2016 Bar Examinations

I
State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). (5%)
The Regional Trial Courts inter olio shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
in the following civil cases: (1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation: (2) In all civil actions which
involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousan pesos
(P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty
thousan pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful
detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts; (3) In all actions inadmirality and maritime jurisdiction where the demand
or claim exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) o, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00); (4)
In all matters of probate, both estate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in probate matters in
Metro Manila,where such gross value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00); (5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital
relations; (6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (7) In
all civil actions and special proceedingd falling within the exclusive original
jurusdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of
Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and (8) In all other cases in which the
demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property in controversy exceeds
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,00.00) or in such other cases in Metro Manila,
where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned items exceeds Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) (Section 1, Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).

II
[a] Briefly explain the procedure on "Interrogatories to Parties" under Rule 25 and
state the effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. (2.5%)
1. Any party desiring to elicit material and relevant facts from any adverse
parties shall file and serve upon the latter written interrogatories to be answered
by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a
partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its
behalf (Section 1, Rule 25, Rules of Court).
2. The interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing and shall be signed and
sworn to by the person making them. The party upon whom the onterrogatories have
been served shall file and serve a copy of the answeres on the party submitting the
interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service thereof, unless the court on
motion and for good cause shown, extends or shortens the time (Section 2, Rule 25,
Rules of Court).
3. Objections to any interrogatories may be presented to the court within ten (10)
days service thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and answers shall be
deferred until the objections are resolved, which shall be at as early as is
practicable (Section 3, Rule 25, Rules of Court).
Should a party fail to file and serve written interrogatories on an adverse party,
he cannot compel the latter to give testimony in open court or to give deposition
pending appeal, unless allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a
failure of justice (Section 6, Rule 25, Rules of Court; Spouses Vicente Afulugencio
and Leticia Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., et al., G.R. No. 185145,
February 5, 2014).

[b] Briefly explain the procedure on "Admission by Adverse Party" under Rule 26 and
the effect of failure to file and serve the request. (2.5%)
1. At any time after issues have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any
party a written request for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of any
material and relevant document described in and exhibited with the request or of
the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the request.
Copies of the documents shall be delivered with the request unless copies have
already been furnished (Section 1, Rule 26, Rules of Court).
2. Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
unless, within a period designated in the request, which shall not be less than
fifteen (15) days after service thereof, or within such further time as the court
may allow motion, the party to whom the request directed files and serves upon the
party requesting the admission a sworn statement either denying specifically the
matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons
why he cannot truthfully either admit or deny those matters.
3. Objections to any request for admission shall be submitted to the court by the
party requested within the period for and prior to the filinng of his sworn
statement as contemplated in the preceding paragraph and his compliance therewith
shall be deffered until such obligations are resolved, which resolution shall be
made as early as practicable (Section 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court).
4. Any admission made by a party pursuant to such request is for the purpose of the
pencing action only and shall not constitute and admission by him for any other
purpose nor may the same be used against him in any other proceeding (Section 3,
Rule 26).
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure
of justice a party who fails to file and serve a request for admission on the
adverse party of material and relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be,
within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be permitted to present
evidence on such facts {emphasis supplied} (Section 5, Rule 26, Rules of Court).

III
What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (5%)
A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language known to the witness and, if
not in Englih or Filipino, accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and
shall contain the following: (a) The name, age, residence or business address, and
occupation of the witness; (b) The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or
supervises the examination of the witness and the place where the examination is
being held; (c) A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked for
him, fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal
liability for false testimony or perjury; (d) Questions asked of the witness and
his corresponding answers, consecutively numbered, that: (1) Show the circumstances
under which the witness acquired the facts upon which he testifies; (2) Elicit from
him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the case presents; and (3)
Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and establish their
authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court; (e) The signature of the notary
public who administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by law to
administer the same (Section 3, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule).

