 2, Rule 12 of the Rules
of Court authorizes the court to either deny or grant said Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second
motion outright upon the clerk of court bringing such dismissal with prejudice? (2018 BAR)
motion to the attention of the court. The motion may lack
merit. A: NO. The two-dismissal rule will not apply, because the
first dismissal was at the instance of the defendant.
(b) If the judge grants the motion and orders the
plaintiff to file and serve the bill of particulars, can The requirements for the application of the two-dismissal
the trial judge dismiss the case if the plaintiff does rule under Sec. 1, Rule 17 are: (a) there was a previous case
not comply with the order? that was dismissed by a competent court; (b) both cases
were based on or include the same claim; (c) both notices
A: YES. The trial judge can dismiss the case if the plaintiff for dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and (d) when the
failed to comply with the court’s order to file and serve the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was consented to by
needed bill of particulars. Sec. 4, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court the defendant on the ground that the latter paid and
authorizes the court to order the striking out of the pleading satisfied all the claims of the former. (Ching v. Cheng, G.R. No.
affected, hence the dismissal of the complaint. To the same 175507, 08 Oct. 2014)
end is the provision of Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court
when plaintiff fails to comply for no justifiable cause with In this case, the third requisite is absent because the first
any order of the court or with the Rules. dismissal was upon the motion to dismiss filed by Dexter;
hence, the two-dismissal rule will not apply.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Q: Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in K. PRE-TRIAL

Makati City to collect P350,000.00, an amount (RULE 18)
representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car (2016, 2011 BAR)
Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a jurisdictional
error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a
notice of dismissal before she was served with the
answer of Yana. The RTC issued an order confirming the 1. NATURE AND PURPOSE
dismissal. Three months later, Agatha filed another (2016 BAR)
complaint against Yana based on the same cause of
action this time in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for Q: What is the “most important witness” rule pursuant
reasons personal to her, Agatha decided to have the to the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of
complaint dismissed without prejudice by filing a Deposition-Discovery Measures? Explain. (2016 BAR)
notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of
Yana. Hence, the case was dismissed by the MeTC. A A: The “most important witness” rule pursuant to the 2004
month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
in the same MeTC. May Yana successfully invoke the Measures provides that the judge shall, during the pretrial
Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? conference, determine the most important witnesses to be
Explain your answer. (2017 BAR) heard and limit the number of witnesses.
A: NO. Yana cannot successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal
Rule. In order for the Two-Dismissal Rule to apply, Sec. 1, Q: What is the “one day examination of witness” rule
Rule 17 requires that both dismissals through plaintiff’s pursuant to the said 2004 Guidelines? Explain. (2016
notices were made by a competent court. Moreover, in BAR)
Ching v. Cheng (G.R. No. 175507, 08 Oct. 2014), the Supreme
Court ruled that the following requisites should concur for A: The “one-day examination of a witness” rule pursuant to
the Two-Dismissal Rule to apply: the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-
Discovery Measures provides that a witness has to be fully
a. There was a previous case that was dismissed by a examined in one day only, subject to the court’s discretion
competent court; to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for
b. Both cases were based on or include the same justifiable reasons.
claim;
c. Both notices for dismissal were filed by the Q: Give three distinctions between a pre-trial in a
plaintiff; and criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil case. (1997 BAR)
d. When the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff
was consented to by the defendant on the ground A: The distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case
that the latter paid and satisfied all the claims of and a pre-trial in a civil case are as follows:
the former.
a. The pre-trial in a criminal case is conducted only
In this case, the Makati City RTC had no jurisdiction over the “where the accused and counsel agree” (Rule 118,
first complaint which was dismissed through Agatha’s Sec. 1, ROC, as amended): while the pre-trial in a
notice, because it is below its jurisdictional amount of at civil case is mandatory. (Sec. 1, Rule 18, now Sec. 2)
least P400,000.00. Therefore, the Two-Dismissal Rule b. The pre-trial in a criminal case does not consider
cannot be successfully invoked in this case. the possibility of a compromise, which is one
important aspect of the pre-trial in a civil case. (Sec.
NOTE: R. A. No. 11576, effective August 21, 2021, has now 2, Rule 18, ROC, as amended)
expanded the jurisdiction of first-level courts. The first- c. In a criminal case, a pre-trial agreement is required
level courts now have jurisdiction over claims that do not to be reduced to writing and signed by the accused
exceed P2,000,000.00. and his counsel (Sec. 4, Rule 118, ROC, as amended)
while in a civil case, the agreement may be
2. DISMISSAL WHICH HAVE AN EFFECT contained in the pre-trial order. (Sec. 7, Rule 18,
OF AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS ROC, as amended)
2. APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES;

EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO APPEAR
(2011 BAR)
Q: What is the consequence of the unjustified absence

of the defendant at the pre-trial? (2011 BAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
A: Sec. 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court provides that the
failure of the defendant and counsel, despite being duly N. COMPUTATION OF TIME
notified, to appear without valid cause in the pre-trial shall (RULE 22)
be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his or her evidence
ex-parte within ten (10) calendar days from the termination
of the pre-trial, and the court shall render judgment on the
basis of the evidence offered.
O. MODES OF DISCOVERY
(2016, 2015, 2009, 2008, 2002, 2000, 1997 BAR)
3. PRE-TRIAL BRIEF; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE
Q: Describe briefly at least five (5) modes of discovery

L. INTERVENTION under the Rules of Court. (2000 BAR)
(RULE 19)
(2000 BAR) A: The modes of discovery under the Rules of Court are:
1. Deposition - Upon ex parte motion of a party, the

Q: What are the requisites for an intervention by a non- testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may
party in an action pending in court? (2000 BAR) be taken by deposition upon oral examination or
written interrogatories (Sec. 1, Rule 23, ROC, as
A: The requisites for Intervention are: amended);
a. Legal interest in the matter in controversy; or 2. Interrogatories to parties - Under the same
b. Legal interest in the success of either of the conditions specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any party
parties; or shall file and serve upon any adverse party written
c. Legal interest against both; or interrogatories regarding material and relevant facts
d. So situated as to be adversely affected by a to be answered by the party served (Sec. 1, Rule 25,
distribution or other disposition of property in ROC, as amended);
the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. 3. Admission by adverse party - At any time after
e. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice issues have been joined, a party may file and serve
the adjudication of the rights of original upon any other party a written request for the
parties; admission by the latter of the genuineness of any
f. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected material and relevant document or of the truth of any
in a separate proceeding. (Acenas v. CA, G.R. No. material and relevant matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 26,
107762, 29 Aug. 1995; Sec. 1, Rule 19, ROC, as ROC, as amended);
amended)
4. Production or inspection of documents or things -
Upon motion of any party showing good cause
M. SUBPOENA therefor, a court may order any party to produce and
(RULE 21) permit the inspection and copying or photographing
(2009 BAR) of any designated documents, etc. or order any party
to permit entry upon designated land or property for
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing
the property or any designated relevant object or
Q: TRUE or FALSE. The viatory right of a witness served
operation thereon (Sec. 1, Rule 27, ROC, as amended);
with a subpoena ad testificandum refers to his right not
and
to comply with the subpoena. (2009 BAR)
5. Physical and mental examination of persons - In an

A: FALSE. The viatory right of a witness, embodied in Sec.
action in which the mental or physical condition of a
10, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, refers to his right
party is in controversy, the court in which the action
not to be compelled to attend upon a subpoena, by reason
is pending may in its discretion order him to submit
of the distance from the residence of the witness to the place
to a physical or mental examination by a physician.
where he is to testify. It is available only in civil cases.
(Sec. 1, Rule 28, ROC, as amended; Answered under the
(People v. Montejo, G.R. No. L-24154, 31 Oct. 1967) Under Sec.
2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure)
10, Rule 21, the said witness may not be compelled if he
resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from his
residence to the place where he is to testify by the ordinary 1. DEPOSITIONS
course of travel. (RULES 23 AND 24)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
2. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special
(RULE 25) proceedings. There is no provision to the contrary that
(2016 , 2008 BAR) would preclude the application of the modes of discovery,
specifically Interrogatories to Parties under Rule 25 of the
Rules, to probate proceedings.
Q: Briefly explain the procedure in “Interrogatories to
Parties” under Rule 25 and state the effect of failure to
Q: A tugboat owned by Speedy Port Service, Inc. (SPS)
serve written interrogatories. (2016 BAR)
sank in Manila Bay while helping tow another vessel,
drowning five (5) of the crew in the resulting
A:
shipwreck. At the maritime board inquiry, the four (4)
survivors testified. SPS engaged Atty. Ely to defend it
1. Any party desiring to elicit material and relevant
against potential claims and to sue the company owning
facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve
the other vessel for damages to the tug. Ely obtained
upon the latter written interrogatories to be
signed statements from the survivors. He also
answered by the party served or, if the party served
interviewed other persons, in some instances making
is a public or private corporation or a partnership
memoranda. The heirs of the five (5) victims filed an
or association, by any officer thereof competent to
action for damages against SPS. Plaintiffs' counsel sent
testify in its behalf (Sec. 1, Rule 25, ROC, as
written interrogatories to Ely, asking whether
amended).
statements of witnesses were obtained; if written,
copies were to be furnished; if oral, the exact provisions
2. The interrogatories shall be answered fully in
were to be set forth in detail. Ely refused to comply,
writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the
arguing that the documents and information asked are
person making them. The party upon whom the
privileged communication. Is the contention tenable?
interrogatories have been served shall file and
Explain. (2008 BAR)
serve a copy of the answers on the party submitting
the interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after
A: YES. The contention of counsel for SPS is tenable
service thereof, unless the court on motion and for
considering that he was acting in his professional capacity
good cause shown, extends or shortens the time
in bringing about the statement he obtained from witnesses
and the memoranda he made. The notes, memoranda, and
writings made by counsel in pursuance of his pursuance of
3. Objections to any interrogatories may be presented
his professional duty, form part of his private and
to the court within ten (10) calendar days after
confidential files in the cases handled by him; hence
service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion;
privileged. (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No.
and answers shall be deferred until the objections
172835, 13 Dec. 2007)
are resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is
practicable. (Sec. 3, Rule 25, ROC, as amended)
3. ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY
4. Should a party fail to file and serve written (RULE 26)
interrogatories on an adverse party, he cannot (2016 BAR)
compel the latter to give testimony in open court or
to give deposition pending appeal, unless allowed Q: Briefly explain the procedure on “Admission by
by the court for good cause shown and to prevent Adverse Party” under Rule 26 and the effect of failure to
failure of justice. (Sec. 6, Rule 25, ROC, as amended; file and serve the request. (2016 BAR)
Spouses Afulugencia v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 185145,
05 Feb. 2014) A:
Q: An heir/oppositor in a probate proceeding filed a 1. At any time after issues have been joined, a party
motion to remove the administrator on the grounds of may file and serve upon any party a written request
neglect of duties as administrator and absence from the for the admission by the latter of the genuineness
country. On his part the heir/oppositor served written of any material and relevant document described in
interrogatories to the administrator preparatory to and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any
presenting the latter as a witness. The administrator material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
objected, insisting that the modes of discovery apply request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered
only to ordinary civil actions, not special proceedings. with the request unless copies have already been
Rule on the matter. (2008 BAR) furnished (Sec. 1, Rule 26, ROC, as amended).
A: The administrator’s contention that the modes of 2. Each of the matters of which an admission is
discovery apply only to ordinary civil action and not to requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within
special proceedings is not correct. Sec. 2, Rule 72 of the Rules a period designated in the request, which shall not
of Court, as amended provides that in the absence of special be less than fifteen (15) calendar days after service
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions thereof, or within such further time as the court

REMEDIAL LAW
may allow on motion, the party to whim the competition with others who may imitate and market the
request directed files and serves upon the party same kinds of products in violation of CCC’s proprietary
requesting the admission a sworn statement either rights. Being privileged, the detailed list of ingredients and
denying specifically the matters of which an chemical components may not be the subject of mode of
admission is requested or setting forth in detail the discovery under Sec. 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, as
reasons why he cannot truthfully either admit or amended which expressly makes privileged information an
deny those matters. (Sec. 2, Rule 26, ROC, as exception from its coverage. (Air Philippines Corporation v.
amended) Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, 13 Dec. 2007)
3. Objections to any request for admission shall be Q: The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC to collect
submitted to the court by the party requested on a promissory note, the terms of which were stated in
within the period for and prior to the filing of his the complaint and a photocopy attached to the
sworn statement as contemplated in the preceding complaint as an annex. Before answering, the
paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be defendant filed a motion for an order directing the
deferred until such obligations are resolved, which plaintiff to produce the original of the note so that the
resolution shall be made as early as practicable. defendant could inspect it and verify his signature and
(Sec. 2, Rule 26, ROC, as amended) the handwritten entries of the dates and amounts.
(2002 BAR)
4. Any admission made by a party pursuant to such
request is for the purpose of the pending action (a) Should the judge grant the defendant’s motion for
only and shall not constitute an admission by him production and inspection of the original of the
for any other purpose nor may the same be used promissory note? Why?
against him in any other proceeding. (Sec. 3, Rule
26, ROC, as amended) A: YES. Upon motion of any party showing good cause, the
court in which the action is pending may order any party to
5. Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good produce and permit the inspection of designated
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a documents (Rule 27, ROC, as amended). The defendant has
party who fails to file and serve a request for the right to inspect and verify the original of the promissory
admission on the adverse party of material and note so that he could intelligently prepare his answer.
relevant facts at issue which are or ought to be, (b) Assuming that an order for production and
within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall inspection was issued but the plaintiff failed to
not be permitted to present evidence on such facts. comply with it, how should the defendant plead to
(Sec. 5, Rule 26, ROC, as amended) the alleged execution of the note?
4. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION A: The defendant may file a motion to dismiss the complaint
OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS because of the refusal of the plaintiff to obey the order of the
(RULE 27) court for the production and inspection of the promissory
(2009, 2002, 1997 BAR) note. (Sec. 3(c), Rule 29, ROC, as amended)
Q: In an admiralty case filed by A against Y Shipping

Q: Continental Chemical Corporation (CCC) filed a
Lines (whose principal offices are in Manila) in the RTC
complaint for a sum of money against Barstow Trading
Davao City, the court issued a subpoena duces tecum
Corporation (BTC) for the latter’s failure to pay for its
directing Y, the president of the shipping company, to
purchases of industrial chemicals. In its answer, BTC
appear and testify at the trial and to bring with him
contended that it refused to pay because CCC
several documents. (1997 BAR)
misrepresented that the products it sold belonged to a
new line, when in fact they were identical with CCC’s
(a) On what valid ground can Y refuse to comply with
existing products. To substantiate its defense, BTC filed
the subpoena duces tecum?
a motion to compel CCC to give a detailed list of the
products’ ingredients and chemical components,
A: Y can refuse to comply with the subpoena duces tecum on
relying on the right to avail of the modes of discovery
the ground that he resides more than 100 kilometers from
allowed under Rule 27. CCC objected, invoking
the place where he is to testify (Sec. 10, Rule 21, ROC, as
confidentiality of the information sought by BTC.
amended). The witness can also refuse to comply with the
Resolve BTC’s motion with reasons. (2009 BAR)
subpoena duces tecum on the ground that the documents are
not relevant and there was no tender of fees for one day’s
A: I will deny the motion. The ingredients and chemical
attendance and the kilometrage allowed by the rules.
components of CCC’s products are trade secrets within the
contemplation of the law. Trade secrets may not be the
(b) How can A take the testimony of Y and present the
subject of compulsory disclosure by reason of their
documents as exhibits other than through the
confidential and privileged character. Otherwise, CCC
subpoena from the RTC?
would eventually be exposed to unwarranted business

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: A can take the testimony of Y and present the documents
as exhibits by taking his deposition through oral R. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
examination or written interrogatories (Rule 23, ROC, as (RULE 33)
amended). He may also file a motion for the production or (2015, 2004, 2003 BAR)
inspection of documents. (Rule 27, ROC, as amended)
5. PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS

1. GROUNDS
(RULE 28)
(2015 BAR)
2. EFFECT OF ORDER DENYING
Q: Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
person and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon (2015, 2004, 2003 BAR)
receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an
opposition to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of Q: AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of PBU, a
the petition, filed a motion to order Ernesto to submit public utility bus, died instantly on board the bus on
himself for mental and physical examination which the account of the fatal head wounds he sustained as a
court granted. result of the strong impact of the collision between the
bus and a dump truck that happened while the bus was
After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of travelling on EDSA towards Makati. The foregoing facts,
evidence in support of the petition and the court's among others, were duly established on evidence-in-
ruling on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer chief by the plaintiff TY, sole heir of AX, in TY’s action
filed a demurrer to evidence. Ernie's lawyer objected against the subject common carrier for breach of
on the ground that a demurrer to evidence is not proper contract of carriage. After TY had rested his case, the
in a special proceeding. common carrier filed a demurrer to evidence,
contending that plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient
If Ernesto defies the court's order directing him to because it did not show (1) that defendant was
submit to physical and mental examinations, can the negligent and (2) that such negligence was the
court order his arrest? (2015 BAR) proximate cause of the collision. Should the court grant
A: If the order for the conduct of physical and mental or deny defendant’s demurrer to evidence? Reason
examination is issued as a mode of discovery and Ernesto briefly. (2004 BAR)
defies the said order, the court cannot validly order his
arrest. (Sec. 3[d], Rule 29, ROC, as amended) A: NO. The Court should not grant defendant’s demurrer to
evidence because the case is for breach of contract of
6. REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH MODES OF DISCOVERY carriage. Proof that the defendant was negligent and that
(RULE 29) such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision is
not required. (Arts. 1170 and 2201, NCC; Mendoza v. Phil
Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. L- 3678, 29 Feb. 1952; Batangas
Transportation Co. v. Caguimbal, G.R. No. L-22985, 24 Jan.
P. TRIAL 1968; Abeto v. PAL, G.R. No. L-28692, 30 July 1982)
(RULE 30)
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN A CIVIL CASE vs.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE
1. SCHEDULE OF TRIAL (2015, 2003 BAR)
Q: Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the

2. ADJOURNMENT AND POSTPONEMENTS person and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon
receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an
3. REQUISITES OF MOTION TO POSTPONE TRIAL opposition to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of
FOR ILLNESS OF PARTY OR COUNSEL the petition, filed a motion to order Ernesto to submit
himself for mental and physical examination which the
court granted.
Q. CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of

(RULE 31) evidence in support of the petition and the court's
ruling on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer
filed a demurrer to evidence. Ernie's lawyer objected
on the ground that a demurrer to evidence is not proper
in a special proceeding. Was Ernie's counsel's objection
proper? (2015 BAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
A: NO. In Matute v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 26751, 31 Jan. (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal
1969), the Supreme Court has held that the rule on prayed that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to
demurrer to evidence is applicable in special proceedings. pay the amount of P1 million plus interests.
Moreover, under Sec 2, Rule 72, in the absence of special
rules, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the
applicable, as far as practicable, to special proceedings. loan from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted
that she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants
Q: Compare the effects of denial of demurrer to pointed out that the PN did not provide the due date for
evidence in a civil case with those of a denial of payment, and that the loan has not yet matured as the
demurrer to evidence in a criminal case. (2003 BAR) maturity date was left blank to be agreed upon by the
parties at a later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a
A: In a civil case, the defendant has the right to file a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that there is
demurrer to evidence without leave of court. If his no genuine issue presented by the parties’ submissions.
demurrer is denied, he has the right to present evidence. If Royal opposed the motion on the ground that the PN’s
his demurrer is granted and on appeal by the plaintiff, the maturity is an issue that must be threshed out during
appellate court reverses the order and renders judgment trial. (2016 BAR)
for the plaintiff, the defendant loses his right to present
evidence. (Rule 33, ROC, as amended) (a) Resolve the motion with reasons.
In a criminal case, the accused has to obtain leave of court A: The motion for judgment on the pleadings should be
to file a demurrer to evidence. If he obtains leave of court denied.
and his demurrer to evidence is denied, he has the right to
present evidence in his defense. If his demurrer to evidence First, judgment on the pleadings is available to the plaintiff
is granted, he is acquitted, and the prosecution cannot and not to the defendant.
appeal. If the accused does not obtain leave of court and his
demurrer to evidence is denied, he is deemed to have Second, judgment on the pleadings is proper only when the
waived his right to present evidence and the case is decided Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny
on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. The court the material allegations in the complaint or admits said
may also dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by
of the evidence on its own initiative after giving the admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal
prosecution the opportunity to be heard. (Sec. 23, Rule 119, with them at all.
ROC, as amended)
Here, while the defendants’ Answer to the Complaint
practically admitted all the material allegations therein, it
S. JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS nevertheless asserts the affirmative defenses that the loan
(2019, 2016, 2015, 2012, 2006, 2005 BAR) is not yet due. As issues obviously arise from these
affirmative defenses, a judgment on the pleadings is clearly
improper in this case.
Q: What is the difference between a judgment and an
Besides, it should be emphasized that judgement on the
opinion of the court? (2006 BAR)
pleadings is based exclusively upon the allegations
appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the annexes, if
A: The judgment or fallo is the final disposition of the court
any, without consideration of any evidence aliunde.
which is reflected in the dispositive portion of the decision,
Henceforth, when it appears that not all the material
while the opinion of the court is contained in the body of the
allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer
decision that serves as a guide or enlightenment to
for some of them were either denied or disputed, and the
determine the ratio decidendi of the decision. (UPLC
defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if
Suggested Answers)
proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s main
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be
SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs.
rendered. (PNB v. Aznar, G.R. No. 171805, 30 May 2011)
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
(2016 BAR)
(b) Distinguish “Summary Judgment” and “Judgment
on the Pleadings.”
Q: Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of
money against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila.
A: What distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a
The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14,
summary judgment is the presence of issues in the Answer
2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount
to the Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender any issue,
of P1 million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007
that is, if it does not deny the material allegations in the
(PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement
complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse
binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a
party’s pleading by admitting the truthfulness thereof
final demand on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on the tender an issue it does not comply with the requirements of
pleadings is appropriate. a specific denial as set out in Secs. 8 and 10 of Rule 8 of the
Rules of Court, resulting in the admission of the material
On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies the allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.
material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative
defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a summary As such, it is a form of judgment that is exclusively based on
judgment is proper provided that the issue raised is not the submitted pleadings without the introduction of
genuine. A genuine issue means an issue of face which calls evidence as the factual issues remain uncontroverted as in
for the presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an the case of Ms. B. (Government Service Insurance System v.
issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., G.R. No. 165585, 20
constitute a genuine issue for trial. (Basbas v. Sayson, G.R. Nov. 2013).
No. 172660, 24 Aug. 2011)
Q: Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million
1. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS based on the latter's promissory note. The complaint
(RULE 34) alleges, among others:
(2019, 2015, 2012, 2005, 1999 BAR)
1. Defendant borrowed Php 1 million from
plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed
a) GROUNDS promissory note;
(1999 BAR) 2. The promissory note reads:
Q: What are the grounds for judgment on the pleadings? “Makati, Philippines Dec. 30, 2014
(1999 BAR)
For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises
A: The grounds for judgment on the pleadings are: (a) to pay plaintiff Ill million, twelve (12) months from the
where an answer fails to tender an issue, or (b) otherwise above indicated date without necessity of demand.
admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading (Sec. 1, Rule 34, ROC, as amended). Signed Defendant
b) ACTION ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex “A.”
(2019, 2015, 2012, 2005 BAR)
Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among
others:
Q: Ms. A filed a complaint for damages against Ms. B,
alleging that Ms. B negligently caused the demolition of
1. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in
her house's concrete fence, the top half of which fell on
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth
the front portion of Ms. A's car and permanently
being defendant did not execute any
damaged its engine. In her answer, Ms. B denied any
promissory note in favor of plaintiff, or
personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. A's car,
2. Defendant has paid the Ill million claimed in
averring that she merely acquiesced to the advice of her
the promissory note (Annex “A” of the
contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete
Complaint) as evidenced by an
fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be
“Acknowledgment Receipt” duly executed by
collected from it.
plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his
spouse signing as witness.
Thereafter, Ms. A filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, alleging that Ms. B's statement in her answer
A copy of the “Acknowledgment Receipt” is attached as
is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. B opposed the
Annex “1” hereof.
motion, reiterating her defense in her answer which
purportedly rendered judgment on the pleadings
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on
improper. Ms. B also moved for the dismissal of the case
the ground that defendant's answer failed to tender an
on the ground of non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co.,
issue as the allegations therein on his defenses are
which she alleged is an indispensable party to the case.
sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all.
Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer
Is Ms. A's motion for judgment on the pleadings proper?
tendered an issue.
Explain. (2019 BAR)
Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (2015 BAR)

A: YES. When an answer fails to tender an issue, or
otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse
A: NO. The judgment on the pleadings is not proper.
party’s pleading, judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.
Judgment on the pleading is proper only when the answer
The rule is stated in Sec. 1, Rule 34 of the Rules of Court. In
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
this relation, jurisprudence dictates that an answer fails to

REMEDIAL LAW
allegations of the adverse party’s pleading (Sec. 1, Rule 34, psychological incapacity, B filed his Answer to the
ROC, as amended). Complaint admitting all the allegations therein
contained. May A move for judgment on the pleadings?
When it appears, however, that not all the material Explain. (1999 BAR)
allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer,
because some of them were either denied or disputed, and A: NO. Even if B’s answer to A’s complaint annulment of
the defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if their marriage admits all the allegations therein contained,
proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiff’s main the material facts alleged in the complaint must always be
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be proved. (Sec. 1, Rule 34, ROC, as amended) The court shall
rendered (PNB v. Aznar, G.R. No. 17105, 30 May 2011). order the prosecutor to investigate whether or not a
collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no
Clearly, since the defendant’s verified Answer specifically collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that
denied the execution of the promissory note, or raised the the evidence submitted is not fabricated. (Sec. 3(e), Rule 9,
affirmative of payment, judgment on the pleading is not ROC, as amended)
proper.
2. SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
Q: Plaintiff files a request for admission and serves the (RULE 35)
same on Defendant who fails, within the time (2015 BAR)
prescribed by the rules, to answer the request. Suppose
the request for admission asked for the admission of
the entire material allegations stated in the complaint, a) EFFECT OF ORDER DENYING A MOTION
what should plaintiff do? (2012 BAR) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(2015 BAR)
A: The plaintiff should file a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings because the failure of the defendant to answer a Q: Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million
request for admission results to an implied admission of all based on the latter's promissory note. The complaint
the matters which an admission is requested. Hence, a alleges, among others:
motion for judgment on the pleadings is the appropriate
remedy where the defendant is deemed to have admitted 3. Defendant borrowed Php 1 million from
matters contained in the request for admission by the plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed
plaintiff. (Rule 34, in relation to Sec. 2, Rule 26, ROC, as promissory note;
amended) 4. The promissory note reads:
Q: In a complaint for recovery of real property, the “Makati, Philippines Dec. 30, 2014
plaintiff averred, among others, that he is the owner of
the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed by For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises
the defendant in his favor. Copy of the deed of sale was to pay plaintiff Ill million, twelve (12) months from the
appended to the complaint as Annex “A” thereof. In his above indicated date without necessity of demand.
unverified answer, the defendant denied the allegation
concerning the sale of the property in question, as well Signed Defendant
as the appended deed of sale, for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belied as to the truth A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex “A.”
thereof. Is it proper for the court to render judgment
without trial? Explain (2005 BAR) Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among
others:
A: YES. Defendant cannot deny the sale of the property for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belied 3. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in
as to the truth thereof. The answer amounts to an paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth
admission. The defendant must aver or state positively how being defendant did not execute any
it is that he is ignorant of the facts alleged (Phil. Advertising promissory note in favor of plaintiff, or
Counselors, Inc. v. Revilla, G.R. No. L-31869, 08 Aug. 1973; Sec. 4. Defendant has paid the Ill million claimed in
10, Rule 8, ROC, as amended). Moreover, the genuineness the promissory note (Annex “A” of the
and due execution of the deed of sale can only be denied by Complaint) as evidenced by an
the defendant under oath and failure to do so is also an “Acknowledgment Receipt” duly executed by
admission of the deed (Sec. 8, Rule 8, ROC, as amended). plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his
Hence, a judgment in the pleadings can be rendered by the spouse signing as witness.
court without need of a trial.
A copy of the “Acknowledgment Receipt” is attached as
Q: A brought an action against her husband B for Annex “1” hereof.
annulment of their marriage on the ground of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on immutability of judgments which evokes that at some point,
the ground that defendant's answer failed to tender an a decision must become final and executory and,
issue as the allegations therein on his defenses are consequently, all litigations must come to an end.” (Carreon
sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. v. Aguillon, G.R. No. 240108, 29 June 2020)
Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer
tendered an issue. Note: The Carreon case is more recent but a ruling is made
in Fortune Life Insurance Company v. COA (G.R. No. 213525,
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the 21 Nov. 2017):
ground that there are no longer any triable genuine
issues of facts. Should the court grant defendant's “Sec. 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court prohibits a second
motion for summary judgment? (2015 BAR) motion for reconsideration by the same party. Sec. 3, Rule
15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court echoes the
A: NO. The court should not grant the motion for summary prohibition, providing thusly:
judgment because the defense of payment is a genuine issue
as to material fact that must be resolved by the court upon Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The
presentation of evidence. Court shall not entertain a second motion for
reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can
For a summary judgment to be proper, the movant must only be granted in the higher interest of justice by
establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds
as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; of its actual membership.
and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of
judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. justice” when the assailed decision is not only
A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the legally erroneous but is likewise patently unjust
presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue and potentially capable of causing unwarranted
which is sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A
second motion for reconsideration can only be
Relative thereto, when the facts pleaded by the parties are entertained before the ruling sought to be
disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or
judgment cannot take place of a trial. The evidence on by the Court's declaration.”
record must be viewed in light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion who must be given the benefit of all a) REMEDY AGAINST DENIAL
favorable inferences as can reasonably be drawn from the
evidence. (Smart Communications v. Aldecoa, G.R. No.
166330, 11 Sept. 2013) b) FRESH-PERIOD RULE
(2016 BAR)
3. RENDITION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS

AND FINAL ORDERS Q: Miguel filed a Complaint for damages against Jose,
(RULE 36) who denied liability and filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of failure to state a cause of action. In an Order
received by Jose on January 5, 2015, the trial court
denied the Motion to Dismiss. On February 4, 2015, Jose
T. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES sought reconsideration of that Order through a Motion
(2022, 2020-21, 2019, 2017, 2016, 2014, 2013, 2012, for Reconsideration. Miguel opposed the Motion for
2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002, 1999, 1998 BAR) Reconsideration on the ground that it was filed out of
time. Jose countered that the 15-day rule under Section
1 of Rule 52 does not apply where the Order sought to
be reconsidered is an interlocutory order that does not
1. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION attain finality. Is Jose correct? Explain. (2016 BAR)
RULE 37
(2016, 2013 BAR) A: YES, Jose is correct. The 15-day period to file a motion for
reconsideration under Sec. 1 of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court
refers to a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
Q: When may a party file a second motion for
resolution or order.
reconsideration of a final judgment or final order?
(2013 BAR)
Here, what is involved is an order denying a motion to
dismiss, which is not a final order as it does not terminate
A: Under the 2019 amendments, the Rules of Court expressly
the case. The order is simply an interlocutory order which
provides that no second motion for reconsideration of a
may be reconsidered by the trial court at any time during
judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be
the pendency of the case. (Rasdas v. Estenor, G.R. No. 157605,
entertained. (Sec. 2, Rule 52, ROC, as amended) Case law
explains that “the rule rests on the basic tenet of

REMEDIAL LAW
13 Dec. 2005) It should also be noted that Miguel did not file e) MODES OF APPEAL
a motion to declare Jose in default. (PERIOD, PERFECTION, ISSUES TO BE RAISED)
(2022, 2012, 2009, 2008, 2002, 1999, 1998 BAR)
2. APPEALS
(2022, 2020-21, 2012, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, (1) APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
1999, 1998 BAR) TO REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
(RULE 40)
a) NATURE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
(2) APPEAL FROM REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
(RULE 41)
b) JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS (2020-21, 2009, 2008, 2002, 1999 BAR)
SUBJECT TO APPEAL
Q: Distinguish the two (2) modes of appeal from the
c) MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE; AVAILABLE REMEDIES judgment of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of
(2006, 2004 BAR) Appeals. (2009 BAR)
A: In cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the

Q: What is an interlocutory order? (2006 BAR)
exercise of their original jurisdiction, appeals to the Court of
Appeals shall be ordinary appeal by filing written notice of
A: An interlocutory order is an order which decides some
appeal indicating the parties to the appeal; specifying the
point or matter between the commencement and end of the
judgment/final order or part thereof appealed from;
suit, but it is not the final decision on the whole controversy.
specifying the court to which the appeal is being taken; and
It leaves something to be done by the court before the case
stating the material dates showing the timeliness of the
is finally decided on the merits. (Metropolitan Bank & Trust
appeal. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the RTC
Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 110147, 17 Apr. 2001; Gallardo v. People,
which rendered the judgment appealed from and copy
G.R. No. 142030, 25 Apr. 2005)
thereof shall be served upon the adverse party within 15
days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
Q: After defendant has served and filed his answer to
But if the case admits of multiple appeals or is a special
plaintiff’s complaint for damages before the proper
proceeding, a record on appeal is required aside from the
RTC, plaintiff served and filed a motion (with
written notice of appeal to perfect the appeal, in which case
supporting affidavits) for a summary judgment in his
the period for appeal and notice upon the adverse party is
favour upon all of his claims. Defendant served and filed
not only 15 days but 30 days from notice of judgment or
his opposition (with supporting affidavits) to the
final order appealed from. The full amount of the appellate
motion. After due hearing, the court issued an order (1)
court docket fee and other lawful fees required must also be
stating that the court has found no genuine issue as to
paid within the period for taking an appeal, to the clerk of
any material fact and thus concluded that plaintiff is
the court which rendered the judgment or final order
entitled to judgment in his favour as a matter of law
appealed from. (Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 41, ROC, as amended) The
except as to the amount of damages recoverable, and
periods of 15 or 30 days above stated are non-extendible.
(2) accordingly ordering that plaintiff shall have
judgment summarily against defendant for such
In cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
amount as may be found due plaintiff for damages, to be
of its appellate jurisdiction, appeal to the Court of Appeals
ascertained by trial on October 7, 2004, at 8:30 o’clock
shall be by filing a verified petition for review with the Court
in the morning. May defendant properly take an appeal
of Appeals and furnishing the RTC and the adverse party
from said order? Or may defendant properly challenge
with copy thereof, within 15 days from notice of judgment
said order thru a special civil action for certiorari?
or final order appealed from. Within the same period for
Reason. (2004 BAR)
appeal, the docket fee and other lawful fees required with
the deposit for cost should be paid. The 15-day period
A: NO. The plaintiff may not properly take an appeal from
maybe extended for 15 days and another 15 days for
said order because partial summary judgments are
compelling reasons.
interlocutory orders. There is still something to be done,
which is the trial for the adjudication of damages. (Province
Q: What are the three modes of appeal from the
of Pangasinan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104266, 31 Mar.
decisions of the RTC? (2002 BAR)
1993; Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49017 and L-
49024, 30 Aug. 1983) But the defendant may properly
A:
challenge said order through a special civil action for
1. Rule 41: Ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error
certiorari. (Sec. 1 (c) and last par. Rule 41, ROC, as amended)
– This presupposes that the RTC rendered the judgment
or final order in the civil action or special proceeding in
d) DOCTRINE OF FINALITY/IMMUTABILITY the exercise of its original jurisdiction and appeal is
OF JUDGMENT taken to the CA on questions of fact or mixed questions

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
of fact and law. The appeal is taken by notice of appeal Q: The last day of a losing party to file a notice of appeal
or by record on appeal. from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals
fell on June 12, a legal holiday. The day after, or on
NOTE: An appeal on pure questions of law cannot be June13, the counsel for the losing party moved that the
taken to the CA and such improper appeal will be period within which to file a notice of appeal be
dismissed pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 50. (Regalado, 2012) extended for 10 days, citing the counsel’s “humongous”
case load, among others.
2. Rule 42: Petition for review – The questioned
judgment or final order was rendered by RTC in the On June 23 that same year, without the motion for
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over a judgment or extension being acted upon, the counsel for the losing
final order in a civil action or special proceeding party filed a notice of appeal. Should this appeal be
originally commenced in and decided by a lower court. dismissed? Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR)
The appeal is taken by a petition for review filed with
CA on questions of facts, of law or on mixed questions A: YES, the appeal should be dismissed. The Supreme Court
of fact and law. has held that a motion for extension of time to file a notice
of appeal is not allowed. (Lacsamana v. IAC. G.R. No. 73146-
3. Rule 45: Petition for review on certiorari – Taken to 53 26 Aug. 1986)
the SC only on questions of law from a judgment or final
order rendered in a civil action or special proceeding by Here, instead of filing a notice of appeal on June 13, the
RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The counsel for the losing party filed a motion for extension of
appeal is taken by filing a petition for review on time to file a notice of appeal which is not allowed. Thus, the
certiorari with the SC. (Regalado, 2010) period to appeal lapsed, and the notice to appeal was filed
out of time. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed.
Q: XXX received a copy of the RTC decision on June 9,
1999; YYY received it on the next day, June 10, 1999. Q: After receiving the adverse decision rendered
XXX filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 1999. The against his client, the defendant, Atty. Sikat duly filed a
parties entered into a compromise on June 16, 1999. On notice of appeal. For his part, the plaintiff timely filed a
June 13, 1999, YYY, who did not appeal, filed with the motion for partial new trial to seek an increase in the
RTC a motion for approval of the Compromise monetary damages awarded. The RTC instead rendered
Agreement. XXX changed his mind and opposed the an amended decision further reducing the monetary
motion on the ground that the RTC has no more awards. Is it necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second
jurisdiction. Rule on the motion assuming that the notice of appeal after receiving the amended decision?
records have not yet been forwarded to the CA. (1999 (2008 BAR)
BAR)
A: YES, it is necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second notice
A: The contention of XXX that the RTC has no more of appeal to the amended decision because a substantial
jurisdiction over the case is not correct because at the time change was made to the original decision when the
that the motion to approve the compromise had been filed, monetary awards were reduced in the amended decision
the period of appeal of YYY had not yet expired, the records and in effect the amended decision superseded the original
of the case had not yet been forwarded to the Court of decision. A new notice of appeal is required to comply with
Appeals. The rules provide that in appeals by notice of the required contents thereof in respect of the amended
appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the decision. (Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. Sison, G.R. No.
perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration 122839, 20 Nov. 1998; Magdalena Estates, Inc. v. Caluag, G.R.
of the time to appeal of the other parties The rules also No. L-16250, 30 June 1964)
provide that prior to the transmittal of the record, the court
may, among others, approve compromises (Sec. 9, Rule 41, (3) PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL
ROC, as amended). TRIAL COURT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
(RULE 42)
Q: When is an appeal from the RTC to the Court of (2022, 1998 BAR)
Appeals deemed perfected? (1999 BAR)
Q: The RTC affirmed the appealed decision of the MTC.
A: An appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of You are the counsel of the defeated party and he tells
Appeals is deemed perfected as to the appellant upon the you to appeal the RTC's decision. (1998 BAR)
filing of a notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court in due
time or within the reglementary period of appeal. An appeal (a) What mode of appeal will you adopt?
by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to the appellant
with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the A: The mode of appeal is by petition for review under Rule
approval of the record on appeal filed in due time (Sec. 9, 42 of the Rules of Court.
Rule 4, ROC, as amended).
(b) Within what time and in what court should you file

REMEDIAL LAW
your appeal? (7) DISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT,
AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL
A: The period of appeal is within 15 days from notice of the (2017, 2012, 2009, 2003 BAR)
decision subject of the appeal or of the denial of a motion
for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time to the CA. Q: Defendant X received an adverse Decision of the RTC
in an ordinary civil case on 02 January 2003. He filed a
Q: Gail filed a forcible entry complaint against Notice of Appeal on 10 January 2003. On the other hand,
Marianina before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). plaintiff A received the same Decision on 06 January
The MeTC ruled in favor of Marianina. Gail appealed the 2003 and, on 19 January 2003, filed a Motion for
MeTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Reconsideration of the Decision. On 13 January 2003,
RTC denied Gail’s appeal and sustained the MeTC. Gail defendant X filed a Motion withdrawing his notice of
then filed a notice of appeal with the RTC indicating that appeal in order to file a Motion for New Trial which he
it is appealing the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals attached. On January 2003, the court denied A’s Motion
(CA). In her notice of appeal, Gail also requested the to Withdraw Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff A received the
RTC to transmit the records of the case to the CA. Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on 03
February 2003 and filed his Notice of Appeal on 05
Did Gail take the correct of mode of appeal? Explain February 2003. The court denied due course to A’s
briefly. (2022 BAR) Notice of Appeal on the ground that the period to appeal
already lapsed. (2003 BAR)
A: NO, Gail did not take the correct mode of appeal. Under (a) Is the court’s denial of X’s Motion to Withdraw
the Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal to the CA in cases Notice of Appeal proper?
decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction should be taken not by a notice of appeal but by A: NO. The court’s denial of X’s Motion to Withdraw Notice
a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. of Appeal is not proper, because the period of appeal of X
has not yet expired. From January 2, 2003 when X received
Here, the case was decided by the RTC in the exercise of its a copy of the adverse decision up to January 13, 2003 when
appellate jurisdiction because the case was on appeal from he filed his withdrawal of appeal and Motion for New Trial,
the MeTC. Gail should have filed a petition for review with only ten (10) days had elapsed, and he had fifteen (15) days
the CA and not a notice of appeal with the RTC. Hence, Gail to do so. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
did not take the correct mode of appeal. (Riguera, 2023)
(b) Is the court’s denial of due course to A’s appeal
(4) APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, correct?
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES A: NO. The court’s denial of due course to A’s appeal is not
(RULE 43) correct because the appeal was taken on time. From January
6, 2003 when A received a copy of the decision up to January
(5) APPEALS BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT 19, 2003 when he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, only
(RULE 45) twelve (12) days had lapsed. Consequently, he had three (3)
(2002 BAR) days from receipt in February 2003 of the Order denying his
Motion for Reconsideration within which to appeal. He filed
Q: What are the modes of appeal to the Supreme Court? his notice of appeal February 5, 2003, or only two (2) days
(2002 BAR) later. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
A: The modes of appeal to the Supreme Court are: (a) appeal NOTE: To standardize the appeal periods provided in the
by certiorari on pure questions of law under Rule 45 Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their
through a petition for review on certiorari; and (b) ordinary cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a Fresh Period of
appeal in criminal cases through a notice of appeal from 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC,
convictions imposing reclusion perpetua or life counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a
imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is involved but for new trial or motion for reconsideration. (Neypes v. Court of
offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose Appeals, G.R. No. 121524, 14 Sept. 2005)
out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more
serious offense. (Sec. 3, Rule 122, ROC, as amended) Q: What is the mode of appeal applicable to the
Convictions imposing the death penalty are elevated following cases, and what issues may be raised before
through automatic review. the reviewing court/tribunal? (2017 BAR)
(6) REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS (a) The decision or final order of the National Labor
OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT Relations Commission.
AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(RULE 64) A: There is no mode of appeal from a decision or final order
of the NLRC, since such decision or final order is final and