IV
Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the Regional Trial Court (R
TC) 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 of 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 ofMakati since the complaint involves the ownership and possession of Eduardo's
lot. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)
The Motion to dismiss should be granted. An action for nullification of the
mortgage documents and foreclosure of the mortgaged property is a real action that
affects the title to the property; thus, venue of the real action is before the
court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the property lies (Jimmy T.
Go v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 156187, November 11, 2004; Chua v.
Totoal Office Products & Services, G.R. No. 152808, September 30, 2005).
In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 112191, February 7, 1997), the
Supreme Court also held that an action to annul a foreclosure sale of a real estate
mortgage is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property.
While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or
possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his
claim for damages are closely interwined with the issue of ownership of the
building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of
which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action
for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate the
efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to
recover said real property. It is a real action (Paglaum Management & Development
Corporation v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179018, June 18, 2012).
Being a real action, it shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has
jurisdiction over the area where the real property involved, or a portion thereof,
is situated (Section 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court). The complaint should be filed in
the RTC of Makati where the mortgaged property is situated.

V
[a] What is the "most important witness" rule pursuant to the 2004 Guidelines of
Pretrial and Use of Deposition..;Discovery Measures? Explain. (2.5%)
Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC or the "2004 Guidelines of Pre-trial and Use of
Deposition-Discovery Measures" in Civil cases where no amicable settlement was
reached by the parties, the trial judge is directed to determine the most important
witnesses and limit the number of such witness to be heard. The court shall also
require the parties and/ or counsel to submit the names, addresses and contact
number of the witnesses to be summoned by subpoena. The facts to be proven by each
witness and the approximate number of hours per witness shall also be fixed by the
trial judge (Section (I) (A) (5) (j) of A.M. No. 03-01-09-SC or the "2004 Guideline
of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures", July 13, 2004).

[b] What is the "one day examination of witness" rule pursuant to the said 2004
Guidelines? Explain. (2.5%)
The rule requires that a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only. This
rule shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts' discretion during trial on
whether or not to extend the direct and/ or cross-examination for justifiable
reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make
his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the
opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto.
Thereafter, the judge shall make the ruling onthe offer of evidence in open court,
but the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in
conformity with Section 35, Rule 132 (Section (I) (A) (5) (i) of A.M. No. 03-01-09-
SC or the "2004 Guidelines of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures",
July 13, 2004).

VI
Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug, Municipality of Dupac, Mountain
Province. Pedro owes 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 system. Both appeared before the council where they verbally agreed that
Pedro will pay in installments on specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his promise.
Juan filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the case did not pass through
the barangay conciliation under R.A. No. 7160 and that the RTC, not the MTC, has
jurisdiction. In his opposition, Juan argued that the intervention of the Council
of Elders is substantial compliance with the requirement ofR.A. No. 7160 and the
claim of P50,000.00 is clearly within the jurisdiction of the MTC. As MTC judge,
rule on the motion and explain. (5%)
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. As a general rule, no complaint involving
any matter within the authority of the Lupon shall be instituted or filed directly
in court for adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the parties
in the barangay and no settlement was reached (Section 412 (a) of Republic Act No.
7160; April Martinez, v. Rodolfo G. Martinez, G.R. No. 162084, June 28, 2005).
However, in barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous
cultural communities, local systems of settling disputes through their councils of
datus or elders shll be recognized without prejudice to the applicable provisions
of the Local Government Code (Section 399, R.A. 7160). As a consequence, the
customs and traditions of traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be
applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities (Section
412, R.A. 7180), thus, the confrontation between Pedro and Juan before the Council
of Elders of their barangay is sufficient compliance with the precondition for
filing the case in court under Section 412 of R.A. No. 7160 (Zamora v. Heirs of
Izquierdo, G.R. No. 146195, November 18, 2004).
Be that as it may, it is well-settled that the mode of enforcement of an amicable
settlement under the Katarungan Pambarangay Law does not rule out of the right of
rescission under Act. 2041 of the Civil Code (Crisanta Miguel v. Montanez, G.R. No.
191336, January 25, 2014). Accordingly, when Juan filed a complaint for sum of
money in the MTC, he is deemed to have rescinded the compromise agreement reached
before the Council of Elders of the barangay.
Henceforth, Pedro is incorrect in alleging that the RTC, not the MTC, has
jurisdiction over Juan's claim. Considering that the claim is only for P50,000.00,
the case is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC under B.P. Blg. 129 and
may proceed pursuant to A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the "Rules of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases." Notably, a motion to dismiss is among the prohibited pleadings under
Section 14 (a) of said rules.
Similarly, Juan's claim of P50,000.00 may be governed by the 1991 Rules on Summary
Procedure which clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC, ergo, the motion
to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter should be denied
(Section 19 (a), 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure).

VII
Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children ages 15, 12 and 7, who are
studying at public schools. They have a combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00
and they stay in an apartment in Manila with a monthly rent of PS,000.00. The
monthly minimum wage per employee in Metro Manila does not exceed P13,000.00. They
do not own any real property. The spouses want to collect a loan of P25,000.00 from
Jojo but do not have the money to pay the filing fees.

[a] Would the spouses qualify as indigent litigants under Section 19, Rule 141 on
Legal Fees? (2.5%)
No. Spouses Marlon and Edith would not qualify as indigent litigants. Under Section
19 of Rule 141, Indigent litigants include those (a) whose gross income and that of
their immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of
an employee; and (b) who do not own real property with a fair market value as
stated in the current tax declaration of more than three hundred thousand
(P300,000.00) pesos, shall be exempt from payment of legal fees (Section 19 of Rule
141, Administrative Matter No. 04-2-04-SC, August 16, 2004; Algura v. Local
Government Unit of the City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006). Here, the
spouses combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 exceeds the limit provided by
Section 19, Rule 141; accordingly, the spouses do not qualify as indigent
litigants.

[b] If the spouses do not qualify under Rule 141, what other remedy can they avail
of under the rules to exempt them from paying the filing fees? (2.5%)
1. If the applicant for exemption meets the salary and properly requirements under
Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory. On the
other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then
the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the
"indingency test" under Section 21 of Rule 3 and use its sound discretion in
determinining the merits of the prayer for exemption (Algura v. Local Government
Unit of the City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135, October 30, 2006). Hence, the spouses
may be authorized to litigate as indigent if the court, upon an ex parte
application and hearing, is satisfied that they do not have money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities for themselves
and their family (Rule 3, Sec. 21, Rules of Court; Re; Query of Mr. Roger
Prioreschi, A.M. No. 09-6-9-SC, August 19, 2009).
2. The spouses can also file a motion to sue as indigent under the Rules of
Procedure on Small Claims. The Motion shall be referred to the Executive Judge for
immediate action in case of multi-sala courts. If the motion is granted by the
Executive Judge, the case shall be raffled off or assigned to the court designated
to hear small claims cases. If the motion is denied, the plaintiff shall be given
five (5) days within which to pay the docket fees, otherwise, the case shall be
dismissed without prejudice. In no case shall a party, even if declared an
indigent, be exempt from the payment of the P1,000.00 fee for service of summons
and processes (Section 10, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, 2016 Rules of Procedure for Small
Claim Cases).
3. The spouses may also claim exemption from payment of legal fees by seeking the
help of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines pursuant to A.M. No. 08-11-7-SC
(IRR), Rule on the Exemption From the Payment of Legal Fees of the Clients of the
National Committee on Legal Aid and of the Legal Aid Offices in the Local Chapters
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