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
executory pursuant to the Labor Code (Art. 223). The On July 29, 2009, he filed motions for reconsideration
remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action which were denied. He received the notices of denial of
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (St. Martin Funeral the motions for reconsideration on October 2, 2009, a
Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 103866, 16 Sept. 1998). Such special Friday. He immediately informed his clients who, in
civil action may raise questions both of fact and law turn, uniformly instructed him to appeal. How, when
(Aggabao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163756, 26 Jan. 2005). and where should he pursue the appropriate remedy
for each of the following: (2009 BAR)
(b) The judgment or final order of the RTC in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (a) Judgment of a Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction dismissing
A: The mode of appeal applicable to judgments or final his client’s application for land registration?
orders of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
is a petition for review under Rule 42. The petition may A: By notice of appeal, within 15 days from notice of
raise questions both of fact and law (Sec. 2, Rule 42, ROC, as judgment or final order appealed from, to the Court of
amended). Appeals.
Q: Where and how will you appeal the following: (2012 (b) Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying
BAR) his client’s petition for a Writ of Habeas Data?
(a) An order of execution issued by the RTC. A: By verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45, with the modification that appellant may raise questions
A: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of fact or law or both, within 5 workdays from date of notice
of Appeals. of the judgment or final order to the Supreme Court. (Sec.
19, A.M. No. 08-1- 16-SC)
(b) Judgment of RTC denying a petition for Writ of
Amparo. (c) Order of a Family Court denying his client’s petition
for habeas corpus in relation to custody of a minor
A: Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order child?
to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The period of A: By notice of appeal, within 48 hours from notice of
appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice judgment or final order to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 14, R.A.
of the adverse judgment, and the appeal may raise No. 8369 in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 41).
questions of fact or law or both. (Sec. 19, Rule on the Writ of
Amparo, A.M. No. 07- 9-12-SC, 25 Sept. 2007) (d) Order of the RTC denying his client’s Petition for
Certiorari questioning the Metropolitan Trial
(c) Judgment of MTC on a land registration case based Court’s (MeTC’s) denial of a motion to suspend
on its delegated jurisdiction. criminal proceedings?
A: The appeal should be filed with the Court of Appeals by A: By notice of appeal, within 15 days from notice of the
filing a Notice of Appeal within 15 days from notice of final order, to the Court of Appeals. (Magestrado v. People,
judgment or final order appealed from. (Sec. 34, B.P. Blg. G.R. No. 148072, 07 July 2007)
129, as by R.A. No. 7691)
(e) Judgment of the First Division of the Court of Tax
(d) A decision of the Court of Tax Appeal's First Appeals (CTA) affirming the RTC decision
Division. convicting his client for violation of the National
Internal Revenue Code?
A: The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals Division may be
appealed to the CTA en banc. The decisions of the Court of A: By petition for review filed with the CTA en banc, within
Tax Appeals are no longer appealable to the Court of 30 days from receipt of the decision or ruling in question.
Appeals. Under the modified appeal procedure, the decision (Sec. 9(b), Rule 9, Revised Rules of Court of Tax Appeals)
of a division of the CTA may be appealed to the CTA en banc.
The decision of the 3. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGEMENT
(RULE 38)
CTA en banc may in turn be directly appealed to the (2019, 2017, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2002 BAR)
Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 on questions of law (Section 11, R.A. No.
Q: Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his
9282).
old friend, Mr. Y. In order to ensure that Mr. Y would not
be able to file a responsive pleading and much more,
Q: On July 15, 2009, Atty. Manananggol was served
participate in the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y's counsel,
copies of numerous unfavorable judgments and orders.
Atty. Z, who deliberately let the case proceed as such

REMEDIAL LAW
without his client's knowledge. Eventually, judgment an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases from
was rendered on March 1, 2016 in Mr. X's favor, a copy final judgments or orders where no other remedy is
of which was received by Atty. Z on April 4, 2016. available. (Palmares, et al. v. Jimenez, et al., G.R. No. L-4513,
Bothered by his conscience, Atty. Z brought the copy of 31 Jan. 1952) It will not be entertained when the proper
the decision to Mr. Yon June 1, 2016, thereby surprising remedy is appeal or certiorari. (Fajardo v. Bayona, et al., G.R.
the latter and causing him grief. Meanwhile, the No. L-8314, 23 Mar. 1956)
decision became final and executory in due course on
April 19, 2016. Q: May an order denying the probate of a will still be
overturned after the period to appeal therefrom has
Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights, lapsed? Why? (2002 BAR)
which culminated on August 15, 2016 when he, as
represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for A: YES an order denying the probate of a will may be
annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals overturned after the period to appeal therefrom has lapsed.
(CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA dismissed A petition for relief may be filed on the grounds of fraud,
the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a accident, mistake or excusable negligence within a period of
satisfactory explanation as to why he directly resorted sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment
to a petition for annulment of judgment, when he could or final order and not more than six (6) months after such
have filed a petition for relief from judgment. judgment or final order was entered. (Secs. 1 and 3, Rule 38,
ROC, as amended; Soriano v. Asi, G.R. No. L-9633, 29 Jan.
What are the differences between a petition for relief 1957)
from judgment and a petition for annulment of
judgment in terms of grounds and periods to file? (2019 An action for annulment may also be filed on the ground of
BAR) extrinsic fraud within four (4) years from its discovery, and
if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches
A: The differences between a petition for relief from or estoppel. (Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 47, ROC, as amended)
judgment and a petition for annulment of judgment in terms
of grounds and periods to file are as follows: Q: Mike was renting an apartment unit in the building
owned by Jonathan. When Mike failed to pay six
AS TO GROUNDS: The grounds for a petition for relief from months’ rent, Jonathan filed an ejectment suit. The
judgment are (1) when a judgment or final order is entered Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment in
or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against any favor of Jonathan, who then filed a motion for the
party through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable issuance of a writ of execution. The MTC issued the writ.
negligence or (2) when a judgment or final order is (2009 BAR)
rendered by any court and a party is prevented by fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from taking an (a) How can Mike stay the execution of the MTC
appeal. judgment? Explain.
On the other hand, the grounds of a petition for annulment A: Writ of Execution shall be issue if immediately upon
of judgment are (1) extrinsic fraud and (2) lack of motion, unless Mike (a) perfects his appeal to the RTC, (b)
jurisdiction. files a sufficient supersedeas bond to pay the rents, damages
and costs accruing up to the time of the judgment appealed
AS TO PERIOD TO FILE: A petition for relief from judgment from, and (c) deposits monthly with the RTC during the
should be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of pendency of the appeal the amount of rent due from time to
the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set time. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, ROC, as amended)
aside, and not more than six months after such judgment or
final order was entered or such proceeding was taken. (b) Mike appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
which affirmed the MTC decision. Mike then filed a
On the other hand, a petition for annulment of judgment, if petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
based on extrinsic fraud, should be filed within 4 from the The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that
discovery of the extrinsic fraud; or if based on lack of the sheriff had already executed the MTC decision
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. and had ejected Mike from the premises, thus
rendering the appeal moot and academic. Is the CA
Q: May a defendant who has been declared in default correct? Reasons.
right away avail of a petition for relief from the
judgment subsequently rendered in the case? (2007 A: NO, the Court of Appeals is not correct. The dismissal of
BAR) the appeal is wrong because the execution of the RTC
judgment is only in respect of the eviction of the defendant
A: NO. The remedy of petition for relief from judgment is from the leased premises. Such execution pending appeal
available only when the judgment or order in question is has no effect on the merits of the ejectment suit which still
already final and executory, i.e., no longer appealable. It is has to be resolved in the pending appeal. Sec. 21, Rule 70 of

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
the Rules of Court provides that the RTC judgment against damages he suffered from the unwarranted attachment. It
the defendant shall be immediately executory, without is a condition inter alia of the applicant’s attachment bond
prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. that he will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the
(Uy v. Santiago, G.R. No. 131237, 31 July 2000) adverse party and all damages which the latter may sustain
by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge
Q: Having obtained favorable judgment in his suit for a that the applicant was not entitled thereto. (Sec. 4, Rule 57,
sum of money against Patricio, Orencio sought the ROC, as amended; D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. v.
issuance of a writ of execution. When the writ was Readycon Trading and Construction Corp., G.R. No. 154106,
issued, the sheriff levied upon a parcel of land that 29 June 2004)
Patricio owns, and a date was set for the execution sale.
(2009 BAR) Q: A default judgment was rendered by the RTC
ordering D to pay P a sum of money. The judgment
(a) How may Patricio prevent the sale of the property became final, but D filed a petition for relief and
on execution? obtained a writ of preliminary injunction staying the
enforcement of the judgment. After hearing, the RTC
A: Patricio may file a Petition for Relief with preliminary dismissed D’s petition, whereupon P immediately
injunction (Rule 38, ROC, as amended), posting a bond moved for the execution of the judgment in his favour.
equivalent to the value of the property levied upon; or assail Should P’s motion be granted? Why? (2002 BAR)
the levy as invalid if ground exists. Patricio may also simply
pay the amount required by the writ and the costs incurred A: P’s immediate motion for execution of the judgment in
therewith. (UPLC Suggested Answers) his favor should be granted because the dismissal of D’s
petition for relief also dissolves the writ of preliminary
(b) If Orencio is the purchaser of the property at the injunction staying the enforcement of the judgment, even if
execution sale, how much does he have to pay? the dismissal is not yet final. (Golez v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-
Explain. 56587, 31 Aug. 1981)
A: Orencio, the judgment creditor should pay only the 4. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
excess amount of the bid over the amount of the judgment, (RULE 47)
if the bid exceeds the amount of the judgment. (UPLC (2022, 2020-21, 2019, 2014, 2008, 1998 BAR)
Suggested Answers)
Q: What are the grounds for the annulment of a

(c) If the property is sold to a third party at the
judgment of the RTC? (2008, 1998 BAR)
execution sale, what can Patricio do to recover the
property? Explain.
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over
the person – May be barred by estoppels by laches,
A: Patricio can exercise his right of legal redemption within
which is that failure to do something which should be
1 year from date of registration of the certificate of sale by
done or to claim or enforce a right at a proper time or a
paying the amount of the purchase price with interest of 1%
neglect to do something which one should do or to seek
monthly, plus assessment and taxes paid by the purchaser,
or enforce a right at a proper time.
with interest thereon, at the same rate. (UPLC Suggested
Answers)
2. Extrinsic fraud
Q: After his properties were attached, defendant

NOTE: Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents
Porfirio filed a sufficient counterbond. The trial court
a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire
discharged the attachment. Nonetheless, Porfirio
case to the court, or where it operates upon matters
suffered substantial prejudice due to the unwarranted
pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner
attachment. In the end, the trial court rendered a
in which it is procured. (Alaban, et al., v. CA, G.R. No.
judgment in Porfirio's favor by ordering the plaintiff to
156021, 23 Sept. 2005)
pay damages because the plaintiff was not entitled to
the attachment. Porfirio moved to charge the plaintiff's
Extrinsic fraud, as a ground for the annulment of a
attachment bond. The plaintiff and his sureties opposed
judgment, must emanate from an act of the adverse
the motion, claiming that the filing of the counterbond
party. It must be of such nature as to have deprived the
had relieved the plaintiff's attachment bond from all
petitioner of its day in court. The fraud is not extrinsic
liability for the damages. Rule on Porfirio's motion.
if the act was committed by the petitioner's own
(2008 BAR)
counsel. (Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank &
Trust Company, G.R. No. 159926, 20 Jan. 2014)
A: Porfirio’s motion to charge plaintiff’s attachment bond is
proper and can be granted. It is not correct to contend that
Nysa was defrauded by Jackie resulting in damages to
Porfirio’s filing of a counterbond constitutes a waiver of his
the former. Nysa filed a civil suit before the Regional
right to proceed against the attachment bond for the
Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed her complaint.

REMEDIAL LAW
Within four years from Nysa’s discovery of the brought the copy of the decision to Mr. Y on June 1,
dismissal of her complaint, she filed, through her 2016, thereby surprising the latter and causing him
counsel, a petition for annulment of judgment under grief. Meanwhile, the decision became final and
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals executory in due course on April 19, 2016.
(CA) on the ground of fraud. Should the CA give due
course to Nysa’s petition? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR) Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights,
A: NO. The CA should not give due course to Nysa’s petition represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for
for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals
Court. Under the Law on Civil Procedure, fraud as a ground (CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA dismissed
for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a
Court refers only to extrinsic fraud. satisfactory explanation as to why he directly resorted
to a petition for annulment of judgment, when he could
Here, the fraud employed by Jackie against Nysa was not have filed a petition for relief from judgment.
extrinsic fraud since it was not extrinsic to the issues in the
civil case for damages but the very issue of the case itself. What are the differences between a petition for relief
Hence, the CA should not give due course to Nysa’s petition from judgment and a petition for annulment of
for annulment of judgment. (Riguera, 2023) judgment in terms of grounds and periods to file? (2019
BAR)
Q: Two years after receiving a copy of a decision
rendered by a Regional Trial Court, a party engaged a A: In a petition for relief from judgment, when a judgment
counsel and asked them to work on reopening the case. or final order is entered or any other proceeding is
The party explained that it took two years to find the thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud,
best legal counsel available, and that counsel had to accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a
await two years to pass the #BestBarEver2020_21. petition in such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. (Section 1, Rule
After perusing the judgment and the case records, the 38, ROC, as amended) It must be filed within sixty (60) days
counsel filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for after the petitioner learns of the judgment, and not more
annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of than six (6) months after such judgment was entered, or
Civil Procedure, asserting that the trial judge such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with
improperly assessed the evidence and misapplied a affidavit showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
doctrine long adopted by the Supreme Court. negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense
Will the petition for annulment of judgment prosper? as the case may be. (Sec. 3, Rule 38, ROC, as amended)
Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR)
Whereas, in annulment of judgment, the Court of Appeals
A: NO. The petition for annulment of judgment will not can annul the judgment of the RTC in civil actions when the
prosper. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, an action for ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal petition for relief or
annulment of judgment may be based only on the grounds other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, Rule 47, no fault of the petitioner. (Sec. 1, Rule 47, ROC, as amended)
ROC, as amended)
The grounds for annulment of judgment may be based only
Here, the grounds raised by the counsel in his petition are on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
the improper assessment of the evidence and the Jurisprudence, however, provides for the third ground
misapplication of an abandoned doctrine, which have which is denial of due process. If based on extrinsic fraud, it
nothing to do with extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction but must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery and if
are errors of judgment which are proper subjects of an based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or
appeal. Hence, the petition for annulment of judgment will estoppel. (Teaño v. Municipality of Navotas, G.R No. 205814,
not prosper. (Riguera, 2022) 15 Feb. 2016)
Q: Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his Q: Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his
old friend, Mr. Y. In order to ensure that Mr. Y would not old friend, Mr. Y. In order to ensure that Mr. Y would not
be able to file a responsive pleading and much more, be able to file a responsive pleading and much more,
participate in the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y's counsel, participate in the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y's counsel,
Atty. Z, who deliberately let the case proceed as such Atty. Z, who deliberately let the case proceed as such
without his client's knowledge. without his client's knowledge. Eventually, judgment
was rendered on March 1, 2016 in Mr. X's favor, a copy
Eventually, judgment was rendered on March 1, 2016 in of which was received by Atty. Z on April 4, 2016.
Mr. X's favor, a copy of which was received by Atty. Z on Bothered by his conscience, Atty. Z brought the copy of
April 4, 2016. Bothered by his conscience, Atty. Z the decision to Mr. Yon June 1, 2016, thereby surprising

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
the latter and causing him grief. Meanwhile, the petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate
decision became final and executory in due course on remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
April 19, 2016. appellant and is based on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, and
lack of jurisdiction. (Aleban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights, 156021, 23 Sept. 2005)
represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for Relative thereto, the act of Tom Wallis in deliberately
annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals keeping Debi Wallis away from the Court, by intentionally
(CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA dismissed alleging a wrong address in the complaint constitutes
the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a extrinsic fraud. Moreover, the failure of the Court to acquire
satisfactory explanation as to why he directly resorted jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, being an
to a petition for annulment of judgment, when he could indispensable party, necessitates the annulment of
have filed a petition for relief from judgment. Was the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. Likewise, there is
CA's dismissal of Mr. Y's petition for annulment of denial of the right to due process when Debi Wallis was not
judgment proper? Explain. (2019 BAR) given an opportunity to be heard in the case.
A: YES. the CA's dismissal of Mr. Y’s petition for annulment At any rate, the Court erred in declaring the defendant in
of judgment was proper. default because there is no default in a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage. (Sec. 3, Rule 9, ROC, as
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, extrinsic fraud shall not amended)
be a valid ground for annulment of judgment if it could have
been availed of in a petition for relief under Rule 38. (Sec. 2, 5. COLLATERAL ATTACK ON JUDGMENTS
Rule 47, ROC, as amended).
Here Mr. Y could have availed of a petition for relief by filing

it within 60 days from the time he learned of the judgment U. EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
on 01 June 2016, which period was also within six months AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
from the entry of the judgment on 19 April 2016. Hence the RULE 39
dismissal of the petition was proper. (2020-21, 2015, 2018, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005,
2002, 2000, 1997 BAR)
Q: Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with
Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological incapacity of Q: Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1,000,000 from
the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom Wallis had told antique collector Benjamin. Mercedes issued a
Debi Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their postdated check in the same amount to Benjamin to
marriage because he was already fed up with her cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin
irrational and eccentric behavior. However, in the deposited it, but it was dishonored. As despite
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the demands, Mercedes failed to make good the check,
correct residential address of Debi Wallis was Benjamin filed in January 2009 a complaint for
deliberately not alleged and instead, the resident collection of sum of money before the RTC of Davao.
address of their married son was stated. Summons was Mercedes filed in February 2009 her Answer with
served by served by substituted service at the address Counterclaim, alleging that before the filing of the case,
stated in the petition. For failure to file an answer, Debi she and Benjamin had entered into a dacion en pago
Wallis was declared in default and Tom Wallis agreement in which her vintage PhP 1,000,000 Rolex
presented evidence ex parte. The RTC rendered watch which was taken by Benjamin for sale on
judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the commission was applied to settle her indebtedness;
ground of psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. and that she incurred expenses in defending what she
Three (3) years after the RTC judgment was rendered, termed a “frivolous lawsuit.” She accordingly prayed
Debi Wallis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted to for PhP 50, 000 damages.
have the RTC judgment reversed and set aside. If you
are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy or Suppose there was no Counterclaim and Benjamin’s
remedies will you take? Discuss and specify the ground complaint was not dismissed, and judgment was
or grounds for said remedy or remedies. (2014 BAR) rendered against Mercedes for PhP 1,000,000. The
judgment became final and executory, and a writ of
A: Debi Wallis may file a Petition for Annulment of execution was correspondingly issued. Since Mercedes
Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, on the did not have cash to settle the judgment debt, she
grounds of lack of jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud and denial of offered her Toyota Camry model 2008 valued at P1.2
the right to due process. (Diona v. Balange, G.R. No. 173589, million. The Sheriff, however, on request of Benjamin,
7 Jan. 2013) An action for annulment of judgment is resorted seized Mercedes’ 17th century ivory image of the La
to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, Sagrada Familia estimated to be worth over PhP

REMEDIAL LAW
1,000,000. Was the Sheriff’s action in order? (2010 A: NO. The Court of Appeals is not correct. The dismissal of
BAR) the appeal is wrong because the execution of the RTC
judgment is only in respect of the eviction of the defendant
A: NO. The Sheriff’s action was not in order. He should not from the leased premises. Such execution pending appeal
have listened to Benjamin, the judgment obligee/creditor, has no effect on the merits of the ejectment suit which still
in levying on the properties of Mercedes, the judgment has to be resolved in the pending appeal. Rule 70, Sec. 21 of
obligor/debtor. The option to immediately choose which the Rules provides that the RTC judgment against the
property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to defendant shall be immediately executor, “without
satisfy the judgment, is vested by law (Rule 39, Sec. 9(b), prejudice to a further appeal” that may be taken therefrom.
ROC, as amended) upon the judgment obligor, Mercedes, not (Uy v. Santiago, 336 SCRA 680 (2000))
upon the judgment obligee, Benjamin, in this case. Only if
the judgment obligor does not exercise the option is the Q: Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a
Sheriff authorized to levy on personal properties if any, and parcel of land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00
then on the real properties if the personal properties are down payment upon signing and the balance payable in
insufficient to answer for the judgment. (UPLC Suggested twelve (12) monthly installments of Pl00,000.00.
Answers) Aldrin paid the down payment and had paid three (3)
monthly installments when he found out that Neil had
Q: A files a case against B. While awaiting decision on sold the same property to Yuri for Pl.5 million paid in
the case, A goes to the United States to work. Upon her cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with
return to the Philippines, seven years later, A discovers damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, filed an
that a decision was rendered by the court in here favor answer-in-intervention as he had already obtained a
a few months after she had left. Can A file a motion for TCT in his name. After trial, the court rendered
execution of the judgment? Reason briefly. (2007 BAR) judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all the instalments
due, the cancellation of Yuri’s title, and Neil to execute
A: On the assumption that the judgment had been final and a deed of sale in favor of Aldrin. When the judgment
executory for more than five (5) years as of A’s return to the became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the
Philippines seven (7) years later, a motion for execution of installments, but the latter refused to execute the deed
the judgment is no longer availing because the execution of of sale in favor of the former. Aldrin filed a “Petition for
judgment by mere motion is allowed by the Rules only the Issuance of a Writ of Execution” with proper notice
within five (5) years from entry of judgment; thereafter, and of hearing. The petition alleged, among others, that the
within ten (10) years from entry of judgment, an action to decision had become final and executory, and he is
enforce the judgment is required. entitled to the issuance of the writ of execution as a
matter of right. Neil filed a motion to dismiss the
Q: Mike was renting an apartment unit in the building petition on the ground that it lacked the required
owned by Jonathan. When Mike failed to pay six certification against forum shopping. (2015 BAR)
months’ rent, Jonathan filed an ejectment suit. The
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgement in (a) Should the court grant Neil's Motion to Dismiss?
favor of Jonathan, who then filed a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution. The MTC issued the writ. A: NO. The motion to dismiss should be denied because the
certification against forum shopping is only required in a
(a) How can Mike stay the execution of the MTC complaint or other initiatory pleading. (Sec. 5, Rule 7;
judgment? (2009 BAR) Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, 8 June 2005)
Since a petition for the issuance of the writ of execution is
A: Execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless not an initiatory pleading, it does not require a certification
Mike (a) perfects his appeal to the RTC, (b) files a sufficient against forum shopping.
supersedeas bond to pay the rents, damages and costs
accruing up to the time of the judgment appealed from, and (b) Despite the issuance of the writ of execution
(c) deposits monthly with the RTC during the pendency of directing Neil to execute the deed of sale in favor of
the appeal the amount of rent due from time to time (Rule Aldrin, the former obstinately refused to execute
70, Sec. 19). the deed. What is Aldrin's remedy?
(b) Mike appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which A: Aldrin may move for the issuance of a court order
affirmed the MTC decision. Mike then filed a directing the execution of the Deed of Sale by some other
petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The person appointed by it.
CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the
sheriff had already executed the MTC decision and Under Sec. 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, if a judgment
had ejected Mike from the premises, thus directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal
rendering the appeal moot and academic. Is the CA property, or to deliver deeds, other documents, or to
correct? (2009 BAR) perform, any other specific act in connection therewith, and
the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient in actions in personam, a foreign judgment merely
party by some other person appointed by the court and the constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim
act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.
party. If real or personal property is situated within the
Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance In this case, the divorce decree issued by the German Family
thereof may by an order divest the title of any party and vest Court merely constitutes prima facie evidence and it must
it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a be proven that Dara was given the opportunity to challenge
conveyance executed in due form of law. the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for
The phrase “some other person appointed by the court” declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to the
may refer to the branch clerk of court, sheriff or even the rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two
Register of Deeds, and their acts when done under such children.
authority shall have the effect of having been done by Neil
himself. Q:
Q: Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, (a) The writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. The
in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the marriage collapsed, judgment obligee subsequently received
Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of information that a bank holds a substantial deposit
marriage before the RTC of Manila. Drylvik, on the belonging to the judgment obligor. If you are the
other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from counsel of the judgment obligee, what steps would
the German Family Court. The decree, in essence, you take to reach the deposit to satisfy the
states: judgment? (2008 BAR)
The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before A: Since a writ of execution is valid for five years from its
the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is hereby dissolved. issuance, the sheriff should be informed and requested to
The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is garnish or levy on execution the bank deposits belonging to
granted to the father. the judgment obligor (Sec.9(c), Rule 39, ROC, as amended)
Then the judgment creditor moves for a court order
Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on directing the application of such bank deposit to the
the ground that the court no longer had jurisdiction satisfaction of the judgment (Sec. 40, Rule 39, ROC, as
over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been amended).
promulgated dissolving his marriage to Dara. Dara
objected, saying that while she was not challenging the (b) If the bank denies holding the deposit in the name
divorce decree, the case in the RTC still had to proceed of the judgment obligor but your client's informant
for the purpose of determining the issue of the is certain that the deposit belongs to the judgment
children’s custody. Drylvik counters that the issue had obligor under an assumed name, what is your
been disposed of in the divorce decree, thus remedy to reach the deposit? (2008 BAR)
constituting res judicata.
A: To reach the bank deposit belonging to the judgment
Should Drylvik’s motion to dismiss be granted? (2018 obligor but under an assumed name, a motion may be filed
BAR) for a court order requiring the proper bank officer to appear
in court for examination under oath as to such bank deposit,
A: NO. The motion to dismiss cannot be granted. and subsequently move for a court order authorizing the
filing of an action against such bank for the recovery of the
In Roehr v. Rodriguez (G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003), the judgment obligor’s deposit/interest therein and to forbid a
Supreme Court ruled that divorce decrees obtained by transfer or other disposition of such deposit/interest within
foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our 120 days from notice of the order. (Secs. 37 and 43, Rule 39,
jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, ROC, as amended)
care and support of the children, must still be determined
by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res Q: A obtained a money judgment against B. After the
judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody finality of the decision, the court issued a writ of
of the children, it must be shown that the parties opposed execution for the enforcement thereof. Conformably
to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so with the said writ, the sheriff levied upon certain
on grounds allowed under Section 50, Rule 39. properties under B’s name. C filed a third-party claim
over said properties claiming that B had already
Rule 39, Section 50 states that “in case of a judgment against transferred the same to him. A moved to deny the third-
a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as party claim and to hold B and C jointly and severally
between the parties and their successors in interest by a liable to him for the money judgment alleging that B
subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by had transferred said properties to C to defraud him (A).
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the After due hearing, the court denied the third-party
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.” Thus, claim and rendered an amended decision declaring B

REMEDIAL LAW
and C jointly and severally liable to A for the money Q: A, a resident of Dagupan City, secured a favorable
judgment. Is the ruling of the court correct? Explain. judgment in an ejectment case against X, a resident of
(2005 BAR) Quezon City, from the MTC of Manila. The judgment,
entered on 15 June 1991, had not as yet been executed.
A: NO. C has not been properly impleaded as a party (1997 BAR)
defendant. He cannot be held liable for the judgment against
A without a trial. In fact, since no bond was filed by B, the (a) In July 1996, A decided to enforce the judgment of
sheriff is liable to C for damages. C can file a separate action the MTC of Manila. What is the procedure to be
to enforce his third-party claim. It is in that suit that B can followed by A in enforcing the judgment?
raise the ground of fraud against C. However, the execution
may proceed where there is a finding that the claim is A: A can enforce the judgment by another action reviving
fraudulent (Tanongan v. Samson, G.R. No. 140889, 09 May the judgment because it can no longer be enforced by
2002) motion as the five-year period within which a judgment
may be enforced by motion has already expired. (Sec. 6, Rule
Q: The trial court rendered judgment ordering the 39, ROC, as amended)
defendant to pay the plaintiff moral and exemplary
damages. The judgment was served on the plaintiff on (b) With what court should A institute the
October 1, 2001 and on the defendant on October 5, proceedings?
2001. On October 8, 2001, the defendant filed a notice
of appeal from the judgment, but the following day, A: A may institute the proceedings in the Regional Trial
October 9, 2001, the plaintiff moved for the execution Court in accordance with the rules of venue because the
of the judgment pending appeal. The trial court granted enforcement of the judgment is a personal action incapable
the motion upon the posting by the plaintiff of a bond to of pecuniary estimation. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
indemnify the defendant for damages it may suffer as a
result of the execution. The court gave as a special EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT OBLIGOR
reason for its order the imminent insolvency of the WHEN JUDGMENT IS UNSATISFIED
defendant. Is the order of execution pending appeal (2020-21, 2002 BAR)
correct? Why? (2002 BAR)
Q: The plaintiff, a Manila resident, sued the defendant,
A: NO, because awards for moral and exemplary damages a resident of Malolos Bulacan, in the RTC –Manila for a
cannot be the subject of execution pending appeal. The sum of money. When the sheriff tried to serve the
execution of any award for moral and exemplary damages summons with a copy of the complaint on the defendant
is dependent on the outcome of the main case. Liabilities for at his Bulacan residence, the sheriff was told that the
moral and exemplary damages, as well as the exact amounts defendant had gone to Manila for business and would
remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution by the not be back until the evening of that day. So, the sheriff
Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. (RCPI v. Lantin, G.R. No. served the summons, together with a copy of the
L-59311, 31 Jan. 1985; International School, Inc. v. Court of complaint, on the defendant’s 18-year-old daughter,
Appeals, G.R. No. 131109, 29 June 1999) who was a college student. For the defendant’s failure
to answer the complaint within the reglementary
Q: JK’s real property is being attached by the sheriff in a period, the trial court, on motion of the plaintiff,
civil action for damages against LM. JK claims that he is declared the defendant in default. A month later, the
not a party to the case; that his property is not involved trial court rendered judgment holding the defendant
in said case; and that he is the sole registered owner of liable for the entire amount prayed for in the complaint.
said property. Under the Rules of Court, what must JK (2002 BAR)
do to prevent the sheriff from attaching his property?
(2000 BAR) (a) After the judgment had become final, a writ of
execution was issued by the court. As the writ was
A: If the real property is being attached, the remedy is to file returned unsatisfied, the plaintiff filed a motion for
a third-party claim. The third-party claimant should make an order requiring the defendant to appear before
an affidavit of his title to the property attached, stating the it and to be examined regarding his property and
grounds of his title thereto, and serve such affidavit upon income. How should the court resolve the motion?
the sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached
property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party (Sec. A: The RTC-Manila should deny the motion because it is in
14, Rule 57, ROC, as amended) The third-party claimant may violation of the rule that no judgment obligor shall be
also intervene or file a separate action to vindicate his claim required to appear before a court, for the purpose of
to the property involved and secure the necessary reliefs, examination concerning his property and income, outside
such as preliminary injunction, which will not be the province or city in which such obligor resides. In this
considered as interference with a court of coordinate case the judgment obligor resides in Bulacan (Sec. 36, Rule
jurisdiction. (Ong v. Tating, G.R. No. L-61042, 15 Apr. 1987) 39, ROC, as amended)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
(b) Seven years after the entry of judgment, the ENFORCEMENT AND EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
plaintiff filed an action for its revival. Can the OR FINAL ORDERS
defendant successfully oppose the revival of the (2005 BAR)
judgment by contending that it is null and void
because the RTC-Manila did not acquire Q: Under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, an action
jurisdiction over his person? Why? upon a judgment must be brought within 10 years from
A: YES, because the sheriff did not exert sufficient effort to the time the right of action accrues. Is this provision
serve summons personally on the defendant within a applicable to an action filed in the Philippines to
reasonable time and hence the RTC-Manila did not acquire enforce a foreign judgment? Explain. (2005 BAR)
jurisdiction over his person. (Secs. 6 and 7, Rule 14, ROC, as
amended; De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120941, 18 A: NO. Art. 1144 of the New Civil Code which requires that an
Apr. 1997) action upon a judgment (though without distinction) must
be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action
Q: On her deathbed, your grandmother revealed to you accrues, does not apply to an action filed in the Philippines
that in 1994, she and her family won a civil action for to enforce a foreign judgment. While we can say that where
damages against a former President for human rights the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish, still
atrocities committed against them during martial law. the law does not evidently contemplate the inclusion of
The judgment was never appealed. foreign judgments. A local judgment may be enforced by
motion within five years and by action within the next five
Your grandmother informed you that she never had the years (Rule 39, ROC, as amended) That is not the case with
judgment executed because she wanted this to be her respect to foreign judgments which cannot be enforced by
parting gift for you when she passed. She said that she mere motion.
also felt the need to wait for one of her grandchildren to
become a lawyer. It so happened that you have just
passed the #BestBarEver2020_21. IV. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
(2022, 2019, 2017, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2006, 2005,
Your grandmother spent her last moments narrating 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999 BAR)
how she had been arrested by the military during
martial law, and was then tortured and raped while
under detention. She emphasized that her case was not
unique, and that until now, she was yet to receive an
apology from any member of the former President’s A. NATURE, PURPOSE, AND JURISDICTION
family. OVER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
With her last breath, she instructed you not to let her
experience happen again. Her parting words to you
were: “Never again!” B. PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
(RULE 57)
Is an action for revival of judgment the proper remedy (2014, 2012, 2005, 2002, 2001, 1999 BAR)
to enable the judgment's execution? Explain briefly.
(2020-21 BAR)
Q: Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in
A: NO, an action for revival of judgment is not the proper
favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his
remedy to enable the judgment's execution. Under the Law
house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but
on Civil Procedure, an action for revival of judgment must
failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon.
be filed within ten years from the entry of judgment;
On his return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a
otherwise, it is barred by prescription.
demand letter duly received by Agente sought to
recover the amount due him. Agente failed to return the
Here, it has been more than ten years from the entry of
amount as he had used it for the construction of his own
judgment in 1994, the judgment never having been
house. Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for
appealed. Hence, the action for revival of judgment is not
sum of money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed
the proper remedy because it has already prescribed. (Sec.
an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of
6, Rule 39, ROC, as amended; Art. 1144, New Civil Code;
preliminary attachment duly supported by an affidavit.
Riguera 2022)
The court granted the ex parte motion and issued a writ
of preliminary attachment upon Bayani’s posting of the
required bond. Bayani prayed that the court’s sheriff be
deputized to serve and implement the writ of
attachment. On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served
upon Agente the writ of attachment and Agente levied
on the latter’s house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the

REMEDIAL LAW
Sheriff served upon Agente summons and a copy of the whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or
complaint. On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the
Answer with Motion to Discharge the Writ if report shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee
Attachment alleging that at the time the writ of holds for the judgment obligor. (Sec. 9(c), Rule 39, ROC, as
preliminary attachment was issued, he has not been amended; UPLC Suggested Answers)
served with summons and, therefore, it was improperly
issued. (2014 BAR) Levy on execution is a manner of satisfying or executing
judgment where the sheriff may sell property of the
(a) Is Agente correct? judgment obligor if he is unable to pay all or part of the
obligation in cash, certified bank check or any other manner
A: NO. Agente is not correct. Section 2, Rule 57 provides that acceptable to the obligee. If the obligor does not choose
a writ of attachment may be issued ex parte or upon motion which among his property may be sold, the sheriff shall sell
with notice and hearing by the Court in which the action is personal property first and then real property second. He
pending. Under the Rules, the applicant of the writ is only must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is
required to (i) submit an affidavit and (ii) post a bond sufficient to satisfy judgment and other lawful fees. (Sec.
before the court can validly issue the writ of attachment. 9(b), Rule 39, ROC, as amended, UPLC Suggested Answers)
The Rules do not require prior service of summons for the
proper issuance of a writ of attachment. (Torres v. Satsatin, Warrant of seizure is normally applied for with a search
G.R. No. 166759, 25 Nov. 2009) Accordingly, the issuance of warrant, in criminal cases. The warrant of seizure must
the writ of attachment is valid notwithstanding the absence particularly describe the things to be seized. While it is true
of a prior service of summons to Agnete. that the property to be seized under a warrant must be
particularly described therein and no other property can be
(b) Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be
executed? specific only insofar as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow. An application for search and seizure warrant shall
A: NO. The writ of preliminary attachment was not properly be filed with the following: (a) any court within whose
executed. Although a writ of attachment may issue even territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed; (b) for
before summons is served upon the defendant, the same, compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
however, may not bind and affect the defendant until within the judicial region where the crime was committed if
jurisdiction over his person is obtained. (Davao Light and the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any
Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93262, 29 Dec. court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
1991) Thus, the writ of preliminary attachment must only enforced. However, if the criminal action has already been
be served simultaneous or at least after the service of filed, the application shall only be made in the court where
summons to the defendant. (Torres v. Satsatin, G.R. No. the criminal action is pending. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
166759, 25 Nov. 2009)
Warrant of distraint and levy is remedy available to local
Q: Briefly discuss/differentiate the following kinds of governments and the BIR in tax cases to satisfy deficiencies
Attachment: preliminary attachment, garnishment, or delinquencies in inheritance and estate taxes, and real
levy on execution, warrant of seizure and warrant of estate taxes. Distraint is the seizure of personal property to
distraint and levy. (2012 BAR) be sold in an authorized auction sale. Levy is the issuance of
a certification by the proper officer showing the name of the
A: Preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy under taxpayer and the tax, fee, charge or penalty due him. Levy is
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. It may be sought at the made by writing upon said certificate the description of the
commencement of an action or at any time before entry of property upon which levy is made. (Ibid.)
judgment where property of an adverse party may be
attached as security for satisfaction of any judgment, where Q: A sues B for collection of a sum of money. Alleging
this adverse party is about to depart from the Philippines, fraud in the contracting of the loan, A applies for
where he has intent to defraud or has committed fraud, or preliminary attachment with the court. The Court
is not found in the Philippines. An affidavit and a bond is issues the preliminary attachment after A files a bond.
required before the preliminary attachment issues. It is While summons on B was yet unserved, the sheriff
discharged upon payment of a counter bond. (UPLC attached B's properties. Afterwards, summons was duly
Suggested Answers) served on B. B moves to lift the attachment. Rule on this.
(2012 BAR)
Garnishment is a manner of satisfying or executing
judgment where the sheriff may levy debts, credits, A: I will grant the motion since no levy on attachment
royalties, commissions, bank deposits and other personal pursuant to the writ shall be enforced unless it is preceded
property not capable of manual delivery that are in the or contemporaneously accompanied by service of
control or possession of third persons and are due the summons. There must the prior or contemporaneous
judgment obligor. Notice shall be served on third parties. service of summons with the writ of attachment. (Sec. 5,
The third party garnishee must make a written report on Rule 57, ROC, as amended)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Q: Katy filed an action against Tyrone for collection of jointly to the defendant P1.5 million as actual damages,
the sum of P1 million in the RTC, with an ex parte P0.5 million as moral damages and P0.5 million as
application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Upon exemplary damages. Evaluate the soundness of the
posting of an attachment bond, the court granted the judgment from the point of view of procedure. (2002
application and issued a writ of preliminary BAR)
attachment. Apprehensive that Tyrone might withdraw
his savings deposit with the bank, the sheriff A: The judgment against the surety is not sound if due notice
immediately served a notice of garnishment on the was not given to him of the applicant for damages (Sec. 20,
bank to implement the writ of preliminary attachment. Rule 57, ROC, as amended) Moreover, the judgment against
The following day, the sheriff proceeded to Tyrone’s the surety cannot exceed the amount of its counterbond of
house and served him the summons, with copies of the P1 million.
complaint containing the application for writ of
attachment, Katy’s affidavit, order of attachment, writ Q: May a writ of preliminary attachment be issued ex
of preliminary attachment and attachment bond. parte? Briefly state the reason(s) for your answer.
Within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons, (2001 BAR)
Tyrone filed a motion to dismiss and to dissolve the writ
of preliminary attachment on the following grounds: A: YES, an order of attachment may be issued ex parte or
(i) the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his upon motion with notice and hearing (Sec. 2, Rule 57, ROC,
person because the writ was served ahead of the as amended) The reason why the order may be issued ex
summons; (ii) the writ was improperly implemented; parte is that requiring notice to the adverse party and a
and (iii) said writ was improvidently issued because hearing would defeat the purpose of the provisional remedy
the obligation in question was already fully paid. and enable the adverse party to abscond or dispose of his
Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 BAR) property before a writ of attachment issues. (Mindanao
Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
A: The motion to dismiss and to dissolve the writ of 84481, 18 Apr. 1989)
preliminary attachment should be denied.
Q: In a case, the property of an incompetent under
The fact that the writ of attachment was served ahead of the guardianship was in custodia legis. Can it be attached?
summons did not affect the jurisdiction of the court over his Explain. (1999 BAR)
person. It makes the writ, unenforceable. (Sec. 5, Rule 57,
ROC, as amended) However, all that is needed to be done is A: Although the property of an incompetent under
to re-serve the writ. (Onate v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 197393, 23 guardianship is in custodia legis, it may be attached as in fact
Feb. 1985) it is provided that in such case, a copy of the writ of
attachment shall be filed with the proper court and notice
Further, the writ was improperly implemented. Serving a of the attachment served upon the custodian of such
notice of garnishment, particularly before the summons is property (Sec. 7, Rule 57, ROC, as amended).
served, is not proper. It should be a copy of the writ of
attachment that should be served on the defendant, and a Q: May damages be claimed by a party prejudiced by a
notice that the bank deposits are attached pursuant to the wrongful attachment even if the judgment is adverse to
writ. (Sec. 7(d), Rule 57, ROC, as amended) him? Explain. (1999 BAR)
Also, the writ was improvidently issued if indeed it can be A: YES, damages may be claimed by a party prejudiced by a
shown that the obligation was already fully paid. The writ is wrongful attachment even if the judgment is adverse to him.
only ancillary to the main action. (Sec. 13, Rule 57, ROC, as This is authorized by the Rules. A claim for damages may be
amended) The alleged payment of the account cannot serve made on account of improper, irregular or excessive
as a ground for resolving the improvident issuance of the attachment, which shall be heard with notice to the adverse
writ, because this matter delves into the merits of the case, party and his surety or sureties. (Sec. 20, Rule 57, ROC, as
and requires full-blown trial. Payment, however, serves as a amended; Javellana v. D.O. Plaza Enterprises Inc., G.R. No. L-
ground for a motion to dismiss. 28297, 30 Mar. 1970)
Q: The plaintiff obtained a writ of preliminary Q: Distinguish attachment from garnishment. (1999
attachment upon a bond of P1 million. The writ was BAR)
levied on the defendant’s property, but it was
discharged upon the posting by the defendant of a A: Attachment and garnishment are distinguished from
counterbond in the same amount of P1 million. After each other as follows: attachment is a provisional remedy
trial, the court rendered judgment finding that the that effects a levy on property of a party as security for the
plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, while
and that he had sued out the writ of attachment garnishment is a levy on debts due the judgment obligor or
maliciously. Accordingly, the court dismissed the defendant and other credits, including bank deposits,
complaint and ordered the plaintiff and its surety to pay royalties and other personal property not capable of