VIII
Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto knew that Juan was going to
file the case so he went out of town and temporarily stayed in another city to
avoid service of summons. Juan engaged the services of Sheriff Matinik to serve the
summons but when the latter went to the residence of Roberto, he was told by the
caretaker thereof that his employer no longer resides at the house. The caretaker
is a high school graduate and is the godson of Roberto. Believing the caretaker's
story to be true, Sheriff Matinik left a copy of the summons and complaint with the
caretaker. Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Discuss the
requirements for a valid service of summons. (5%)
No. There was no valid substitued service of summons. In an action strictly in
personam, personal service on the defendant is the preferred mose of service, that
is , by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for
excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a responsible period,
then substituted service can be resorted to. While substituted service of summons
is permitted, it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual
method of service; hence, it must be faithfully and strictly comply with the
prescibed requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. Compliance with
the rules regarding the service of summons is as important as the issue of due
process for the Court to acquire jurisdiction. For the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duty to apply, the Sheriff's Return must show that
serious efforts or attempts were exerted to personally serve the summons and that
said efforts failed. These facts must be specifically narrated in the Return. It
must clearly show that the substituted service must be made on a person of a
suitable age and discretion living in the dwelling or residence of defendant;
otherwise, the Return is flawed and the presumption cannot be availed of. The
Supreme Court laid down the requirements as follows:
1. Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e, the party relying on substituted
service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there
is impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable time. Reasonable time being
"so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and
diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be
done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any to the other
party". Moreover, it must be indicated therein that the sheriff has made several
attempts at personal service for at least three (3) times on at least two (2)
different dates.
2. Specific details in the return, i.e., the sheriff must be describe in the Return
of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service.
3. Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age and discretion residing
at defendant's house or residence; or on a competent person in charge of
defendant's office or regular place of business (Ma. Imelda M. Manotoc v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 130974 August 16, 2006).

IX
[a] Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an extra-judicial foreclosure
entitled to a writ of possession even before the expiration of the redemption
period? If so, what is the action to be taken? (1 %)
Yes, the buyer in the auction sale is entitled to a writ of possession even before
the expiration of the redemption period upon filing of the ex parte petition for
issuance of a writ of possession and posting of the appropriate bond. Under Section
7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, the writ of possession may be issued to the
purchaser in a foreclosure sale either within the one-year redemption period upon
the filing of a bond, or after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of
a bond (LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, G.R.
No. 167998, April 27, 2007). Stated otherwise, Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
amended, also refers to a situation wherein the purchaser seeks possession of the
foreclosed property during the 12-month period for redemption. Hence, upon the
purchaser's filing of the ex parte petition and posting of the appropriate bond,
the RTC shall, as a matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of possession
in favor of the purchaser (Spouse Nicasio C. Marquez and Anita J. Marquez v.
Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014;
Spouses Jose Gatuslao and Ermila Gatuslao v. Leo Ray Yanson, G.R. No. 191540,
January 21, 2015).

[b] After the period of redemption has lapsed and the title to the lot is
consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, is he entitled to the writ of
possession as a matter of right? If so, what is the action to be taken? (2%)
Yes, the auction buer is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right. It
is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the
property purchased if it is not redeemed within a period of one year after the
registration of the certificate of sale. He is, therefore entitled to the
possession of the property and can demand it at any time following the
consolidation of owenership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer
certificate of title. In such a case, the bond required in Section 7 of Act No.
3135 is no longer necessary. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right
of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and proof of the
title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the
court (LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. Planters Development Bank, G.R.
No. 167998, April 27, 2007; Spouse Nicasio C. Marquez and Anita J. Marquez v.
Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, 2014;
Spouses Jose Gatuslao and Ermila Gatuslao v. Leo Ray Yanson, G.R. No. 191540,
January 21, 2015)

[c] Suppose that after the title to the lot has been consolidated in the name of
the auction buyer, said buyer sold the lot to a third party without first getting a
writ of possession. Can the transferee exercise the right of the auction buyer and
claim that it is a ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession in
his favor? Briefly explain. (2%)
Yes. The transferee can exercise the right of the auction buyer. A transferee or
successor-in-interest of the auction buyer by virtue of the contract of sale
between them, is considered to have stepped into the shoes of the auction buyer. As
such, the transferee is necessarily entitled to avail of the provisions of Section
7 of Act 3135, as amended, as if he is the auction buyer (Spouses Jose Gatuslao and
Ermila Gatuslao v. Leo Ray Yanson, G.R. No. 191540, January 21, 2015). When the lot
purchased at a foreclosure sale is in turn sold or transferred, the right to the
possession thereof, along with all other right of ownership, transfers to its new
owner (Spouses Gallent v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 203949, April 6, 2016), ergo, it is a
ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession in favor of the
transferee of the auction buyer.

X
Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a
complaint for mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Public Work and
Highways, Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Budget, and Philippine National Police before the R TC of Laguna
alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing their duties has
resulted in serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the
degradation of the marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed that said
government agencies be ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water
quality to Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise
known as the Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that the
cleanup of the lake is not a ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by
mandamus to perform the same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision declaring that
it is the duty of the agencies to clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent
writ of mandamus ordering said agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law
relating to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay.

[a] Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? Explain. (2.5%)
Yes. The RTC is correct in issuing the writ of mandamus. Generally, the writ of
mandamus lies to require the execution; of a ministerial duty. While the
implementation of the Government agencies mandated tasks may entail a 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.
Here, the duty to clean up Laguna lake and restore its water 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.
Accordingly, the RTC may issue a writ of continuing mandamus directing any agency
or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series
of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until the judgment
is fully satisfied (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned
Residents of Manila Bat, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008).

[b] What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2.5%)

A writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued where any agency or instrumentality
of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law
rule or regulation or a right therein,or unlawfully excludes another from the use
or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty, attaching thereto
supporting evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an environmental law,
rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent
to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satiesfied, and to pay
damages sustained by the petitioner by the reason of the malicious neglect to
perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The
petition shall also contain a sworn certification on non-forum shopping (A.M. No.
09-8-SC also known as Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases).
A Writ of Continuing mandamus id a writ issued by a court in an environmental cases
directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain
effective until judgment is fully satisfied (Section 7, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
also known as Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases).

XI
Miguel filed a Complaint for damages against Jose, 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 sought reconsideration of that Order through a Motion for
Reconsideration. Miguel opposed the Motion for 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 attain finality. Is Jose correct? Explain. (5%)
No. Jose is not correct. While Jose's reliance on Section 1 of Rule 52 is misplaced
because the said Rule applies only to cases pending before the Court of Appeals,
his argument that the fifteen day rules does not apply because the order soight to
be reconsidered is an interlocutory order that has basis in jurisprudence.
In Denso Philippines, Inc. v. The Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 75000,
February 27, 1987), the Supreme Court held that a motion for reconsideration of an
interlocutory order is not subject to the usual limiting fifteen-day period of
appeal prescribed for final judgments and orders.
Be that as it may, since the motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non
for the filing of a petition for certiorari which is the appropriate remedy, the
same can be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the denial of the
motion to dismiss; otherwise, a legal aberration would ensue where a party who has
merely 60 days from notice of an adverse interlocutory order to interpose a special
civil action for certiorari would be allowed a longer period to move for
reconsideration of such order.
Consequently, since Jose's motion for reconsideration was filed 31 days after he
received the order denying his motion to dismiss, the same was still filed on time.

XII
Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
on the complaint for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation. They
were terminated on the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed production
quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC decision was assailed in a special civil
action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification and
certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the verification and
certification, while Atty. Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of defective verification and certification. Decide with
reasons. (5%)
The motion to dismiss should be granted. The verification and certification of non-
forum shopping were not signed by all the petitioners. There was no showing that
Toto nor Atty. Arman were duly authorized by other petitioners through a special
power of attorney to sign on their behalf; hence, the motion to dismiss should be
granted.