REMEDIAL LAW
manual delivery under a writ of execution or a writ of Did the RTC err in issuing the writ of preliminary
attachment. injunction ex parte ex parte? Explain. (2019 BAR)
A: YES. An application for the issuance of a writ of

C. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION preliminary injunction and/or TRO may be granted upon
(RULE 58) the filing of a verified application showing facts entitling the
(2022, 2019, 2017, 2010, 2006, 2003, 2001 BAR) applicant to the relief demanded. Essential to granting the
injunctive relief is the existence of an urgent necessity for
the writ in order to prevent serious damage. A TRO issues
only if the matter is of such extreme urgency that grave
Q: Isol, Inc. supplies rotisserie chicken products to the
injustice and irreparable injury would arise unless it is
grocery section of shopping malls. It conducts kitchen
immediately issued.
operations in a refurbished house located in Palanan, a
residential neighborhood. Rona, a resident of Palanan,
Based on Sec. 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, an ex parte TRO
filed an action against Isol, Inc. to enjoin the operations
may be issued based on the following:
of its kitchen on the ground that it emits intolerable
odors and violates laws on waste disposal. In the same
(1) It is issued only in matters of extreme urgency and
action, Rona also seeks to have Isol, Inc.’s business
the applicant will suffer grave injustice and
permit revoked because an industrial facility is not
irreparable injury;
allowed by law .to be located in a residential
neighborhood and Isol, Inc. failed to comply with
(2) It shall be effective for only 72 hours counted from
sanitary inspection and other procedural and health
its issuance;
requirements. In the complaint Rona filed, she likewise
prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
(3) Within this original 72-hour period, the issuing
injunction (WPI) to stop the kitchen operations during
judge must conduct a summary hearing to
the pendency of the case. Isol, Inc., in its verified
determine the proprietary of extending the TRO;
answer, strongly opposed the prayer for WPI
and
considering the huge financial disaster that it will suffer
if the writ were to be issued, especially in light of the
(4) In no case shall the total period of the TRO which
possibility that the suit could continue to be pending for
shall include the original 72 hours exceed 20 days.
more than a year.
Within the aforesaid 72-hours, the judge before whom the

Based on the foregoing, may the WPI prayed for already
case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to
be issued? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
determine whether the TRO shall be extended until the
application for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no
A: NO. The WPI prayed for may not already be issued. Under
case shall the total period of effectivity of the TRO exceed 20
the Rules of Civil Procedure, no preliminary injunction shall
days, including the original 72 hours provided herein.
be issued or granted without hearing. (Sec. 5, Rule 58, ROC,
as amended) Here, although Isol, Inc. had filed its verified
Thus, the issuance of the ex parte 72 hours TRO upon
answer, the court had not yet conducted a hearing. Hence,
compliance with the parameters above, shall be included in
the WPI may not already be issued. (Riguera, 2023)
the computation of the 20 day period. The same cannot be
extended. After the lapsed 20 days period and no injunction
Q: Mrs. G defaulted in the payment of her loan
has been issued, the TRO becomes functus officio.
obligation with Z Bank. As such, Z Bank extra-judicially
foreclosed Mrs. G's mortgaged property and sold it at
The criterion above cited are absent in the case of Mrs. G.
public auction where it emerged as the highest bidder.
Hence, the RTC erred in the issuance of ex parte Preliminary
Eventually, a certificate of sale was issued in Z Bank's
Injunction against Z Bank. (Rodriguez v. Noel, A.M. No. RTJ-
favor, and title to the property was later consolidated
18-2525, 25 June 2018)
under the bank's name.
Q: A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on

Claiming that Z Bank used fraudulent machinations in
September 20, 2017 by the RTC against defendant Jeff
increasing the interest and penalty charges on the loan,
enjoining him from entering the land of Regan, the
thereby making it impossible for her to pay, Mrs. G filed
plaintiff. On October 9, 2017, upon application of Regan,
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for
the trial court, allegedly in the interest of justice,
cancellation of consolidation of ownership over a real
extended the TRO for another 20 days based on the
property with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
same ground for which the TRO was issued. On October
preliminary injunction against Z Bank. Immediately
15, 2017, Jeff entered the land subject of the TRO. May
thereafter, the RTC issued an ex parte ex parte writ of
Jeff be liable for contempt of court? Why? (2017 BAR)
preliminary injunction enjoining Z Bank from
disposing of the foreclosed property or taking
possession thereof.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: NO, Jeff may not be liable for contempt. Under the Rule A: YES, if the injunction issued is a final injunction.
on Preliminary Injunction, a TRO is effective only for a Generally, however, a preliminary injunction may not be
period of 20 days from service on the person sought to be issued without the posting of a bond, unless exempted by
enjoined. It is deemed automatically vacated if the the trial court (Sec. 4 (b), Rule 58, ROC, as amended) or
application for preliminary injunction is denied or not otherwise provided for by law.
resolved within the said period and no court shall have the
authority to extend or renew the TRO on the same ground Q: May a justice of a Division of the Court of Appeals
for which it was issued. (Sec. 5, Rule 58, ROC, as amended) issue a TRO? (2006 BAR)
Here the extension of the TRO by the RTC was invalid since
it was for the same ground for which the TRO was issued. A: YES, a Justice of a Division of the Court of Appeals may
Hence the TRO was deemed automatically vacated and thus issue a TRO, as authorized under Rule 58 and by Section 5,
Jeff may not be liable for contempt for ignoring it. Rule VI of the Internal Rules of Court of Appeals which
additionally requires that the action shall be submitted on
Q: Define a temporary restraining order (TRO). the next working day to the absent members of the division
Differentiate a TRO from a status quo order. (2006 BAR) for their ratification, modification or recall. (Heirs of Reyes v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 135180-81; 135425-26, 16 Aug.
A: A temporary restraining order is issued upon application 2000)
of a party and upon the posting of the required bond. On the
other hand, a status quo order maybe issued motu proprio Q: Can a suit for injunction be aptly filed with the
on equitable considerations and does not require the Supreme Court to stop the president of the Philippines
posting of a bond. Unlike a temporary restraining order or from entering into a peace agreement with the National
a preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in the Democratic Front? (2003 BAR)
nature of a cease-and-desist order, since it neither directs
the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of prohibitory or A: A suit for injunction cannot be filed with the Supreme
mandatory injunctive relief (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No. Court to stop the President of the Philippines from entering
139043, 10 Sept., 1999) into a peace agreement with the National Democratic Front,
which is a purely political question. (Madarang v.
Q: What are the requisites for the issuance of (a) a writ Santamaria, G.R. No. L- 13316, 11 Dec. 1917) The President
of preliminary injunction; and (b) a final writ of of the Philippines is immune from suit.
injunction? (2006 BAR)
Q: May a preliminary injunction be issued ex parte?
A: The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary Why? (2001 BAR)
injunction are: (1) a right in esse or a clear and
unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that A: NO, a writ of preliminary injunction may not be issued ex
right; (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and parte. As provided in the Rules, no preliminary injunction
urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the
(Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971, 25 Mar. 2004) party or person sought to be enjoined. (Sec. 5, Rule 58, ROC,
as amended) The reason is that a preliminary injunction
A final writ of injunction may be granted if after trial of the may cause grave and irreparable injury to the party
action, it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the enjoined.
act or acts complained of permanently enjoined (Sec. 9, Rule
58, ROC, as amended) Q: An application for a writ of preliminary injunction
with a prayer for a temporary restraining order is
Q: Distinguish between injunction as an ancillary included in a complaint and filed in a multi-sala RTC
remedy and injunction as a main action. (2006 BAR) consisting of Branches 1, 2, 3 and 4. Being urgent in
nature, the Executive Judge, who was sitting in Branch
A: Injunction as an ancillary remedy presupposes the 1, upon the filing of the aforesaid application
existence of a principal or a main action. (Vallangca v. Court immediately raffled the case in the presence of the
of Appeals, G.R. No. 55336, 04 May 1989) Its main function is judges of Branches 2, 3 and 4. The case was raffled to
to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard and Branch 4 and judge thereof immediately issued a
resolved. (Urbanes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117964, 28 temporary restraining order. Is the temporary
Mar. 2001) restraining order valid? Why? (2001 BAR)
On the other hand, an injunction as the main action is A: NO. It is only the Executive Judge who can issue
brought specifically to obtain a judgment perpetually immediately a temporary restraining order effective only
restraining or commanding the performance of an act after for seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. No other Judge
trial. (Del Mar v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 138298, 29 Nov. 2000) has the right or power to issue a temporary restraining
order ex parte. The Judge to whom the case is assigned will
Q: May the RTC issue injunction without bond? (2006 then conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the
BAR) temporary restraining order shall be extended, but in no

REMEDIAL LAW
case beyond 20 days, including the original 72-hour period.
(Sec. 5, Rule 58, ROC, as amended) V. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
D. RECEIVERSHIP
(RULE 59)
A. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
(2001 BAR)
Q: Joaquin filed a complaint against Jose for the

foreclosure of a mortgage of a furniture factory with a B. INTERPLEADER
large number of machinery and equipment. During the (RULE 62)
pendency of the foreclosure suit, Joaquin learned from
reliable sources that Jose was quietly and gradually
disposing of some of his machinery and equipment to a
businessman friend who was also engaged in furniture C. DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES
manufacturing such that from confirmed reports (RULE 63)
Joaquin gathered, the machinery and equipment left
with Jose were no longer sufficient to answer for the
latter’s mortgage indebtedness. In the meantime,
judgment was rendered by the court in favor of Joaquin
but the same is not yet final. Knowing what Jose has D. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, AND MANDAMUS
been doing. If you were Joaquin’s lawyer, what action (RULE 65)
would you take to preserve whatever remaining (2022, 2020-21, 2015, 2012, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002,
machinery and equipment are left with Jose? Why? 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 BAR)
(2001 BAR)
A: To preserve whatever remaining machinery and 1. DEFINITION AND DISTINCTIONS

equipment are left with Jose, Joaquin's lawyer should file a (2022, 2020-21, 2015, 2012, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002,
verified application for the appointment by the court of one 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 BAR)
or more receivers. The Rules provide that receivership is
proper in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure of
Q: Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial
a mortgage when it appears that the property is in danger
Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on
of being wasted or dissipated or materially injured and that
September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a
its value is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage
Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law
debt. (Sec. 1(b), Rule 59, ROC, as amended)
and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were
committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the
private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public
E. REPLEVIN prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime's motion. On
(RULE 60) October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime's motion. On
(1999 BAR) October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion
for reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated
October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor's
Q: What is replevin? (1999 BAR) motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor
received his copy of the order of denial on October 20,
A: Replevin or delivery of personal property consists in the 2015 while the private prosecutor received his copy on
delivery, by order of the court, of personal property by the October 26, 2015. (2015 BAR)
defendant to the plaintiff, upon the filing of a bond. (Calo v.
Roldan, G.R. No. L-252, 30 Mar. 1946) (a) What is the remedy available to the prosecution
from the court's order granting Jaime's motion for
new trial?
A: The remedy of the prosecution is to file a petition for

certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, because the
denial of a motion for reconsideration is merely an
interlocutory order and there is no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy under the course of law. (UPLC Suggested
Answers)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Be that as it may, it may be argued that appeal is the (b) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the
appropriate remedy from an order denying a motion for Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the
reconsideration of an order granting a motion for new trial Information?
because an order denying a motion for reconsideration was
already removed in the enumeration of matters that cannot A: NO, mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman to
be a subject of an appeal under Sec. 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of include the treasurer in the Information. In matters
Court. (Ibid.) involving exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus
may only be resorted to in order to compel respondent
(b) In what court and within what period should a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person to take action,
remedy be availed of? but it cannot be used to direct the manner or particular way
discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or
A: Following the principle of judicial hierarchy, the petition reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of
for certiorari should be filed before the Court of Appeals judgment or discretion. (Ampatuan, Jr. v. De Lima, G.R. No.
within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the order 197291, 03 Apr. 2013)
of denial of the public prosecutor’s motion for
reconsideration, or on 20 Oct. 2015. (ibid.) Evidently, the Ombudsman’s act of granting the treasurer
immunity from prosecution under such terms and
(c) Who should pursue the remedy? conditions as it may determine (Sec. 17, R.A. No. 6770) is a
discretionary duty that may not be compelled by the
A: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) should pursue extraordinary writ of mandamus.
the remedy. In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court
of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to Q: Mayor Dalupan, who was notorious for being
represent the people is vested solely in the Solicitor involved in rigged public biddings, was convicted by the
General. Under P.D. No. 4478 among the specific powers Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its original
and functions of the OSG is to “represent the government in jurisdiction, for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act
the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
proceedings.” This provision has been carried over to the Seeking to overturn his conviction, Mayor Dalupan filed
Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Supreme
III, Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the Court on the 59th day from notice of the assailed
appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all Sandiganbayan ruling.
criminal cases. (Cariño v. de Castro, G.R. No. 176084, 30 Apr.
2008) Is the remedy availed of by Mayor Dalupan correct?
Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
Q: The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge
with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, A: NO, the remedy of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An availed of by Mayor Dalupan is not correct. Under the Rules
Information for plunder was filed with the of Civil Procedure, a special civil action for certiorari under
Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except Rule 65 is not a proper remedy if appeal was available to the
for the treasurer who was granted immunity when he aggrieved person. (Sec. 1, Rule 65, ROC, as amended)
agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the
prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor filed Here, appeal was available to Mayor Dalupan because he
with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against could have filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court
the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of from the Sandiganbayan’s judgment of conviction. (People v.
discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Talaue, G.R. No. 248652, 12 Jan. 2021) Hence, the remedy of
Information. (2015 BAR) a petition for certiorari availed of by Mayor Dalupan is not
correct.
(a) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct?
Q: Compare the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme
A: NO, the remedy taken by the Governor is not correct. The Court under the Constitution with that under Rule 65 of
petition for certiorari is a remedy that is only available the Rules of Civil Procedure. (2008 BAR)
when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy under
the ordinary course of law; hence, the Governor should have A: Under the Constitution, the certiorari jurisdiction of the
filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Supreme Court provides for its expanded jurisdiction
power of judicial review over all branches or
Besides, there is no showing that the Ombudsman instrumentalities of the government where there is a grave
committed grave abuse of discretion in granting immunity abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
to the treasurer who agreed to cooperate in the prosecution jurisdiction, as provided in Sec. 1(2), Article VIII of the 1987
of the case. Constitution.

REMEDIAL LAW
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the certiorari from the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to acts done Regional Trial Court under Rule 45.
without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by a b. The first can be filed only on the grounds of lack or
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
functions only. And the period fixed for availing of the tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, while
remedy is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment; the second is based on the errors of law of the lower
order or resolution in question (Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 65, ROC, court.
as amended) c. The first should be filed within sixty (60) days from
notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought
Q: Explain each mode of Certiorari: (2006 BAR) to be assailed (Sec. 4, Rule 65, as amended), while
the second should be filed within fifteen (15) days
(a) As a mode of appeal from the Regional Trial Court from notice of the judgment or final order or
or the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the
petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration
A: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is a filed in due time after notice of the judgment (Sec.
mode of appeal on pure questions law from a judgment or 2, Rule 45, ROC, as amended)
final order or resolution of the Regional Court or the Court
of Appeals to the Supreme Court. d. The first cannot generally be availed of as a
substitute for a lost appeal under Rules 40, 41, 42,
(b) As special civil action from the Regional Trial Court 43 and 45.
or the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
e. Under the first, the lower court is impleaded as a
A: A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, is an party respondent (Sec. 5, Rule 65), while under the
original action from the Regional Trial Court or the Court of second, the lower court is not impleaded. (Sec. 4,
Appeals to the Supreme Court against any tribunal, board or Rule of 45, ROC, as amended)
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions raising
the issue of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of Q: Differentiate certiorari as an original action from
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, there certiorari as a mode of appeal. (1998 BAR)
being no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law. A: Certiorari as an original action and certiorari as a mode
of appeal may be distinguished as follows:
(c) As a mode of review of the decisions of the National
Labor Relations Commission and the Constitutional 1. The first is a special civil action under Rule 65, while
Commissions. the second is an appeal to the Supreme Court from the
Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the Regional
A: The mode of review of the decision of the NLRC is via a Trial Court under Rule 45.
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, but
pursuant to the hierarchy of the courts enunciated in the 2. The first can be filed only on the grounds of lack or
case of St. Martin’s Funeral Homes v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
16 Sept. 1998) the same should be filed in the Court of tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, while the
Appeals. second is based on the errors of law of the lower court.
The mode of review of the decisions of two Constitutional 3. The first should be filed within sixty (60) days from
Commissions, the Commission on Elections and the notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to
Commission on Audit, as provided under Rule 64 of the Rules be assailed (Sec. 4, Rule 65) while the second should be
of Court is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
Decisions of the Civil Service Commission, however, are judgment or final order or resolution appealed from,
reviewable by petition for review to be filed with the Court or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial
of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. or recon-sideration filed in due time after notice of the
judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 45)
Q: Differentiate certiorari as an original action from
certiorari as a mode of appeal. (1998, 1999 BAR) 4. The first cannot generally be availed of as a substitute
for a lost appeal under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45.
A: Certiorari as an original action and certiorari as a mode
of appeal may be distinguished as follows: 5. Under the first, the lower court is impleaded as a party
respondent (Sec. 5, Rule 65), while under the second,
a. The first is a special civil action under Rule 65, the lower court is not impleaded (Sec. 4, Rule of 45)
while the second is an appeal to the Supreme Court

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Q: In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread MANDAMUS
Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court (2020-21, 2012, 2006, 2001, 1999 BAR)
(Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the
appointment was announced, several groups Q: Will a petition for mandamus lie to compel the
questioned his qualification to the position on the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to convene representatives
ground that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen. of neighboring countries similarly situated with the
In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic
him from accepting the appointment or assuming the solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the
position and discharging the functions of his office until West Philippine Sea? Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR)
he is able to successfully complete all the necessary A: NO, a petition for mandamus will not lie to compel the
steps to show that he is a natural born citizen of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to convene representatives of
Philippines. He however, continued to exercise his neighboring countries similarly situated with the
functions as CA Justice. Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic solutions to
enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West Philippine
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies Sea. Under the Law on Civil Procedure, mandamus does not
as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, lie to compel the performance of discretionary acts. Here,
asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through convening representatives of neighboring countries to find
a verified request, to initiate a quo warranto diplomatic solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award is a
proceeding against J. Dong in the latter’s capacity as discretionary not ministerial act of the executive
Text
incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the Text department. Hence, a petition for mandamus will not lie.
action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s (Riguera, 2022)
citizenship was still being litigated in another case.
Q: A files a Complaint against B for recovery of title and
When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto possession of land situated in Makati with the RTC of
proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari Pasig. B files a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue.
against the OSG, and certiorari and prohibition against The RTC Pasig Judge denies B's Motion to Dismiss,
J. Dong. The petition for certiorari against the OSG which obviously was incorrect. Alleging that the RTC
alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of Judge "unlawfully neglected the performance of an act
discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for from an office," A files a Petition for mandamus against
certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the the judge. Will mandamus lie? Reasons. (2012 BAR)
Court to order him to cease and desist from further
exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA A: No, mandamus will not lie. The proper remedy is a
Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact petition for prohibition. (Serena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
that at the time of J. Dong’s appointment as CA Justice, J. 162059, 22 Jan. 2008) The dismissal of the case based on
Dong’s birth certificate indicated that he was a Chinese improper venue is not a ministerial duty. Mandamus does
citizen and his bar records showed that he was a not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty.
naturalized Filipino citizen. (Paloma v. Mora, G.R. No. 157783, 23 Sept. 2005)
Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate Q: In 1996, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189,
the action for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong? otherwise known as the Voter’s Registration Act of
(2018 BAR) 1996, providing for computerization of elections.
Pursuant thereto, the COMELEC approved the Voter’s
A: NO. He is not clothed with legal interest. Secs. 1 and 2, Registration and Identification System (VRIS) Project. It
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court state that only an aggrieved issued invitations to pre-qualify and bid for the project.
party may file petitions for certiorari and prohibition in the After the public bidding, Fotokina was declared the
appropriate court. winning bidder with a bid of P6 billion and was issued
a Notice of Award. But COMELEC Chairman Gener Go
An “aggrieved party” is one who was a party to the original objected to the award on the ground that under the
proceedings that gave rise to the original action for appropriations Act, the budget for the COMELEC’s
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (Siguion Reyna modernization is only P1 billion. He announced to the
Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Offices v. Chionlo-Sia, G.R. No. public that the VRIS project has been set aside. Two
181186, 03 Feb. 2016) Commissioners sided with Chairman Go, but the
majority voted to uphold the contract. Meanwhile,
In this case, since there is no “original proceeding” before J. Fotokina filed with the RTC a petition for mandamus to
Dong where Atty. Dacio is a party. Atty. Dacio cannot be compel the COMELEC to implement the contract. The
considered an “aggrieved party” for purposes of Secs. 1 and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing
2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Atty. Dacio, therefore, has no Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the ground that
legal personality to file the same. mandamus does not lie to enforce contractual
obligations. During the proceedings, the majority

REMEDIAL LAW
Commissioners filed a manifestation that Chairman Go
was not authorized by the COMELEC En Banc to oppose A: If I were the private prosecutor, I would file a petition for
the petition. Is a petition for mandamus an appropriate certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (Cerezo
remedy to enforce contractual obligations? (2006, v. People, GR No.185230, June 1, 2011). It is well-settled that
1999, BAR) when the trial court is confronted with a motion to
withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of probable
A: NO, the petition for mandamus is not an appropriate cause to hold the accused for trial based on a resolution of
remedy because it is not available to enforce a contractual the DOJ Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an
obligation. Mandamus is directed only to ministerial acts, independent assessment of the merits of the motion. It may
directing or commanding a person to do a legal duty. either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the
(COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 152992, 18 Sept. 2002; Secretary. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary
Sec. 3, Rule 65, ROC, as amended) would be an abdication of the trial court’s duty and
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The court must
Q: Petitioner Fabian was appointed Election Registrar itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient
of the Municipality of Sevilla supposedly to replace the evidence against the accused. Otherwise, the judge acted
respondent Election Registrar Pablo who was with grave abuse of discretion if he grants the Motion to
transferred to another municipality without his Withdraw Information by the trial prosecutor. (Harold
consent and who refused to accept his aforesaid Tamargo v. Romulo Awingan et al., G.R. No. 177727, 19 Jan.
transfer, much less to vacate his position in Bogo Town 2010)
as election registrar, as in fact he continued to occupy
his aforesaid position and exercise his functions Q: After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action before the
thereto. Petitioner Fabian then filed a petition for RTC, ZZ has completed presentation of his evidence,
mandamus against Pablo but the trial court dismissed defendant without prior leave of court moved for
Fabian’s petition contending that quo warranto is the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for insufficiency of
proper remedy. Is the court correct in its ruling? Why? plaintiff’s evidence. After due hearing of the motion and
(2001 BAR) the opposition thereto, the court issued an order,
reading as follows: “The Court hereby grants
A: YES, the court is correct in its ruling. Mandamus will not defendant’s motion to dismiss and accordingly orders
lie as it is a remedy that applies only where petitioner’s right the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, with the costs
is founded clearly in law, not when it is doubtful. Pablo was taxed against him. It is so ordered.” Is the order of
transferred without his consent which is tantamount to dismissal valid? May plaintiff properly take an appeal?
removal without cause, contrary to the fundamental Reason. (2004 BAR)
guarantee on non-removal except for cause. Considering
that Pedro continued to occupy the disputed position and A: The order or decision is void because it does not state
exercised his functions therein, the proper remedy is quo findings of fact and of law, as required by Sec. 14, Art. VIII of
warranto, not mandamus. (Garces v. Court of Appeals, G.R. the 1987 Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court.
No. 114795, 17 July 1996) Being void, appeal is not available. The proper remedy is
certiorari under Rule 65.
CERTIORARI AS A REMEDY AGAINST GRAVE ABUSE
OF ANY BRANCH OR INSTRUMENTALITY Q: The defendant was declared in default in the RTC for
OF THE GOVERNMENT his failure to file an answer to a complaint for a sum of
(2012, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1999 BAR) money. On the basis of the plaintiff’s ex parte
presentation of evidence, judgment by default was
Q: After an information for rape was filed in the RTC, the rendered against the defendant. The default judgment
DOJ Secretary, acting on the accused's petition for was served on the defendant on October 1, 2001. On
review, reversed the investigating prosecutor's finding October 10, 2001, he files a verified motion to lift the
of probable cause. Upon order of the DOJ Secretary, the order of default and to set aside the judgment. In his
trial prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw motion, the defendant alleged that, immediately upon
Information which the judge granted. The order of the receipt of the summons, he saw the plaintiff and
judge stated only the following: confronted him with his receipt evidencing his payment
and the plaintiff assured him that he would instruct his
"Based on the review by the DOJ Secretary of the lawyer to withdraw the complaint. The trial court
findings of the investigating prosecutor during the denied the defendant’s motion because it was not
preliminary investigation, the Court agrees that there is accompanied by an affidavit of merit. The defendant
no sufficient evidence against the accused to sustain the filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
allegation in the information. The motion to withdraw challenging the denial order. (2002 BAR)
Information is, therefore, granted."
(a) Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy?
If you were the private prosecutor, what should you do? Why?
Explain. (2012 BAR)

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: YES. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the entry of judgment (Sec. 2, Rule 36, ROC, as amended) Hence,
defendant is the proper remedy because appeal is not a AB had up to December 24, 1999, within which to pay the
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course amount due. (Sec. 2, Rule 68, ROC, as amended) The court
of law. In appeal, the defendant in default can only question gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
the decision in the light of the evidence of the plaintiff. The jurisdiction in denying AB’s motion praying that CD be
defendant cannot invoke the receipt to prove payment of his directed to receive the amount tendered.
obligation to the plaintiff.
Q: May the aggrieved party file a petition for certiorari
(b) Did the trial court abuse its discretion or act in the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
without or in excess of its jurisdiction in denying of Civil Procedure, instead of filing a petition for review
the defendant’s motion to lift the order of default on certiorari under Rule 45 thereof for the nullification
judgement? Why? of a decision of the Court of Appeals in the exercise
either of its original or appellate jurisdiction? Explain.
A: YES, the trial court gravely abused its discretion or acted (1999 BAR)
without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the
defendant’s motion because it was not accompanied by a A: To nullify a decision of the Court of Appeals the aggrieved
separate affidavit of merit. In his verified motion to lift the party should file a petition for review on certiorari in the
order of default and to set aside the judgment, the defendant Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court instead of
alleged that immediately upon the receipt of the summons, filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 Rule 65. except
he saw the plaintiff and confronted him with his receipt under very exceptional circumstances. Certiorari is not a
showing payment and that the plaintiff assured him that he substitute for a lost appeal. It should be noted, however,
would instruct his lawyer to withdraw the complaint. Since when the Court of Appeals imposes the death penalty, or a
the good defense of the defendant was already incorporated lesser penalty for offenses committed on such occasion,
in the verified motion, there was no need for a separate appeal by petition for review or ordinary appeal. In cases
affidavit of merit. (Capuz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112795, when the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life
27 June 1994; Mago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115624, 25 imprisonment or a lesser penalty, appeal is by notice of
Feb. 1999) appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
Q: AB mortgaged his property to CD. AB failed to pay his 2. REQUISITES, WHEN, AND WHERE TO FILE
obligation and CD filed an action for foreclosure of (2022 BAR)
mortgage. After trial, the court issued an Order granting
CD’s prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering
Q: Assume that you received an adverse decision and
AB to pay CD the full amount of the mortgage debt
filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.
including interest and other charges not later than 120
days from date of receipt of the Order. AB received the
Give the reglementary periods for filing the following:
Order on August 10, 1999. No other proceeding took
place thereafter. On December 20, 1999, AB tendered
a) Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals
the full amount adjudged by the court to CD but the
b) Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
latter refused to accept it on the ground that the money
c) Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals
was tendered beyond the 120-day period granted by
under Rule 42
the court. AB filed a motion in the same court praying
d) Petition for Review on Certiorari to the
that CD be directed to receive the amount tendered by
Supreme Court under Rule 45
him on the ground that the Order does not comply with
e) Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 (2022
the provisions of Section 2, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court
BAR)
which give AB 120 day from entry of judgment, and not
from date of receipt of the Order. The court denied his
A: The reglementary periods for filing the following where
motion on the ground that Order had already become
a motion for reconsideration of the adverse decision was
final and can no longer be amended to conform with
denied are:
Section 2, Rule 68. Aggrieved, AB files a petition for
a) Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals – Within 15
certiorari against the Court and CD. Will the petition for
days from notice of the order denying the motion for
certiorari prosper? Explain. (2000 BAR)
reconsideration or within 48 hours from such denial if
a habeas corpus case. (Neypes v. Court of Appeals, 14
A: YES. The court erred in issuing an Order granting CD’s
Sept. 2005)
prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB to pay
CD the full amount of the mortgage and ordering AB to pay
b) Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 – Within 60
CD the full amount of the mortgage debt including interest
days from notice of the order denying the motion for
and other charges not later than 120 days from receipt of
reconsideration.
the Order. The court should have rendered a judgment
which is appealable. Since no appeal was taken, the
c) Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals under
judgment became final on 25 Aug. 1999, which is the date of
Rule 42 – Within 15 days from notice of the denial of

REMEDIAL LAW
the motion for reconsideration. Upon proper motion, and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB- MOLEO) a
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of criminal complaint for planting evidence which is
15 days only. No further extension shall be granted punishable under Section 29 of the Dangerous Drugs
except for the most compelling reason and in no case Act (R.A. No. 9165). Mr. Magtalas also filed an
to exceed 15 days. administrative complaint for grave misconduct against
Miggy and Laida in light of the unwarranted physical
d) Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme assault against him.
Court under Rule 45 – The petition shall be filed The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) rendered a
within 15 days from notice of the denial of the motion decision holding Miggy and Laida administratively
for reconsideration. On proper motion, the Supreme liable for grave misconduct and accordingly imposed
Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of the penalty of dismissal from service. A few weeks later,
30 days only within which to file the petition. the OMB issued a separate resolution finding probable
cause against them for violation of Section 29 of R.A. No.
e) Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 – The petition 9165.
shall be filed within filed within the remaining period
but which shall not be less than 5 days in any event, Aggrieved, Miggy and Laida filed before the Supreme
reckoned from notice of denial of the motion for Court the following: (i) a Rule 65 petition for certiorari
reconsideration. The remaining period is that period assailing the OMB’s decision finding them
remaining after deducting the time during which the administratively liable for grave misconduct; and (ii) a
motion was pending from the 30-day period to file the Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the
petition for certiorari under Rule 64. (Riguera, 2023) OMB’s resolution finding probable cause against them.
Q: In December of 2021, Matibag Realty Corp. and Were the remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida
Kasangga Construction Co. submitted their proper? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
construction dispute to arbitration before the
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). A: NO. The remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida were not
In March 2022, the CIAC arbitral tribunal rendered an proper.
award in favor of Kasangga Construction Co.
(i) The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the
What is Matibag Realty Corp.’s remedy? Explain briefly. OMB's decision finding Miggy and Laida administratively
(2022 BAR) liable was not proper. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not proper if appeal
A: Matibag Realty Corp.’s remedy from the CIAC's arbitral was available to the aggrieved party.
award is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 with the Supreme Court or a petition for certiorari under Here, appeal was available to the aggrieved parties Miggy
Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. and Laida, that is, a petition for review to the Court of
Appeals under Rule 43 since the OMB was acting in a quasi-
The Supreme Court has held that an arbitral award of the judicial capacity. (Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, 16
Supreme Court may be appealed by filing a petition for Sept. 1998) Hence, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65
review on certiorari with the Supreme Court pursuant to was not the proper remedy.
E.O. No. 1008 or the law creating the CIAC. The petition shall
raise only questions of law. (ii) The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to
assail the OMB’s resolution finding probable cause against
The Supreme Court also held that an aggrieved party may Miggy and Laida was not proper. Under the Law on Civil
file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Procedure, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
Rule 65 raising factual issues but only on the limited is available only against judgments or final orders of courts
grounds that pertain to either a challenge on the integrity of or of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission
the CIAC arbitral tribunal or an allegation that the arbitral (CIAC). (Sec. 1, Rule 45, ROC, as amended; Global Medical
tribunal violated the Constitution or positive law in the Center of Laguna, Inc. v. Ross Systems International, Inc., G.R.
conduct of the arbitral process. (Global Medical Center of Nos. 230112 & 230119, 11 May 2021)
Laguna, Inc. v. Ross Systems International, Inc., G.R. Nos.
230112 & 230119, 11 May 2021; Riguera, 2023) Here, the OMB is not a court nor is it the CIAC. The proper
remedy of Miggy and Laida to assail the OMB's finding of
Q: Police officers Miggy and Laida were involved in an probable cause was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
alleged buy-bust operation against Mr. Magtalas, a to be filed with the Supreme Court. (Salvador v. Mapa, G.R.
suspected drug dealer. Mr. Magtalas maintained his No. 135080, 28 Nov. 2007) Hence, the petition for review on
innocence, asserting that the drugs were merely certiorari under Rule 45 was not the proper remedy.
planted. He further claimed that he was unjustifiably
beaten up by the police officers. Mr. Magtalas filed
before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
3. EXCEPTIONS TO FILING OF MOTION FOR For a quo warranto proceeding to be successful the private
RECONSIDERATION person suing must show a clear right to the contested office.
BEFORE FILING PETITION (Topacio v. Associate Justice Ong, G.R. No. 179895, 18 Dec.
2008)
Q: A group of businessmen formed an association in

E. QUO WARRANTO Cebu City calling itself Cars C to distribute/sell cars in
(RULE 66) said city. It did not incorporate itself under the law nor
(2018 BAR) did it have any government permit or license to conduct
its business as such. The Solicitor General filed before a
RTC in Manila a verified petition for quo warranto
Q: In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread questioning and seeking to stop the operations of Cars
Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court Co. The latter filed a motion to dismiss the petition on
(Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the the ground of improper venue claiming that its main
appointment was announced, several groups office and operation are in Cebu City and not in Manila.
questioned his qualification to the position on the Is the contention of Cars Co. correct? Why? (2001 BAR)
ground that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen.
In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining A: NO. As expressly provided in the Rules, when the
him from accepting the appointment or assuming the Solicitor General commences the action for quo warranto, it
position and discharging the functions of his office until may be brought in a RTC in the city of Manila, as in this case,
he is able to successfully complete all the necessary in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court. (Sec. 7, Rule
steps to show that he is a natural born citizen of the 66, ROC, as amended)
Philippines. He however, continued to exercise his
functions as CA Justice.
F. EXPROPRIATION
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies (RULE 67)
as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, (2006 BAR)
asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through
a verified request, to initiate a quo warranto
proceeding against J. Dong in the latter’s capacity as
Q: May Congress enact a law providing that a 5,000
incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the
square meter lot, a part of the UST compound in
action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s
Sampaloc Manila, be expropriated for the construction
citizenship was still being litigated in another case.
of a park in honor of former City Mayor Arsenio Lacson?
As compensation to UST, the City of Manila shall deliver
When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto
its 5-hectare lot in Sta. Rosa, Laguna originally intended
proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari
as a residential subdivision for the Manila City Hall
against the OSG, and certiorari and prohibition against
employees. Explain (2006 BAR)
J. Dong. The petition for certiorari against the OSG
alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of
A: YES, Congress may enact a law expropriating property
discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto
provided that it is for public use and with just
proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for
compensation. In this case, the construction of a park is for
certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the
public use. (Seña v. Manila Railroad Co, G.R. No. 15915, 7
Court to order him to cease and desist from further
Sept. 1921; Reyes v. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, 24 Mar. 2003) The
exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA
planned compensation, however, is not legally tenable as
Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact
the determination of just compensation is a judicial
that at the time of J. Dong’s appointment as CA Justice, J.
function. No statute, decree or executive order can mandate
Dong’s birth certificate indicated that he was a Chinese
that the determination of just compensation by the
citizen and his bar records showed that he was a
executive or legislative departments can prevail over the
naturalized Filipino citizen.
court’s findings. (Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay,
G.R. No. L-59603, 29 Apr. 1987; Secs. 5 to 8 Rule 67). In
May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari,
addition, compensation must be paid in money. (Esteban v.
to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong?
Onorio, AM No. 00- 4-166-RTC, 29 June 2001)
(2018 BAR)
A: NO. The OSG has the discretion in determining the 1. TWO STAGES IN EVERY ACTION FOR
presence of the requisites for a quo warranto proceeding. EXPROPRIATION
Besides, there is already a pending case for the purpose of
determining citizenship. 2. ORDER OF EXPROPRIATION

REMEDIAL LAW
3. ASCERTAINMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION foreclosure sale, the land was sold to the DPB for P1.2
million. The sale was subsequently confirmed by the
court, and the confirmation of the sale was registered
4. RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF with the Registry of Deeds on 05 January 2002. On 10
UPON JUDGMENT AND PAYMENT January 2003, the bank filed an ex parte motion with
the court for the issuance of a writ of possession to oust
B from the land. It also filed a deficiency claim for P800,
G. FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES 000.00 against A and B. The deficiency claim was
(RULE 68) opposed by A and B. (2003 BAR)
(2022, 2016, 2003 BAR)
(a) Resolve the motion for the issuance of a writ of
possession.
1. JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE A: In judicial foreclosure of banks such as DBP, the

(2022, 2016, 2003 BAR) mortgagor of debtor whose real property has been sold on
foreclosure has the right to redeem the property sold within
Q: Lebron, a Makati resident, obtained a Php one year after the date (or registration of the sale).
350,000.00 loan from a bank secured by a real estate However, the purchaser at the auction sale has the right to
mortgage (REM) over his lot located in Quezon City with obtain a writ of possession after the finality of the order
an assessed value of Php 500,000.00. Lebron failed to confirming the sale (Sec. 3, Rule 68; Sec. 47, R.A. No. 8791)
pay despite written demands. The bank intends to file The motion for writ of possession, however, cannot be filed
an action for judicial foreclosure of the REM. ex parte. There must be a notice of hearing.
Where should the action for judicial foreclosure of the (b) Resolve the deficiency claim of the bank.
REM be filed and in which court? Explain briefly. (2022
BAR) A: The deficiency claim of the bank may be enforced against
the mortgage debtor A, but it cannot be enforced against B,
A: The action for judicial foreclosure should be filed in the owner of the mortgaged property, who did not assume
Quezon City and with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Under personal liability for the loan.
the Rules of Civil Procedure, the venue of a real action is in
the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area 2. EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
wherein the real property is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as (Act No. 3135, as amended)
amended) (2016 BAR)
Here, the action is one for judicial foreclosure which is a real

Q:
action as held by the Supreme Court. (Roldan v. Barrios, G.R.
No. 214803, 23 Apr. 2018) The land or real property is
(a) Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an
situated in Quezon City. Hence, venue is laid in Quezon City
extra-judicial foreclosure entitled to a writ of
and the action should be filed there.
possession even before the expiration of the
redemption period? If so, what is the action to be
The action should be filed with the RTC.
taken? (2016 BAR)
Under B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC has jurisdiction over real
A: YES, the buyer in the auction sale is entitled to a writ of
actions wherein the assessed value of the real property
possession even before the expiration of the redemption
involved exceeds P50,000. Hence, the RTC has jurisdiction
period upon the filing of the ex parte petition for issuance of
over the action for judicial foreclosure. (Riguera, 2023)
a writ of possession and posting of the appropriate bond.
Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, the writ of
Q: A borrowed from the Development Bank of the
possession may be issued to the purchaser in a foreclosure
Philippines (DBP) the amount of P1 million secured by
sale either within the one-year redemption period upon the
the titled land of his friend B who, however, did not
filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period,
assume personal liability for the loan. A defaulted and
without need of a bond. (LZK Holdings and Development
DBP filed an action for judicial foreclosure of the real
Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 167998,
estate mortgage impleading A and B as defendants. In
27 Apr. 2007) Hence, upon the purchaser’s filing of the ex
due course, the court rendered judgment directing A to
parte petition and posting of the appropriate bond, the RTC
pay the outstanding account of P1.5 million (principal
shall, as a matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of
plus interest) to the bank. No appeal was taken by A on
possession in favour of the purchaser (Spouses Marquez
the Decision within the reglementary period. A failed to
Marquez v. Spouses Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, 22 Jan. 2014;
pay the judgment debt within the period specified in
Spouses Gatuslao v. Yanson, G.R. No. 191540, 21 Jan. 2015)
the decision. Consequently, the court ordered the
foreclosure sale of the mortgaged land. In that

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
(b) After the period of redemption has lapsed and the
title to the lot is consolidated in the name of the I. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
auction buyer, is he entitled to the writ of (RULE 70)
possession as a matter of right? If so, what is the (2022, 2017, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2000, 1997 BAR)
action to be take? (2016 BAR)
A: YES, the auction buyer is entitled to a writ of possession

Q: Notting Hill Corp. filed an action for forcible entry
as a matter of right. It is settled that the buyer in a
against the ten occupants of a parcel of land it owns.
foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the
After the summary proceedings, the Municipal Trial
property purchased if it is not redeemed within a period of
Court (MTC) rendered judgment against the ten
one year after the registration of the certificate of sale. He
defendants. The defendants filed a notice of appeal, but
is, therefore, entitled to the possession of the property and
failed to file a supersedeas bond to stay the judgment to
can demand it at any time following the consolidation of
vacate. Upon Notting Hill Corp.’s motion, the MTC issued
ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new
a writ of execution. When Hugh, the sheriff, was
transfer certificate of title. In such a case, the bond required
implementing the writ of execution, he discovered that
in Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135 is no longer necessary. Possession
the land was occupied by a number of families who all
of the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchases
claimed that they were legitimate lessees of the ten
as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of
defendants. Julia, one of the lessees, pleaded with Hugh,
title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a
beseeching:
ministerial duty of the court (LZK Holdings and
Development Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, G.R.
“I’m just a lessee, standing in front of a sheriff, asking
No. 167998, 27 Apr. 2007; Spouses Marquez v. Spouses
him to let me stay in my home.”
Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, 22 Jan. 2014; Spouses Gatuslao v.
Yanson, G.R. No. 191540, 21 Jan. 2015)
May Hugh implement the writ of execution against the
lessees? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
(c) Suppose that after the title to the lot has been
consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, said
A: YES. Hugh may implement the writ of execution against
buyer sold the lot to a third party without first
the lessees.
getting a writ of possession. Can the transferee
exercise the right of the auction buyer and claim
The Supreme Court has held that a judgment in an
that it is a ministerial duty of the court to issue a
ejectment case may be enforced not only against the
writ of possession in his favor? Briefly explain.
defendant but also against his privies. (Sunflower
(2016 BAR)
Neighborhood Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
136274, 3 Sept. 2003)
A: YES, the transferee can exercise the right of the auction
buyer. A transferee or successor-in-interest of the auction
Here, the lessees are privies of the defendants since their
buyer by virtue of the contract of sale between them, is
possession or occupancy was derived from the defendants,
considered to have stepped into the shoes of the auction
being their lessees. Thus, the judgment in the ejectment or
buyer. As such, the transferee is necessarily entitled to avail
forcible entry case may be enforced against the defendants’
of the provisions of Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, as if
lessees. Hence, Hugh may implement the writ of execution
he is the auction buyer. When the lot purchased at a
against the lessees. (Riguera, 2023)
foreclosure sale is in turn sold or transferred, the right to
the possession thereof, along with all other rights of
Q: Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by
ownership, transfers to its new owner. (Spouses Gallent v.
Louie. When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate
Velasquez, G.R. No. 203949, 06 Apr. 2016) Thus, it is a
the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an
ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession in
action for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to
favor of the transferee of the auction buyer.
answer the complaint within the reglementary period.
3. THE GENERAL BANKING LAW OF 2000 Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default
(Sec. 47, R.A. No. 8791) should the motion be granted? Explain your answer.
(2017 BAR)
A: NO. The motion should not be granted because it is a

H. PARTITION prohibited pleading Under Section 19(h) of the Rules on
(RULE 69) Summary Procedure, a motion to declare defendant in
default is among the pleadings that are prohibited in cases
covered by said Rule: Considering that an action for
unlawful detainer is covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure, Louie’s motion to declare Laura in default is a
prohibited pleading, and thus, should not be granted.