XIII
The officers of "Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc." engaged your services to file an
action against ABC Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining operations in Sta.
Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC's toxic
mine tailings were accidentally released from its storage dams and were discharged
into the rivers of said town. The mine tailings found their way to Calancan Bay and
allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the crops and
loss of earnings were estimated at Pl Billion. Damage to the environment is
estimated at Pl Billion. As lawyer for the organization, you are requested to
explain the advantages derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan before the
Supreme Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC of Marinduque or vice-
versa. What action will you recommend? Explain. (5%)
As a lawyer for the organization, I would recommend the filing of a petition for
issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.
The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person,
entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization, or
any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency,
on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces (Section 1 of Rule 7, A.M. No.
09-6-8-SC also known as Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases).
The following reliefs may be included under the writ of kalikasan: (a) Directing
respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting the
performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage; (b) Directing the respondent public official, government
agency, private person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
environment; (c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency,
private person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders
of the court; (d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or
private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final
judgment; and (e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology or the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or
restoration of the environment, except the award of damages to individual
petitioner (Sec.15, Rule 7, Ibid).
The rules also provide interim reliefs in favor of the petitioner upon filing a
verified motion, namely: (i) Ocular inspection; or (ii) Production or inspection of
documents or things (Sec. 12, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC also known as Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases).
Additionally, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is more advantageous compared to a
complaint for damages before the RTC because it may be filed directly with the
Supreme Court or with any of the situations of the Court of Appeals.
Unlike a complaint for damages before the RTC which can only be filed by a real-
party-in-interest as defined in Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court, the rules on locus
standing is relaxed in petitions for Writ of Kalikasan which allows the petition to
be filed by parties as citizen suit.
In addition, any of the following may file a petition for Writ of Kalikasan: (a)
natural or juridical person; (b) entity authorized by law; or (c) Pos, NGOs or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated (Sec. 1, Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
Besides, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is exempted from the payment of docket
fees.
From the foregoing, it is clear that filing a petition for Writ of Kalikasan would
be the best remedy to address all the environmental problems caused by the release
of the toxic waste to the waters of Romblon and Quezon without the burden of paying
docket fees. After all, the filing of a petition for the issuance of the 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.
At any rate, the rules provide that judgment must be rendered within sixty (60)
days from the time the petition is submitted for decision which expedites the
proceedings significantly considering the urgency of the situation in the instant
case.
As lawyer for the organization I would recommend, therefore, the filing of petition
for a Writ of Kalikasan with the Supreme Court.

XIV
Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case, testified and completed his
testimony on direct examination in 2015. Due to several postponements by the
accused, grounded on his recurring illness, which were all granted by the judge,
the cross-examination of Pedro was finally set on October 15, 2016. Before the said
date, Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge Pedro's testimony on the ground that
it violates his right of confrontation and the right to cross-examine the witness.
The prosecution opposed the motion and asked that Pedro's testimony on direct
examination be admitted as evidence. Is the motion meritorious? Explain. (5%)
The Motion is meritorious. The cross-examination of a witness is an absolute right,
not a mere privilege, of the partly against whom he is called. With regard to the
accused, it is a right guaranteed by the fundamental law as part due process.
Article III, Sec. 14, par. (2), of the 1987 Constitution specifically mandates that
"the accused shall enjoy the right to meet the witness face to face" and Rule 115,
Sec. 1, par. (f), of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enjoins that in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall be entitled to confront and cross-examine
the witness against him at the trial. Accordingly, the testimony of a witness given
on direct examination should be stricken off the record where there was no adequate
opportunity for cross-examination (People v. Fernando Monjey Rosario, G.R. No.
146689, September 27, 2002).
In people v. Manchetti (G.R. No. L-48883, August 6, 1980), the Supreme Court also
helf that if a party is deprived of the opportunity of cross examination without
fault on his part, as in the case of the illness and death of a witness after
direct examination, he is entitled to have the direct testimony stricken from the
records. SInce the accused was deprived of his opportunity to corss examine the
witness without fault on his part, the motion to expunge is meritorious.

XV
Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. The Metropolitan Trial Court
of Manila (MeTC) rendered a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika P50,000.00 plus
legal interest. During its pendency of the appeal before the RTC, Gringo died of
acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty. Perfecto, counsel of Gringo, filed a
manifestation attaching the death certificate of Gringo and informing the RTC that
he cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo did not disclose any information on his
family. As counsel for Chika, what remedy can you recommend to your client so the
case can move forward and she can eventually recover her money? Explain. (5%)
As a counsel for Chika, I would recommend that she immediately procure the
appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of Gringo.
Section 16, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if no legal
representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so
named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the
opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor
or administrator for the estate of the deceased, and the latter shall immediately
appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such
appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
After the appointment of an executor or administrator, the action shall be allowed
to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the
plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person (Section 20,
Rule 3, Rules of Court).

XVI
Under Section 5, Rule 113 a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense has just
been committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on his
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has
committed it. A policeman approaches you for advice and asks you how he will
execute a warrantless arrest against a murderer who escaped after killing a person.
The policeman arrived two (2) hours after the killing and a certain Max was
allegedly the killer per information given by a witness. He asks you to clarify the
following:
[a] How long after the commission of the crime can he still execute the warrantless
arrest? (2.5%)
In executing a warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113, the Supreme Court held
that the requirement that an offense has just been committed means that there must
be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the
time of the arrest (Joey M. Pestilos v. Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November
10, 2014). If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the
commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. In any case, personal
knowledge by the arresting officer is an indispensable requirement to the validity
of a valid warrantless arrest.
The exact period varies on a case to case basis. In People v. Gerente (G.R. Nos.
95847-48, MArch 10, 1993), the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless arrest was
validly executed upon therein accused three (3) hours after the commission of the
crime. In People v. Tonog Jr. (G.R No. 94533, February 4, 1992), the Supreme Court
likewise upheld the valid warrantless arrest which was executed on the same day as
the commission of the crime. However, in People v. Del Rosatio (G.R. No. 127755,
April 14, 1999, 365 Phil. 292), the Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest
effected a day after the commission of the crime is invalid. In Go v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992), the Supreme Court also declared
invalid a warrantless arrest effected six (6) days after the commission of the
crime.

[b] What does "personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to
be arrested committed it" mean? (2.5%)
The phrase "personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested committed it" means that matters in relation to the supposed commission of
the crime were within the actual perception, personal evaluation or observation of
the police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though the police officer
has not seen someone actually feeling, he could still make a warrantless arrest if,
based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he
could determine the existance of probable cause that the person sought to be
arrested has committed the crime; however, the determination of probable cause and
the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the
commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy.
The arresting officer's determination of probable cause under Section 5 (b), Rule
113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person sought to be arrested has committed the
crime. Thses facts or circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e.,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must
be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace
officers making the arrest. The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest
ordinarily signifies a reasonable gound of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged, or an actual
belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts ( Joey M. Pestilos
v. Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014).

XVII
The information against Roger Alindogan for the crime of acts of lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code avers:

"That on or about 10:30 o'clock in the evening of February 1, 2010 at Barangay

Matalaba, Imus, Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, through force and intimidation,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his
daughter, Rose Domingo, a minor of 11 years old, either by raping her or committing
acts of lasciviousness on her, against her will and consent to her damage and
prejudice.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."

The accused wants to have the case dismissed because he believes that the charge is
confusing and the information is defective. What ground or grounds can he raise in
moving for the quashal of the information? Explain. (5%)
The accused may move to quash the information based on any of the following
grounds: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense: (b) That it does
not conform substantially to the prescribed form; and (c) That more than one
offense is prescibed by law (Section 3 Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
In People v. dela Cruz (G.R. Nos. 135554-56, June 21, 2002, 383 SCRA 410), the
Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "either by raping her or committing acts of
lasciviousness" does not constitute an offense since it does not cite which among
the numerous sections or subsections of R.A. no. 7610 has been violated by accused-
appellant. Moreover, it does not state that acts and amissions constituting the
offense, or any special or aggravating circumstances attending the same, as
required under the rules of criminal procedure. These are constitutional right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and therefore
should be quashed on the ground that the information charges acts that do not
constitute an offense.

XVIII
John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Anne on the
ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. He obtained
a copy of the confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his wife from the
secretary of the psychiatrist. Can he testify on the said report without offending
the rule on privileged communication? Explain. (5%)
yes. John can testify. Under the rule on previleged communication, the husband pr
the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of
the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other
during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants (Rule 130, Sec. 24 (a), Rules of Court). In this case,
Anne cannot prevent John from testifying against her since the petition for
declaration of nullity is a civil case filed by one spouse against the other;
hence, the rule on privileged communication between the spouses does not apply.
John could testify on the confidential psychiatric evaluation report of his wife
that he obtained from the secretary of the psychiatrist, without offending the rule
on privileged communication.