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Judgment was rendered against defendant Jaypee in A: If Maria decides to file a complaint for collection of sum
an action for unlawful detainer. The judgment ordered of money under the Rules on Summary Procedure or Small
Jaypee to vacate and to pay attorney's fees in favor of Claims, the venue is the residence of the plaintiff or
Bart, the plaintiff. To prevent the immediate execution defendant, at the election if the plaintiff. (Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC,
of the judgment, would you advise the posting of a as amended) Hence it may be in Quezon City or Marikina
supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee? (2017 BAR) City, at the option of Maria.
A: NO, as counsel for Jaypee I would not advise the posting If Maria files an action for unlawful detainer, the same shall
of a supersedeas bond. Under the Rule 70, a supersedeas be commenced and tried in the Municipal Trial Court of the
bond is necessary to prevent immediate execution only if municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or
the judgment awarded rents, damages, and costs. Here the a portion thereof is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as
judgment only ordered Jaypee to vacate and to pay amended) Therefore, the venue is Las Pinas City.
attorney’s fees. A supersedeas bond is not required to cover
attorney’s fees. (Once v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. L-44806, 31 Mar. (c) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against
1977) Hence the posting of a supersedeas bond is not Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-year
required. period within which to file the action?
Q: Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a A: The reckoning point for determining the one-year period
lease contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, within which to file the action is the receipt of the last
over a residential house in Las Pinas City. The lease demand to vacate and pay (Sec. 2, Rule 70, ROC, as amended)
contract provided, among others, for a monthly rental
of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in Q: The spouses Juan reside in Quezon City. With their
case of non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, lottery winnings, they purchased a parcel of land in
Landlord migrated to the United States of America Tagaytay City for P100,000.00. In a recent trip to their
(USA) but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special Tagaytay property, they were surprised to see hastily
power of attorney to manage the property and file and assembled shelters of light materials occupied by
defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. several families of informal settlers who were not there
Tenant failed to pay the rentals due for five (5) months. when they last visited the property three (3) months
Maria asks your legal advice on how she can ago.
expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals
plus interests due. (2014 BAR) To rid the spouses’ Tagaytay property of these informal
settlers, briefly discuss the legal remedy you, as their
(a) What judicial remedy would you recommend to counsel, would use; the steps you would take; the court
Maria? where you would file your remedy if the need arises;
and the reason/s for your actions. (2013 BAR)
A: I will advise Maria to immediately send a letter to the
tenant demanding the immediate payment of the unpaid A: As counsel of spouses Juan, I will file a special civil action
rentals plus interests due. If the tenant refuses, Maria can for forcible entry. The Rules of Court provides that a person
avail any of the following remedies: deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth may at any time
1. A complaint under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the within (one) 1 year after such withholding of possession
Rules of Procedure for Small claims cases. bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court where
Maria should nonetheless waive the amount in the property is located. This action which is summary in
excess of P100,000 in order for her to avail of nature seeks to recover the possession of the property from
the remedy under the said Rules. the defendant which was illegally withheld by the latter.
2. A complaint for collection of sum of money
under the Rules on Summary Procedure since An ejectment case is designed to restore, through summary
Maria is only claiming the unpaid rentals and proceedings, the physical possession of any land or building
interest due from tenant. to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession,
without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing
3. If the tenant refuses or is unable to pay the claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.
rentals within 1 year from the last demand to (Heirs of Olarte v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 177995, 15
vacate and pay, I would advise Maria to file an June 2011)
action for Unlawful Detainer.
However, before instituting the said action, I will first
(b) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy endeavor to amicably settle the controversy with the
which you recommended? informal settlers before the appropriate Lupon or Barangay
Chairman. If there is no agreement reached after mediation
and conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law,

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
I will secure a certificate to file action and file the complaint prompted the RTC to issue a show-cause order
for ejectment before the MTC of Tagaytay City where the directing Ms. R to explain, within ten (10) days, why she
property is located since ejectment suit is a real action should not be cited for contempt for her
regardless of the value of the property to be recovered or nonappearance despite receipt of the subpoena. Ms. R,
claim for unpaid rentals. (B.P. 129 and Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as however, did not file her comment. After due hearing
amended) with notice to the parties, the RTC cited her in indirect
contempt, and consequently, ordered her arrest.
Q: BB files a complaint for ejectment in the MTC on the
ground of non-payment of rentals against JJ. After two Ms. R moved to quash the warrant issued for her arrest,
days, JJ files in the RTC a complaint against BB for claiming that a formal charge should have been filed
specific performance to enforce the option to purchase against her, and that the same should have been
the land subject of the ejectment case. What is the effect docketed and prosecuted as a separate case against her.
of JJ’s action on BB’s complaint? Explain. (2000 BAR) She thus claimed that since this procedure was not
followed, the order citing her in contempt is null and
A: There is no effect. The ejectment case involves void. (2019 BAR)
possession de facto only. The action to enforce the option to
purchase will not suspend the action of ejectment for non- (a) Is Ms. R's contention tenable? Explain.
payment or rentals. (Willmon Auto Supply Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 97637, 10 Apr. 1992) A: NO. Under Section 4, Rule 71, a person may be charged
with indirect contempt only by either two (2) alternative
Q: On 10 January 1990, X leased the warehouse of A ways, namely:
under a lease contract with a period of 5 years. On 08
June 1996, A filed an unlawful detainer case against X (1) By a verified petition, if initiated by a party; or
without a prior demand for X to vacate the premises. (2) By an order or any other formal charge requiring
(1997 BAR) the respondent to show cause why he should not
be punished for contempt, if made by a court
(a) Can X contest his ejectment on the ground that against which the contempt is committed.
there was no prior demand for him to vacate the
premises? In short, a charge of indirect contempt must be initiated
through a verified petition, unless the charge is directly
A: YES. X can contest his ejectment on the ground that there made by the court against which the contemptuous act is
was no prior demand to vacate the premise. (Sec. 2, Rule 70, committed. Here, it was the court who initiated the
ROC, as amended; Casilan v. Tomassi, G.R. No. L-16574, 28 contempt charge against Mr. R. Hence, his contention is
Feb. 1964; Lesaca v. Cuevas, G.R. No. L-48419, 27 Oct. 1983) untenable. (Peralta v. Omelio, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2259, 22 Oct.
2013)
(b) In case the Municipal Trial Court renders judgment
in favor of A, is the judgment immediately (b) What is the proper mode of appeal should Ms. R
executory? decide to assail her contempt citation? Will the
filing of such appeal automatically result in the
A: YES, because the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court suspension of the execution of judgment? Explain.
against the defendant X is immediately executory upon
motion unless an appeal has been perfected, a supersedeas A: The proper remedy of Mr. R is to file a petition for
bond has been filed and the periodic deposits of current certiorari or prohibition under Rule 65.
rentals, if any, as determined by the judgment will be made
with the appellate court. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, ROC, as amended) The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending
resolution of such petition, provided such person file a bond
1. DIFFERENTIATED FROM ACCION PUBLICIANA fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and
AND ACCION REIVINDICATORIA conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment
should the petition be decided against him. (Section 2, Rule
J. CONTEMPT Q: Mr. Sheriff attempts to enforce a Writ of Execution

(RULE 71) against X, a tenant in a condominium unit, who lost in
(2019, 2012, 1998 BAR) an ejectment case. X does not want to budge and refuses
to leave. Y, the winning party, moves that X be declared
in contempt and after hearing, the court held X guilty of
Q: Ms. R received a subpoena ad testificandum from a indirect contempt. If you were X’s lawyer, what would
Regional Trial Court (RTC) directing her to appear and you do? Why? (2012 BAR)
testify in a case. Despite notice and without any
sufficient justification, Ms. R failed to appear. This

REMEDIAL LAW
A: If I were X’s lawyer, I would file a petition for certiorari A: The rule on venue in judicial settlement of estate of
under Rule 65. The judge should not have acted on Y’s deceased persons may be stated as follows: If the decedent
motion to declare X in contempt. The charge of indirect is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death,
contempt is initiated through a verified petition (Sec.4, Rule whether a citizen or an alien, the venue shall be in the
71, ROC, as amended) The writ was not directed to X but to Regional Trial Court in the province in which he resides at
the sheriff which was directed to deliver the property to Y. the time of his death. It cannot be in the place where he used
As the writ did not command the judgment debtor to do to live. If he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the
anything, he cannot be guilty of the facts described in Rule Regional Trial Court of any province in which he had estate,
71 which is “disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, is the proper venue. The court first taking cognizance of the
process, order, judgment, or command of any court.” The case shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other
proper procedure is for the sheriff to oust X availing of the courts. When the marriage is dissolved by the death of the
assistance of peace officers pursuant to Sec. 10(c) of Rule 39 husband or wife, the community property shall be
of the Rules of Court. (Lipa v. Tutaan, L-16643, 29 Sept. 1983; inventoried, administered, and liquidated, and the debts
Medina v. Garces, L- 25923, 15 July 1980; Pascua v. Heirs of thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the
Simeon, G.R. No. L- 47717, 2 May 1988; Patagan v. Panis, G.R. deceased spouse. If both spouses have died, the conjugal
No. 55630, 08 Apr. 1988) partnership shall be liquidated in the testate or intestate
proceedings of either.
Q: A filed a complaint for the recovery of ownership of
land against B who was represented by her counsel X. Q: A, a resident of Malolos, Bulacan, died leaving an
in the course of the trial, B died. However, X failed to estate located in Manila, worth P200,000.00. In what
notify the court of B’s death. The court proceeded to court, taking into consideration the nature of
hear the case and rendered judgment against B. After jurisdiction and of venue, should the probate
the Judgment became final, a writ of execution was proceeding on the estate of A be instituted? (2003 BAR)
issued against C, who being B’s sole heir, acquired the
property. Did the failure of counsel X to inform the A: The probate proceeding on the estate of A should be
court of B’s death constitute direct contempt? (1998 instituted in the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan
BAR) which has jurisdiction, because the estate is valued at
P200,000.00, and is the court of proper venue because A
A: NO. It is not direct contempt under Sec. 1 of Rule 71, but was a resident of Malolos at the time of his death.
it is an indirect contempt within the purview of Sec. 3 of
Rule 71. The lawyer can also be subject of disciplinary NOTE: R.A. No. 11576 increased the jurisdictional amount
action. (Sec. 16, Rule 3, ROC, as amended) cognizable by MTC to P2,000,000.00.
2. SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES

VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SPECIAL WRITS (RULE 74)
(2009, 2007, 2005, 1994)
Q: Distinguish civil actions from special proceedings. Pinoy died without a will. His wife, Rosie, and three
(1998 BAR) children executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of
his estate. The deed was properly published and
A: A CIVIL ACTION is one by which a party sues another for registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds.
the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention Three years thereafter, Suzy appeared, claiming to be
or redress of a wrong, while a SPECIAL PROCEEDING is a the illegitimate child of Pinoy. She sought to annul the
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right settlement alleging that she was deprived of her
or a particular fact. rightful share in the estate. Rosie and the three children
contended that:
A. SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS (a) The publication of the deed constituted constructive
(2016, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, notice to the whole world, and should therefore bind
2003, 1994 BAR) Suzy; and
(b) Suzy’s action had already prescribed.
1. VENUE AND PROCESS Are Rosie and the three children correct? Explain.
(RULE 73) (2009 BAR)
(2005, 2003 BAR)
A: NO, Rosie and her three children are not correct.
Q: State the rule on venue in judicial settlement of
estate of deceased persons. (2005 BAR) (a) The publication of the deed of extrajudicial partition
does not constitute constructive notice to the whole world

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
since the Rules of Court provides that “no extrajudicial an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property
settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned.
participated therein or had no notice thereof.” The fact of extra-judicial settlement shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation once a week for three
(b) Suzy’s action has not prescribed. Her action to annul the consecutive weeks in the province.
settlement is in effect an action for reconveyance which may
be filed within ten years from the issuance of the title. Here Q: Assuming Rene left no debts, as counsel for Rene’s
only three years had lapsed hence Suzy’s action has not yet heirs, what steps would you suggest: (1994 BAR)
prescribed. (Riguera, 2022)
(a) To settle Rene’s estate in the least expensive
Q: The heirs of H agree among themselves that they will manner?
honor the division of H’s estate as indicated in her Last
Will and Testament. To avoid the expense of going to A: To settle Rene’s estate in the least expensive manner, an
court in a Petition for Probate of the Will, can they extrajudicial settlement of the estate by agreement of the
instead execute an Extrajudicial Settlement Agreement parties should be made through a public instrument to be
among themselves? Explain briefly. (2007 BAR) filed with the Register of Deeds, together with a bond in an
amount equivalent to the value of the personal property
A: The heirs of H cannot validly agree to resort to involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned
extrajudicial settlement of his estate and do away with the and conditioned upon payment of any just claim that may
probate of H’s last will and testament. Probate of the will is be filed within two (2) years by an heir or other person
mandatory. The policy of the law is to respect the will of the unduly deprived of participation in the estate. The fact of
testator as manifested in the other dispositions in his last extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be
will and testament, insofar as they are not contrary to law, published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week
public morals and public policy. Extrajudicial settlement of for three (3) consecutive weeks.
an estate of a deceased is allowed only when the deceased
left no last will and testament and all debts, if any, are paid. (b) Assuming Rene left only one heir and no debts, as
(Sec. 1, Rule 74, ROC, as amended) counsel for Rene’s lone heir, what steps would you
suggest?
Q: Sergio Punzalan, Filipino, 50 years old, married, and
residing at Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, of A: If Rene left only one heir, then the heir may adjudicate to
sound and disposing mind, executed a last will and himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit of self-
testament in English, a language spoken and written by adjudication to be filed also with the Register of Deeds,
him proficiently. He disposed of his estate consisting of together with the other requirements abovementioned.
a parcel of land in Makati City and cash deposit at the
City Bank in the sum of P300 Million. He bequeathed (c) Assuming that the value of Rene’s estate does not
P50 Million each to his 3 sons and P150 Million to his exceed P10,000.00, what remedy is available to
wife. He devised a piece of land worth P100 Million to obtain a speedy settlement of his estate?
Susan, his favorite daughter-in-law. He named his best
friend, Cancio Vidal, as executor of the will without A: Since the value of Rene’s estate does not exceed P
bond. 10,000.00, the remedy available is to proceed to undertake
a summary settlement of estates of small value by filing a
Can the widow and her children settle extrajudicially petition in court and upon hearing, which shall be held not
among themselves the estate of the deceased? (2005 less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months
BAR) from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall
be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks
A: NO, an extrajudicial settlement of estate by agreement in a newspaper of general circulation in the province and
between or among the heirs of the deceased may be had after such other notice to interested persons as the court
only when the decedent left no will. Rene died intestate, may direct. The court may proceed summarily without the
leaving several heirs and substantial property here in the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without
Philippines. delay, grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any, to
determine the persons legally entitled to participate in the
Q: Nestor died intestate in 2003, leaving no debts. How estate, and to apportion and divide it among them after
may his estate be settled by his heirs who are of legal payment of such debts of the estate as the court shall then
age and have legal capacity? Explain. (2005 BAR) find to be due. The order of partition if it involves real estate,
shall be recorded by the proper register's office. (Sec. 2, Rule
A: If the decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are 74, ROC, as amended)
all of age, the parties may, without securing letters of
administration, divide the estate among themselves by
means of a public instrument or by pending action for
partition and shall file a bond with the register of deeds in

REMEDIAL LAW
3. ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF WILLS to. If it is contested, at least three witnesses who know the
(RULE 76) handwriting of the testator should explicitly declare that the
(2012, 2010, 2006 BAR) will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
In the absence of any competent witness, and if the court
deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to.
Q: What are the jurisdictional facts that must be alleged
in a petition for probate of a will? How do you bring
Q: Czarina died single. She left all her properties by will
before the court these jurisdictional facts? (2012 BAR)
to her friend Duqueza. In the will, Czarina stated that
she did not recognize Marco as an adopted son because
A: The jurisdictional facts in a petition for probate are: (1)
of his disrespectful conduct towards her.
that a person died leaving a will; (2) in case of a resident,
that he resided within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Duqueza soon instituted an action for probate of
court; and (3) in the case of a non- resident, that he left an
Czarina’s will. Marco, on the other hand, instituted
estate within such territorial jurisdiction. The jurisdictional
intestate proceedings. Both actions were consolidated
facts shall be contained in a petition for allowance of will.
before the RTC of Pasig. On motion of Marco, Duqueza’s
(UST FCL Bar Q&A)
petition was ordered dismissed on the ground that the
Q: Pedrillo, a Fil-Am permanent resident of Los Angeles,
will is void for depriving him of his legitime. Argue for
California at the time of his death, bequeathed to
Duqueza. (2010 BAR)
Winston a sum of money to purchase an annuity. Upon
Pedrillo’s demise, his will was duly probated in Los
A: I would argue that the will is not void for there was no
Angeles and the specified sum in the will was in fact
preterition. Preterition applies only to inadvertent
used to purchase an annuity with XYZ of Hong Kong so
omission in the will. Here there was no inadvertent
that Winston would receive the equivalent of US$1,000
omission because Czarina mentioned Marco in the will and
per month for the next 15 years. Wanting to receive the
made an ineffective disinheritance. Hence the will was valid
principal amount of the annuity, Winston files for the
and should be given effect to the extent that it does not
probate of Pedrillo’s will in the Makati RTC. As prayed
impair Marco’s legitime.
for, the court names Winston as administrator of the
estate. Winston now files in the Makati RTC a motion to
I would also argue that during the probate proper stage, the
compel XYZ to account for all sums in its possession
probate court can pass only upon the extrinsic, not the
forming part of Pedrillo’s estate. Rule on the motion.
intrinsic, validity of the will. When the court declared the
(2010 BAR)
will void for depriving Marco of his legitime, it was passing
upon the intrinsic validity of the will. (Riguera, 2022)
A: The motion should be denied. The Supreme Court has
held that the writs and processes of a probate court cannot
Q: Sergio Punzalan, Filipino, 50 years old, married, and
extend outside the Philippines. Here XYZ was in Hong Kong
residing at Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City, of
and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Philippine probate
sound and disposing mind, executed a last will and
court. Moreover the probate court should have dismissed
testament in English, a language spoken and written by
the petition at the onset. In a petition for probate of a will
him proficiently. He disposed of his estate consisting of
where the testator is a non-resident, the petition should
a parcel of land in Makati City and cash deposit at the
allege the jurisdictional fact that the testator left estate
City Bank in the sum of P300 Million. He bequeathed
within the Philippines. (Cuenco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
P50 Million each to his 3 sons and P150 Million to his
L-24742, 26 Oct. 1973; Riguera, 2022)
wife. He devised a piece of land worth P100 Million to
Susan, his favorite daughter-in-law. He named his best
Q: In the Special Proceedings for the settlement of the
friend, Cancio Vidal, as executor of the will without
intestate estate of the deceased Johnny, his widow by
bond. (2006 BAR)
his second marriage, Carmelita, moved for her
appointment as Administratrix of the estate. This was
(a) Is Cancio Vidal, after learning of Sergio's death,
opposed by Manda, the son of Johnny by his first wife,
obliged to file with the proper court a petition for
who moved for his appointment instead. The court
probate of the latter's last will and testament?
appointed Carmelita, the widow, as Administratrix.
A: NO, Cancio Vidal is not obliged to file a petition for

If Johnny left a holographic will, how may it be
probate because under Sec. 3, Rule 75, he is only obliged to
probated? Explain. (1998 BAR)
deliver the will within twenty (20) days after he knows of
the death of the testator.
A: A holographic will may be probated by filing a petition
for the allowance of said will. If it is not contested, at least
(b) Supposing the original copy of the last will and
one competent witness who knows the handwriting and
testament was lost, can Cancio compel Susan to
signature of the testator should explicitly declare that the
produce a copy in her possession to be submitted to
will and the signature are in the handwriting of the testator.
the probate court?
In the absence of any such competent witness, and if the
court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: YES, as a person having custody of the will, Susan has the Q: Which of the following claims survive the death of the
duty to deliver the will to the court having jurisdiction or to defendant and need not be presented as a claim against
the executor named in the will within twenty (20) days the estate? (2011 BAR)
upon learning the death of the testator.
A. Contingent money claims arising from contract.
(c) Can the probate court appoint the widow as B. Unenforced money judgment against the
executor of the will? decedent, with death occurring before levy on
execution of the property.
A: YES, the probate court can appoint the widow as an C. Claims for damages arising from quasi-delict.
executor of the will if Cancio Vidal is found to be D. Claims for funeral expenses.
incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to give a bond,
provided that she is competent and willing to serve. A: C. Claims for damages arising from quasi-delict. (UST FCL
Bar Q&A)
(d) Can the widow and her children initiate a separate
petition for partition of the estate pending the Q: Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money.
probate of the last will and testament by the proper The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC)
court? rendered a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika
P50,000.00 plus legal interest. During its pendency of
A: NO, the widow and her children cannot file a separate the appeal before the RTC, Gringo died of acute
petition for partition pending the probate of the Will. ‘hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty. Perfecto, counsel of
Partition is part of the testate estate proceeding. Gringo, filed a manifestation attaching the death
certificate of Gringo and informing the RTC that he
4. CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo did not disclose
(RULE 86) any information on his family. As counsel for Chika,
(2016, 2012, 2011, 2009 BAR) what remedy can you recommend to your client so the
case can move forward and she can eventually recover
her money? Explain. (2016 BAR)
Q: If the debtor dies after entry of judgment, execution
of money judgment may be done by:
A: The remedy I can recommend to my client Chika is to file
a petition for settlement of the estate of Gringo and for the
A. Presenting the judgment as a claim for payment
appointment of an administrator. Chika as a creditor is an
against the estate in a special proceeding.
interested person who can file the petition for settlement of
B. Filing a claim for the money judgment with the
Gringo’s estate. Once the administrator is appointed, | will
special administrator of the estate of the
move that the administrator be substituted as the
debtor.
defendant. I will also file my claim against Gringo as a
C. Filing a claim for the money judgment with the
contingent claim in the probate proceedings pursuant to
debtor's successor in interest.
Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. (Riguera, 2022)
D. Move for substitution of the heirs of the debtor
and secure a writ of execution (2012 BAR)
Q: Cresencio sued Dioscoro for collection of a sum of
money. During the trial, but after the presentation of
A: A. Presenting the judgment as a claim for payment
plaintiff’s evidence, Dioscoro died. Atty. Cruz,
against the estate in a special proceeding. (UST FCL Bar
Dioscore’s counsel, then filed a motion to dismiss the
Q&A)
action on the ground of his client’s death. The court
denied the motion to dismiss and, instead, directed
Q: The statute of "non-claims" requires that:
counsel to furnish the court with the names and
addresses of Dioscoro’s heirs and ordered that the
A. Claims against the estate be published by the
designated administrator of Dioscoro’s estate be
creditors.
substituted as representative party. After trial, the
B. Money claims be filed with the clerk of court
court rendered judgment in favor of Cresencio. When
within the time prescribed by the rules.
the decision had become final and executory, Cresencio
C. Claims of an executor or administrator against
moved for the issuance of a writ of execution against
the estate be filed with the special
Dioscoro’s estate to enforce his judgment claim. The
administrator.
court issued the writ of execution. Was the court’s
D. Within two (2) years after settlement and
issuance of the writ of execution proper? Explain. (2009
distribution of the estate, an heir unduly
BAR)
deprived of participation in the estate may
compel the re-settlement of the estate. (2012
A: The court’s issuance of the writ of execution was not
BAR)
proper. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a favorable
judgment in a contractual money claim shall be enforced in
A: B. Money claims be filed with the clerk of court within the
the manner especially provided in the Rules for prosecuting
time prescribed by the rules. (UST FCL Bar Q&A)

REMEDIAL LAW
claims against the estate of a deceased person. Under Rule A: A. Provide for the proper care, custody, and education of
86 of the Rules of Court, a judgment for money should be the ward.
filed as a money claim with the probate court. The Supreme
Court has held that a money claim cannot be enforced by a 4. TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP
writ of execution but should instead.be filed as a money (RULE 97)
claim. (Riguera, 2022)
5. PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE ESTATE

(RULE 88)
C. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(RULE 102)
6. SALES, MORTGAGES, AND OTHER ENCUMBRANCES (2020-21, 2015, 2005, 2003, 1998, 1993 BAR)
OF PROPERTY OF DECEDENT
(RULE 89)
Q: Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for habeas corpus
7. DISTRIBUTION AND PARTITION
with the Court of Appeals against Major Amor who is
(RULE 90)
allegedly detaining her 18-year-old son Bong without
authority of law. After Amor had filed a return alleging
the cause of detention of Bong, the Court of Appeals
B. GUARDIANSHIP promulgated a resolution remanding the case to the
(2011 BAR) RTC for a full-blown trial due to the conflicting facts
presented by the parties in their pleadings. In directing
the remand, the Court of Appeals relied on Sec. 9(1) in
relation to Sec. 21 of BP 129 conferring upon said Court
1. VENUE
the authority to try and decide habeas corpus cases
(RULE 92)
concurrently with the RTCs. Did the Court of Appeals act
correctly in remanding the petition to the RTC? Why?
2. APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIANS (1993 BAR)
(RULE 93)
(2012 BAR) A: NO, because while the CA has original jurisdiction over
habeas corpus concurrent with the RTCs, it has no authority
Q: In default of parents, the court may appoint a for remanding to the latter original actions filed with the
guardian for a minor giving first preference to: (2012 former. On the contrary, the CA is specifically given the
BAR) power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts
necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
A. An older brother or sister who is over 18 years within its original jurisdiction.
old.
B. The actual custodian over 21 years old. Q: A was arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest
C. A paternal grandparent. issued by the RTC in connection with an Information for
D. An uncle or aunt over 21 years old. Homicide. W, the live-in partner of A filed a petition for
habeas corpus against A’s jailer and police investigators
A: C. A paternal grandparent. with the Court of Appeals. (1998 BAR)
(a) Does W have the personality to file the petition for

3. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF GUARDIANS
habeas corpus?
(RULE 96)
(2011 BAR)
A: YES. W, the live in partner of A, has the personality to file
the petition for habeas corpus because it may be filed by
Q: Which of the following is a duty enjoined on the
“some person in his behalf.” (Sec 3, Rule 102, ROC, as
guardian and covered by his bond? (2011 BAR)
amended)
A. Provide for the proper care, custody, and

(b) Is the petition tenable?
education of the ward.
B. Ensure the wise and profitable investment of
A: NO, the petition is not tenable because the warrant of
the ward’s financial resources.
arrest was issued by a court which had jurisdiction to issue
C. Collect compensation for his services to the
it. (Sec. 4 Rule 102, ROC, as amended)
ward.
D. Raise the ward to become a responsible
Q: Inspired by the movie On the Job, the Superintendent
member of society.
of the New Bilibid Prison, without any court order,
transferred 10 persons deprived of liberty to an

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
agricultural farm in Davao del Norte to plant camote. restrained on a charge of having committed an offense
The owner of the agricultural farm promised to ensure not punishable by death, he may be admitted to bail in
that the persons deprived of liberty would not escape the discretion of the court. Accordingly, the trial court
and would always wear the proper uniforms. allowed Alma to post bail and then ordered her release.
In your opinion, is the order of the trial court correct?
Two of these 10 persons deprived of liberty found a way (2008 BAR)
to approach you and suggested that you file a petition
for the writ of habeas corpus on their behalf. The Under Rule 102?
persons deprived of liberty added that they had no
family in Davao and that their families had no means to A: NO. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court (Habeas
visit them there. Is a petition for the writ of habeas Corpus) does not authorize a court to discharge by writ of
corpus the proper remedy for their case? Explain habeas corpus a person charged with or convicted of an
briefly. (2020-21 BAR) offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering
imprisonment under lawful judgment.
A: YES, a petition for the writ of habeas corpus is the proper
remedy against the transfer of the prisoners to an 1. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
agricultural farm in Davao del Norte. Under the Rules on IN RELATION TO CUSTODY OF MINORS
Special Proceedings, a petition for writ of habeas corpus is (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC)
available in case of illegal deprivation of liberty. The (2005, 2003 BAR)
Supreme Court has stated that pursuant to law, a prisoner
may not be transferred to a facility not within the control
Q: While Marietta was in her place of work in Makati
and supervision of the Bureau of Corrections unless there is
City, her estranged husband Carlo barged into her
a court order to that effect.
house in Paranaque City, abducted their six-year-old
son, Percival, and brought the child to his hometown in
Here, the agricultural farm is a facility not within the control
Baguio City. Despite Marietta’s pleas, Carlo refused to
and supervision of the Bureau of Corrections since it would
return their child. Marietta, through counsel, filed a
be the farm owner who would be keeping watch over the
petition for habeas corpus against Carlo in the Court of
prisoners. Thus, the prisoners’ deprivation of liberty
Appeals in Manila to compel him to produce their son,
therein would be illegal. Hence, a petition for the writ of
before the court and for her to regain custody. She
habeas corpus is the proper remedy. (Riguera, 2022)
alleged in the petition that despite her efforts, she could
no longer locate her son. In his comment, Carlo alleged
Q: Hercules was walking near a police station when a
that the petition was erroneously filed in the Court of
police officer signalled for him to approach. As soon as
Appeals as the same should have been filed in the
Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but
Family Court of Baguio City which, under Republic Act
the latter found no contraband. The police officer told
No. 8369, has exclusive jurisdiction, over the petition.
Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the
Marietta replied that under Rule 102 of the Rules of
police station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir,
Court, as amended, the petition may be filed in the
may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police
Court of Appeals and if granted, the writ of habeas
officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail.
corpus shall be enforceable anywhere in the
What is the remedy available to Hercules to secure his
Philippines. Whose contention is correct? Explain.
immediate release from detention? (2015 BAR)
(2005 BAR)
A: The remedy available to Hercules is to file a petition for

A: Marietta's contention is correct. The Court of Appeals has
habeas corpus questioning the illegality of his warrantless
concurrent jurisdiction with the family courts and the
arrest. The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of
Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the
illegal confinement or detention by which any person is
custody of minors is at issue, notwithstanding the provision
deprived of liberty. (Sec. 1, Rule 102, ROC, as amended)
in the Family Courts Act (R.A. No. 8369) that family courts
have exclusive jurisdiction in such cases. (Thornton v.
Q: After Alma had started serving her sentence for
Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, 16 Aug. 2004)
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), she filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, citing Vaca v. CA
Sec. 20, par. 6 of SC AM No. 03-04-04 provides that the
where the sentence of imprisonment of a party found
petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court,
guilty of violation of BP 22 was reduced to a fine equal
Court of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so
to double the amount of the check involved. She prayed
granted; the writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
that her sentence be similarly modified and that she be
Philippines. The writ may be made returnable to a Family
immediately released from detention. In the
Court or to any regular court within the region where the
alternative, she prayed that pending determination on
petitioner resides or where the minor may be found for
whether the Vaca ruling applies to her, she be allowed
hearing and decision on the merits.
to post bail pursuant to Rule 102, Sec. 14, which
provides that if a person is lawfully imprisoned or

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Widow A and her two children, both girls, aged 8 and impleaded in the proceeding. In response, Ms. N argued
12 years old, reside in Angeles City, Pampanga. A leaves that this was not necessary since it was an entry in her
her two daughters in their house at night because she own birth certificate which she intended to change.
works in a brothel as a prostitute. Realizing the danger Hence, it was a matter personal to her, and as such, the
to the morals of these two girls, B the father of the participation of her parents in the case could be
deceased husband of A, files a petition for habeas dispensed with.
corpus against A for the custody of the girls in the
Family Court in Angeles City. In said petition, B alleges Is Ms. N’s position correct? Explain. (2019 BAR)
that he is entitled to the custody of the two girls because
their mother is living a disgraceful life. The court issues A: NO. Ms. N’s parents should be impleaded. The Civil
the writ of habeas corpus. When A learns of the petition Registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to
and the writ, she brings her two children to Cebu City. have any interest that would be affected thereby, shall be
At the expense of B the sheriff of the said Family Court made respondents for the reason that they are
goes to Cebu City and serves the writ on A. A files her indispensable parties.
comment on the petition raising the following defenses:
(2003 BAR) In Republic v. Uy (G.R. No. 198010, 10 Aug. 2010), the
Supreme Court nullified the trial court’s order to correct
(a) The enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus in respondent’s entry for the latter’s failure to implead and
Cebu City is illegal; and notify not only the Local Civil Registrar, but also her parents
and siblings as the persons who have interest and are
A: The writ of habeas corpus issued by the Family Court in affected by the changes or corrections sought.
Angeles City may not be legally enforced in Cebu City,
because the writ is enforceable only within the judicial Q: Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina,
region to which the Family Court belongs, unlike the writ in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the marriage collapsed,
granted by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals which is Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 20, A.M. No. marriage before the RTC of Manila. Drylvik, on the
03-04-04-SC) other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from
the German Family Court. The decree, in essence,
(b) B has no personality to institute the petition. states:
Resolve the petition in the light of the above
defenses of A. The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before
the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is hereby dissolved.
A: B, the father of the deceased husband of A, has the The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is
personality to institute the petition for habeas corpus of the granted to the father.
two minor girls, because the grandparent has the right of
custody as against the mother A, who is a prostitute. (Secs. Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on
2 and 13, A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC) the ground that the court no longer had jurisdiction
over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been
promulgated dissolving his marriage to Dara. Dara
D. CHANGE OF NAME objected, saying that while she was not challenging the
(RULE 103) divorce decree, the case in the RTC still had to proceed
for the purpose of determining the issue of the
children’s custody. Drylvik counters that the issue had
been disposed of in the divorce decree, thus
constituting res judicata.
E. CANCELLATION OF CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse
(RULE 108) and a Filipino spouse, uncontested by both parties,
(2022, 2019, 2018 BAR) sufficient by itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry
pertaining to the spouses’ marriage? (2018 BAR)
Q: Ms. N initiated a special proceeding for the correction A: NO. A foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse
of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the and a Filipino spouse, uncontested by both parties is
Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), insufficient by itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry.
impleading only the Local Civil Registrar therein. In her Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our
petition, Ms. N sought to change the entry in her birth courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact
certificate with respect to the date of her parents' and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing
marriage from “May 22, 1992” to “not married.” The it. (Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 Apr. 2018)
Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition,
arguing that Ms. N's parents should have been

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Q: Namjoon, a Korean national, and Regine, a Filipina, unlawful confinement or detention by which any person is
were married in Makati City on February 14, 2012. deprived of his liberty, or cases by which rightful custody of
Unfortunately, their relationship shortly turned sour any person is withheld from another who is lawfully
and ended with a divorce by mutual agreement in South entitled thereto. (Sec 1, Rule 102, ROC, as amended)
Korea. The local court in Korea granted the divorce.
Wanting to marry her new boyfriend Taehyung, Regine Q: Upon learning of her husband's death, the wife and
filed a petition for recognition of the foreign decree of their daughter went to a funeral parlor where the
divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu where husband's remains lay. The husband had been killed in
she resides. a military encounter in the hinterlands. He had been
suspected as one of the members of an insurgent group,
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the which had been yearning for the violent overthrow of
petition contending that the proper remedy is a special the status quo for more than 50 years.
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in
the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, Upon arriving at the funeral parlor, the wife and the
which can only be filed in the RTC of Makati where the daughter found that the premises were guarded by
marriage was celebrated and recorded in the Civil heavily armed individuals clad in military uniform.
Registry of Makati. These individuals accosted the wife and the daughter
when they attempted to approach the husband's casket.
Is the OSG’s contention tenable? Explain briefly. (2022 The two were then interrogated for almost an hour.
BAR) Fearing for their lives, the wife and the daughter
hurriedly left after the interrogation. On their way
A: NO, the OSG’s opposition to the petition for recognition home, they noticed a red car following them. The same
of the foreign divorce decree on its contention that the car, which carried individuals sporting crew cuts,
proper remedy is a special proceeding for cancellation or parked in front of their home for several days. The
correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of daughter noted the car's license plate and called the
the Rules of Court is not tenable. local police for assistance. The local police simply
laughed at her, saying that they should just cooperate
The Supreme Court has held that a petition for recognition with the military and reveal all that they knew or they
is a proper remedy to give effect to a foreign divorce decree; would also suffer the same fate as her father.
while the court said the recognition of the foreign divorce
decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding, it did not Will a petition for the writ of amparo prosper for the
prohibit the filing of a petition for recognition of the foreign wife and the daughter? Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR)
divorce decree independently of a petition for cancellation
of entry of marriage under Rule 108. (Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, A: YES, a petition for the writ of amparo will prosper for the
628 SCRA 266 (2010); Riguera, 2023) wife and the daughter.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that

F. CLERICAL ERROR LAW the placing under surveillance by the police of a widow of a
R.A. No. 9048, as amended by R.A. No. 10172 suspected NPA member, as well as of her daughters, entitled
them to avail of the remedy of a petition for writ of amparo
since such surveillance created a real threat to their life,
liberty, or security. (Sanchez v. Darroca, 15 Oct. 2019;
Sanchez v. Darroca (res.), 15 June 2021) More so here where
G. WRIT OF AMPARO the police told the daughter that she and her mother should
(A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) just cooperate with the military; otherwise, they would
(2020-21, 2015, 2010, 2009 BAR) suffer the same fate as her father. (Riguera, 2022)
Q: The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig,

Q: What is the writ of amparo? How is it distinguished formed a nongovernmental organization - Alyansa
from the writ of habeas corpus? (2009 BAR) Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the
mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the
A: The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the
any person whose right to life, liberty and security is entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro,
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private hampering its operations. Masigasig had an altercation
individual or entity. The writ shall cover extra-legal killings with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining
and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. engineer of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was
destroyed by ALMA members. Mapusok is the leader of
The writ of amparo differs from a writ of habeas corpus in the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a
that the latter writ is availed of as a remedy against cases of civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary

REMEDIAL LAW
force of the local police to maintain peace and order in apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition (Sec. 1,
the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared. A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of
ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts Q: Marinella is a junior officer of the Armed Forces of
proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA, the Philippines who claims to have personally
learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their witnessed the malversation of funds given by US
binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other authorities in connection with the Balikatan exercises.
members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and Marinella alleges that as a result of her exposé, there are
ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search operatives within the military who are out to kill her.
for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their She files a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo
cooperation. Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a against, among others, the Chief of Staff but without
petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against alleging that the latter ordered that she be killed. Atty.
Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the Daro, counsel for the Chief of Staff, moves for the
issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals dismissal of the Petition for failure to allege that his
against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and client issued any order to kill or harm Marinella. Rule
APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC, raised among on Atty. Daro’s motion. Explain. (2010 BAR)
their defenses that they are not agents of the State;
hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in an A: The motion to dismiss must be denied on the ground that
amparo petition. (2015 BAR) it is a prohibited pleading under Section 11(a) of the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo. Moreover, said Rule does not require
(a) Is their defense tenable? the petition therefor to allege a complete detail of the actual
or threatened violation of the victim’s rights. It is sufficient
A: NO. The defense is not tenable. The writ of amparo is a that there be an allegation of real threat against petitioner’s
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty life, liberty and/or security. (Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No.
and security has been violated or is threatened with 182498, 03 Dec. 2009)
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public officer
or employee or of a private individual or entity. The writ
covers extra- legal killings, enforced disappearances or H. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
threats thereof. (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC)
(2020-21, 2010, 2009 BAR)
Moreover, the rules do not require that the respondents
should be agents of the State in order to be impleaded as
respondents in an amparo petition. (Secretary of National
Q: What is the writ of habeas data? (2009 BAR)
Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 7 Oct. 2008)
A: The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any

(b) Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is
filed with the Court of Appeals, raised as their
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
defense that the petition should be dismissed on
public official or employee, or of a private individual or
the ground that ALMA cannot file the petition
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data
because of the earlier petition filed by Mayumi with
or information regarding the person, family, home and
the RTC. Are respondents correct in raising their
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
defense?
Q: The spokesperson of a special unit of Armed Forces

A: YES. The respondents are correct in raising the defense.
of the Philippines announced in a television interview
Under Section 2(c) of the Rules on the Writ of Amparo, the
that the Armed Forces was putting all progressive and
filing of a petition by Mayumi who is an immediate member
left-leaning party-list representatives under
of the family of the aggrieved party already suspends the
surveillance for alleged links to the ongoing insurgency.
right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions.
Hence, ALMA cannot file the petition because of earlier
An outspoken and progressive party-list representative
petition by Mayumi with the RTC.
approaches you for advice on how to discover the
information that the Armed Forces may have collated
(c) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil
through the surveillance operations.
actions against Mapusok. How will the cases affect
the amparo petition she earlier filed?
Will a petition for the writ of habeas data be the proper
remedy? Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR)
A: When a criminal action and separate civil action are filed
subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall
A: YES. A petition for the writ of habeas data will be the
be consolidated with the criminal action. After
proper remedy. Under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data,
consolidation, the procedure under Rules shall continue to
the writ is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
by an unlawful act of a public or private individual or entity A: Precautionary principle states that when human
engaged in the gathering, collecting. or storing of data or activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible
information regarding the person, family, home and damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible
correspondence of the aggrieved party. One of the reliefs but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish
available to the petitioner is the disclosure of the data or that threat. In its essence, the precautionary principle calls
information gathered. for the exercise of caution in the face of risk and uncertainty
(Sec. 4[f], Rule 1, Part 1, and Rule 20, A.M. NO. 09-6-8-SC,).
Here, putting all progressive and left-leaning party-list
representatives under surveillance for mere alleged links to 1. TEMPORARY ENVIRONMENTAL
the ongoing insurgency is an unlawful act of “red-tagging” PROTECTION ORDER (TEPO)
which would violate their right to privacy in life, liberty, or
security. The AFP here is engaged in the gathering or storing
of data or information regarding the party-list 2. WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
representatives’ persons and this would violate their right (2016 BAR)
to privacy in life, liberty, or security, since connecting them
to the insurgency would place them at risk of detention or, Q: Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned
worse, extrajudicial killing. Hence, a petition for the writ of residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint of
habeas data will be the proper remedy. (Riguera, 2022) mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development
Authority, the Department of Environment and Natural
Q: Azenith, the cashier of Temptation Investments, Inc. Resources, the Department of Public Works and
(Temptation, Inc.) with principal offices in Cebu City, is Highways, Department of Interior and Local
equally hated and loved by her co-employees because Government, Department of Agriculture, Department
she extends cash advances or "sales" to her colleagues of Budget and Philippine National Police before the RTC
whom she likes. One morning, Azenith discovers an of Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of
anonymous letter inserted under the door of her office defendants in performing their duties has resulted in
threatening to kill her. Azenith promptly reports the serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake
matter to her superior Joshua, who thereupon conducts and the degradation of the marine life in the lake. The
an internal investigation to verify the said threat. plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be
Claiming that the threat is real, Temptation, Inc. opts to ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water
transfer Azenith to its Palawan Office, a move she quality to Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential
resists in view of the company’s refusal to disclose the Decree 1151, otherwise known as the Philippine
results of its investigation. Decrying the move as a Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that
virtual deprivation of her employment, Azenith files a the clean up of the lake is not a ministerial function and
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data before they cannot be compelled by mandamus to perform the
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin Temptation, same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision declaring
Inc. from transferring her on the ground that the that it is the duty of the agency to clean up Laguna de
company’s refusal to provide her with a copy of the Bay and issued a permanent writ of mandamus
investigation results compromises her right to life, ordering said agencies to perform their duties
liberty and privacy. Resolve the petition. Explain. (2010 prescribed by law relating to the cleanup of Laguna de
BAR) Bay. (2016 BAR)
A: Azenith’s petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data (a) Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of
must be dismissed. Under the facts, there is no showing that mandamus? Explain.
her right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission. Neither was the A: YES, the RTC is correct in issuing the writ of mandamus.
company shown to be engaged in the gathering, collecting Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the
nor, storing of data or information regarding the person, execution of a ministerial duty. While the implementation of
family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. the government agencies mandated tasks may entail a
(Sec. 1, A.M. 01-08-16-SC) decision-making process, the enforcement of the law or the
very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is
ministerial in nature and may be compelled by mandamus.
I. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) Here, the duty to clean up Laguna Lake and restore its water
(2019, 2018, 2016, 2012 BAR) quality to Class C is required not only by Presidential Decree
No. 1152, otherwise known as the Philippine Environment
Code, but also in its charter. It is, thus, ministerial in nature
and can be compelled by mandamus.
Q: What do you understand about the “precautionary
principle” under the Rules of Procedure for
Accordingly, the RTC may issue a writ of continuing
Environmental Cases? (2018, 2012 BAR)
mandamus directing any agency or instrumentality of the

REMEDIAL LAW
government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto
acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns
until the judgement is fully satisfied. (Metropolitan Manila an environmental law, rile or regulation, and praying that
Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to do
G.R. Nos. 171947-48, 18 Dec. 2008) an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied,
and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of
(b) What is the writ of continuing mandamus? the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the
respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The
A: A writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued when any petition shall also contain a sworn a certification of non-
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer forum shopping. (Sec. 1, Part III, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an Q: The officers of “Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc.”
office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement engaged your services to file an action against ABC
or violation of an environmental law, rule or regulation or a Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining
right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly
or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC’s toxic mine
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, tailings were accidentellay released from its storage
the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in dams and were discharged into the rivers of said town.
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching The mine tailings found their way to Calancan Bay
thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon.
concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation and The damage to the crops and loss of earnings were
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the estimated at P1 Billion. Damage to the environment is
respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment estimated at P1 Billion. As a lawyer for the
is fully satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the organization, you are requested to explain the
petitioner by reason of malicious neglect to perform the advantages derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan
duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or before the the Supreme Court over a complaint for
regulations. The petition shall also contain a sworn damages before the RTC of Marinduque or vice versa.
certification of non-forum shopping. (Sec. 1, Part III, Rule 8, What action will you recommend? Explain. (2018, 2016
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) BAR)
3. WRIT OF KALIKASAN A: As a lawyer for the organization, I would recommend the

(2019, 2018, 2016 BAR) filing of a petition for issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.
The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a natural or

Q: Distinguish the following:
juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
Writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus
interest group accredited by or registered with any
(2019 BAR)
government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
A: A Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a natural or
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
omission of a public official or employee, or private
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of
interest group accredited by or registered with any
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
government agency, on behalf of persons whose
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces (Sec. 1, Rule
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private
Further, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is more
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of
advantageous compared to a complaint for damages before
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
the RTC because it may be filed directly with the Supreme
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.
Unlike a complaint for damages before the RTC which only
Whereas, in Continuing Mandamus, when any agency or
be filed by a real party-in-interest as defined in Rule 3(2) of
instrumentality of the government or officer unlawfully
the Ruels of Court, the rule on locus standi is relaxed in
neglects the performance of an act which the law
peitions for Writ of Kalikasan which allows the petition to
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust,
be filed by parties as citizen suit. Besides, the petition for
station in connection with the enforcement or violation of
Writ of Kalikasan is exempted from the payment of docket
an environmental law, rule or regulation or a right therein,
fees.
or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment
From the foregoing, it is clear that filing a petition for Writ
of such right and there Is no other plain, speedy, and
of Kalikasan would be the best remedy to address all the
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person
environmental problems caused by the release of the toxic
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
waste to the waters of Romblon and Quezon without the
burden of paying docket fees. After all, the filing of a petition VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan shall not preclude the
filing of separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions;
thus, the organization can later file a complaint for damages
with the Regional Trial Court, should they desire to do so.
A. GENERAL CONCEPTS
(2017, 2008, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999 BAR)
1. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION;
CONCEPT AND REQUISITES FOR EXERCISE
(2017, 2008, 2005, 2003, 2001 BAR)
Q: In complex crimes, how is the jurisdiction of a court

determined? (2003 BAR)
A: In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole complex

crime must be lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction
to impose the maximum and most serious penalty
imposable on an offense forming part of the complex crime.
(Cuyos v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-46934, 15 Apr. 1988)
Q: Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of the

DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso, and Mr.
Pork Chop, a private contractor, were both charged in
the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) under a
conspiracy theory. While the charges were undergoing
investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman, Engr.
Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop immediately
filed a motion to terminate the investigation and to
dismiss the charges against him, arguing that because
he was charged in conspiracy with the deceased, there
was no longer a conspiracy to speak of and,
consequently, any legal ground to hold him for trial had
been extinguished. Rule on the motion to terminate
filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief reasons. (2017 BAR)
A: The motion to terminate should be denied. In People v.

Go (G.R. No. 168539, 24 Mar. 2014), the Supreme Court ruled
that the avowed policy of the State and the legislative intent
to repress acts of public officers and private persons alike,
which constitute graft or corrupt practices, would be
frustrated if the death of a public officer would bar the
prosecution of a private person who conspired with such
public officer in violating R.A. No. 3019. Since the absence
or presence of conspiracy is factual in nature and involves
evidentiary matters, the allegation of conspiracy against Mr.
Pork Chop is better ventilated before the trial court during
the trial, where he can adduce evidence to prove or disprove
its presence.
Q: Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder.

Upon filing of the information, the RTC judge issued the
warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of
the warrants, the three accused jointly filed a motion
for reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of
arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion, none
of the accused showed up in court for fear of being

REMEDIAL LAW
arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion because Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185). The
the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of Sandiganbayan overruled Mario’s contention stating
the movants. Did the RTC rule correctly? (2008 BAR) that Mario’s suspension under the circumstances is
mandatory. Is the court’s ruling correct? Why? (2001
A: NO, the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the BAR)
accused when they filed the aforesaid motion and invoked
the court’s authority over the case, without raising the issue A: YES. Mario’s suspension is mandatory although not
of jurisdiction over their person. Their filing the motion is automatic (Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 in relation to Sec. 5 of or
tantamount to voluntary submission to the court’s R.A. No. 5185) It is mandatory after the determination of the
jurisdiction and contributes voluntary appearance validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing
(Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 Mar. 2006) (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124067, 27 Mar. 1998)
The purpose of suspension is to prevent the accused public
Q: Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping Victoria officer from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by
and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. While intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with
serving sentence at the National Penitentiary, Mariano evidence or from committing further acts if malfeasance
and Victoria were married. Mariano filed a motion in while in office.
said court for his release from the penitentiary on his
claim that under Republic Act No. 8353, his marriage to 2. WHEN INJUNCTION MAY BE FILED
Victoria extinguished the criminal action against him (1999 BAR)
for rape, as well as the penalty imposed on him.
However, the court denied the motion on the ground
Q: Will injunction lie to restrain the commencement of
that it had lost jurisdiction over the case after its
a criminal action? Explain. (1999 BAR)
decision had become final and executory. (2005 BAR)
A: As a general rule, injunction will not lie to restrain a

(a) Is the filing of the court correct? Explain.
criminal prosecution except:
A: NO. The court can never lose jurisdiction so long as its

1. To afford adequate protection to the
decision has not yet been fully implemented and satisfied.
constitutional rights of the accused;
Finality of a judgment cannot operate to divest a court of its
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of
jurisdiction. The court retains an interest in seeing the
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
proper execution and implementation of its judgments, and
actions;
to that extent, may issue such orders necessary and
3. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
appropriate for these purposes. (Echegaray v. Secretary of
4. Where the charges are manifestly false and
Justice, G.R. No. 13205, 19 Jan. 1999)
motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
5. Where there is clearly no prima facie case against
(b) What remedy/remedies should the counsel of
the accused and a motion to quash on that ground
Mariano take to secure his proper and most
has been denied. (Roberts v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
expeditious release from the National
No. 113930, 5 Mar. 1996; Brocka v. Ponce Enrile,
Penitentiary? Explain.
G.R. No. 69863-65, 10 Dec. 1990)
A: To secure the proper and most expeditious release of

Mariano from the National Penitentiary, his counsel should
file: (a) a petition for habeas corpus for the illegal B. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
confinement of Mariano (Rule 102), or (b) a motion in court (RULE 110)
which convicted him, to nullify the execution of his sentence (2013, 2012, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999 BAR)
or the order of his commitment on the ground that a
supervening development had occurred (Melo v. People, G.R.
No. L-3580, 22 Mar. 1950) despite the finality of the Q: Distinguish a Complaint from Information. (1999
judgment. BAR)
Q: Governor Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged with A: In criminal procedure, a complaint is a sworn written
indirect bribery before the Sandiganbayan for statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by
accepting a car in exchange of the award of a series of the offended party, any peace officer or other peace officer
contracts for medical supplies. The Sandiganbayan, charged with the enforcement of the law violated (Sec. 3,
after going over the information, found the same to be Rule 110, ROC, as amended); while an information is an
valid and ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter accusation in writing charging a person with an offense
contested the suspension claiming that under the law subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. (Sec.
(Sec. 13 of RA 3019) his suspension is not automatic 4, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
upon filing the information and his suspension under
Sec. 13 of RA 3019 is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Q: While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home to witnesses who saw Horace using his cellular phone at the
Quezon City from his work in Makati, Gary figured in a time the incident happened.
vehicular mishap along that portion of EDSA within the
City of Mandaluyong. He was bumped from behind by a I will also present proof of employment of Gary such as his
Ford Expedition SUV driven by Horace who was pay slip in order to prove that he was gainfully employed at
observed using his cellular phone at the time of the the time of the mishap, and as a result of the injuries he
collision. Both vehicles - more than 5 years old – no suffered, he was not able to earn his usual income thereof. I
longer carried insurance other than the compulsory will also present the attending Doctor of Gary to
third-party liability insurance. Gary suffered physical corroborate and authenticate the contents of the medical
injuries while his Nissan Patrol sustained damage in report and abstract thereof. The evidence required to hold
excess of Php500, 000. (2013 BAR) defendant Horace liable is only preponderance of evidence.
(a) As counsel for Gary, describe the process you need The types of defenses that may be raised against this action
to undertake starting from the point of the incident are fortuitous event, force majeure or acts of God. The
if Gary would proceed criminally against Horace, defendant can also invoke contributory negligence as
and identify the court with jurisdiction over the partial defense. Moreover, the defendant can raise the usual
case. defenses that the: (a) plaintiff will be entitled to double
compensation or recovery, and (b) defendant will be
A: As counsel for Gary, I will first make him medically constrained to litigate twice and therefore suffer the cost of
examined in order to ascertain the gravity and extent of the litigation twice.
injuries he sustained from the accident. Second, I will secure
a police report relative to the mishap. Third, I will ask him Q: On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on
to execute his Sinumpaang Salaysay. Thereafter, I will use board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police
his Sinumpaang Salaysay or prepare a complaint affidavit Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police
and file the same in the Office of the City Prosecutor and witnessed an on-going armed robbery while the bus
later on to the appropriate MTC of Mandaluyong City for the was traversing Makati. His alertness and training
crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting to physical injuries enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the
and damage to property. (Secs. 1 and 15, Rule 110, ROC, as malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while frisking
amended) him, discovered another handgun tucked in his waist.
He seized both handguns and the malefactor was later
(b) If Gary chooses to file an independent civil action charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal
for damages, explain briefly this type of action: its possession of firearm.
legal basis; the different approaches in pursuing
this type of action; the evidence you would need; Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the
and types of defenses you could expect. felon for criminal processing? To Silang, Cavite where
he is bound; to Makati where the bus actually was when
A: An independent civil action is an action which is entirely the felonies took place; or back to Valenzuela where he
distinct and separate from the criminal action. Such civil is stationed? Which court has jurisdiction over the
action shall proceed independently of the criminal criminal cases? (2013 BAR)
prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. Section 3 of Rule 111 allows the filing of an A: Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon to the
independent civil action by the offended party based on nearest police station or jail in Makati City where the bus
Article 33 and 2176 of the New Civil Code. actually was when the felonies took place.
The different approaches that the plaintiff can pursue in this Moreover, where an offense is committed in a public vehicle
type of action are, as follows: while in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of any Municipality or
a. File the independent civil action and prosecute territory where such vehicle passed during its trip,
the criminal case separately. including the place of its departure and arrival. (Sec. 15(b),
b. File the independent civil action without filing Rule 110) Consequently, the criminal case for robbery and
the criminal case. illegal possession of firearms can be filed in Regional Trial
c. File the criminal case without need of reserving Court of Makati City or on any of the places of departure or
the independent civil action. arrival of the bus.
Aside from the testimony of Gary, the pieces of evidence Q: Yvonne, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate
that would be required in an independent civil action are relationship abroad with a friend, Percy. Although
the medical report and certificate regarding the injuries Yvonne comes home to Manila every six months, her
sustained by Gary, hospital and medical bills including foreign posting still left her husband Dario lonely so
receipt of payments made, police report and proof of the that he also engaged in his own extramarital activities.
extent of damage sustained by his car, and the affidavit of In one particularly exhilarating session with his

REMEDIAL LAW
girlfriend, Dario died. Within 180 days from Dario’s Q: Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old, seeks your
death, Yvonne gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate legal advice. She tells you that ZZ, her uncle, subjected
relatives of Dario contemplate criminally charging her to acts of lasciviousness; that when she told her
Yvonne for adultery and they hire your law firm to grandparents, they told her to just keep quiet and not
handle the case. (2013 BAR) to file charges against ZZ, their son. Feeling very much
aggrieved, she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be made
(a) Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option to answer for his crime. (2000 BAR)
to bring?
(a) What would your advice be? Explain.
A: NO. Sec. 5, Rule 110 provides that the crimes of adultery
and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon A: I would advise the minor, an orphan of 16 years of age, to
complaint by the offended spouse. Since the offended party file the complaint herself independently of her
is already dead, then the criminal action for adultery as grandparents, because she is not incompetent or incapable
contemplated by offended party’s relatives is no longer of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. (Sec. 5,
viable. Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
(b) Is a civil action to impugn the paternity of the baby (b) Suppose the crime committed against YY by her
boy feasible, and if so, in what proceeding may such uncle ZZ is rape, witnessed by your mutual friend
issue be determined? XX. But this time, YY was prevailed upon by her
grandparents not to file charges. XX asks you if she
A: YES, under Article 171 of the Family Code, the heirs of can initiate the complaint against ZZ. Would your
the husband may impugn the filiation of the child in the answer be the same? Explain.
following cases:
A: Since rape is now classified as a Crime Against Persons
1. If the husband should die before the expiration of under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353), I would
the period fixed for bringing his action; advise XX to initiate the complaint against ZZ.
2. If he should die after the filing of the complaint,
without having desisted therefrom; or DESIGNATION OF OFFENSE
3. If the child was born after the death of the husband. (2001 BAR)
Since Dario is already dead when the baby boy was born, his Q: The prosecution filed an information against Jose for
heirs have the right to impugn the filiation of the child. slight physical injuries alleging the acts constituting the
offense but without any more alleging that it was
Consequently, the heirs may impugn the filiation either by a committed after Jose’s unlawful enter in the
direct action to impugn such filiation or raise the same in a complainant’s abode. Was the information correctly
special proceeding for settlement of the estate of the prepared by the prosecution? Why? (2001 BAR)
decedent. In the said proceeding, the probate court has the
power to determine questions as to who are the heirs of the A: NO. The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry in
decedent. (Reyes v. Ysip, et al., G.R. No. L-7516, 12 May 1955; the complainant’s abode has to be specified in the
Jimenez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75773, 17 information; otherwise, it cannot be considered as
Apr. 1990) aggravating. (Sec. 8, Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
Incidentally, the heirs can also submit the baby boy for DNA AMENDMENT OR SUBSTITUTION OF COMPLAINT
testing under the Rules on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 6-11-5- OR INFORMATION
SC) or even blood-test in order to determine paternity and (2002, 2001 BAR)
filiation.
Q:
Q: X was arrested, in flagrante, for robbing a bank. After
an investigation, he was brought before the office of the (a) D and E were charged with homicide in one
prosecutor for inquest, but unfortunately no inquest Information. Before they could be arraigned, the
prosecutor was available. May the bank directly file the prosecution moved to amend the information to
complaint with the proper court? If in the affirmative, exclude E therefrom. Can the court grant the motion
what document should be filed? (2012 BAR) to amend? Why? (2002, 2001 BAR)
A: YES, the bank may directly file the complaint with the A: YES, provided notice is given to the offended party and
proper court. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest the court states its reasons for granting the same. (Sec. 14,
prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended Rule 110, ROC, as amended)
party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the
basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting (b) On the facts above stated, suppose the prosecution,
officer or person. (Sec. 6, Rule 12, ROC, as amended) instead of filing a motion to amend, moved to

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
withdraw the information altogether and its civil action for damages based on the injuries he had
motion was granted. Can the prosecution re-file the sustained. Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate
information although this time for murder? civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out
Explain. that when the criminal action was filed against him, the
civil action to recover the civil liability from the offense
A: YES, the prosecution can re-file the information for charged was also deemed instituted. He insisted that
murder in substitution of the information for homicide the basis of the separate civil action was the very same
because no double jeopardy has a yet attached. (Galvez v. act that gave rise to the criminal action. Rule on Tomas'
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, 24 Oct. 1994) motion to dismiss, with brief reasons. (2017 BAR)
Q: A was accused of homicide for the killing of B. During A: Tomas’s motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
the trial, the public prosecutor received a copy of the pendentia should be denied. In cases of physical injuries, a
marriage certificate of A and B. (1997 BAR) civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from
the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party.
(a) Can the public prosecutor move for the amendment Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal
of the information to charge A with the crime of action (Art. 33, NCC; Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC, as amended) and
parricide? hence may not be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.
A: NO. The information cannot be amended to change the Q: While cruising on a highway, a taxicab driven by
offense charged from homicide to parricide. The marriage is Mans hit an electric post. As a result thereof, its
not a supervening fact arising from the act constituting the passenger, Jovy, suffered serious injuries. Mans was
charge of homicide. (Sec. 8, Rule 110, ROC, as amended) subsequently charged before the Municipal Trial Court
with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
(b) Suppose instead of moving for the amendment of injuries. Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against
the information, the public prosecutor presented in Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for breach of
evidence the marriage certificate without objection contract, and Mans for quasi-delict. Lourdes and Mans
on the part of the defense, could A be convicted of filed a motion to dismiss the civil action on the ground
parricide? of litis pendentia, that is, the pendency of the civil action
impliedly instituted in the criminal action for reckless
A: NO. A can be convicted only of homicide not of parricide imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
which is a graver offense. The accused has the constitutional Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 BAR)
rights of due process and to be informed of the nature and
the cause of the accusation against him. (Sec. 1, 14(1) and (2) A: The motion to dismiss should be denied. The action for
Art. III, 1987 Constitution) breach of contract against the taxicab owner cannot be
barred by the criminal action against the taxicab driver,
although the taxicab owner can be held subsidiarily liable in
C. PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION the criminal case, if the driver is insolvent. On the other
(RULE 111) hand, the civil action for quasi-delict against the driver is an
(2017, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2003, 2001, 2000, 1999 BAR) independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code
and Sec. 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which can be filed
separately and can proceed independently of the criminal
action and regardless of the result of the latter. (Samson v.
Q: Name two instances where the trial court can hold
Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, 21 July 2004)
the accused civilly liable even if he is acquitted. (2010
BAR)
Q: In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
the court granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence
A: The instances where the civil, liability is not extinguished
which he filed without leave of court. Although he was
despite acquittal of the accused are:
acquitted of the crime charged, he, however, was
required by the court to pay the private complainant
1. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt;
the face value of the check. The accused filed a Motion
2. Where the court expressly declares that the
of Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the face
liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil
value of the check on the following grounds:
in nature; and
3. Where the civil liability is not derived from or
(a) the demurrer to evidence applied only to the
based on the criminal act of which the accused is
criminal aspect of the case (2001 BAR); and
acquitted. (Sapiera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128927, 14 Sept. 1999)
A: The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The
ground that the demurrer to evidence applied only to the
Q: Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical
criminal aspect of the case was not correct because the
injuries allegedly committed against Darvin. During the
criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate

REMEDIAL LAW
included the corresponding civil action. (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111, Q: X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya
ROC, as amended) Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit
(b) at the very least, he was entitled to adduce who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to
controverting evidence on the civil liability. V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a
Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration (2003 fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a
BAR) metal plate to his wrist bone. On the complaint of V, a
A: The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the
evidence on the civil liability, because he filed his demurrer Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the
to evidence without leave of court. (Sec. 23, Rule 119, ROC, private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a
as amended) separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In
(2014, 2010, 2000, 1999 BAR) his "Certification Against Forum Shopping," V made no
Q: Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Maria. (2010 BAR)
Solomon contracted a second marriage with Hope.
When Faith found out about the second marriage of (a) X moved for the suspension of the proceedings in
Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy the criminal case to await the decision in the civil case.
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila For his part, Y moved for the suspension of the civil case
sometime in 2011. Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition to await the decision in the criminal case. Which of
for declaration of nullity of his first marriage with Faith them is correct? Explain.
in 2012, while the case for bigamy before the RTC of
Manila is ongoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a A: Neither of them is correct. Both substantive law (Art. 33,
motion to suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case NCC) and procedural law (Sec. 3, Rule 111, ROC, as amended)
on the ground of prejudicial question. He asserts that provide for the two actions to proceed independently of
the proceedings in the criminal case should be each other, therefore, no suspension of action is authorized.
suspended because if his first marriage with Faith will
be declared null and void, it will have the effect of (b) Instead of filing an Answer, X and Y move to dismiss
exculpating him from the crime of bigamy. Decide. the complaint for damages on the ground of litis
(2014 BAR) pendentia. Is the motion meritorious? Explain.
A: The motion filed by Solomon should be denied. The A: NO. The motion to dismiss based on alleged litis
elements of prejudicial question are: (1) the previous pendencia is without merit because there is no identity of
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately parties and subject matter in the two cases. Besides, Art. 33
related to the issue determines the subsequent criminal of the Civil Code and Rule 111, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Criminal
action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines Procedure authorize the separate civil action for damages
whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In order arising from physical injuries to proceed independently.
for a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must
precede the filing of the criminal action. (Dreamwork Q: A allegedly sold to B a parcel of land which A later
Construction, Inc. v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, 30 June 2009) also sold to X. B brought a civil action for nullification of
Since the criminal case for bigamy was filed ahead of the the second sale and asked that the sale made by A in his
civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage, there is no favour be declared valid. A theorized that he never sold
prejudicial question. At any rate, the outcome of the civil the property to B and his purported signatures
case for annulment has no bearing upon the determination appearing in the first deed of sale were forgeries.
of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case Thereafter, an Information for estafa was filed against
for bigamy because the accused has already committed the A based on the same double sale that was the subject of
crime of bigamy when he contracted the second marriage the civil action. A filed a “Motion for suspension of
without the first marriage having being declared null and Action” in the criminal case, contending that the
void. resolution of the issue in civil case would necessarily be
determinative of his guilt or innocence. Is the
NOTE: In the case of Pulido v. People (G.R. No. 220149, 27 July suspension of the criminal action in order? Explain.
2021, J. Hernando), the Court held that a void ab initio (2000, 1999 BAR)
marriage is a valid defense in the prosecution for bigamy
even without a judicial declaration of absolute nullity. A: YES. The suspension of the criminal action is in order
Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of because the defense of A in civil action, that he never sold
either the first and second marriages obtained by the the property to B and that his purported signatures in the
accused is considered a valid defense in bigamy. first deed of sale were forgeries, is a prejudicial question the
resolution of which is determinative of his guilt or

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
innocence. If the first sale is null and void, there would be Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop immediately
no double sale and A would be innocent of the offense of filed a motion to terminate the investigation and to
estafa. (Ras v. Rasul, G.R. Nos. L-50441-42, 18 Sept. 1980) dismiss the charges against him, arguing that because
he was charged in conspiracy with the deceased, there
was no longer a conspiracy to speak of and,
D. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION consequently, any legal ground to hold him for trial had
(RULE 112) been extinguished. Rule on the motion to terminate
(2019, 2017, 2013, 2012, 2005 BAR) filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief reasons. (2017 BAR)
A: Mr. Pork Chop’s motion to terminate the investigation

before the Office of the Ombudsman should be denied. In a
1. EXECUTIVE vs. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the
OF PROBABLE CAUSE death of a co-conspirator, even if he was the lone public
(2019, 2017, 2013, 2012, 2005 BAR) officer, did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy to
violate the Anti-Graft Law could no longer be proved or that
Q: In a neighborhood bicycle race, Mr. A bumped the the alleged conspiracy was already expunged. The only
bicycle of one of his competitors, Mr. B, in order to get thing extinguished by the death of a co-conspirator was his
ahead. This caused the latter to lose control of the bike criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor
which hit the concrete pavement and sent Mr. B did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between
crashing headfirst into the sidewalk. By the time the him and private respondent. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 168539,
organizers got to him, Mr. B was dead. Law enforcement 25 Mar. 2014)
authorities who witnessed the incident arrested Mr. A
without a warrant, and immediately brought him to the Q: You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has
inquest prosecutor for the conduct of an inquest. been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Thereafter, an Information for Homicide was filed by Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Angela
the inquest prosecutor without the conduct of a has posted bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Angela
preliminary investigation. The next day Mr. A revealed to you that she has not been investigated for
requested for the conduct of a preliminary any offense and that it was only when police officers
investigation. (2019, 2017 BAR) showed up at her residence with a warrant of arrest
that she learned of the pending case against her. She
(a) Is the inquest prosecutor's filing of the Information wonders why she has been charged before the
without the conduct of preliminary investigation Sandiganbayan when she is not in government service.
proper? (2013 BAR)
A: YES. The initial duty of the inquest officer is to determine (a) What “before-trial” remedy would you invoke in
whether the respondent was arrested pursuant to Section Angela’s behalf to address the fact that she had not
5, Rule 113. If that was so, then he can file the information been investigated at all, and how would you avail of
immediately in the proper court. Since Mr. A was arrested this remedy?
in flagrante delicto, the action of the inquest prosecutor in
filing the Information without conducting a preliminary A: I will file a motion for the conduct of preliminary
investigation was correct. (Sec. 8, Rule on Inquest) investigation or reinvestigation and the quashal or recall of
the warrant of arrest in the Court where the case is pending
(b) Is Mr. A’s request permissible? Explain. with an additional prayer to suspend the arraignment.
A: The request of Mr. R to conduct a preliminary Under Section 6, Rule 112, after filing of the complaint or
investigation was correct and the same is supported by the information in court without a preliminary investigation,
Revised Guidelines on Continuous trial because it was made the accused may within five days from the time he learns of
within the five (5)-day reglementary period from inquest its filing ask for a preliminary investigation with the same
and filing of the Information in Court. Mr. R’s request was right to adduce evidence in his defense.
made a day after the Information for Homicide was filed in
court by the inquest prosecutor. (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, Moreover, Section 26, Rule 114 provides that an application
Revised Guidelines for Continuous trial in Criminal cases) for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the
Q: Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or
DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso, and Mr. questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of
Pork Chop, a private contractor, were both charged in the charge against him, provided that he raises them before
the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti- entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) under a as practicable as but not later than the start of the trial of
conspiracy theory. While the charges were undergoing the case.
investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman, Engr.

REMEDIAL LAW
(b) What “during-trial” remedy can you use to allow an
early evaluation of the prosecution evidence A: There is no necessity for the court to conduct pre-
without the need of presenting defense evidence; suspension hearing. Under Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 an
when and how can you avail of this remedy? incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information for graft-related
A: I will file first a motion for leave to file a demurrer within crime such as malversation is pending in court, shall be
five (5) days from the time the prosecution rested its case. suspended from office. The word “office”, from which the
If the same is granted, then I will now file a demurrer to public officer charged shall be preventively suspended,
evidence within ten (10) days. (Sec. 23, Rule 119, ROC, as could apply to any office, which he might currently be
amended) This remedy would allow the evaluation of the holding and not necessarily the particular office under
sufficiency of prosecution’s evidence without the need of which he was charged. Thus, the DENR undersecretary can
presenting defense evidence. It may be done through the be preventively suspended even though he was a mayor,
court’s initiative or upon motion of the accused and after when he allegedly committed malversation.
the prosecution rested its case. (Sec. 23, Rule 119, ROC, as
amended) Settled is the rule that where the accused files a motion to
quash the information or challenges the validity thereof, a
Q: On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on show-cause order of the trial court would no longer be
board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police necessary. What is indispensable is that the trial court duly
Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed hear the parties at a hearing held for determining the
an on-going armed robbery while the bus was validity of the information, and thereafter hand down its
traversing Makati. His alertness and training enabled ruling, issuing the corresponding order of suspension
him to foil the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He should it uphold the validity of the information. (Luciano v.
disarmed the felon and while frisking him, discovered Mariano, G.R. No. L-32950, 30 July 1971) Since a pre-
another handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both suspension hearing is basically a due process requirement,
handguns and the malefactor was later charged with when an accused public official is given an adequate
the separate crimes of robbery and illegal possession of opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses against the
firearm. May the charges of robbery and illegal mandatory suspension under R.A. No. 3019, then an
prosecution of firearm be filed directly by the accused would have no reason to complain that no actual
investigating prosecutor with the appropriate court hearing was conducted. (Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
without a preliminary investigation? (2013 BAR) 172035, 04 July 2012)
A: YES. Since the offender was arrested in flagrante delicto In the facts given, the DENR Undersecretary was already
without a warrant of arrest; an inquest proceeding should given opportunity to question the validity of the
be conducted and thereafter a case may be filed in court Information for malversation by filing a motion to quash,
even without the requisite preliminary investigation. and yet, the Sandiganbayan sustained its validity. There is
no necessity for the court to conduct pre-suspension
Under Section 7, Rule 112, when a person is lawfully hearing to determine for the second time the validity of the
arrested without a warrant involving an offense which information for purpose of preventively suspending the
requires preliminary investigation, the complaint or accused.
information may be filed by a prosecutor without the need Q: Regional Director AG of the Department of Public
of such investigation provided an inquest has been Works and Highways was charged with violation of
conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the Office of the
or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint Ombudsman. An administrative charge for gross
may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly misconduct arising from the transaction subject matter
with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the of said criminal case was filed against him in the same
offended party or arresting officer or person. office. The Ombudsman assigned a team composed of
investigators from the office of the Special Prosecutor
Q: X, an undersecretary of DENR, was charged before and from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
the Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds Military to conduct a joint investigation of the criminal
allegedly committed when he was still the Mayor of a case and the administrative case. The team of
town in Rizal. After arraignment, the prosecution investigators recommended to the Ombudsman that
moved that X be preventively suspended. X opposed the AG be preventively suspended for a period not
motion arguing that he was now occupying a position exceeding six months on its finding that the evidence
different from that which the Information charged him of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman issued the said
and therefore, there is no more possibility that he can order as recommend by the investigators. AG moved to
intimidate witnesses and hamper the prosecution. reconsider the order on the following grounds: a) The
Decide. Suppose X files a Motion to Quash challenging office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive
the validity of the Information and the Sandiganbayan authority to conduct a preliminary investigation of the
denies the same, will there still be a need to conduct a criminal case; b) The order for his preventive
pre- suspension hearing? Explain. (2012 BAR) suspension was premature because he has yet to file his

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
answer to the administrative complaint and submit inner linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest,
countervailing evidence; and c) he was career executive Boy Maton was watching a basketball game being
service officer and under Presidential Decree No. 807 played in the town plaza, and he was cheering for his
(Civil Service Law), his preventive suspension shall be favorite team. He was subsequently charged with illegal
for a maximum period of three months. Resolve with possession of dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of
reasons the motion of respondent AG. (2005 BAR) not guilty when he was arraigned. During the trial, Boy
Maton moved for the dismissal of the information on
A: The motion should be denied for the following reasons: the ground that the facts revealed that he had been
illegally arrested. He further moved for the suppression
1. The office of the Special Prosecutor does not have of the evidence confiscated from him as being the
exclusive authority to conduct a preliminary consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of the
investigation of the criminal case but it participated poisonous tree. The trial court, in denying the motions
in the investigation together with the Deputy of Boy Maton, explained that at the time the motions
Ombudsman for the Military who can handle cases were filed Boy Maton had already waived the right to
of civilians and is not limited to the military. raise the issue of the legality of the arrest. The trial
court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy
2. The order of preventive suspension need not wait Maton, as the accused, should have assailed the validity
for the answer to the administrative complaint and of the arrest before entering his plea to the information.
the submission of countervailing evidence. (Garcia Hence, the trial court opined that any adverse
v. Mojica, G.R. No. 13903, 10 Sept. 1999) consequence of the alleged illegal arrest had also been
equally waived.
E. ARREST Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (2017 BAR)

(RULE 113)
(2017, 2016, 2015, 2010, 2004, 2003, 1997 BAR) A: The ruling of the court denying the motion for dismissal
of the information on the ground of illegal arrest is proper.
Under Sec. 9, Rule 117, the accused’s failure to file a motion
to quash before plea is a waiver of the objection to lack of
1. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL personal jurisdiction or of the objection to an illegal arrest.
(2017, 2016, 2010, 2004, 2003, 2000, 1997 BAR) Here, Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a motion to
quash on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Hence,
Q: Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a he is deemed to have waived the ground of illegal arrest
private person may make a valid warrantless arrest. which is subsumed under lack of personal jurisdiction.
(2017 BAR)
However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress
A: Under Section 5, Rule 113, a peace officer or a private evidence is not correct. The Supreme Court has held that a
person may make a valid warrantless arrest in the following waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with
instances: it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during
an illegal warrantless arrest. (People v. Racho, G.R. No.
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested 186529, 03 Aug. 2010) A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a
has commit ted, is actually committing, or is waiver of an illegal search. The Constitution provides that
attempting to commit an offense; evidence seized in violation of the right against illegal
search is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the evidence was
b. When an offense has just been committed, and he seized was virtue of an illegal search considering that the
has probable cause to believe based on personal arrest was illegal, rendering it inadmissible in evidence.
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and Q: Under Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless arrest is
allowed when an offense has just been committed and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based
has escaped from a penal establishment or place on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances,
where he is serving final judgment or is that the person to be arrested has committed it. A
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or policeman approaches your for advice and asks you
has escaped while being transferred from one how he will execute a warrantless arrest against a
confinement to another. murderer who escaped after killing a person. The
policeman arrived two (2) hours after the killing and a
Q: Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested certain Max was allegedly the killer per information
by a police officer on suspicion that he was keeping given by a witness. He asks you to clarify the following:
prohibited drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was (2016 BAR)
searched immediately after the arrest, the officer found
and recovered 10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the

REMEDIAL LAW
(a) How long after the commission of the crime can he City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for estafa
still execute the warrantless arrest? supported by RY’s sworn statement and other
documentary evidence. After due inquest, the
A: In executing a warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule prosecutor filed the requisite information with the MM
113, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that an RTC. No preliminary investigation was conducted
offense has just been committed means that there must be either before or after the filing of the information and
a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense the accused at no time asked for such an investigation.
was committed and the time of the arrest. (Pestilos v. However, before arraignment, the accused moved to
Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, 10 Nov. 2014) If there was an quash the information on the ground that the
appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the prosecutor suffered from a want of authority to file the
commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be information because of his failure to conduct a
secured. In any case, personal knowledge by the arresting preliminary investigation before filing the information,
officer is an indispensable requirement to the validity of a as required by the Rules of Court. (2004 BAR)
vaid warrantless arrest.
(a) Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid?
(b) What does “personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested A: NO. The warrantless arrest is not valid because the
committed it” mean? alleged offense has not just been committed. The crime was
allegedly committed one year before the arrest. (Sec. 5(b),
A: The phrase “personal knowledge of the facts and Rule 113, ROC, as amended)
circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it”
means that matters in relation to the supposed commission (b) Is he entitled to a preliminary investigation before
of the crime were within the actual perception, personal the filing of the information? Explain.
evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene
of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not A: YES, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation because
seen someone actually, fleeing, he could still make a he was not lawfully arrested without a warrant. (Sec. 7, Rule
warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of 112, ROC, as amended) He can move for a reinvestigation.
the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could
determine the existence of probable cause that the person Q: In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives
sought to be arrested has committed the crime; however, arrested the accused and seized from him a sachet of
the determination of probable cause and the gathering of shabu and an unlicensed firearm. The accused was
facts or circumstances should be made immediately after charged in two Informations, one for violation of the
the commission of the crime in order to comply with the “Dangerous Drug Act,” as amended, and another for
element of immediacy. illegal possession of firearms. The accused filed an
action for recovery of the firearm in another court
Q: As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one against the police officers with an application for the
midnight, he saw an "owner-type jeepney" approaching issuance of a writ of replevin. He alleged in his
him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle were up complaint that he was a military informer who had
to no good, he darted into a corner and ran. The been issued a written authority to carry said firearm.
occupants of the vehicle—elements from the Western The police officers moved to dismiss the complaint on
Police District—gave chase and apprehended him. The the ground that the subject firearm was in custodia
police apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a legis. The court denied the motion and instead issued
sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a the writ of replevin. (2003 BAR)
Swiss knife in his secret pocket, and detained him
thereafter. Is the arrest and body- search legal? (2010 (a) Was the seizure of the firearm valid?
BAR)
A: YES. The seizure of the firearm was valid because it was
A: NO. The arrest and the body-search were not legal. seized in the course of a valid arrest in a buy- bust operation
Cicero’s act of running does not show any reasonable (Secs. 12 and 13, Rule 126, ROC, as amended) In such
ground to believe that a crime has been committed or is operation, a search warrant was not necessary. (People v.
about to be committed for the police officers to apprehend Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, 27 Jan. 1997)
him and conduct body search. Hence, the arrest was illegal
as it does not fall under any of the circumstances for a valid (b) Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper?
warrantless arrest provided in Section 5, Rule 113.
A: NO. The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper.
Q: AX swindled RY in the amount P10,000 sometime in The court had no authority to issue the writ of replevin
mid-2003. On the strength of the sworn statement given whether the firearm was in custodia legis or not. The motion
by RY personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime in mid- to recover the firearm should be filed in the court where the
2004, and without securing a warrant, the police officer criminal action is pending.
arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Q: FG was arrested without a warrant by policemen 3. DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE
while he was walking in a busy street. After the FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST
preliminary investigation, he was charged with rape (2015 BAR)
and the corresponding information was filed in the
RTC. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the
Q: An information for murder was filed against Rapido.
merits ensued. The court rendered judgment
The RTC judge, after personally evaluating the
convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that the judgment
prosecutor's resolution, documents and parties'
is void because he was illegally arrested. If you were the
affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found probable
Solicitor General, counsel, for the People of the
cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Rapido's lawyer
Philippines, how would you refute said claim? (2000
examined the rollo of the case and found that it only
BAR)
contained the copy of the information, the submissions
of the prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest.
A: I would assert that any objection to the illegality of the
Immediately, Rapido's counsel filed a motion to quash
arrest of the accused without a warrant is deemed waived
the arrest warrant for being void, citing as grounds:
when he pleaded not guilty at the arraignment without
raising the question. It is too late to complain about a
1. The judge before issuing the warrant did not
warrantless arrest after trial is commenced and completed
personally conduct a searching examination of
and a judgment of conviction rendered against the accused.
the prosecution witnesses in violation of his
(People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, 16 Jan. 1998)
client's constitutionally-mandated rights;
Q: A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a

2. There was no prior order finding probable
nightclub. Two days after the incident, and upon
cause before the judge issued the arrest
complaint of the widow of A, the police arrested B
warrant.
without a warrant of arrest and searched his house
without a search warrant. (1997 BAR)
May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds
cited by Rapido's counsel? State your reason for each
(a) Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was
ground. (2015 BAR)
seized during the search of the house of B, be
admitted in evidence?
A: NO, the warrant of arrest may not be quashed based on
the grounds cited by Rapido’s counsel. In the issuance of
A: NO. The gun seized during the search of the house of B
warrant of arrest, the mandate of the Constitution is for the
without a search warrant is not admissible in evidence. (Sec.
judge to personally determine the existence of probable
2 and 3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution) Moreover, the search
cause. The words “personal determination,” was
was not an incident to a lawful arrest of a person under Sec.
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Soliven v. Makasiar
13, Rule 126.
(G.R. No. 82585, 14 Nov. 1988) as the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the
(b) Is the arrest of B legal?
existence of probable cause.
A: NO. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime has in