XIX
Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against Arthur King and/or Estate of
Arthur King for reconveyance of a lot declared in the name of Arthur King under TCT
No. 1234. The complaint alleged that "on account Arthur King's residence abroad up
to the present and the uncertainty of whether he is still alive or dead, he or his
estate may be served with summons by publication." Summons was published and nobody
filed any responsive pleading within sixty (60) days therefrom. Upon motion,
defendants were declared in default and judgment was rendered declaring Tristan as
legal owner and ordering defendants to reconvey said lot to Tristan.

Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Arthur King's estate, filed a petition

for annulment of judgment before the CA praying that the decision in favor of
Tristan be declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction. He claims that the
action filed by Tristan is an action in personam and that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over defendants Arthur King and/or his estate. On the other hand,
Tristan claims that the suit is an action in rem or at least an action quasi in
rem. Is the RTC judge correct in ordering service of summons by publication?
Explain. (5%)
Yes. The RTC Judge is correct in ordering the service of summons by publication. An
action for declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real
property, or re-conveyance, is a real action but it is an action in personam, for
it binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible
thing. Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded
(Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez cited in Emerita Munoz v. Atty. Victoriano
R. Yabut, Jr. and Samuel Go Chan, G.R. No. 142676, June 6, 2011).
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the perso of the defendant is necessary
for thr court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a
resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by
personal service of summons as provided under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court. If he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time,
substituted service may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule (Spouses
Domingo M. Belen, et al. v. Hon. Pablo R. Chavez, et al., G.R. No. 175334, March
26, 2008).
Under Section 14, Rule 14 Rules of Court, in any action where the defendant is
designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of
court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of genral circulation and
in such places and for such time as the court may order. This rule applies to any
action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem (Pedro T. Santos, Jr. v. PNOC
Exploration Corporation, G.R. No. 170943, September 23, 2008). Clearly, since the
action for reconveyance is an action in personam, the RTC Judge is correct in
ordering service of summons by publication.

XX
Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Ervin and Jude
before the RTC of Manila. The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14,
2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount of Pl Million, as evidenced by
Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement
binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final demand on February 14,
2015 for Ervin and Jude (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal
prayed that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount of P1 Million
plus interests.

In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan from Royal and signed the
PN. Jude also admitted that she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out
that the PN did not provide the due date for payment, and that the loan has not yet
matured as the maturity date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a
later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground
that there is no genuine issue presented by the parties' submissions. Royal opposed
the motion on the ground that the PN' s maturity is an issue that must be threshed
out during trial.

[a] Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)

The Motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied.
First, the judgment on the pleadings is available to the plaintiff and not to the
defendant.
Second, judgement on the pleadings is proper only when the Answer fails to tender
any issue, that is, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint
or admits said material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings by admitting
the truthfulness thereof and/ or omitting to deal with them at all.
Here, while defendants' Answer to the Complaint practically admitted all the
material allegations therein, it nevertheless asserts the affirmative defenses that
the loan is not yet due. As issues obviously arise from these affirmative defenses,
a judgment on the pleadings is clearly improper in this case.
Besides, it should be emphasized that judgment on the pleadings is based
exclusively upon the allegations appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the
annexes, when it appears that not all the material allegations of the complaint
were admitted in the answer for some of them were either denied or disputed, and
the defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if proven, would have the
effect of nullifying plaintiff's main cause of action, judgment on the pleadings
cannot be rendered (Philippine National Bank v. Merelo B. Aznar, G.R. No. 171805,
May 30, 2011).

[b] Distinguish "Summary Judgment" and "Judgment on the Pleadings." (2.5%)

What distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the
presence of issue in the Answer to the Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender
any issue, that is, if it does not deny the material allegations in the complaint
or admits said material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings by admitting
the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on
the pleadings is appropriate. On the other hand, when the Answer specifically
denies the material averments of the complaint or asserts affirmative defenses, or
in other words raises an issue, a summary judgment is proper provided that the
issue raised is not genuine. A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for
the presentation of evidence, as distinguised from an issue which is fictitious or
contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue for trial (Eugenio Basbas v.
Beata Sayson and Roberto Sayson, Jr., G.R. No. 172660, August 24, 2011).