What the law requires as personal determination on the
fact just been committed and the police arresting has
part of a judge is that he should not rely solely on the report
personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested
of the investigating prosecutor. Thus, personal examination
has committed it. (Sec. 5, Rule 113, ROC, as amended) Here,
of the complainant and his witnesses is, thus, not
the crime has not just been committed since a period of two
mandatory and indispensable in the determination of
days had already lapsed, and the police arresting has no
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
such personal knowledge because he was not present when
(People v. Grey, G.R. No. 10109, 26 July 2010)
the incident happened. (Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
101837, 11 Feb.1992)
(c) Under the circumstances, can B be convicted of F. BAIL

homicide? (RULE 114)
(2019, 2017, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2008, 2006,
A: YES. The gun is not indispensable in the conviction of A 2004, 2002, 1999, 1998 BAR)
because the court may rely on testimonial or other
evidence.
1. NATURE
2. REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST
2. WHEN A MATTER OF RIGHT; EXCEPTIONS

REMEDIAL LAW
3. WHEN A MATTER OF DISCRETION Is the objection of the prosecution valid? Explain. (2019
(2019, 2017, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2008, 2006, BAR)
2004, 2002, 1999, 1998 BAR)
A: NO, the objection of the prosecution is not valid. The
arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the
Q: When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter
conduct of hearing on his petition for bail. A person is
of discretion? (2019, 2017, 2006, 1999 BAR)
allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his
liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An
A: Bail is a matter of right: (a) before or after conviction by
accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing a
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
petition for bail. (Serpio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
28 Jan. 2003)
Court; (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of
an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
Q: Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a
life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114, ROC, as amended); and
condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the
(c) if the charge involves a capital offense and the evidence
nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus
of guilt is not strong. (Sec. 7, Rule 114, ROC, as amended)
proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1
Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the
Bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the
door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
themselves as police officers. The man readily
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. (Sec. 5, Rule 114,
identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to
ROC, as amended)
come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady
with her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02
Q: In what forms may bail be given? (1999 BAR)
Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she
was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers
A: Bail may be given by a corporate surety, or through a
arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady
property bond, cash deposit or recognizance. (Sec. 1, Rule
back to the police station. PO1 Remus took the young
lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She
narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school
Q: When the accused is entitled as a matter of right to
student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual
bail, may the court refuse to grant him bail on the
intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on
ground that there exists a high degree of probability
different occasions and she was paid P5,000.00 each
that he will abscond or escape? Explain. (1999 BAR)
time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically
hurt her. P02 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the
A: If bail is a matter of right, it cannot be denied on the
station's jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public
ground that there exists a high degree of probability that the
prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No.
accused will abscond or escape. What the court can do is to
9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five
increase the amount of the bail. One of the guidelines that
separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610
the judge may use in fixing a reasonable amount of bail is
(The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer filed a
the probability of the accused appearing in trial. (Sec 9[g],
motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an
Rule 114, as amended by Circular No. 12-94)
order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only
after his arraignment. (2015 BAR)
Q: May the Court require a witness to post bail? Explain
your answer. (1999 BAR)
(a) Did the court properly impose that bail condition?
A: YES. The court may require a witness to post bail if he is

A: NO. The court did not properly impose that bail
a material witness and bail is needed to secure his
condition. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not
appearance. The rules provide that when the court is
require the arraignment of the accused as prerequisite to
satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a material witness will not
the conduct of hearings in the bail petition. A person is
testify when required, it may, upon motion of either party,
allowed to file a petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of
order the witness to post bail in such sum as may be deemed
his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An
proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit him
accused need not wait for his arraignment before filing the
to prison until he complies or is legally discharged after his
bail petition. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149116, 2
testimony is taken. (Sec. 6, Rule 119, ROC, as amended)
Jan. 2003)
Q: Mr. P was charged with Plunder before the

Moreover, the condition that the approval of bail bonds
Sandiganbayan along with several government
shall be made only after arraignment would place the
officials. Before his arraignment, he filed a petition for
accused in a position where he has to choose between: (1)
bail. This was objected to by the prosecution which
filing a motion to quash (the Information) and thus delay his
insisted that he should first be arraigned before he
released on bail because until his motion to quash can be
applies for bail, considering that grant of bail will result
resolved, his arraignment cannot be held; and (2) foregoing
in the accused fleeing the court’s jurisdiction.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
the filing of a motion to quash (the Information) so that he from non-bailable to bailable. Be that as it may, the denial of
can be arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail. bail pending appeal is a matter of wise discretion since after
(Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, 1 Feb. 2000) conviction by the trial court, the presumption of innocence
terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional right to bail
(b) After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis ends. (Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 Mar.
Jung still question the validity of his arrest? 2010)
A: YES. Oasis Jung can still question the validity of his arrest Q: At the Public Attorney’s Office station in Taguig
even after his release from detention on bail. Under Sec. 26, where you are assigned, your work requires you to act
Rule 114, an application for or admission to bail shall not as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and
bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or to handle cases involving indigents.
the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing
the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary In one other case, an indigent mother seeks assistance
investigation of a charge against him, provided that he for her 14-year old son who has been arrested and
raises them before entering his plea. detained for malicious mischief. Would an application
for bail be the appropriate remedy or is there another
Q: A was charged with murder in the lower court. His remedy available? Justify your chosen remedy and
Petition for Bail was denied after a summary hearing on outline the appropriate steps to take. (2013 BAR)
the ground that the prosecution had established strong
evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was A: YES. An application for bail is an appropriate remedy to
filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the secure provisional remedy of the 14-year old boy. Under the
reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused Rules, bail is a matter of right before or even after conviction
reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the before the MTC which has jurisdiction over the crime of
witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown malicious mischief. (Sec. 4, Rule 114, ROC, as amended) As
that no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended such, bail can be posted as a matter of right.
the killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds
that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is Q: A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At the
strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is time when the warrant of arrest was issued, he was
solely based on the evidence presented by the confined in the hospital and could not obtain a valid
prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for Reconsideration clearance to leave the hospital. He filed a petition for
was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. (2014 bail saying therein that he be considered as having
BAR) placed himself under the jurisdiction of the court. May
the court entertain his petition? Why or why not? (2012
(a) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the BAR)
incident?
A: YES, a person is deemed to be under the custody of the
A: If I were the Judge, I would grant the second Petition for law either when he has been arrested or has surrendered
Bail. Under Section 7, Rule 114, no person charge with a himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The accused who is
capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion confined in a hospital may be deemed to be in the custody
perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail of the law if he clearly communicates his submission to the
when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of court while he is confined in a hospital. (Paderanga v. Court
the criminal prosecution. of Appeals, G.R. No. 115407, 28 Aug. 1995)
In this case, the evidence of guilt for the crime of murder is Q: After Alma had started serving her sentence for
not strong, as shown by the prosecution’s failure to prove violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), she filed a
the circumstance that will qualify the crime to, and petition for writ of habeas corpus, citing Vaca v. CA
consequently convict the accused of, murder. Accordingly, where the sentence of imprisonment of a party found
the accused should be allowed to post bail because the guilty of violation of BP 22 was reduced to a fine equal
evidence of his guilt is not strong. (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 to double the amount of the check involved. She prayed
Constitution) Besides, it is settled that an Order granting bail that her sentence be similarly modified and that she be
is merely interlocutory which cannot attain finality. (Pobre immediately released from detention. In the
v. People, G.R. No. 141805, 8 July 2015) alternative, she prayed that pending determination on
whether the Vaca ruling applies to her, she be allowed
(b) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of to post bail pursuant to Rule 102, Sec. 14, which
homicide and the accused filed a Notice of Appeal, provides that if a person is lawfully imprisoned or
is he entitled to bail? restrained on a charge of having committed an offense
not punishable by death, he may be admitted to bail in
A: YES. The accused is entitled to bail subject to the the discretion of the court. Accordingly, the trial court
discretion of the Court. Under Section 5, Rule 114, the allowed Alma to post bail and then ordered her release.
appellate court may allow him to post bail because the trial In your opinion, is the order of the trial court correct?
court in convicting him, changed the nature of the offense (2008 BAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure? of D’s guilt was strong for purposes of bail. Is the ruling
correct? Why? (2002 BAR)
A NO. The trial court’s order releasing Alma on bail even
after judgment against her has become final and in fact she A: NO, the prosecution is only required to present as much
has started serving sentence, is a brazen disregard of the evidence as is necessary to determine whether the evidence
mandate in Section 24, Rule 114 that: “in no case shall bail of D’s guilt is strong for purposes of bail. (Sec. 8, Rule 114,
be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve ROC, as amended)
sentence.” (People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, 27 Oct.
2006) Q: In an information charging them of Murder,
policemen A, B, and C were convicted of Homicide. A
Q: RP and State XX have a subsisting Extradition Treaty. appealed from the decision but B and C did not. B
started serving his sentence, but C escaped and is at
Pursuant thereto RP’s Secretary of Justice (SoJ) filed a
large. In the Court of Appeals, A applied for bail but was
Petition for Extradition before the MM RTC alleging that denied. Finally, the Court of Appeals rendered a
Juan Kwan is the subject of an arrest warrant duly decision acquitting A on the ground that the evidence
issued by the proper criminal court of State XX in pointed to the NPA as the killers of the victim. (1998
connection with a criminal case for tax evasion and BAR)
fraud before his return to RP as a balikbayan. Petitioner
prays that Juan be extradited and delivered to the (a) Was the Court of Appeal’s denial of A’s application
proper authorities of State XX for trial, and that to for bail proper?
prevent Juan’s flight in the interim, a warrant for his
immediate arrest be issued. Before the RTC could act on A: YES, the Court of Appeals properly denied A’s application
the petition for extradition, Juan filed before it an for bail. The court had the discretion to do so. An appellant
urgent motion, in sum praying (1) that SoJ’s application who, though convicted of an offense not punishable by
for an arrest warrant be set for hearing and (2) that death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, was
Juan be allowed to post bail in the event the court would nevertheless originally charged with a capital offense can
issue an arrest warrant. Should the court grant or deny hardly be unmindful of the fact that, in the ordinary course
Juan’s prayer? Reason. (2004 BAR) of things, there is a substantial likelihood of his conviction
(and the corresponding penalty) being affirmed on appeal,
A: The Court should grant Juan’s prayer. An extradition or worse, the not insignificant possibility and infinitely
proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all more unpleasant prospect of instead being found guilty of
earmarks of a criminal process. However, while our the capital offense originally charged. (Obosa v. Court of
extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an Appeals, G.R. No. 114350, 16 Jan. 1997)
extraditee, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from
filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the (b) Can B and C be benefited by the decision of the
Constitution. Court of Appeals?
NOTE: In light of the recent developments in international A: B, who did not appeal, can be benefited by the decision of
law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual the Court of Appeals which is favorable and applicable to
and the sanctity of human rights, an extraditee may be him. (Sec. 11[a], Rule 122, ROC, as amended) On the other
allowed to post bail. (Government of Hong Kong Special hand, the benefit will also apply to C even if his appeal is
Administrative Region v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, 19 Apr. dismissed because of his escape. (UPLC Suggested Answers)
2007)
Q: If an information was filed in the RTC-Manila G. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

charging D with homicide and he was arrested in (RULE 116)
Quezon City, in what court or courts may he apply for (2022, 2019, 2002 BAR)
bail? Explain. (2002 BAR)
A: D may apply for bail in the RTC-Manila where the

1. SEARCHING INQUIRY
information was filed or in the RTC-Quezon City where he
was arrested, or if no judge, thereof is available, with any
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal 2. IMPROVIDENT PLEA
circuit trial judge therein. (Sec. 17, Rule 114, ROC, as (2022, 2019, 2002 BAR)
amended)
Q: Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor's
Q: D was charged with murder, a capital offense. After seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA. When he was
arraignment, he applied for bail. The trial court arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead "guilty,"
ordered the prosecution to present its evidence in full provided that his sentence be substantially reduced.
on the ground that only on the basis of such Both AAA's mother and the prosecutor were amenable
presentation could it determine whether the evidence to the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered a plea

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced police in flagrant delicto as the incident happened in a
straight penalty of only ten (10) years of imprisonment, public place with many witnesses present. Videos of the
as agreed upon. (2019 BAR) incident were also posted online which the judge was
able to watch.
(a) Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty for Mr.
W? Explain. During his arraignment, Cain pleaded guilty to the
crime charged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) accepted
A: NO. The act of Mr. W is a conditional plea, meaning, the plea because it was made voluntarily and with full
subject to the condition that he be punished to a certain understanding of the consequences. The RTC directed
penalty. In that case, the trial court should have vacated the prosecution to present evidence to prove Cain's
such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a conditional guilt. However, the prosecution failed to present any
plea of guilty, or one subject to the proviso that a certain evidence during the scheduled hearings. The RTC then
penalty be imposed upon him. A conditional plea of guilty is ruled and found Cain guilty beyond reasonable doubt
equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore, based solely on his plea of guilt.
require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered. Was Cain’s conviction proper? Explain briefly. (2022
(UP BOC 2019 Bar Questions and Suggested Answers) BAR)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A: NO. Cain's conviction for murder was not proper. Under
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in case the accused pleads
NO. Rape is considered as a capital offense being punishable guilty to a capital offense, the court shall still require the
by reclusion perpetua. Thus, under Section 3, Rule 166 of the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
Rules of Court, the Judge is duty bound: (1) to conduct a culpability. (Sec. 3, Rule 116, ROC, as amended) Here, the
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full accused pleaded guilty to murder, which the Supreme Court
comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilt; (2) has held to be a capital offense since the death penalty was
to require the prosecution to still prove the guilt of the not expunged from the Revised Penal Code but merely
accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) to prohibited from being imposed. The prosecution failed to
inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present prove the accused Cain’s guilt since it did not present any
evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. evidence. Hence, Cain’s conviction for murder was not
proper. (People v. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, 29 Sept. 2020;
(b) Assuming that Mr. W was once more charged with Riguera, 2023)
the crime of Rape committed against AAA based on
the same incident, may Mr. W validly invoke the
defense of double jeopardy through a motion to H. MOTION TO QUASH
quash and will such motion prosper? Explain. (RULE 117)
(2022, 2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2009, 2005,
A: NO. In effect, the judgment rendered by the trial court 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1998 BAR)
against Mr. W which was based on a void plea bargaining is
also void ab initio and cannot be considered to have
attained finality for the simple reason that a void judgment
has no legality from its inception. Thus, since the judgment 1. GROUNDS
of conviction rendered against Mr. W was void, double (2022, 2016, 2015, 2009, 2005, 2000, 1998 BAR)
jeopardy will not lie. (UP BOC 2019 Bar Questions and
Suggested Answers) Q: Give two (2) grounds to quash an Information. (1998
BAR)
Q: D was charged with theft of an article worth
P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded not A: Two grounds to quash an Information are:
guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before trial
commenced, he asked the court to allow him to change 1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but only to estafa and
involving P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to change his 2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
plea? Why? (2002 BAR) over the offense charged or the person of the
accused.
A: NO, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be
allowed if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the NOTE: The other grounds are:
offense charged. (Sec. 2, Rule 116, ROC, as amended) Estafa
involving P5,000.00 is not necessarily included in theft of an 3. That the officer who filed the Information had no
article worth P15,000.00 authority to do so;
4. That it does not conform substantially to the
Q: Cain was indicted under an Information charging prescribed form;
him with the crime of Murder. He was caught by the

REMEDIAL LAW
5. That more than one offense Is charged except in Q: A criminal information is filed in court charging
those cases in which existing laws prescribe a Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo files a motion to
single punishment for various offenses; quash the information on the ground that no
6. That the criminal action or liability has been preliminary investigation was conducted. Will the
extinguished; motion be granted? Why or why not? (2009 BAR)
7. That it contains averments which. If true, would
constitute a legal excuse or Justification; and A: NO, the motion to quash will not be granted. The lack of
8. That the accused has been previously convicted or preliminary investigation is not a ground for a motion to
In jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the quash. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right
offense charged. (Sec. 3, Rule 117, ROC, as amended) and can be waived. The accused should instead file a motion
for reinvestigation within five (5) days after he learn of the
Q: An Information for Murder was filed against the filing in Court of the case against him. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, ROC,
accused Demo and Onyok. It reads: as amended)
“That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City Q: The Information against Roger Alindogan for the
of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of crime of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Revised Penal Code avers:
conspiring and confederating together and both of
them mutually helping and aiding each other, without “That on or about 10:30 o’ clock in the evening of
justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery February 1, 2010 at Barangay Matalaba, Imus, Cavite
and abuse of superior strength, did then and there and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design,
and use personal violence upon one Angel Rosario, by through force and intimidation, did then and there,
then and there repeatedly hitting and beating his head wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual
with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter abuse on his daughter, Rose Domingo, a minor of 11
mortal injury which caused his death. years old, either by raping her or committing acts of
Contrary to law.” lasciviousness on her, against her will and consent to
her damage and prejudice.
The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that
the Information does not conform substantially to the ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”
prescribed form. Is the accused correct? Explain briefly.
(2022 BAR) The accused wants to have the case dismissed because
he believes that the charge is confusing and the
A: YES. The accused is correct in filing a motion to quash on information is defective. What ground or grounds can
the ground that the Information does not conform he raise in moving for the quashal of the information?
substantially to the prescribed form. The Supreme Court Explain. (2016 BAR)
has held that the failure of the information to specifically
allege facts relative to treachery is a ground for quashal, that A: The accused may move to quash the information based
is, that the information does not conform substantially to on any of the following grounds: (a) That the facts charged
the prescribed form. do not constitute an offense; (b) That it does not conform
substantially to the prescribed form; and (c) That more that
Here, the information failed to specifically allege facts one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
relative to treachery; it only alleged treachery but without various offenses is prescribed by law. (Sec. 3, Rule 117, ROC,
specifying how or why there was treachery. Such failure as amended)
meant that the information did not conform substantially to
the prescribed form. Hence, the accused is correct in In People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. Nos. 135554-56, 21 June 2002),
alleging that the information does not conform the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “by either raping
substantially to the prescribed form. (People v. Solar, G.R. her or committing acts of lasciviousness” does not
No. 216056, 06 Aug. 2019; Riguera 2023) constitute an offense since it does not cite which among the
numerous sections or subsections of R.A. No. 7610 has been
Q: If the Information is not accompanied by a violated by accused-appellant. Moreover, it does not state
certification that a preliminary investigation has been the acts and omissions constituting the offense, or any
conducted. Is the Information void? (1998 BAR) special or aggravating circumstances attending the same, as
required under the rules of criminal procedure.
A: NO. The certification which is provided in Sec. 4, Rule
112, Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not an indispensable Q: Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a
part of the information. (People v. Lapura, G.R. No. 94494, 15 condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the
Mar. 1996) nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus
proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1
Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced and approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the
themselves as police officers. The man readily same delictual facts, but with an additional allegation
identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to that the accused gave unwarranted benefits to SB
come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady Enterprises owned by Samuel. Samuel was also indicted
with her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02 under the amended information. Before Samuel was
Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she arraigned, he moved to quash the amended
was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers information on the ground that the officer who filed the
arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady same had no authority to do so. Resolve the motion to
back to the police station. PO1 Remus took the young quash with reasons. (2009 BAR)
lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She
narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school A: The motion to quash filed Samuel should be granted.
student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual Under R.A. No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of
intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on 1989, the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority,
different occasions and she was paid P5,000.00 each under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to
time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal
hurt her. P02 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform such other
station's jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman. (Calingin v.
prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 145743-89, 10 Aug. 2007)
9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five
separate information for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Absent a clear delegation of authority from the Ombudsman
Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer filed a motion to to the Special Prosecutor to file the information, the latter
be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that would have no authority to file the same. The Special
approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his Prosecutor cannot be considered an alter ego of the
arraignment. Ombudsman as the doctrine of qualified political agency
does not apply to the Office of the Ombudsman. (Perez v.
Before arraignment, Oasis Jung's lawyer moved to Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166062, 26 Sept. 2006).
quash the other four separate information for violation
of the child abuse law invoking the single larceny rule. Q: Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed
Should the motion to quash be granted? (2015 BAR) firearms in an Information filed in the RTC. It was
alleged therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two
A: NO. The court should not grant the motion to quash, unlicensed firearms: a .45 calibre and a .32 calibre.
because the “single larceny rule” does not find application Under Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an
where the charges involve violations of R.A. 9262 (The unlicensed .45 calibre gun is punishable by prision
VAWC Law) and R.A. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law), mayor in its minimum period and a fine of P30,000.00,
considering that each criminal act is based on a different while possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun is
criminal impulse and intent. punishable by prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. As counsel
In Santiago v. Garchitorena, (G.R. No. 109266, 2 Dec. 1993), of the accused, you intend to file a motion to quash the
the Supreme Court explained that the “Single Larceny Information. What ground or grounds should you
doctrine” applies only to criminal crimes committed delicto invoke? Explain. (2005 BAR)
continuado, which exists if there should be plurality of acts
performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision A: The ground for the motion to quash is that more than one
violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which offense is charged in the information. (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117,
means that two or more violations of the same penal ROC, as amended) Likewise, the RTC has no jurisdiction over
provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution the second offense of possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre
leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or gun, punishable by prision correccional in its maximum
aim. period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. It is the MTC
that has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all offenses
Q: Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years. (B.P.
respectively, of the Municipality of San Miguel, Leyte, Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691)
are charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of
Section 3 (e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Q: BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms
Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleges, among under an Information signed by a Provincial
others, that the two conspired in the purchase of Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC
several units of computer through personal canvass found out that the Provincial Prosecutor had no
instead of a public bidding, causing undue injury to the authority to sign the information as it was the City
municipality. Before arraignment, the accused moved Prosecutor who has such authority. During the pre-
for reinvestigation of the charge, which the court trial, BC moves that the case against him be dismissed
granted. After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special on the ground that the Information is defective because
Prosecutor filed an amended information duly signed the officer signing it lacked the authority to do so. The

REMEDIAL LAW
Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the and a plea of guilty should have been entered for him by the
ground of estoppel as BC did not move to quash the court, which however was not done. Since there was no
Information before arraignment. If you are counsel for standing plea, a first jeopardy did not attach and thus the
BC, what is your argument to refute the opposition of Prosecution may assail the acquittal without infringing
the Provincial Prosecutor? (2000 BAR) upon Juancho’s right against double jeopardy. (People v.
Balisacan, G.R. No 26376, 31 Aug. 1966)
A: I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no
authority to file the information, the court did not acquire Q: McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting
jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the into brushes with the law. In one incident, he drove his
subject matter of the offense charged (Cudia v. Court of Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its
Appeals, G.R. No. 110315, 16 Jan. 1998). Hence, this ground driver and passengers in different directions. The
is not waived if not raised in a motion to quash and could be pedicab driver died, while two (2) of the passenger
raised at the pre-trial. (Sec. 9, Rule 117, ROC, as amended) suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations
were then filed against McJolly. One, for Reckless
2. DOUBLE JEOPARDY Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
(2019, 2017, 2014, 2005, 2004, 2002 BAR) Property, and two, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Slight Physical Injures. The latter case was scheduled
for arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly
Q: In an Information filed before the Regional Trial
immediately pleaded guilty. He was meted out the
Court (RTC), Mr. C was charged with Carnapping for
penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for
supposedly taking the motorcycle of Mr. O and
reckless imprudence resulting on homicide was also set
joyriding with it around the city. When Mr. C was
for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly
arraigned, he entered a plea of "not guilty" to the
interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Resolve.
charge. After the prosecution rested its case, Mr. C
(2014 BAR)
proceeded to file a demurrer to evidence. The
demurrer was denied by the RTC.
A: McJolly correctly interposed the defense of double
jeopardy. Reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a quasi-
Assuming that the demurrer was granted by the RTC
offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other
and the prosecution's motion for reconsideration
crimes, such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
thereto is denied, what is the prosecution's further
offense already bars subsequent prosecution for the same
procedural recourse? Explain. (2019 BAR)
quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts. (Ivler
v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17 Nov. 2010)
A: The prosecution has no more further remedy. If a
demurrer to evidence is granted, it is equivalent to acquittal
Q: For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim,
and thus, final and unappealable. To allow the prosecution
Noel was charged with frustrated homicide in the RTC.
to appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy.
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to said
(Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, 18 Apr. 2017)
crime. Neither the court nor the prosecution was aware
that the victim had died two days earlier on account of
Q: Juancho entered a plea of guilty when he was
his stab wounds. Because of his guilty plea, Noel was
arraigned under an information for homicide. To
convicted of frustrated homicide and meted the
determine the penalty to be imposed, the trial court
corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned
allowed Juancho to present evidence proving any
of the victim’s death, it filed within 15 days therefrom a
mitigating circumstance in his favor. Juancho was able
motion to amend the information to upgrade the charge
to establish complete self-defense. Convinced by the
from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide.
evidence adduced by Juancho, the trial court rendered
Noel opposed the motion claiming that the admission of
a verdict of acquittal. May the Prosecution assail the
the amended information would place him in double
acquittal without infringing the constitutional
jeopardy. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 BAR)
guarantee against double jeopardy in favor of Juancho?
Explain your answer. (2017 BAR)
A: The amended information to consummated homicide
from frustrated homicide does not place the accused in
A: Yes, the Prosecution may assail the acquittal without
double jeopardy. As provided in the second paragraph of
infringing upon the constitutional guarantee against double
Sec. 7, Rule 117, the conviction of the accused shall not be a
jeopardy. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a
bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
requirement for a first jeopardy to attach is that there must
includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
have been a valid plea by the accused. Said rules also
information when: a) the graver offense developed due to
provide that when the accused pleads guilty but presents
supervening facts arising from the same act or omission
exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn
constituting the former charge; or b) the facts constituting
and a plea of guilty shall be entered for him. Here Juancho’s
the graver charge became known or were discovered only
plea of guilty was deemed withdrawn when he presented
after a plea was entered in the former complain or
exculpatory evidence to the effect that he acted in self-
information. Here, when the plea to frustrated homicide
defense. Hence his plea of guilty was deemed withdrawn

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
was made, neither the court nor the prosecution was aware ground that its filing had placed him in double
that the victim had died two days earlier on account of his jeopardy. How should D’s motion to quash be resolved?
stab wounds. (2002 BAR)
Q: SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC- A: D’s motion to quash should be granted on the ground of
QC) a sworn written statement duly subscribed by him, double jeopardy because the first offense charged is
charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu City) with the necessarily included in the second offense charged.
offense of slight physical injuries allegedly inflicted on (Draculan v. Donato, G.R. No. L-44079, 19 Dec. 1985)
SPS (an actual resident of Quezon City). The judge of the
branch to which the case was raffled thereupon issued 3. PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL
an order declaring that the case shall be governed by (2003, 2002 BAR)
the Rule on Summary Procedure in Criminal cases. Soon
thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the case
Q: Before the arraignment for the crime of murder, the
for the reason that it was not commenced by
private complainant executed an Affidavit of
information, as required by said Rule. Sometime later,
Desistance stating that she was not sure if the accused
based on the same facts giving rise to the slight physical
was the man who killed her husband. The public
injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed with the same
prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Information on
MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide
the ground that with private complainant’s desistance,
against the same RGR. In due time, before arraignment,
he did not have evidence sufficient to convict the
RGR moved to quash the information on the ground of
accused. On 02 January 2001, the court without further
double jeopardy and after due hearing, the Judge
proceedings granted the motion and provisionally
granted his motion. (2004 BAR)
dismissed the case. The accused gave his express
consent to the provisional dismissal of the case. The
(a) Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight
offended party was notified of the dismissal but she
physical injuries proper?
refused to give her consent. Subsequently, the private
complainant urged the public prosecutor to re- file the
A: YES, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical
murder charge because the accused failed to pay the
injuries is proper because in Metropolitan Manila and in
consideration which he had promised for the execution
chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by
of the Affidavit of Desistance.
information. (Sec. 11, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure)
The public prosecutor obliged and refiled the murder

(b) Was the grant of the motion to quash the attempted
charge against the accused on 01 February 2003, the
homicide information correct?
accused filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the
ground that the provisional dismissal of the case had
A: NO, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted
already become permanent. (2003 BAR)
homicide information on the ground of double jeopardy
was not correct, because there was no valid prosecution for
(a) Was the provisional dismissal of the case proper?
slight physical injuries.
A: The provisional dismissal of the case was proper because

Q: D was charged with slight physical injuries in the
the accused gave his express consent thereto and the
MTC. He pleaded not guilty and went to trial. After the
offended party was notified. It was not necessary for the
prosecution had presented its evidence, the trial court
offended party to give her consent thereto. (Sec. 8, Rule 117,
set the continuation of the hearing on another date. On
ROC, as amended)
the date scheduled for hearing, the prosecutor failed to
appear, whereupon the court, on motion of D, dismissed
(b) Resolve the Motion to Quash.
the case. A few minutes later, the prosecutor arrived
and opposed the dismissal of the case. The court
A: The motion to quash the information should be denied
reconsidered its order and directed D to present his
because, while the provisional dismissal had already
evidence. Before the next date of trial came, however, D
become permanent, the prescriptive period for filing the
moved that the last order be set aside on the ground
murder charge had not prescribed. There was no double
that the reinstatement of the case had placed him twice
jeopardy because the first case was dismissed before the
in jeopardy. Acceding to this motion, the court again
accused had pleaded to the charge. (Sec. 7, Rule 117, ROC, as
dismissed the case. The prosecutor then filed an
amended)
Information in the RTC, charging D with direct assault
based on the same facts alleged in the information for
Q: In a prosecution for robbery against D, the
slight physical injuries but with the added allegation
prosecutor moved for the postponement of the first
that D inflicted the injuries out of resentment for what
scheduled hearing on the ground that he had lost his
the complainant had done in the performance of his
records of the case. The court granted the motion but,
duties as chairman of the board of election inspectors.
when the new date of trial arrived, the prosecutor,
D moved to quash the second information on the
alleging that he could not locate his witnesses, moved

REMEDIAL LAW
for the dismissal of the case. If D’s counsel does not “Defense admitted all the documentary evidence of the
object, may the court grant the motion of the Prosecution,” thus leaving the accused little or no room
prosecutor? Why? (2002 BAR) to defend himself, and violating his right against self-
A: NO, because a case cannot be provisionally dismissed incrimination. Should the court grant or deny QR’s
except upon the express consent of the accused and with motion? Reason. (2004 BAR)
notice to the offended party. (Sec. 8, Rule 117, ROC, as
amended) A: The court should deny QR’s motion. If in the pre-trial
agreement signed by the accused and his counsel, the
accused admits the documentary evidence of the
I. PRE-TRIAL prosecution, it does not violate his right against self-
(RULE 118) incrimination. His lawyer cannot file a motion to withdraw.
(2008, 2004, 2000 BAR) A pre-trial order is not needed. (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 143689-91, 12 Nov. 2002) The admission of such
documentary evidence is allowed by the rule. (Sec. 2, Rule
118; People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, 30 July 1996)
Q: Lilio filed a complaint in the MTC of Lanuza for the
recovery of a sum of money against Juan. The latter filed
his answer to the complaint serving a copy thereof on 2. NON-APPEARANCE DURING PRE-TRIAL
Lilio. After the filing of the answer of Juan, whose duty
is it to have the case set for pre-trial? Why? (2001 BAR) 3. PRE-TRIAL ORDER
A: After the filing of the answer of Juan, the plantiff has the
duty to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-
trial. (Sec. 1, Rule 18, ROC, as amended) The reason is that it J. TRIAL
is the plaintiff who knows when the last pleading has been (RULE 119)
filed and it is the plaintiff who has the duty to prosecute. (2019, 2015, 2013, 2010, 2009, 2006, 2004, 2001,
1998, 1997 BAR)
1. PRE-TRIAL AGREEMENT
(2008, 2004 BAR)
Q: If an accused who was sentenced to death escapes, is
there still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court to
Q: Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol’s father,
review the decision of conviction? (1998 BAR)
Ramil, approached Artemon, the victim’s father, during
the preliminary investigation and offered P1 Million to
A: Yes. There is still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court
Artemon to settle the case. Artemon refused the offer.
to review the decision of conviction sentencing the accused
to death, because he is entitled to an automatic review of the
During the pre-trial, Bembol personally offered to
death sentence. (Secs. 3(e) and 10, Rule 122; People v.
settle the case for P1 Million to the private prosecutor,
Esparas, G.R. No. 120034, 20 Aug. 1996)
who immediately put the offer on record in the
presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol’s offer a judicial
Q: At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig
admission of his guilt? (2008 BAR)
where you are assigned, your work requires you to act
as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and
A: NO. The offer is not a judicial admission of guilt because
to handle cases involving indigents. (2013 BAR)
it has not been reduced in writing or signed by the accused.
The Rule on pre-trial in criminal cases (Sec. 2, Rule 118, Sec.
(a) In one criminal action for qualified theft where you
2, ROC, as amended) requires that all agreements or
are the defense attorney, you learned that the
admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
woman accused has been in detention for six
shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
months, yet she has not been to a courtroom nor
counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
seen a judge. What remedy would you undertake to
address the situation and what forum would you
Q: Mayor TM was charged of malversation through
use to invoke this relief?
falsification of official documents. Assisted by Atty. OP
A: Sec. 7, Rule 119 provides, if the public attorney assigned
as counsel de parte during pre-trial, he signed together
to defend a person charged with a crime knows that the
with Ombudsman Prosecutor TG a “Joint Stipulation of
latter is preventively detained, either because he is charged
Facts and Documents,” which was presented to the
with bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or is
Sandiganbayan. Before the court could issue a pre-trial
charge with a non-bailable crime, or, is serving a term of
order but after some delay caused by Atty. OP, he was
imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to
substituted by Atty. QR as defense counsel. Atty QR
do the following:
forthwith filed a motion to withdraw the “Joint
Stipulation,” alleging that it is prejudicial to the accused
a. Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of
because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the
the prisoner for trial or cause a notice to be served

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
on the person having custody of the prisoner 1. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of (2010, 1998, 1997 BAR)
his right to demand trial.
Q: Enumerate the requisites of a “trial in absentia” and

b. Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the
a “promulgation of judgment in absentia” (2010, 1998,
prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the
1997 BAR)
charge and of his right to demand trial. If at anytime
thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that
A: The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are: (1)
he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice
accused's arraignment; (2) his due notification of the trial;
to that effect to send promptly to the public
and (3) his unjustifiable failure to appear during trial.
attorney.
(Bemardo v. People, G.R. No. 166980, 04 Apr. 2007)
Moreover, Section 1 (e), Rule 116 provides, when the

The requisites for a valid promulgation of judgment in
accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be
absentia are:
raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the
case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the
a. A valid notice of promulgation of judgment,
information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned
b. Said notice was duly furnished to the accused,
within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial
personally or thru counsel;
conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days
c. Accused failed to appear on the scheduled date of
after arraignment.
promulgation of judgment despite due notice;
On the other hand, if the accused is not under preventive
d. Such judgment be recorded in the criminal docket;
detention, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30)
and
days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the
e. Copy of said judgment had been duly served upon the
person of the accused. (Sec. 1 [g], Rule116, ROC, as amended)
accused or his counsel
Since the accused has not been brought for arraignment

within the limit required in the aforementioned Rule, the 2. EXAMINATION OF WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION
Information may be dismissed upon motion of the accused
invoking his right to speedy trial (Sec. 9, Rule 119, ROC, as 3. REQUISITES FOR DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
amended) or to a speedy disposition of cases. (Sec. 16, Art. TO BECOME A STATE WITNESS
III, 1987 Constitution) (2006 BAR)
(b) In another case, also for qualified theft, the

Q: As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you
detained young domestic helper has been brought
are convinced that he can be utilized as a state witness.
to court five times in the last six months, but the
What procedure will you take? (2006 BAR)
prosecution has yet to commence the presentation
of its evidence. You find that the reason for this is
A: As counsel for the accused, I will advise my client to ask
the continued absence of the employer-
for a reinvestigation and convince the prosecutor for him to
complainant who is working overseas. What
move for the discharge of my client as a state witness, or the
remedy is appropriate and before which forum
accused can apply as a state witness with the Department of
would you invoke this relief?
Justice pursuant to R.A. No. 6981, otherwise known as The
Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. The right to
A: I will file a motion to dismiss the information in the court
prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of
where the case is pending on the ground of denial of the
discretion, including what and whom to charge. (Soberano
accused right to speedy trial. (Sec. 9, Rule 119, ROC, as
v. People, G.R. No. 154629, 05 Oct. 2005)
amended; Tan v. People, G.R. No. 173637, 21 Apr. 2009)
This remedy can be invoked, at any time, before trial and if 4. EFFECTS OF DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
granted will result to an acquittal. Since the accused has AS STATE WITNESS
been brought to Court five times and in each instance it was
postponed, it is clear that her right to a speedy trial has been 5. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
violated. Moreover, I may request the court to issue (2019, 2015, 2009, 2004, 2001, 1998 BAR)
subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to the witness,
so in case he disobeys same, he may be cited in contempt. I
Q: In an Information filed before the RTC, Mr. C was
may also file a motion to order the witness employer-
charged with Carnapping for supposedly taking the
complainant to post bail to secure his appearance in court.
motorcycle of Mr. O and joyriding with it around the
(Sec. 14, Rule 119, ROC, as amended) I can also move for
city. When Mr. C was arraigned, he entered a plea of “not
provisional dismissal of the case. (Sec. 8, Rule 117, ROC, as
guilty” to the charge. After the prosecution rested its
amended)
case, Mr. C proceeded to file a demurrer to evidence.
The demurrer was denied by the RTC. (2019 BAR)

REMEDIAL LAW
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
(a) Would Mr. C be allowed to present evidence in his and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a
defense after the denial of his demurrer? Explain. minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter’s will and
consent."
A: NO, the accused can no longer present evidence in the
absence of any showing that his demurrer to evidence is At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand
with leave of court. AA as his first witness and manifested that he be
allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his
Rule 119, Sec. 23 of the Rules of Court provides that if the direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the
court denies a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, Examination of a Child Witness. BB's counsel objected
the accused waives the right to present evidence and on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a
submts the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence competency examination on the witness, a requirement
for the prosecution. before the rule cited can be applied in the case.
(b) Assuming that the demurrer was granted by the After the prosecution had rested its case, BB's counsel
RTC and the prosecution’s motion for filed with leave a demurrer to evidence, seeking the
reconsideration thereto is denied, what is the dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecutor
prosecution’s further procedural recourse? failed to present any evidence on BB's minority as
Explain. (2019 BAR) alleged in the Information. Should the court grant the
demurrer? (2015 BAR)
A: The prosecution’s remedy is to file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 because the grant of a demurrer to A: NO, the court should not grant the demurrer. While it was
evidence in criminal cases constitutes acquittal. alleged in the information that BB was a minor at the time
Jurisprudence provides that a judgment of acquittal may of the commission of the offense, the failure of the
only be assailed via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of prosecutor to present evidence to prove his minority is not
the Rules of Court. (Villareal v. Aliga, G.R. No. 166995, 13 Jan. a basis for the granting of the demurrer, because minority
2014) of the accused is not an element of the crime of rape.
Q: In an Information filed before the Regional Trial Be that as it may, the Court should not consider minority in
Court (RTC), Mr. C was charged with Carnapping for rendering the decision. After all, the failure of the
supposedly taking the motorcycle of Mr. O and prosecutor to prove the minority of AA may only affect the
joyriding with it around the city. When Mr. C was imposable penalty but may not absolve him from criminal
arraigned, he entered a plea of "not guilty" to the liability.
charge. After the prosecution rested its case, Mr. C Q: After the prosecution had rested and made its formal
proceeded to file a demurrer to evidence. The offer of evidence, with the court admitting all of the
demurrer was denied by the RTC. prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to
evidence with leave of court. The prosecution was
Would Mr. C be allowed to present evidence in his allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court
defense after the denial of his demurrer? Explain. granted the demurrer, finding that the accused could
(2019 BAR) not have committed the offense charged. If the
prosecution files a motion for reconsideration on the
A: NO, accused can no longer present evidence in the ground that the court order granting the demurrer was
absence of a showing that his demurrer to evidence is with not in accord with the law and jurisprudence, will the
leave of court. motion prosper? Explain your answer. (2009 BAR)
Under Section 23, Rule 119, the right of Mr. C to present A: NO, the motion will not prosper. With the granting of the
evidence is forfeited. When the demurrer to evidence is filed demurrer, the case shall be dismissed and the legal effect is
without leave of court, the accused waives the right to the acquittal of the accused. A judgment of acquittal is
present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the immediately executory and no appeal can be made
basis of the evidence for the prosecution. therefrom. Otherwise, the constitutional protection against
double jeopardy would be violated.
Q: AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met
BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB Q: The information for illegal possession of firearm
brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The filed against the accused specifically alleged that he had
Information for rape filed against BB states: no license or permit to possess the calibre .45 pistol
mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the
"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and prosecution established the fact that the subject
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the firearm was lawfully seized by the police from the
accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd possession of the accused that is, while the pistol was
design and by means of force, violence and tucked at his waist in plain view, without the accused

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
being able to present any license or permit to possess legally convict X for Murder?
the firearm. The prosecution on such evidence rested
its case and within a period of five days therefrom, the A: YES. Without any evidence from the accused, the prima
accused filed a demurrer to evidence, in sum facie evidence of the prosecution has been converted to
contending that the prosecution evidence has not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted of the offense 6. REVISED GUIDELINES ON CONTINUOUS TRIAL
charged. The trial court denied the demurrer to (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC)
evidence and deemed the accused as having waived his
right to present evidence and submitted the case for
judgment on the basis of the prosecution evidence. In
due time, the court rendered judgment finding the K. JUDGMENT
accused guilty of the offense charged beyond (RULE 120)
reasonable doubt and accordingly imposing on him the (2014, 2004, 2003, 1997 BAR)
penalty prescribed therefore. Is the judgment of the
trial court valid and proper? Reason. (2004, 2001 BAR)
1. PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT
A: YES. The judgment of the trial court is valid. The accused (2014, 2004, 2003, 1997 BAR)
did not ask for leave to file the demurrer to evidence. He is
deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. (Sec.
Q: When a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi,
23, Rule 119, ROC, as amended; People v. Flores, G.R. 106581,
can it later be refilled? (2003 BAR)
3 Mar. 1997) However, the judgment is not proper or is
erroneous because there was no showing from the proper
A: As a general rule, when a criminal case is dismissed on
office that the accused has a permit to own or possess the
nolle prosequi before the accused is placed on trial and
firearm, which is fatal to the conviction of the accused.
before he is called on to plead, this is not equivalent to an
(Mallari v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110569, 09 Dec. 1996)
acquittal and does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, 24
Q: Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a petition for bail.
Oct. 1994)
The petition was opposed by the prosecution but after
hearing the court granted bail to X. On the first
Q: Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with
scheduled hearing the merits, the prosecution
murder. After trial, the court announced that the case
manifested that it was not adducing additional
was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently,
evidence and that it was resting its case. X filed a
the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of
demurrer to evidence without leave of court but it was
judgment which were duly received. On promulgation
denied by the court. (1998 BAR)
day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of
Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients
(a) Did the court have the discretion to deny the
and failed to satisfactorily explain their absence when
demurrer to evidence under the circumstances
queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered that the
mentioned above?
judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies
be furnished their lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong,
A: YES. The Court had the discretion to deny the demurrer
Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary
to the evidence, because although the evidence presented
period of Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court
by the prosecution at the hearing for bail was not strong,
favorably granted the motion of Ludong downgrading
without any evidence for the defense, it could be sufficient
his conviction from murder to homicide but denied the
for conviction.
motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (2014 BAR)
(b) If the answer to the preceding question is in the

(a) Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the
affirmative can X adduce evidence in his defense
Joint Motion for Reconsideration?
after the denial of his demurrer to evidence?
A: NO. The court is not correct in taking cognizance of the
A: NO. Because he filed the demurrer to the evidence
Joint Motion for Reconsideration. Section 6, Rule 120 of the
without leave. (Sec. 15, Rule 119, ROC, as amended)
Rules of Court provides that if the judgment is for conviction
However, the trial court should inquire as to why the
and the failure of the accused to appear was without
accused filed the demurrer without leave and whether his
justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available against
lawyer knew that the effect of filing it without leave is to
the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Hence, the
waive the presentation of the evidence for the accused.
Court erred when it entertained the Joint Motion for
(People v. Fores, G.R. No. 106581, 3 Mar. 1997)
Reconsideration with respect to accused Balatong and
Labong who were not present during the promulgation of
(c) Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of
the judgment. The Court should have merely considered the
the evidence of the prosecution, can the court
joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was solely

REMEDIAL LAW
filed by Ludong. (People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, June 5, promulgation. Can the trial court also order the arrest
2009). of X? (1997 BAR)
(b) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in A: NO, the trial court cannot order the arrest of X if the
case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide? judgment is one of acquittal and, in any event, his failure to
appear was with justifiable cause since he had to attend to
A: NO, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction another criminal case against him.
because they lost their right to appeal during the
promulgation of judgment. Nonetheless, if they
surrendered and filed a Motion for Leave to avail of their L. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
post judgment remedies within fifteen (15) days from (RULE 121)
promulgation of judgment. And they have proven that their (2011 BAR)
absence at the scheduled promulgation was for a justifiable
cause, they may be allowed to avail of said remedies within
fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. (People v. De Grano,
Q: What is the effect and ramification of an order
G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009)
allowing new trial?
Q: AX was charged before the YY RTC with theft of

A. The court’s decision shall be held in suspension
jewelry valued at P20,000.00, punishable with
until the defendant could show at the reopening
imprisonment of up to 10 years of prison mayor under
of trial that it has to be abandoned.
the Revised Penal Code. After trial, he was convicted of
B. The court shall maintain the part of its
the offense charged, notwithstanding that the material
judgment that is unaffected and void the rest.
facts duly established during the trial showed that the
C. The evidence taken upon the former trial, if
offense committed was estafa, punishable by
material and competent, shall remain in use.
imprisonment of up to eight years of prision mayor
D. The court shall vacate the judgment as well as
under the said Code. No appeal having been taken
the entire proceedings had in the case. (2011
therefrom, said judgment of conviction became final. Is
BAR)
the judgment of conviction valid? Is the said judgment
reviewable thru a special civil action for certiorari?
A: C. The evidence taken upon the former trial, if material
Reason. (2004 BAR)
and competent, shall remain in use. (UST FCL Bar Questions
and Suggested Answers 2009-2017)
A: YES, the judgment of conviction for theft upon
Information for theft is valid because the court had
jurisdiction to render judgment. However, the judgment
was grossly and blatantly erroneous. The variance between M. APPEAL
the evidence and the judgment of conviction is substantial (RULE 122)
since the evidence is one for estafa while the judgment is (2022 BAR)
one for theft. The elements of the two crimes are not the
same. (Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429 29 Jan. 1990) Further,
one offense does not necessarily include or is included in Q: Alex, Bobbie, and Gabbie were charged with the
the other. (Sec. 5, Rule 120, ROC, as amended) crime of Murder. Finding them to have acted in
conspiracy, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted
The judgment of conviction is reviewable by certiorari even them of Homicide. Only Bobbie appealed the conviction
if no appeal had been taken, because the judge committed a with the Court of Appeals (CA). Consequently, an entry
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of his of judgment was issued as against Alex and Gabbie.
jurisdiction in convicting the accused of theft and in
violating due process and his right to be informed of the Subsequently, the CA modified Bobbie's conviction
nature and the cause of the accusation against him, which from Homicide to Murder; In the same judgment, the CA
make the judgment void. With the mistake in charging the likewise modified Alex and Gabbie's conviction from
proper offense, the judge should have directed the filing of Homicide to Murder.
the proper information and thereafter dismissed the
original information. (Sec. 19, Rule 119, ROC, as amended) Upon learning of the CA’s decision, Alex and Gabbie
confronted Bobbie, saying: “Bakit ka pa ba nag-appeal?
Q: X, the accused in a homicide case before the RTC, Tumaas tuloy ang sentensya namin. Nadamay pa kami!”
Dagupan City, was personally notified of the Bobbie snapped back: “Bakit parang galit kayo? Pero
promulgation of judgment in his case set for 10 bakit kasalanan ko? Parang kasalanan ko?”
December 1996. On said date, X was not present as he
had to attend to the trial of another criminal case Was the CA correct in modifying the judgment as to Alex
against him in Tarlac, Tarlac. The trial court denied the and Gabbie? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
motion of the counsel of X to postpone the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: NO, the CA was not correct in modifying the judgment as officer, what defense will you raise for the dismissal
to Alex and Gabbie by convicting them of murder, too. Under of the complaint?
the Rule of Criminal Procedure, an appeal taken by one or
more of several accused shall not affect those who did not A: As counsel of policeman, I will raise the defense of
appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court presumption of regularity in the performance of duty.
is favorable and applicable to the latter.
I can also raise the defense that the police officer has the
Here, while the judgment of the appellate court or the CA duty to search Hercules under the “Stop-and-Frisk” rule. A
may have been applicable to Alex and Gabie who did not stop-and-frisk situation must precede a warrantless arrest,
appeal, it was not favorable to them since they would be be limited to the person’s outer clothing, and should be
convicted of a graver offense. Thus, the appeal taken by grounded upon a genuine reason, in the light of the police
Bobbie should not affect Alex and Gabie. Hence, the CA was officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant
not correct in modifying the judgment. (Sec. 11(a), Rule 122, the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed
ROC, as amended; Riguera, 2023) about him. (Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, 23 Nov. 2007)
The “stop-and-frisk” search should be used “when dealing

N. SEARCH AND SEIZURES with rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in
(RULE 126) the city streets where unarguably there is no time to secure
(2020-21, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2008, 2005 BAR) a search warrant.” “Stop-and-frisk” searches (sometimes
referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law
enforcement, that is, law enforcers should be given the legal
arsenal to prevent the commission of the offenses. This
Q: A search warrant was issued authorizing the police
should be balanced, however, with the need to protect the
to search for and seize: “(a) documents that will show
privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2
that the respondent is guilty of swindling and/or estafa;
of the Constitution. (People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, 30
(b) copies of bounced checks; and (c) all other relevant
July 2014)
matters.”
(b) If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the

Is the search warrant valid? Explain briefly. (2020-21
police officer, will he have a cause of action?
BAR)
A: YES. Hercules has a cause of action to file civil action

A: NO, the search warrant is not valid.
against the police officer under Article 32(4) in relation to
Article 2219(6) and (10) of the New Civil Code, which
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant
provides that a police officer may be liable for damages
must issue in connection with only one specific offence and
when the right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers
must particularly describe the thin to be seized. (Sec. 4, Rule
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is
126, Rules of Court)
impaired. The indemnity includes moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. (Galvante v.
Here, the warrant was issued in connection with “swindling
Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, 22 Apr. 2008)
and/or estafa,” which is not for one specific offense since
there are many offenses embraced within the phrase
Q: A search warrant was issued for the purpose of
“swindling and/or estafa.” Nor does the search warrant
looking for unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-
particularly describe the things to be seized. “Documents
asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the police served
that will show that the respondent is guilty of swindling
the warrant, they also sought the assistance of
and/or estafa” and “all other relevant matters” are
barangay tanods who were assigned to look at other
sweeping descriptions which give unfetered discretion to
portions of the premises around the house. In a nipa hut
the officer to seize things and documents. Hence, the search
thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a
warrant is not valid. (Riguera, 2022)
Barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was
wrapped in newsprint. He took it and this was later
Q: Hercules was walking near a police station when a
used by the authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal
police officer signalled for him to approach. As soon as
possession of marijuana. Ass-asin objected to the
Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but
introduction of such evidence claiming that it was
the latter found no contraband. The police officer told
illegally seized. Is the objection of Ass-asin valid? (2014
Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the
BAR)
police station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir,
may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police
A: The objection is valid. The search warrant specifically
officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail.
designates or describes the house as the place to be
(2015 BAR)
searched. Incidentally, the marijuana was seized by the
Barangay Tanods thirty (30) meters away from the house of
(a) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint
the accused. Since the confiscated items were found in a
for warrantless search, as counsel for the police

REMEDIAL LAW
place other than the one described in the search warrant, it TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search,
the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of Greetings:
petitioner’s constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure. (Castillo v. People, G.R. No. 185128, 30 It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned
Jan. 2012) Besides, the search is also illegal because the after examining under oath PDEA Director
marijuana confiscated in the nipa hut was wrapped in a Shabunot that there is probable cause to believe
newsprint. Therefore, the same cannot be considered that violations of Section 18 and 16 of R.A. 9165
validly seized in plain view (Miclat v. People, G.R. No. 176077, have been committed and that there are good and
31 Aug. 2011) sufficient reasons to believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao
have in their possession or control, in a two (2)
Q: A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director door apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter
Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, undetermined amount of
house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese "shabu" and drug manufacturing implements and
nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot paraphernalia which should be seized and brought
wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried to the undersigned.
that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna
court, their plan might leak out. (2012 BAR) You are hereby commanded to make an immediate
search, at any time in the day or night, of the
(a) Where can he file an application for search premises above described and forthwith seize and
warrant? take possession of the abovementioned personal
A: PDEA Director may file an application for search warrant property, and bring said property to the
in any court within the judicial region where the crime was undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.
committed. (Sec. 2(b), Rule 126, ROC, as amended)
Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012.
(b) What documents should he prepare in his
application for search warrant? (signed) Judge XYZ
A: He should prepare a petition for issuance of a search Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search
warrant and attach therein sworn statements and affidavits. warrant.
(c) Describe the procedure that should be taken by the A:

judge on the application.
a. The search warrant failed to particularly describe the
A: The judge must, before issuing the warrant, examine place to be searched and the things to be seized. (Sec. 4,
personally in the form of searching questions and answers, Rule 126, ROC, as amended)
in writing and under oath, the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to b. The search warrant commanded the immediate search,
them and attach to the record their sworn statements, at any time in the day or night. The general rule is that
together with the affidavits submitted. (Sec. 5, Rule 126, a search warrant must be served in the day time (Sec. 8,
ROC, as amended) If the judge is satisfied of the existence of Rule 126, ROC, as amended), or that portion of the
facts upon which the application is based or that there is twenty-four hours in which a man’s person and
probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the countenance are. By way of exception, a search warrant
warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed may be made at night when it is positively asserted in
by the Rules. (Sec. 6, Rule 126, ROC, as amended) the affidavit that the property is on the person or in the
place ordered to be searched. (Alvares v. CFI of Tayabas,
(d) Suppose the judge issues the search warrant G.R. No. L-45358, 29 Jan. 1937) There is no showing that
worded in this way: the exception applies.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (e) Suppose the search warrant was served on March
Plaintiff 15, 2012 and the search yielded the described
contraband and a case was filed against the accused
-versus- in RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and you are the lawyer of
Ho Pia and Sio Sio Pao and Ho Pia, what will you do?
Pao, Accused.
A: If I were the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, I would file a
Criminal Case No. Motion to Quash the search warrant for having been served
007 for Violation of R.A. 9165 beyond its period of validity. (Sec. 14, Rule 126, ROC, as
amended) A search warrant shall be valid only for ten days
x x

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (Sec. 10, Rule 126, will be served. Moreover, describing the shabu in an
ROC, as amended) undetermined amount is sufficiently particular. (People v.
Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, 20 Jan. 2003)
(f) Suppose an unlicensed armalite was found in plain
view by the searchers and the warrant was ordered
quashed, should the court order the return of the O. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
same to the Chinese nationals? (RULE 127)
A: NO, the Court should not order the return of the

unlicensed armalite because it is contraband or illegal per
se. (PDEA v. Bodett, G.R. No. 196390, 28 Sept. 2011) The
possession of an unlicensed armalite found in plain view is P. THE RULE ON CYBERCRIME WARRANTS
mala prohibita. The same be kept in custodia legis. (Sec. 2 of A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC only)
(2022 BAR)
Q: The search warrant authorized the seizure of
"undetermined quantity of shabu." During the service
of the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered Q: Enumerate and describe three warrants that may be
a kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. issued by the courts pursuant to the Rule on
The accused moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as Cybercrime Warrants. (2022 BAR)
evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they A: Three warrants that may be issued by the courts
were not covered by the search warrant. The State pursuant to the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants are the
justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the following:
“plain view” doctrine. There was no indication of
whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and 1. Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD) - A
seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If you are WDCD is an order in writing issued in the name of the
the judge, how would you rule on the motion to People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon
suppress? (2008 BAR) application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing
the latter to issue an order to disclose and accordingly,
A: The motion to suppress filed by the accused should be require any person or service provider to disclose or
granted. The search warrant violates the constitutional and submit subscriber's information, traffic data, or
statutory requirement that it should particularly describe relevant data in his/her or its possession or control.
the person or things to be seized. (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987
Constitution; Sec. 2, Rule 126, ROC, as amended) The “plain 2. Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD) - A
view” doctrine cannot be invoked because the marijuana WICD is an order in writing issued in the name of the
leaves were wrapped in newsprint. Besides the marijuana People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon
leaves are not the subject of the search warrant. application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing
the latter to carry out any or all of the following
Q: Police operatives of Western Police District, activities: (a) listening to, (b) recording, (c) monitoring,
Philippine National Police, applied for a search warrant or (d) surveillance of the content of communications,
in the RTC for the search of the house of Juan Santos and including procuring of the content of computer data,
the seizure of an undetermined amount of shabu. The either directly, through access and use of a computer
team arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find system or indirectly, through the use of electronic
him there. Instead, the team found Roberto Co. The eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that
team conducted a search in the house of Santos in the the communication is occurring.
presence of Roberto Co and barangay official and found
ten (10) grams of shabu. Roberto Co was charged in 3. Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer
court with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. Data (WSSECD) - A WSSECD is an order in writing
Before his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a motion to issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
quash the warrant on the following grounds (a) it was signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement
not the accused named in the search warrant and (b) authorities, authorizing the latter to search the
the warrant does not prescribe the article to be seized particular place for items to be seized and/or
with sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with examined.
reasons. (2005 BAR)
Q: Distinguish the following:
A: The motion to quash should be denied. The name of the
person in the search warrant is not important. It is not even Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data
necessary that a particular person be implicated (Mantaring (WSSECD) and Warrant to Examine Computer Data
v. Roman, A.M. No. RTJ-93-904, 28 Feb. 1996), so long as the (WECD) (2019 BAR)
search is conducted in the place where the search warrant

REMEDIAL LAW
A: A Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Compute Data
(WSSECD) is an order in writing issued in the name of the VIII. EVIDENCE
people of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon
application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the
latter to search the particular place for items to be seized
and/or examined. (Section 6.1, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
A. GENERAL CONCEPTS
Whereas a Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD), (2004 BAR)
upon acquiring possession of a computer device or
computer system via a lawful warrantless arrest or by any
other lawful method, law enforcement authorities shall first 1. PROOF vs. EVIDENCE
apply for a warrant before searching the said computer
device or computer system for the purpose of obtaining for
forensic examination of the computer data contained 2. BURDEN OF PROOF vs. BURDEN OF EVIDENCE
therein. (Section 6.9, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) (2004 BAR)
Q: Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of evidence.

(2004 BAR)
A: Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence

on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Sec. 1,
Rule 131, ROC, as amended), while burden of evidence is the
duty of a party to go forward with the evidence to
overthrow prima facie evidence established against him.
(Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137, 23 Sept. 1985)
3. EQUIPOISE RULE
B. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
(RULE 128)
(2017, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1998, 1997 BAR)
1. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
2. RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE
AND COLLATERAL MATTERS
3. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
4. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
5. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
6. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

(2017, 1998 BAR)
Q: Answer the following briefly:
What elements should concur for circumstantial

evidence to be sufficient for conviction? (2017 BAR)
A: The following elements should concur for circumstantial

evidence to be sufficient for conviction:

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
a. There is more than one circumstance; Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112573, 9 Feb. 1995; Moran, 1980;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are Lim v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-11759, 16 Mar. 1917)
proven; This is known as the processual presumption.
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 4, Q: Defendant was declared in default by the RTC.
Rule 133, ROC, as amended) Plaintiff was allowed to present evidence in support of
his complaint. Photocopies of official receipts and
Q: A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the original copies of affidavits were presented in court,
admissibility of the following pieces of evidence: (1998 identified by plaintiff on the witness stand and marked
BAR) as exhibits. Said documents were offered by plaintiff
and admitted in evidence by the court on the basis of
(a) An offer of A to marry X; and which the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiff, pursuant to the relief prayed for. Upon receipt
A: A’s offer to marry X is admissible in evidence as an of judgment, defendant appeals to the Court of Appeals
implied admission of guilt. It has been held that in rape claiming that the judgment is not valid because the RTC
cases, an offer of marriage is considered an implied based its judgment on mere photocopies and affidavits
admission of guilt of the accused. (People v Domingo, G.R. No. of persons not presented in court. Is the claim valid?
97921, 08 Sept. 1993) Explain. (2000 BAR)
(b) A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime A: The claim of defendant is valid, because the court
which the court, over the objection of A, required received evidence which it can order in its own discretion,
him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well. in which case the evidence of the plaintiff must pass the
basic requirements of admissibility.
A: The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is Q: Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was
circumstantial evidence of his guilt, although standing alone brought to the police station where he was informed of
it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused cannot his constitutional rights. During the investigation,
object to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. Edmond refused to give any statement. However, the
It is not part of his right against self-incrimination because arresting officer asked Edmond to acknowledge in
it is a mere physical act. writing that six (6) sachets of “shabu” were confiscated
from him. Edmond consented and also signed a receipt
7. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE for the amount of P3,000.00, allegedly representing the
“purchase price of the shabu.” At the trial, the arresting
officer testified and identified the documents executed
8. COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE and signed by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer did not object
(2010, 2009, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1998, 1997 BAR) to the testimony. After the presentation of the
testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a formal
Q: How do you prove a written foreign law? (1997 BAR) offer of evidence which included the documents signed
by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer objected to the
A: A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official admissibility of the documents for being the “fruit of the
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer poisoned tree.” Resolve the objection with reasons.
having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and (2009 BAR)
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the custody, if the A: The objection to the admissibility of the documents
office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the which the arresting officer asked Edmond to sign without
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or the benefit of counsel, is well-taken. Said documents having
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular been signed by the accused while under custodial
agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the investigation, imply an “admission” without the benefit of
Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the counsel, that the shabu came from him and that the
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. P3,000.00 was received by him pursuant to the illegal
(Sec. 24, Rule 132, ROC, as amended; Zalamea v. Court of selling of the drugs. Thus, it was obtained by the arresting
Appeals, G.R. No. 104235, 18 Nov. 1993). officer in clear violation of Sec. 12(3), Art. Ill of the 1987
Constitution, particularly the right to be assisted by counsel
Q: Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the during custodial investigation. Moreover, the objection to
defense of defendant but no evidence was presented to the admissibility of the evidence was timely made, i.e., when
prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption the same is formally offered.
to be taken by the court as to the wordings of said law?
(1997 BAR) Q: Dominique was accused of committing a violation of
the Human Security Act. He was detained
A: The presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and subjected to
are the same as the local law. (Northwest Orient Airlines v. water torture. He later allegedly confessed his guilt via

REMEDIAL LAW
an affidavit. After trial, he was acquitted on the ground investigation room, Max and Brix orally waived their
that his confession was obtained through torture, right to counsel and to remain silent. Then under oath,
hence, inadmissible as evidence. In a subsequent they freely answered questions asked by the police
criminal case for torture against those who deprived desk officer. Thereafter they signed their sworn
him of sleep and subjected him to water torture, statements before the police captain, a lawyer. Max
Dominique was asked to testify and to, among other admitted his part in the robbery, his possession of a
things, identify his above-said affidavit of confession. As pistol and his ownership of the packet of shabu found in
he was about to identify the affidavit, the defense his pocket. Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his
counsel objected on the ground that the affidavit is a possession of a dagger. But they denied being NPA hit
fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the objection be men. In due course, proper charges were filed by the
sustained? Explain. (2010 BAR) City Prosecutor against both arrestees before the MM
RTC. May the written statements signed and sworn to
A: NO, the objection may not be sustained on the ground by Max and Brix be admitted by the trial court as
stated, because the affiant was only to identify the affidavit evidence for the prosecution? Reason. (2004 BAR)
which is not yet being offered in evidence. The doctrine of
the fruit of the poisonous tree can only be invoked by A: NO. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may
Domingo as his defense in the crime of violation of Human not be admitted in evidence, because they were not assisted
Security Act filed against him but not by the accused in a by counsel, even if the police captain before whom they
torture case filed by him. In the instant case, the signed the statements was a lawyer, nor can he be
presentation of the affidavit cannot be objected to by the considered as an independent counsel. The waiver of the
defense counsel on the ground that it is a fruit of the right to a cousel must be done in writing and in the presence
poisonous tree because the same is used in Domingo’s favor. of independent counsel. (People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485,
Q: The barangay captain reported to the police that X 1 Feb. 1999; People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287, 2 Feb. 1999)
was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an
Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information,
the police conducted a search of the house of X and C. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the (RULE 129)
rifle and brought X to the police station. During the
investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement
that he was possessing said rifle without license or
Q: Give three instances when a Philippine Court can
authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel,
take judicial notice of a foreign law. (1997 BAR)
individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the:
A: The three instances when a Philippine court can take

(a) Rifle;
judicial notice of a foreign law are: (1) when the Philippine
courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law (Moran,
A: The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was
1980); (2) when the foreign law refers to the law of nations
seized without a proper search warrant. A warrantless
(Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC, as amended) and, (3) when it refers to
search is not justified. There was time to secure a search
a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject
warrant. (People v. Encicada G.R. No. 116720, 02 Oct. 1997)
of law if the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the
writer thereof is recognized in his profession or calling as
(b) Sworn Statement; (2008 BAR) and
expert on the subject. (Sec. 4(5), Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
A: The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence

because it was taken without informing him of his custodial
rights and without the assistance of counsel which should D. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
be independent and competent and preferably of the choice (RULE 130, A)
of the accused. (People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, 7 Feb. (2022, 2013, 2012, 2010, 1994 BAR)
1997)
(c) Waiver of Right to Counsel of X. (1998 BAR) 1. REQUISITES
A: The waiver of his right to counsel is not admissible

because it was made without the assistance of counsel of his 2. EXCLUSIONARY RULES
choice. (People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, 26 Mar. 1997) (2022, 2013, 2012, 2010, 1994 BAR)
Q: Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and Q: At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig
Brix, both aged 22, in the act of robbing a grocery in where you are assigned, your work requires you to act
Ermita. As he handcuffed them he noted a pistol tucked as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and
in Max’s waist and a dagger hidden under Brix’s shirt, to handle cases involving indigents.
which he promptly confiscated. At the police

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Still in another case, this time for illegal possession of qualification, training and experience of the forensic
dangerous drugs, the prosecution has rested but you laboratory personnel who conducted the DNA testing.
saw from the records that the illegal substance
allegedly involved has not been identified by any of the Q: At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous
prosecution witnesses nor has it been the subject of any Drugs Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a
stipulation. Should you now proceed post haste to the photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the “buy-
presentation of defense evidence or consider some bust” operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the
other remedy? Explain the remedial steps you propose photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule
to undertake. (2013 BAR) prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu
of the original. (1994 BAR)
A: I will first file a motion for leave to file demurrer to
evidence within five (5) days from the time the prosecution (a) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or
rested its case. If the same is granted, then I will file a documentary evidence?
demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from notice on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution. A: The photocopy of the marked bills is real (object)
(Sec. 23, Rule 119, ROC, as amended) evidence and not documentary evidence, because the
marked bills are real evidence.
In People v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 186498, 26 Mar. 2010), the
Supreme Court held that in prosecution for violation of the (b) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?
dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is
a condition sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug A: YES, the photocopy is admissible in evidence, because the
is the very corpus delicti of the crime. The identity of the best evidence rule does not apply to object or real evidence.
prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. (People v. Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, 4 Dec. 1990)
Q: Discuss the “chain of custody” principle with respect Q: Ricky, while driving his Maserati, smashes into the
to evidence seized under R.A. 9165 or the Toyota Vios of Dante. Immediately after the incident,
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. (2012 Ricky offers to pay the value of the Toyota Vios. Dante
BAR) still sued Ricky criminally for Reckless Imprudence
because of Ricky's wayward and speedy driving. During
A: In prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal trial, Dante was called as witness to testify on Ricky's
substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the offer to compromise as an admission of guilt. Ricky's
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is counsel objected. If you were the judge, how would you
vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable rule on the objection? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
doubt. The chain of custody requirement is essential to
ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence A: If I were the judge, I would sustain the objection. Under
are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the the Rules of Evidence, an offer of compromise in a criminal
movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the case involving a quasi-offense is not admissible against the
police, tothe forensic chemist, and finally to the court. offeror as an admission of guilt. (Sec. 28, Rule 130, ROC, as
(People v. Sitco, G.R. No. 178202, 14 May 2010) The failure to amended) Here, the criminal case involves a quasi-offense
establish, through convincing proof, that the integrity of the or a charge of reckless imprudence. Thus, Ricky's offer of
seized items has been adequately preserved through an compromise is not admissible against him as an admission
unbroken chain of custody is enough to engender of guilt. Hence, I would sustain the objection.
reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused. (People v. De
Guzman y Danzil, G.R. No.186498, 26 Mar. 2010)
E. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Q: In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on (RULE 130, B)
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence showing that (2022, 2020-21, 2019, 2017, 2005, 2001, 2000 BAR)
the semen found in the private part of the victim was
not identical with that of the accused. As private
prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and
accuracy of the results of the DNA evidence? (2010 1. DEFINITION
BAR) (2005 BAR)
A: As private prosecutor, I shall try to discredit the results Q: May a private document be offered, and admitted in
of the DNA test by questioning and possibly impugning the evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
integrity of the DNA profile by showing a flaw/error in evidence? Explain (2005 BAR)
obtaining the biological sample, or in the chain of custody of
the biological sample obtained; the testing methodology A: YES. A private document may be offered and admitted in
employed; the scientific standard observed; the forensic evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
DNA laboratory which conducted the test; and the

REMEDIAL LAW
evidence. A document can also be considered as an object the Rules on Evidence. (Sec. 2, Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
for purposes of a case. Hence, the printout of the photograph is an original and this
admissible in evidence. (Riguera, 2022)
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the
court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130, ROC, as amended) Documents as Q: In a case for specific performance and damages,
evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or plaintiff Q presented photocopies of the contracts he
any material containing letters, words, sounds, numbers, had executed with defendant R for the purpose of
figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of establishing their existence. Defendant R's counsel
written expression offered as proof of their contents. objected to the admission of said photocopies, invoking
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, the best evidence rule. (2019 BAR)
x-ray films, motion pictures or videos. (Sec. 2, Rule 130, ROC,
as amended) (a) Should the objection of defendant R's counsel be
sustained? Explain.
NOTE: Answered under the 2019 Amendments to the
Revised Rules on Evidence. A: NO. The best evidence rule (now the Original Document
Rule) applies only when the content of the document is the
2. ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether
(2022, 2020-21, 2019, 2017 BAR) such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the
best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence
Q: In a case for Estafa, the prosecution offered the
is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is
photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt signed by
likewise admissible without need to account for the
the accused showing personal receipt of the sum of
original.
money from the private complainant to prove the
amount of damage. Accused objected to the offer of the
(b) Assuming that the best evidence rule applies, under
photocopy on the sole ground that it is a mere
what circumstances will the photocopies be
reproduction of the original in violation of the original
admissible in evidence?
document rule. The court overruled the accused's
objection and admitted in evidence the photocopy of
A: If a party desires to present photocopies of the original
the acknowledgment receipt.
documents, he must first establish that the presentation of
photocopies is justified under Section 3(a), (b), and/or (d),
Did the court err in admitting the photocopy? Explain
Rule 130. He must establish the presence of all the elements
briefly. (2022 BAR)
under these provisions.
A: NO, the court did not err in admitting the photocopy over
Q: Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust
objection that it violates the original document rule. Under
operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu
the original document rule, a duplicate is as a rule
and several marked genuine peso bills worth P5,000.00
admissible to the same extent as the original. (Sec. 4(c), Rule
used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust
operation. At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of
R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
Here, the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt is a
2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among
duplicate because it is a counterpart produced by a
others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine
technique which accurately reproduces the original. (Sec.
peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that
4(b), Rule 130, ROC, as amended) Thus, the photocopy is
Mr. Druggie had engaged at the time of his arrest in the
admissible to the same extent as the original. Hence, the
illegal selling of dangerous drugs. Invoking the Best
court did not err in admitting the photocopy. (Riguera,
Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel,
2023)
objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the
confiscated marked genuine peso bills. Should the trial
Q: Is the printout of a photocopy from your mobile
judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel?
phone showing a fly in the soup you ordered admissible
Briefly explain your answer. (2017 BAR)
evidence in an action for damages against the
restaurant owner? Explain briefly. (2020-21 BAR)
A: NO, the trial judge should not sustain the objection that
invokes the best evidence rule (now the “Original Document
A: YES, the printout of a photograph from a mobile phone is
Rule”). The Supreme Court has held that the best evidence
admissible in evidence. Under the Rules on Evidence, if a
rule applies only to documentary evidence, not to object or
document or data is stored in a computer or similar device,
testimonial evidence. Here, the marked money is object not
any printout therefrom is an original and thus admissible in
documentary evidence since it is being offered to prove not
evidence. (Sec. 4(a), Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
its contents but its existence and use in the buy-bust
operation. (People v. Tandoy, G.R. No. 80505, 04 Dec. 1990)
Here, the mobile phone is a device which is similar to a
computer. A photograph is considered as a document under

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
3. SECONDARY EVIDENCE original of the note is excusable because he was not given
(2000 BAR) reasonable notice, as requirement under the Rules before
secondary evidence may be presented (Sec. 6 Rule 130, ROC,
as amended).
Q: If the photocopies of official receipts and
photocopies of affidavits were attached to the position
NOTE: Answered under the 2019 Amendments to the
paper submitted by plaintiff in an action for unlawful
Revised Rules on Evidence.
detainer filed with Municipal Trial Court on which basis
the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff?
Explain. (2000 BAR)
F. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
A: The claim of defendant is valid, because although (RULE 130, C)
summary procedure requires merely the submission of (2022, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2014, 2010, 2009,
position papers, the evidence submitted with the position 2008, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999,
paper must be admissible in evidence. (Sec. 9, Revised Rule 1998, 1997, 1994 BAR)
of Summary Procedure) Photocopies of official receipts and
affidavits are not admissible without proof of loss or
destruction of the original. (Sec. 3, Rule 130, ROC, as Q: Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the
amended) following rules of evidence: (1997 BAR)
4. PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (a) Dead Man Rule

(2001 BAR)
A: If death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the
law is to close the lips of the other. (Goni v. Court of Appeals,
Q: Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the
L-77434, 23 Sept. 1986) This is to prevent the temptation to
recovery of a sum of money based on a promissory note
perjury because death has already sealed the lips of the
executed by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that
party.
although the promissory note says that it is payable
within 120 days, the truth is that the note is payable
(b) Parol Evidence Rule
immediately after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he
may upon request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days
A: It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which has
to pay the note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that
been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much
the truth is that the agreement between him and Lucio
more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting
is for the latter to pay immediately after ninety day’s
memory only. (Francisco, Revised Rules of Court)
time. Also, since the original note was with Lucio and
the latter would not surrender to Pedro the original
(c) Best Evidence Rule
note which Lucio kept in a place about one day’s trip
from where he received the notice to produce the note
A: This Rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud and is
and in spite of such notice to produce the same within
declared to be essential to the pure administration of
six hours from receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do
justice. (Moran, Vol. 5, p. 12) If a party is in possession of
so. Pedro presented a copy of such the note which was
such evidence and withholds it, the presumption naturally
executed at the same time as the original and with
arises that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent
identical contents. (2001 BAR)
purposes. (Francisco, Revised Rules of Court)
(a) Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed

NOTE: Under the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised
to testify as to the true agreement or contents of the
Rules on Evidence, the Best Evidence Rule is now known as
promissory note? Why?
the Original Document Rule.
A: YES, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the

(d) The rule against the admission of illegally obtained
promissory note does not express the true intent and
extrajudicial confession.
agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol
evidence rule. (Sec. 10[b], Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
A: An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nullifies the
intrinsic validity of the confession and renders it unreliable
(b) Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a
as evidence of the truth. (Moran, Volume 5. p. 257) It is the
copy of promissory note and have it admitted as
fruit of a poisonous tree.
valid evidence in his favor? Why?
(e) The rule against the admission of an offer of

A: YES, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate
compromise in civil cases
original, being a counterpart produced by the same
impression as the original (Sec. 4[b] Rule 130, ROC, as
A: The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer
amended). Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the
of compromise in civil case as an admission of any liability

REMEDIAL LAW
is that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. a case is prosecuted, against the administrator or Juan’s
Courts should endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as to any
case to agree upon some fair compromise. (Art. 2029, NCC) matter of fact occurring before Juan’s death. (Sec. 39, Rule
During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider 130, ROC, as amended)
the possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec. 2(a), Rule 18,
ROC, as amended) 2. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES
(2010, 2008, 2000, 1998 BAR)
1. QUALIFICATION OF WITNESSES
(2004, 2001 BAR)
a) DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF MARRIAGE
(2010, 2000, 1998 BAR)
Q: Distinguish Competency of the witness and
credibility of the witness. (2004 BAR)
Q: On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder
for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying
A: Competency of the witness refers to the capability of a
circumstance of evident premeditation, the
witness to perceive and to make known his perception to
prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a text
others (Sec. 21, Rule 130, ROC, as amended), while credibility
message, which Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had
of the witness refers the character of testimony of a witness
sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading:
of being believable.
“Honey,pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg
Q: John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his
ingat u bka ma tsugi k.” (2010 BAR)
marriage to Anne on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. He
(a) A subpoena ad testificandum was served on
obtained a copy of the confidential psychiatric
Gregoria for her to be presented for the purpose of
evaluation report on his wife from the secretary of the
identifying her cellphone and the text message.
psychiatrist. Can he testify on the said report without
Mabini objected to her presentation on the ground
offending the rule on privileged communication? (2016
of marital privilege. Resolve.
BAR)
A: The objection should be sustained on the ground of the

A: YES, John can testify. Under the rule on privileged
marital disqualification rule (Sec. 23, Rule 130, ROC, as
communication, the husband or the wife, during or after the
amended), not on the ground of the “marital privilege”
marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the
communication rule. (Sec. 24, Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
other as to any communication received in confidence by
The marriage between Mabini and Georgia is still subsisting
one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case
and the situation at bar does not come under the exceptions
filed by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
to the disqualification by reason of marriage.
crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s
direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 24(a), Rule 130, ROC,
(b) Suppose Mabini’s objection in question A was
as amended) In this case, Anne cannot prevent John from
sustained. The prosecution thereupon announced
testifying against her since the petition for declaration of
that it would be presenting Emilio’s wife Graciana
nullity is a civil case filed by one spouse against the other;
to identify Emilio’s cellphone bearing Gregoria’s
hence, the rule on privileged communication between the
text message. Mabini objected again. Rule on the
spouses does not apply. John could testify on the
objection.
confidential psychiatric evaluation report of his wife that he
obtained from the secretary of the psychiatrist, without
A: The objection should be overruled. The testimony of
offending the rule on privileged communication.
Graciana is not covered by the said marital disqualification
Q: Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the
rule because she is not the wife of Mabini. Besides, Graciana
administrator of the estate of deceased Juan, for the
will identify only the cellphone as that of her husband
recovery of a car which is a part of the latter’s estate.
Emilio, not the messages therein which to her are hearsay.
During the trial, Maximo presented witness Mariano
who testified that he was present when Maximo and
Q: Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is
Juan agreed that the latter would pay a rental of
charged in court with the crime of serious physical
P20,000 for the use of Maximo’s car for one month after
injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida, step-son
which Juan should immediately return the car to
of Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries
Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission of Mariano’s
on Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida
testimony. If you were the judge, would you sustain
to the witness stand and offered her testimony as an
Pedro’s objection? Why? (2001 BAR)
eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on the ground
of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of
A: NO, the testimony is admissible in evidence because
Court. (2000 BAR)
witness Mariano who testified as to what Maximo and Juan,
the deceased person agreed upon, is not disqualified to
(a) Is the objection valid?
testify on the agreement. Those disqualified are parties or
assignors of the parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: NO. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify b) DISQUALIFICATION BY REASON OF PRIVILEGED
for or against the other without the consent of the affected COMMUNICATIONS; RULE ON THIRD PARTIES
spouse, one exception is if the testimony of the spouse is in (2010, 2008, 1998 BAR)
a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the
other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec.
Atty. L offered in the criminal case his affidavit
23, Rule 130, ROC, as amended) The case falls under this
respecting what he witnessed during the incident. X’s
exception because Selma is the direct descendant of the
lawyer wanted to cross-examine Atty. L who, however,
spouse Vida.
objected on the ground of lawyer-client privilege. Rule
on the objection. (2010 BAR)
(b) Will your answer be the same if Vida’s testimony is
offered in a civil case for recovery of personal
A: The objection should be overruled. Lawyer-client
property filed by Selmo against Romeo?
privilege is not involved here. The subject on which the
counsel would be examined has been made public in the
A: NO. The marital disqualification rule applies this time.
affidavit he offered and thus, no longer privileged, aside
The exception provided by the rules is in a civil case by one
from the fact that it is in respect of what the counsel
spouse against the other. The case here involves a case by
witnessed during the incident and not to the
Selmo for the recovery of personal property against Vida’s
communication made by the client to him or the advice he
spouse, Romeo.
gave thereon in his professional capacity. (UPLC Suggested
Answers)
Q: C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife
W for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under
Q: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa
Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the following
against Petronilo in the amount of P3 Million. Petronilo
testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of
brought his complaint to the National Bureau of
medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W’s objections
Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his
which are the following:
lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and the
second on August 16, 2008; and that both visits
H cannot testify against her because of the rule on
concerned the swindling of Petronilo. During the trial
marital privilege. (1998 BAR)
of Edgardo, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum
to Edgardo's lawyer for him to testify on the
A: The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the
conversations during their first and second meetings.
annulment case under Article 36 of the Family Code because
May the subpoena be quashed on the ground of
it is a civil case filed by one against the other. (Sec. 23, Rule
privileged communication? Explain fully. (2008 BAR)
A: NO, the subpoena may not be simply quashed on the

Q: Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money
allegation that the testimony to be elicited constitutes
and damages. At the trial, Ody called Baby as his first
privileged communication. It may be noted that the accused
witness. Baby objected, joined by Cesar, on the ground
committed the crime of swindling on August 15, 2008,
that she may not be compelled to testify against her
whereas he first visited his lawyers on August 14, 2008 or
husband. Ody insisted and contended that after all, she
before he committed the swindling. Clearly the
would just be questioned about a conference they had
conversations the accused had with his lawyer during such
with the barangay captain, a matter which is not
first visit, before he committed the swindling cannot be
confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in favor of
protected by the privilege between attorney and client
Ody. Was the ruling proper? Will you answer be the
because the crime had not been committed yet and it is no
same if the matters to be testified on were known to
part of the lawyer’s professional duty to assist or aid in the
Baby or acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar?
commission of the crime; hence not in the course of
Explain. (1998 BAR)
professional employment.
A: NO. Under the Rules, a wife cannot be examined for or

The second visit by accused Edgardo to his lawyer the next
against her husband without his consent, except in civil
day (August 16, 2008) after the swindling was committed
cases by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a
may also suffer from the same infirmity as the
crime committed by one against the other. Since the case
conversations had during their first meeting inasmuch as
was filed by Ody against the spouses Cesar and Baby, Baby
there could not be complaint made immediately after the
cannot be compelled to testify against Cesar without his
estafa was committed. The privilege covering a lawyer-
consent. (Lezama v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-25643, 27 June
client relation under Sec. 24(b), Rule 130, may not be
1968)
invoked, as it is not a ground for quashal of a subpoena ad
testificandum under Sec. 4, Rule 21.
Although the subpoena ad testificandum may not be

quashed, the privilege covers conversations “with a view to

REMEDIAL LAW
professional employment.” Thus, it can be invoked at the In the case of Attempted Parricide, Sec. 25 of the Rule 130,
trial but not quash the subpoena. or the filial privilege rule, provides that no person may be
compelled to testify against his parents, other direct
Q: C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife ascendants, children, or other direct descendants. What is
W for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under prohibited in the rule is the compelling of a person to testify
Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the following against the named relatives, but it does not preclude said
testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of persn from testifying if he wishes to. Here, C was only called
medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W’s objections as a witness for the prosecution, and he may testify or
which are the following: decline as he wishes. The rule on filial privilege may be
waived. (People v. Artemuo Invencion, G.R. No. 131636, 05
D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of Mar. 2003)
privileged communication between patient and
physician. (1998 BAR) In the case of Serious Physical Injuries, Sec. 22 of Rule 130
of the Rules of Court, or the marital disqualification rule,
A: D, as doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify provides that during the marriage, neither the husband nor
against W over her objection as to any advice or treatment the wife, may testify for or against the other without the
given by him or any information which he may have consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one
acquired in his professional capacity. (Sec. 24[c], Rule 130, against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
ROC, as amended) committed b one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants. Here, the exception to the rule
c) PARENTAL AND FILIAL PRIVILEGE RULE applies, as Mrs. N is testifying against her husband, Mr. M,
(1998 BAR) for the crime committed by the former against their son, C.
Q: C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife

Q: XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting
W for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under
and facilitating child prostitution and other sexual
Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the following
abuses under Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal witness
testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of
against him was his Filipina wife, ABC. Earlier, she had
medicine who used to treat W. Rule on W’s objections
complained that XYZ’s hotel was being used as a center
which are the following:
for sex tourism and child trafficking. The defense
counsel for XYZ objected to the testimony of ABC at the
C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine on
trial of the child prostitution case and the introduction
parental privilege. (1998 BAR)
of the affidavits she executed against her husband as a
violation of espousal confidentiality and marital
A: The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be
privilege rule. It turned out that DEF, the minor
invoked by W as against the testimony of C, their child. C
daughter of ABC by her first husband who was a
may not be compelled to testify but free to testify against
Filipino, was molested by XYZ earlier. Thus, ABC had
her. (Sec. 25, Rule 130, ROC, as amended; Art. 215 FC)
filed for legal separation from XYZ since last year. May
the court admit the testimony and affidavits of the wife,
d) PRIVILEGE RELATING TO TRADE SECRETS ABC, against her husband, XYZ, in the criminal case
involving child prostitution? Reason. (2004 BAR)
3. TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE
(2019, 2004 BAR) A: YES. The court may admit the testimony and affidavits of
the wife against her husband in the criminal case where it
involves child prostitution of the wife's daughter. It is not
Q: In a case of Attempted Parricide brought against Mr.
covered by the marital privilege rule. One exception thereof
M by his wife, Mrs. N, their son, C, was called as a witness
is where the crime is committed by one against the other or
for the prosecution. Mr. m’s counsel objected, invoking
the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec. 23, Rule
the filial privilege rule.
130, ROC, as amended) A crime by the husband against the
daughter is a crime against the wife and directly attacks or
Meanwhile, in a separate case for Serious Physical
vitally impairs the conjugal relation. (Ordono v. Daquigan,
injuries also brought against Mr. M, but this time by his
G.R. No. L-39012, 31 Jan. 1975)
son, C, Mrs. N was called to testify against Mr. M. Mr. M’s
counsel objected, invoking the marital disqualification
rule. 4. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
(2019, 2009, 2008, 1998, 1997 BAR)
Should the objections of Mr. M’s counsel in both cases
be sustained? Explain. (2019 BAR) Q: What is the probative value of a witness’ Affidavit of
Recantation? (1998 BAR)
A: The objection for both cases should be overruled.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, admissible in evidence?
courts look with disfavor upon recantations because they
can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through A: NO. The offer to settle not being made by the accused or
intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted with his participation is not admissible against him under
testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the the rule of res inter alios acta. No implied admission of guilt
probability that it will be repudiated. (Molina v. People, G.R. can be drawn from efforts to settle a criminal case out of
Nos. 70168-69, 24 July 1996) court, where the accused had no participation in such
negotiation (People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, 06 Dec.
Q: If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier 1995)
uncounseled extrajudicial confession implicating his
co-accused in the crime charged, is that testimony (b) During the pre-trial, Bembol personally offered to
admissible in evidence against the latter? (1998 BAR) settle the case for P1 Million to the private
prosecutor, who immediately put the offer on
A: YES. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier record in the presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol's
uncounseled extrajudicial confession, because he can be offer a judicial admission of his guilt?
subjected to cross-examination.
A: NO. The offer is not a judicial admission of guilt because
it has not been reduced in writing or signed by the accused.
Q: Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was The Sec. 2, Rule 118 requires that all agreements or
brought to the police station where he was informed of admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference
his constitutional rights. During the investigation, shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and
Edmond refused to give any statement. However, the counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
arresting officer asked Edmond to acknowledge in
writing that six (6) sachets of “shabu” were confiscated Q: A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the
from him. Edmond consented and also signed a receipt hospital and offered to pay for his hospitalization
for the amount of P3,000.00, allegedly representing the expenses. After the filing of the criminal case against A
“purchase price of the shabu.” At the trial, the arresting for serious physical injuries through reckless
officer testified and identified the documents executed imprudence, A’s insurance carrier offered to pay for the
and signed by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer did not object injuries and damages suffered by B. the offer was
to the testimony. After the presentation of the rejected because B considered the amount offered was
testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a formal inadequate. (1997 BAR)
offer of evidence which included the documents signed
by Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer objected to the (a) Is the offer by A to pay hospitalization expenses of
admissibility of the documents for being the “fruit of the B admissible in evidence?
poisonous tree.” Resolve the objection with reasons.
(2009 BAR) A: The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B is
not admissible in evidence to prove his guilt in both civil and
A: The objection to the admissibility of the documents criminal cases. (Sec. 28, Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
which the arresting officer asked Edmond to sign without
the benefit of counsel, is well-taken. Said documents having (b) Is the offer by A’s insurance carrier to pay for
been signed by the accused while under custodial injuries and damages of B admissible in evidence?
investigation, imply an “admission” without the benefit of
counsel that the shabu came from him and that the A: NO. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance
P3,000.00 was received by him pursuant to the illegal company is based on the contract of insurance and is not
selling of the drugs. Thus, it was obtained by the arresting admissible in evidence against the accused because it was
officer in violation of Section 12(3), Article III of the 1987 not offered by the accused but by the insurance company
Constitution, particularly the right to be assisted by the which is not his agent.
counsel during custodial investigation. Moreover, the 5. PREVIOUS CONDUCT AS EVIDENCE
objection to the admissibility of the evidence was timely (2022, 2019, 2010 BAR)
made, i.e., when the same is formally offered.
Q: The defendants argued that Xavierville Estate Inc.

Q: Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol's father,
(XEI) had allowed them to pay the balance of the
Ramil, approached Artemon, the victim's father, during
purchase of a subdivision lot in 120 monthly
the preliminary investigation and offered P1 Million to
installments. The defendants introduced three
Artemon to settle the case. Artemon refused the offer.
contracts to sell in which XEI granted two lot buyers a
(2008 BAR)
120-month term of payment and a third one a 180-
month term. May these three contracts to sell prove a
(a) During trial, the prosecution presented Artemon to
habit or custom on the part of XEI to grant 120-month
testify on Ramil's offer and thereby establish an
terms of payments to it buyers? (2022 BAR)
implied admission of guilt. Is Ramil's offer to settle

REMEDIAL LAW
A: NO. Under Sec. 35, Rule 130, evidence that one did or did A: The objection is on the ground that the fact sought to be
not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove elicited by the prosecution is irrelevant and immaterial to
that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at the offense under prosecution and trial. Moreover, the Rules
another time; but it may be received to prove usage, habit do not allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of bad
or custom. moral character of the accused pertinent to the offense
charged, except on rebuttal and only if it involves a prior
Courts must contend with the caveat that before they admit conviction by final judgment. (Sec. 54(a)(2), Rule 130, ROC,
evidence of usage, habit or pattern or conduct, the offering as amended)
party must establish the degree of specificity and frequency
of uniform response that ensures more than a mere 6. TESTIMONIAL KNOWLEDGE
tendency to act in a given manner but rather conduct that is (2014 BAR)
semi-automatic in nature. In determining whether the
examples are numerous enough and sufficiently regular, the
Q: While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their
key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of
barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard
response.
screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself
behind the bushes and saw a man beating a woman
Here the defendants did not introduce evidence that XEI
whom he recognized as his neighbour, Kulasa. When
and all the lot buyers in the subdivision had executed
Kulasa was already in agony the man stabbed her and
contracts of sale containing uniform terms and conditions.
she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly left
Moreover, even in the 3 contracts adduced by the
thereafter. PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasa’s
defendants, there was no uniformity as two referred to 120-
rescue. Kulasa who was then in a state of hysteria, kept
month terms while the third mentioned a 180-month term.
mentioning to PO2 Asintado “Si Rene, gusto akong
(Boston Bank v. Manalo, G.R. No. 158149, 09 Feb. 2006)
patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!” When PO2 Asintado was
about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said “Kaya ko.
Q: A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr.
Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene.” The following
T by his employer for allegedly stealing company
day, Rene learned of Kulasa’s death and, bothered by
property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T’s
his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his
former supervisor, Mr. v, to the stand and attempted to
counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over
question his on similar incidents also involving Mr. T
media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press
with his previous employer. Mr. T’s counsel objected to
which goes:
the question, invoking the rules on res inter alios acta.
In response, the prosecution argued that the question
“I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of
should be allowed since he is trying to establish Mr. T’s
innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable
habit of stealing things form the workplace.
doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may
take one’s life away, I hope and pray that justice will be
Should the objection of Mr. T’s counsel be sustained?
served in the right way. God bless us all.
Explain. (2019 BAR)
(Sgd.) Rene”
A: The objection of Mr. T’s counsel should be overruled. The

The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis
rule on res inter alios acta, which provides that the rights of
of PO2 Asintado’s testimony, Kulasa’s statements, and
a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
Rene’s statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises
omission of another is inapplicable in this case. (People v.
the following errors: (2014 BAR)
Cachueta, G.R. No. 191752, 10 Jun, 2013) Mr. V’s testimony
on similar incidents of stealing involving Mr. T with his
(a) The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2
previous employer may be admissible to establish Mr. T’s
Asintado’s testimony, as the latter did not have
habit of stealing things from the workplace. Evidence that
personal knowledge of the facts in issue and
one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not
violated Rene’s right to due process when it
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or
considered Kulasa’s statements despite lack of
similar thing at another time; but it may be received to
opportunity for her cross-examination.
prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. (Sec. 34, Rule
A: The trial court did not err in giving weight to PO2
130)
Asintado’s testimony.
Q: In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asks

While a witness can only testify as to those facts which he
accused Darwin if he had been previously arrested for
has personal knowledge, the Rules provide that a statement
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As
made under the influence of a startling event witnessed by
defense counsel, you object. The trial court asks you on
the person who made the declaration before he had time to
what ground/s. Respond. (2010 BAR)
think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a
falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any
undue influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to the

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
event in question or its immediate attending circumstances, A: The objections of the accused should be overruled. An
is an exception being part of res gestae. (Belbis, Jr., v. People, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
G.R. No. 181052, 14 Nov. 2012) not excluded by the Constitution, law or the rules. (Sec 3,
Rule 128, ROC, as amended) Under Section 36, Rules 130
In the case, the statements made by PO2 Asintado (now Sec. 22, Rule 130, ROC, as amended), a witness can
constitutes part of res gestae since the same were made testify only to those which he knows of his or her personal
without any opportunity to fabricate and while a startling knowledge and derived from his or her own perception. The
occurrence was actually taking place. contention that the guards had no personal knowledge of
the contents of the package before it was opened is without
In addition, the statement of PO2 Asintado may fall within merit. The guards can testify as to the facts surround the
the purview of the doctrine of independent relevant opening of the package since they have personal knowledge
statement, where only the fact that such statements were of the circumstances thereof, being physically present at the
made is relevant, and the truth and falsity thereof is time of its discovery.
immaterial. (People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 178301, 24 Apr.
2009) On the other hand, the testimony of the trainer of the dog is
not hearsay based on the following grounds:
On the other hand, Kulasa’s statements are also admissible
as part of res gestae since the same were made under the a. He has personal knowledge of the facts in issue,
influence of a startling event and without any opportunity having witnessed the same;
to concoct or devise a falsehood. b. Hearsay merely contemplates an out-of-court
declaration of a person which is being offered to
(b) The trial court erred in holding that Rene’s prove the truthfulness and veracity of the facts
statement to the press was a confession which, asserted therein;
standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant a c. He is an expert witness, hence, his testimony may
conviction. Resolve. constitute an exception to the hearsay rule;
d. The accused has the opportunity to cross-examine
A: The trial court did not err in holding that Rene’s him; and
statement to the press is a confession. Rene’s confessions to e. Testimony of a witness as to statements made by
the media were properly admitted because statements nonhuman declarants does not violate the rule
spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a against hearsay. The law permits the so-called
televised interview are deemed voluntary and are “non-human evidence” on the ground that
admissible in evidence. (People v. Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, machines and animals, unlike humans, lack a
18 Feb. 2010) conscious motivation to tell falsehoods, and
because the workings of machines can be explained
Q: A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from by human witnesses who are then subject to cross-
packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door examination by opposing counsel. (City of Webster
forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at Groves v. Quick. 323 S.W. 2d 386 [Mo. 1959]; Buck v.
the international airport. In one of the routinary State, 138 P. 2d 115 [Okla. 1943]; Herrera, 1999)
inspections of packages waiting to be send to the United Conversely, the accused may not argue that he cannot cross-
States of America (USA), the dog sat beside one of the examine the dog as the Constitutional right to confrontation
packages, a signal that the package contained refers only to witnesses. As alluded, the human witnesses
dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the who have explained the workings of the non-human
package and found two (2) kilograms of cocaine. The evidence is the one that should be cross-examined. Hence,
owner objected of the package was arrested and the contention of the accused that he could not cross-
charges were filed against him. During the trial, the examine the dog is misplaced.
prosecution, through the trainer who was present
during the incident and an expert in this kind of field, 7. HEARSAY AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE
testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff (2019, 2017, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1998 BAR)
packages to determine if the contents were dangerous
drugs and the sniffing technique of their highly trained
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly between hearsay
dogs was accepted worldwide and had been
evidence and opinion evidence. (2004 BAR)
successful in dangerous drugs operations. The
prosecution moved to admit this evidence to justify the
A: Hearsay evidence consists of testimony that is not based
opening of the package. The accused objected on the
on personal knowledge of the person testifying (Sec. 37,
grounds that: (i) the guards had no personal knowledge
Rule 130, ROC, as amended), while opinion evidence is
of the contents of the package before it was opened; (ii)
expert evidence based on the personal knowledge skill,
the testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsay; and
experience, training, or education of the person testifying
(iii) the accused could not cross-examine the dog.
(Sec. 52, Rule 130, ROC, as amended) and evidence of an
Decide. (2014 BAR)
ordinary witness on limited matters. (Sec. 53, Rule 130, ROC,
as amended)

REMEDIAL LAW
Q: What are the exceptions to hearsay rule? (1999 BAR) A: YES. Res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and
declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
A: The exceptions to the hearsay rule are: dying declaration, illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and
statement of decedent or person of unsound mind, contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea
declaration against interest, act or declaration about of deliberation and fabrication.
pedigree, family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree,
common reputation, part of the res gestae, records of Q: Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his
regularly conducted business activity, entries in official chest, Venancio told the attending physician; in a very
records, commercial lists and the like, learned treatises, and feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had
testimony or deposition at a former proceeding and shot him Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who
residual exception. (Secs. 38 to 50, Rule 130, ROC, as had shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver was lying on
amended) the bed beside him.
Q: Requisites of Dying Declaration (1998 BAR) In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of
Venancio and Vicente, are all the statements of
A: The requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration Venancio admissible as dying declarations? Explain
are: (a) the declaration is made by the deceased under the your answer. (2017 BAR)
consciousness of his impending death; (b) the deceased was
at the time competent as a witness; (c) the declaration A: NO. Not all statements of Venancio are admissible as
concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the dying declarations. A dying declaration is a statement made
declarant’s death; and (d) the declaration is offered in a under the consciousness of an impending death. (Sec. 38,
(criminal) case wherein the declarant's death is the subject Rule 130, ROC, as amended) It may be received in any case
of inquiry. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 94545, 04 Apr. 1997) wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of
the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
Q: AAA, a ten (10)-year old minor, was sleeping inside
her room when she was awakened by her uncle, Mr. G, In this case, presuming there is evidence that Venancio was
who was reeking of alcohol and was already on top of conscious of his impending death when he made his
her. After Mr. G succeeded in having carnal knowledge statement that it was Arnulfo who; shot him, said statement
of AAA, the former immediately left the latter's room. may be considered as a dying declaration which is
Thereafter, AAA rushed into the room of her mother, admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.
MMM, and spontaneously and frantically reported the The degree and seriousness of the gunshot wounds
incident. Eventually, Mr. G was arrested and was sustained by Venancio and the fact that death supervened
indicted for the crime of Rape. thereafter may constitute substantial evidence of his
consciousness of his impending death. (People v. Tanaman,
During trial, MMM was presented as a witness to testify G.R. No. 71768, 28 July 1987)
on what AAA reported to her and AAA's gestures and
disposition at that time. Mr. G's counsel objected to While Venancio’s statement about the death of Vicente may
MMM's testimony on the ground that it is hearsay not be considered as a dying declaration, it may still be
evidence. The prosecutor countered that the subject of admitted in evidence as part of res gestae, which is also an
MMM's testimony may be admitted as an independently exception to the hearsay rule. (Sec. 44, Rule 130, ROC, as
relevant statement and as part of the res gestae. (2019 amended) Venancio’s statement about the killing of Vicente
BAR) may be considered to have been made after the occurrence
of a startling occurrence. Thus, it may be admitted in
(a) May MMM's testimony be admitted on the ground evidence.
that it constitutes an independently relevant
statement? Explain. Q: Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to
a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and
A: YES. Under the doctrine of independently relevant money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela’s maid,
statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the fact that to a bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could hear
such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay Candida crying and pleading; “Huwag! Maawa ka sa
rule does not apply, and the statements are admissible as akin!” After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house
evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not with loot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to
secondary but primary, for the statement itself may the police station about a kilometer away and told
constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially relevant as Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged
to the existence of such facts. Thus, MMM’s testimony can into the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and
be admitted. robbed her of her jewelry and money. Candida also
related to the police officer that despite her pleas,
(b) May AAA's statement to MMM be admitted on the Dencio had raped her. The policemen noticed that
ground of res gestae? Explain. Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse.

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the allow the partition.
trial, Candida can no longer be located.
Discuss each of the five (5) arguments briefly but
If the prosecutor presents Police Officer Roberto completely (2000 BAR)
Maawa to testify on what Candida had told him, would
such testimony of the policemen be hearsay? Explain. A:
(2005 BAR)
(a) The baptismal certificates of the parish priest are
A: NO. The testimony of the policemen is not hearsay. It is evidence only of the administration of the
part of the res gestae. It is also an independently relevant sacrament of baptism and they do not prove
statement. The police officer testified his own personal filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the
knowledge, not to the truth of Candida’s statement, i.e., that deceased
she told him, despite her pleas, Dencio has raped her.
(People v. Gaddi, G.R. No. 74065, 27 Feb. 1989) A: The baptismal certificate can show the filiation or prove
pedigree. It is one of the other means allowed under the
Q: Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree (Trinidad
the plaintiff in a vehicular accident. Julieta, a witness in v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118904, 20 Apr. 1998; Heirs of
court, testifies that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118464, 21 Dec.
(Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to the accident, give 1998).
an excited account of the accident immediately after its
occurrence. Is Julieta’s testimony admissible against (b) Entry in the family bible is hearsay
Romeo over proper and timely objection? Why? (2002
BAR) A: Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence of
pedigree (Sec. 42, Rule 130, ROC, as amended).
A: NO, Julieta’s testimony is not admissible against Romeo,
because while the excited account of Antonio, a witness to (c) The certification of the registrar on non-availability
the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo who told of the records of birth does not prove filiation
Julieta about it, which makes it hearsay.
A: The certification by the civil registrar of the non-
Q: Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co- availability of records is needed to justify the presentation
owners of a parcel of land. Linda died intestate and of secondary evidence, which is the photocopy of the birth
without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, certificate of Jocelyn (Heirs of Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
claiming to be the collateral relatives of the deceased No. 118464, 21 Dec. 1998).
Linda, filed an action for partition with the RTC praying
for the segregation of Linda’s ½ share, submitting in (d) In partition case where filiation to the deceased is
support for their petition the baptismal certificates of in dispute, prior and separate judicial declaration
seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to of heirship in a settlement of estate proceedings is
Linda in which the names of the petitioners have been necessary
entered, a photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn,
and a certification of the local civil registrar that its A: Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not
office had been completely razed by fire. The spouses necessary. It can be made in the ordinary action for
Ceres refused partition on the following grounds: partition wherein the heirs are exercising the right
pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in-interest, to
(a) the baptismal certificates of the parish priest ask for partition as co-owners (Id.).
are evidence only of the administration of the
sacrament of baptism and they do not prove (e) There is need for publication as real property is
filiation of the alleged collateral relatives of the involved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co-
deceased; petitioners, argue against the objections of the
(b) entry in the family bible is hearsay; spouses Ceres so as to convince the court to allow
(c) the certification of the registrar on non- the partition
availability of the records of birth does not
prove filiation; A: Even if real property is involved, no publication is
(d) in partition case where filiation to the deceased necessary, because what is sought is the mere segregation
is in dispute, prior and separate judicial of Linda’s share in the property. (Sec. 1, Rule 69, ROC, as
declaration of heirship in a settlement of estate amended)
proceedings is necessary; and
(e) there is need for publication as real property Q: The accused was charged with robbery and
is involved. As counsel for Jocelyn and her co- homicide. The victim suffered several stab wounds. It
petitioners, argue against the objections of the appears that eleven (11) hours after the crime, while
spouses Ceres so as to convince the court to the victim was being brought to the hospital in a jeep,

REMEDIAL LAW
with his brother and a policeman as companions, the A: NO, the testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even
victim was asked certain questions which he answered, though Kim is not an expert witness, Kim may testify on her
pointing to the accused as his assailant. His answers impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
were put down in writing, but since he was in a critical appearance of a person. (Sec. 52, Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
condition, his brother and the policemen signed the
statement. Is the statement admissible as a dying 9. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
declaration? (1999 BAR) (2019, 2018, 2017, 2002 BAR)
A: YES. The statement is admissible as a dying declaration

Q: A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr.
of the victim subsequently dies and his answers were made
T by his employer for allegedly stealing company
under the consciousness of impending death. (Sec. 38, Rule
property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T’s
130, ROC, as amended) The fact that he did not sign the
former supervisor, Mr. v, to the stand and attempted to
statement point to the accused as his assailant, because he
question his on similar incidents also involving Mr. T
was in critical condition, does not affect its admissibility as
with his previous employer. Mr. T’s counsel objected to
a dying declaration. A dying declaration need not be in
the question, invoking the rules on res inter alios acta.
writing. (People v. Viovicente, G.R. No. 118707, 02 Feb. 1998)
In response, the prosecution argued that the question
should be allowed since he is trying to establish Mr. T’s
8. OPINION RULE habit of stealing things form the workplace.
(2005, 1994 BAR)
Assuming that the prosecution presents evidence on
Q: Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to the bad moral character of Mr. T, ay the same be
a chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and admitted in the present case? Explain. (2019 BAR)
money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcela’s maid,
to a bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could hear A: YES, it may be admitted, assuming that such evidence of
Candida crying and pleading; “Huwag! Maawa ka sa Mr. T’s bad moral character was presented by the
akin!” After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house prosecution during the rebuttal evidence, and only after
with loot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to accused presented evidence to prove his good moral
the police station about a kilometer away and told character which is pertinent to the morel trait involved in
Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged the offense of theft.
into the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and
robbed her of her jewelry and money. Candida also Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove the
related to the police officer that despite her pleas, accused’s bad moral character which is pertinent to the
Dencio had raped her. The policemen noticed that moral trait involved in the offense charged. (Sec. 51 (a)(2),
Candida was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. During the
trial, Candida can no longer be located. Q: Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law
student who sidelines as a call center agent. Dave offers
If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is known in
to be hysterical and on the verge of collapse, would such the community as a decent and discerning person. The
testimony be considered as opinion, hence, prosecution presents a rebuttal witness, Dovie, who
inadmissible? Explain. (2005 BAR) testifies that, if Dave was reputed to be a good person,
that reputation was a misperception because Dave had
A: NO. It cannot be considered as an opinion, because he been previously convicted of homicide. Is Dovie’s
was testifying on what he actually observed. The last testimony admissible as to the character of Dave? (2018
paragraph of Sec. 50, Rule 130 (now Sec. 52, Rule 130, ROC, BAR)
as amended) expressly provides that a witness may testify
on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or A: NO, Dovie’s testimony on Dave’s previous conviction for
appearance of a person. homicide as evidence of his bad character does not refer to
a moral trait involved in the offense charged which is sexual
Q: At Nolan’s trial for possession and use of the assault. (Sec 51[a][2], Rule 130, ROC, as amended)
prohibited drugs, known as “shabu” his girlfriend Kin,
testified that on a particular day, she would see Nolan Q: In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution
very prim and proper, alert and sharp, but that three witness in a homicide case, the defense counsel called
days after, he would appear haggard, tired and overly to the stand a person who had been the boyhood friend
nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan and next-door neighbor of the Prosecution witness for
objects to the admissibility of Kim’s testimony on the 30 years. One question that the defense counsel asked
ground that Kim merely stated her opinion without of the impeaching witness was: "Can you tell this
having been first qualified as expert witness. Should Honorable Court about the general reputation of the
you as a judge exclude the testimony of Kim? (1994 prosecution witness in your community for
BAR) aggressiveness and violent tendencies?" Would you, as

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
the trial prosecutor, interpose your objection to the prosecutor presented Y as witness but forgot to state
question of the defense counsel? Explain your answer. the purpose of his testimony much less offer it in
(2017 BAR) evidence. Y testified that he and X conspired to kill the
victim but it was X who actually shot the victim. The
A: YES, I as the trial prosecutor, would interpose my testimony of Y was the only material evidence
objection to defense counsel’s question on the ground of establishing the guilt of X. Y was thoroughly cross-
improper impeachment. Under the Rules, an adverse examined by the defense counsel. After the prosecution
party’s witness may be properly impeached by reputation rested its case, the defense filed a motion for demurrer
evidence provided that it is to the effect that the witness’s to evidence based on the following grounds:
general reputation for honesty, truth, or integrity was bad.
(Sec. 11, Rule 132, ROC, as amended) The reputation must 1. The testimony of Y should be excluded because its
only be on character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. purpose was not initially stated and it was not
(Cordial v. People, G.R. No. L-75880, 27 Sept. 1988) formally offered in evidence as required by Sec. 34,
Rule 132; and
Here the evidence is not on the prosecution witness’s 2. Y’s testimony is not admissible against X pursuant
general reputation for honesty, truth, or integrity but on his to the rule on “res inter alios acta.”
aggressive and violent tendencies. The evidence had
nothing to do with the witness’s character for truthfulness Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the
or untruthfulness. Hence the impeachment was improper. above grounds. (2003 BAR)
Q: D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating A: The demurrer to the evidence should be denied on the
up V to death with an iron pipe. (2002 BAR) following grounds:
(a) May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had 1. The testimony of Y should not be excluded because the
a good reputation for peacefulness and non- defense counsel did not object to his testimony despite
violence? Why? the fact that the prosecutor forgot to state its purpose
or offer it in evidence. Moreover, the defense counsel
A: The prosecution may introduce evidence of the good or thoroughly cross-examined Y and thus waived the
even bad moral character of the victim if it if it tends to objection.
establish in any reasonable degree the probability or 2. The res inter alios acta rule does not apply because Y
improbability of the offense charged. (Sec. 54[a][1], Rule testified in open court and was subjected to cross
130, ROC, as amended). examination.
(b) May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by 1. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

V? Why? (2015, 1997, 1996 BAR)
A: YES, D may introduce evidence of specific violent acts by

Q: Aside from asking a witness to explain and
V. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
supplement his answer in the cross-examination, can
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the
the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions
same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be
on matters not dealt with during cross-examination?
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity,
(1997 BAR)
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.
A: YES, on redirect examination, questions on matters not
dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by
the court in its discretion. (Sec. 7, Rule 132, ROC, as amended)
Q: Tony states on direct examination that he once knew
G. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS the facts being asked but he cannot recall them now.
(RULE 131) When handed a written record of the facts, he testifies
that the facts are correctly stated, but that he has never
seen the writing before. Is the writing admissible as
past recollection recorded? Explain. (1996 BAR)
H. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
(RULE 132) A: NO. For the written record to be admissible as past
(2017, 2015, 2012, 2003, 1997, 1996 BAR) recollection recorded, it must have been written or
recorded by Tony or under his direction at the time when
the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other
time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew
Q: X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application
that the same was correctly written or recorded. (Sec. 16,
of the prosecution, Y was discharged from the
Rule 132, ROC, as amended) But in this case, Tony has never
Information to be utilized as a state witness. The
seen the writing before.

REMEDIAL LAW
a) RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS also filed against him. In a press conference called by
the police, X admitted that he had robbed the victim of
b) LEADING AND MISLEADING QUESTIONS jewelry valued at P500,000. The robbery and illegal
(2015 BAR) possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The
prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper
Q: AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met clipping of the report to the reporter who was present
BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB during the press conference stating that X admitted the
brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The robbery. It likewise presented a certification of the PNP
Information for rape filed against BB states: “On or Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that the
about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the accused had no license to carry any firearm. The
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a certifying officer, however, was not presented as a
minor, 15 years old with lewd design and by means of witness. Both pieces of evidence were objected to by the
force, violence, and intimidation, did then and there, defense. (2003 BAR)
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual
intercourse with AA, a minor, 12 years old, against the (a) Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence
latter’s will and consent.” against X?
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand A: YES, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence
AA as his first witness and manifested that he be against X regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, the
allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be
direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the shown where the fact that it is made relevant. Evidence as
Examination of a Child Witness. BB’s counsel objected to making of such statement is not secondary but primary,
on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
competency examination on the witness, a requirement circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such fact.
before the rule cited can be applied in the case. Is BB’s (Gotesco Investment Corporation v. Chatto, G.R. No. L-87584,
counsel correct? (2015 BAR) 16 June 1992)
A: NO. BB’s counsel is not correct. Every child is presumed (b) Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and
qualified to be a witness. (Sec. 6, A.M. No. 004-07-SC) To Explosive Office without the certifying officer
rebut the presumption of competence enjoyed by a child, testifying on it admissible in evidence against X?
the burden of proof lies on the party challenging his
competence. Here, AA, a 12-year old child witness who is A: YES, the certification is admissible in evidence against X
presumed to be competent, may be asked leading questions because a written statement signed by an officer having the
by the prosecutor in conducting his direct examination custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
pursuant to the RECW and the Revised Rules on Criminal diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
Procedure. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 171452, 17 Oct. 2008) found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
In order to obviate the counsel’s argument on the certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that
competency of AA as prosecution witness, the judge motu the records of his office contain no such record of entry.
proprio conducted his voir dire examination of AA. (Sec. 28, Rule 132, ROC, as amended)
c) IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES
3. OFFER AND OBJECTION
(2017, 2012, 1997 BAR)
2. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
(2003 BAR) a. WHEN TO MAKE AN OFFER
(1997 BAR)
a) MEANING OF AUTHENTICATION
Q: A trial court cannot take into consideration in
b) CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS deciding a case an evidence that has not been “formally
offered.” When are the following pieces of evidence
c) AUTHENTICATION OF A PRIVATE WRITING formally offered? (1997 BAR)
d) PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE; (a) Testimonial evidence

PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
(2003 BAR) A: Testimonial evidence is formally offered at the time the
witness is called to testify. (Sec. 35, Rule 132, ROC, as
Q: X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a amended)
warrant of arrest issued by the court, X was arrested by
police operatives. They seized from his person a (b) Documentary evidence
handgun. A charge for illegal possession of firearm was

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
A: Documentary evidence is formally offered after the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and
presentation of the testimonial evidence. (Sec. 35, Rule 132, the substance of the proposed testimony.
ROC, as amended)
In Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005,
(c) Object evidence 14 July 2006), the Supreme Court ruled that this procedure,
also known as offer of proof, is made for purposes of appeal.
A: The same is true with object evidence. It is also offered If an adverse judgment is eventually rendered against the
after the presentation of the testimonial evidence. offeror, he may in his appeal assign as error the rejection of
the excluded evidence. The appellate court will better
Q: After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, understand and appreciate the assignment of error if the
he realized that he had forgotten to present what is evidence involved is included in the record of the case.
considered an important evidence. Can he recall a
witness? (1997 BAR)
I. JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE
A: YES, after formally submitting his evidence, the plaintiff (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
can recall a witness with leave of court. The court may grant (2016, 2015 BAR)
or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice
may require. (Sec. 9, Rule 132, ROC, as amended)
Q: What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (2016

b. WHEN TO MAKE AN OBJECTION
BAR)
(2012, 1997 BAR)
A: A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language

Q: What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each
known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
briefly. Give example each. (1997 BAR)
accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following:
A: Two kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being
a. The name, age, residence or business address, and
presented is not relevant to the issue; and (2) the evidence
occupation of the witness;
is incompetent or excluded by the Constitution, law or the
b. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts
rules. (Sec. 3, Rule 128, ROC, as amended) An example of the
or supervises the examination of the witness and
first is when the prosecution offers as evidence the alleged
the place where the examination is being held;
offer of an insurance company to pay for the damages
c. A statement that the witness is answering the
suffered by the victim in a homicide case. Examples of the
questions asked of him, fully conscious that he does
second are evidence obtained in violation of the
so under oath, and that he may face criminal
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches
liability for false testimony or perjury;
and seizures and confessions and admissions in violation of
d. Questions asked of the witness and his
the rights of a person under custodial investigation.
corresponding answers, consecutively numbered,
that:
Q: Counsel A objected to a question posed by opposing
Counsel B on the grounds that it was hearsay and it
1. show the circumstances under which the
assumed a fact not yet established. The judge banged
witness acquired the facts upon which he
his gavel and ruled by saying “Objection Sustained.” Can
testifies;
Counsel B ask for a reconsideration of the ruling? Why?
2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant
(2012 BAR)
to the issues that the case presents; and
3. Identify the attached documentary and object
A: YES, Counsel B may ask the Judge to specify the ground/s
evidence and establish their authenticity in
relied upon for sustaining the objection and thereafter
accordance with the Rules of Court.
move its reconsideration thereof. (Sec. 38, Rule 132, ROC, as
amended)
e. The signature of the witness over his printed name;
and
c. TENDER OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE
f. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who
(2017 BAR)
administers the oath or an officer who is
authorized by law to administer the same. (Sec. 3,
Q: What is a tender of excluded evidence? (2017 BAR)
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
A: Tender of excluded evidence is a remedy embodied

Q: Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan's
under Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which
cellphone worth P20,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the
states that if documents or things offered in evidence are
pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan
excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same
attaching the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone
attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence
to prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial
excluded is oral, the offeror may state for the record the
affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who narrated therein

REMEDIAL LAW
how Pedro stole Juan's cellphone. At the trial, Pedro's J. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
lawyer objected to the prosecution's use of judicial (RULE 133)
affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable (2017, 2003 BAR)
penalty on the offense with which his client was
charged. (2015 BAR)
Q: Distinguish preponderance of the evidence from
(a) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial substantial evidence. (2003 BAR)
affidavit of Mario?
A: Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence as a
A: YES, Pedro’s lawyer is correct in objecting to the judicial whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other.
affidavit of Mario. The Judicial Affidavit Rules shall apply This is applicable in civil cases. (Sec. 1, Rule 133, ROC, as
only to criminal actions where the maximum of the amended; Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, G.R. No. L-
imposable penalty does not exceed six (6) years. (Section 7048, 01 Jan. 1912)
9(a)(1), A.M. No. 12-8-9-SC)
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence
Here, the maximum imposable penalty for the crime of theft which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
of a cellphone worth P20,000 is prision mayor in its a conclusion. This is applicable in cases filed before
minimum to medium periods, or six years and one day to administrative or quasi-judicial bodies (Sec. 5, Rule 133,
eight years and one day. Thus, Pedro’s lawyer is correct in ROC, as amended).
objecting to the judicial affidavit of Mario.
Q: What elements should concur for circumstantial
(b) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial evidence to be sufficient for conviction? (2017 BAR)
affidavit of Juan?
A: The following elements should concur for circumstantial
A: NO. Pedro’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to the evidence to be sufficient for conviction:
judicial affidavit of Juan because the Judicial Affidavit Rules
apply with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, a) There is more than one circumstance;
regardless of the penalties involved. (Sec. 9, A.M. No. 12-8-8- b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
SC) Here the judicial affidavit of Juan was offered to prove proven; and
the civil liability of Pedro. Thus, the objection of Pedro’s c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to
lawyer to the judicial affidavit of Juan is not correct. produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 4, Rule
(c) At the conclusion of the prosecution's presentation
of evidence, Prosecutor Marilag orally offered the
receipt attached to Juan's judicial affidavit, which
K. RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
the court admitted over the objection of Pedro's
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC
lawyer. After Pedro's presentation of his evidence,
(2022, 2003 BAR)
the court rendered judgment finding him guilty as
charged and holding him civilly liable for
P20,000.00. Pedro's lawyer seasonably filed a
motion for reconsideration of the decision Q: Klaus was drinking in front of his rented apartment
asserting that the court erred in awarding the civil when he suddenly heard a gunshot which came from
liability on the basis of Juan's judicial affidavit, inside the apartment owned by Luther. Klaus then saw
documentary evidence which Prosecutor Marilag Igor, a neighbor, going down the stairs and leaving the
failed to orally offer. Is the motion for scene holding a gun. Klaus also witnessed Luther fall
reconsideration meritorious? from the stairs with blood oozing from his chest. Vanya,
Luther's daughter, also rushed to Luther when he fell.
A: NO. The motion for reconsideration is not meritorious.
The judicial affidavit is not required to be orally offered as During Igor’s trial for Murder, Vanya testified and
separate documentary evidence, because it is filed in lieu of presented a flash drive containing the closed-circuit
the direct testimony of the witness. It is offered, at the time television (CCTV) footages of the scene. Said footages
the witness is called to testify, and any objection to it should showed a man appearing to be Igor, armed with a gun,
have been made at the time the witness was presented. proceeding up the stairs and entering Luther's
(Section 6 and 8, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) apartment. In the video, the same man was seen hastily
leaving the premises. Vanya further testified that she
Since the receipt attached to the judicial affidavit was orally was the one who transferred to the flash drive the video
offered, there was enough basis for the court to award civil footages from the barangay-owned CCTV that was
liability. located outside their apartment.
When the footages were played in court and an

enlarged screenshot was presented, Vanya identified

2022 GOLDEN NOTES
QuAMTO (1987-2022)
the shooter as Igor. The defense objected on the ground reading "Nasaksak ako. D na me makahinga. Si
that Vanya was not the recorder of the video footages. Mabini ang may gawa ni2." Is this text message
Are the CCTV footages admissible as electronic admissible as a dying declaration? Explain.
evidence? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)
A: YES, the text message is admissible as a dying declaration
A: YES, the CCTV footages are admissible as evidence since the same came from the victim who “shortly” expired
notwithstanding the fact that Vanya was not the recorder and it is in respect of the cause and circumstance of his
thereof. Under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, video death. The decisive factor that the message was made and
evidence of acts or events shall be admissible if sent under consciousness of an impending death, is
authenticated by the person who made the recording or by evidently attendant from the victim’s statement: “D na me
some other person competent to testify on the accuracy makakahinga” and the fact that he died shortly after he sent
thereof. (Sec. 1, Rule 11, Rules on Electronic Evidence) the message. However, cellphone messages are regarded as
electronic evidence, and in Ang v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
Here, Vanya can authenticate the CCTV footages even if she 182835, 20 Apr. 2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the
was not the recorder thereof since she was a person Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions,
competent to testify on the accuracy of the CCTV footages, quasi-judicial proceedings and administrative proceeding,
having been the one who transferred to the flash drive the not to criminal actions.
video footages from the barangay-owned CCTV that was
located outside their apartment. Hence, the CCTV footages Q: State the rule on the admissibility of an electronic
are admissible in evidence. (People v. Manansala, 2 Sept. evidence. (2003 BAR)
2020, J. Hernando; Riguera, 2023)
A: Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term writing,
Q: While window-shopping at the mall on August 4, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other
2008, Dante lost his organizer including his credit card form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an
and billing statement. Two days later, upon reporting electronic document as defined in the Rules. (Sec. 1, Rule 3,
the matter to the credit card company, he learned that A.M. 01-7-01-SC)
a one-way airplane ticket was purchased online using
his credit card for a flight to Milan in mid- August 2008. An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it
Upon extensive inquiry with the airline company, Dante complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the
discovered that the plane ticket was under the name of Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the
one Dina Meril. Dante approaches you for legal advice. manner prescribed by the Rules. (Sec. 2, Rule 3, A.M. 01-7-
01-SC) The authenticity of any private electronic document
Suppose an Information is filed against Dina on August must be proved by evidence that it had been digitally signed
12, 2008 and she is immediately arrested. What pieces and other appropriate security measures have been
of electronic evidence will Dante have to secure in applied. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, A.M. 01-7-01-SC)
order to prove the fraudulent online transaction?
(2010 BAR) Q: When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the
equivalent of an original document under the Best
A: He will have to present (a) his report to the bank that he Evidence Rule? (2003 BAR)
lost his credit card; (b) that the ticket was purchased after
the report of the lost add; and (c) the purchase of one-way A: An electronic document shall be regarded as the
ticket. equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence
Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sight or other
Dante should bring an original (or an equivalent copy) means, shown to reflect the data accurately. (Sec. 1, Rule 4,
printout of: (a) the online ticket purchase using his credit A.M. 01-7-01-SC)
card; (b) the phone call log to show that he already alerted
the credit card company of his loss; and (c) his credit card
billing statement-bearing the online ticket transaction.
Q: On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder

for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation, the
prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a text
message, which Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had
sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading:
“Honey,pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg
ingat u bka ma tsugi k.” (2010 BAR)
(c) Suppose that shortly before he expired, Emilio was

able to send a text message to his wife Graciana


Remedial Law (QuAMTO)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law (QuAMTO)

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 (QuAMTO)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Santo Tomas

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW (1734)

Address: Academics Committee

Tel. No: (02) 8731-4027

Released in the Philippines, 2023.

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE 2023

RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO CRIMINAL LAW

HERLENE MAE D. CALILUNG LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

POLITICAL LAW AND

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH

HANNAH JOY C. IBARRA COMMERCIAL LAW

JEDIDIAH R. PADUA CIVIL LAW

PAULINNE STEPHANY G. SANTIAGO TAXATION LAW

DIANNE MICAH ANGELA D. YUMANG REMEDIAL LAW

PAULA ANDREA F. PEÑAFLOR COVER DESIGN ARTIST

REMEDIAL LAW COMMITTEE 2023

REMEDIAL LAW SUBJECT HEAD

SANTIAGO U. VITUG ASST. HEAD, CIVIL PROCEDURE

REMEDIAL LAW ASSISTANT SUBJECT HEADS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

LENY G. GADIANA, R.G.C.

OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR

Justice Maria Cristina J. Cornejo† Judge Leilani Marie D. Grimares

Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh Judge Gener M. Gito

Justice Magdangal M. De Leon Dean Jose I. Dela Rama

Justice Myra V. Fernandez Dean Lope E. Feble

Justice Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. Dean Ma. Soledad D. Mawis

Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier Dean Salvador N. Moya II

Justice Zenaida G. Laguilles Dean Carlos M. Ortega

Justice Carlito B. Calpatura Dean Willard B. Riano†

Justice Jose Lorenzo R. De La Rosa Dean Ferdinand A. Tan

Justice Georgina D. Hidalgo Atty. Irene D.T. Alogoc

Justice Ronald B. Moreno Atty. Ian Jerny E. De Leon

Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. Atty. Gregorio Gerry F. Fernandez

Justice Selma Palacio-Alaras Atty. Elmar B. Galacio

Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol Atty. Benigno G. Par, Jr.

Judge Myra B. Quiambao Atty. Christian G. Villasis

THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

A: Remedial Laws are implemented in our system of

a. RTC where AFP is located;

Q: In rendering a decision, should a court take into

1 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

C. JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS PHILIPPINE COURTS

Q: If the Supreme Court en banc is equally divided in

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 2

3 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

4. SANDIGANBAYAN (2) Actions involving title or possession of real

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 4

5 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 6

3. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

7 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 8

A: The RTC’s orders denying due course to the petition for

Q: TRUE or FALSE. A suit for injunction is an action in

A: FALSE. A suit for injunction is an action in personam. In