ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
JURISDICTION
o
Q R
A complaint for damages due to malicious prosecution was filed. It sought an
r in the amount of P420,000.00 suffered by
n
award
and exemplary damages
a
areason ofofmoral
the utterances while B
they were at a police station. What court has
h
jurisdiction?
Explain.
s
C
e
l using the totality rule since the main action is for
Answer: The RTC has jurisdiction
b
damages, hence, the other
forms of damages being claimed by respondent, e.g. , exemplary
Ro
damages, attorneys
fees and litigation expenses, are not merely incidental to or
r relief prayed for in the
nthe main action but constitute theaprimary
consequences of
complaint. a
B
h
s
WhereC
the claim for damages is the main cause
of action, or one of the causes of action, the
e
amount of such claim shall be consideredlin determining the jurisdiction of the court.
b
(Mendoza v. Soriano, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005, 470 SCRA 639; Sante v. Hon.
o
Claravall, et. al. , G.R. No. 173915, February
R 22, 2010, Villarama, J).
r it and sold to
Q The owner of a real property
a
an gave it to another who subdivided
B was made for the
other persons, forgingh
the signatures of the owners. Demand
s
C but as there was refusal of thee transferee, an action for
return of the property
cancellation of TCT was filed, alleging that the property
only P4,000.00
l wasoversoldtheforsubject
b
was filed with the RTC. Does the RTC have jurisdiction
matter?
o
Explain.
R
rthe
n
Answer: No. The MTC has jurisdiction a
pursuant to Sec. 3, RA 7691 expanding
a
jurisdiction of the MTC as the assessed
value does not exceed P20,000.00 where
the
B
h
property is located outside of MetroC
Manila. As the case was filed with the RTC,
the court
sWhere
e
had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, hence, it must be dismissed.
the
l
ultimate objective of the plaintiff is to obtain title to real property, it should
b be filed with
the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of theo
property. (Huguete v.
Embudo, 453 Phil. 170 [2003]).
R
r
n
a
a
The case is not simply a case for the cancellation of a particular certificate of title and the
B
h
revival of another. The determination of such issue
merely follows after a court of
s
competent jurisdiction shall have first resolved theC
matter of who between the conflictinge
l
parties is the lawful owner of the subject property and ultimately entitled to its possession
b
and enjoyment. The action is, therefore, about ascertaining which of these parties is the
ovalue
lawful owner of the subject lot, jurisdiction over which is determined by the assessed
R
of such lot. (Padlan v. Dinglasan, et al. , G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013, Peralta,
J).
n
a
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r RULE 2 CAUSE OF ACTIONS

a
B

Misjoined cause of action; effect.

b
o
R
Answer: If there is a misjoinder of causes of action, such defect should not result in the
n of the complaint. A "misjoinderaofrcauses of action is not a ground for dismissal of
adismissal
B of action may, on motion of a party or on the
an action" and that "a misjoined cause
h
of the court, be severeds
and proceeded with separately. " (Unicapital, Inc. , et al. v.
C initiative
e
Consing, et al. , G.R. No. 175277
&
175285; Sec. 6, Rule 2).
l
b
o
RULE 3 - PARTIES
R
r Resources Inc. obligating
nLolita obtained a loan from BostonaEquity
Q Manuel and
a
themselves jointly and severally to pay the amount
of the obligation. When the
B demand
h
obligation became due and demandable, there
was
to pay but there was no
s
C
e was filed against them. Answering the
payment, hence a complaint for sum of money
l
complaint Lolita alleged that her husband
has already passed away, hence, Lolita
b
contended that the estate of Manuel
is an indispensable party and that the claim
o
should be against the estate of Manuel.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on
R
the contention of Lolita? Explain.
r
a
an
B is solidary. The
Answer: I would decideh
in favor of the plaintiff, because the obligation
s
Centire obligation from Lolita alone. Under
creditor can collect the
e the law, the creditor may
proceed against anyone of the solidary debtors or some orl
all of them simultaneously. The
b obstacle to those which may
demand made against one of them shall not be an
o
subsequently be directed against the others, so long as the debt has not been fully satisfied.
R
(Art. 1216, NCC). The creditor may opt to collect the entire amount from anyone of the
r19,
n
solidary debtors. (Boston Equity Resources,
Inc. v. CA, et al. , G.R. No. 173946, June
a
a
2013, Perez, J).
B
h
s
C
e Tayactac,
Q Maraon filed a complaint for sum of money against Cuencaland
stockholders of Arc Cuisine. The suit involved an intra-corporate b
matter. Properties
of Arc Cuisine were subjected to levy on attachment where Stronghold
Co.
Rothe bondInsurance
issued a bond. Cuenca and Tayactac sought for damages against
contending
r
nto the properties. Is the
that the attachment of the properties caused damages
a
a
contention correct? Explain.
B
h
s
C
Answer: No, because they are not the real parties in interest. The properties attachede
belonged to Arc Cuisine alone not Cuenca and Tayactac. They are merely stockholders l
of
b
the Corporation which has a separate distinct personality. The damages occasioned
to
the
o
properties of the corporation prejudiced only the corporation, hence only Arc R
Cuisine has
the right under the substantive law to claim and recover damages. The right
could not be
n
a
asserted by them unless they did so in the name of the corporation.
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
Q What is the effect if there is a misjoinder of causes of actions? Explain.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

b
o
R
an

Ch

r
a
B

A litigation should be disallowed immediately if it involves a person without any interest at

stake, for it would be futile and meaningless to still proceed and render a judgment where
there is no actual controversy to be thereby determined. Courts of law are not allowed to
delve on academic issues or to render advisory opinions. They only resolve actual
controversies, for that is what they are authorized to do by the Fundamental Law itself,
which forthrightly ordains that the judicial power is wielded only to settle actual
controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable. (Stronghold
Ins. Co. , Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 173297, March 6, 2013).

r
a
B

s
e
Q If one of the parties in l
a compromise fails or refuses to comply with the terms of
b
the same, what is the remedy of the aggrieved party? Explain.
o
R
Answer: If one n
of the parties fails or refuses to abide byr
the compromise, the other party
may either enforce
the compromise or regard it as rescinded
and insist upon his original
a
a
B
demand. h
(Art. 2041, NCC).
s
C
e
In exercising the second option under Art.l
2041, the aggrieved party may, if he chooses,
bring the suit contemplated or involved b
in his original demand, as if there had never been
any compromise agreement, withouto
an action for rescission. This is because he
R bringing
may regard the compromise as already
rescinded by the breach thereof of the other party.
n April 15, 2013 citing Chavez v.aCA,rG.R. No. 159411,
(Catedrilla v. Lauron, G.R. No.
179011,
a
March 18, 2005).
B
h
s
C RULE 8 MANNER OF ALLEGATIONS
e
l
b sale of a mortgage alleging
Q An action was filed seeking the nullity of a foreclosure
o
that there was payment of the obligation. The R
defendant did not deny having issued a
receipt for payment, instead, it alleged thatn
such payment was false and self-serving,
r
a
a
but at the same time argued that, without necessarily admitting that payment was
h
made, the same cannot be considered
as a redemption price. State the effectB
of such
s
C
allegation? Explain.
e
l
b
Answer: It is a negative pregnant such that by making such an ambiguous
allegation in its
o
Answer with Counterclaims, the defendant is deemed to have admitted payment. If an
R
allegation is not specifically denied or the denial is a negative
pregnant, the allegation is
r
n
deemed admitted. (Banares v. Atty. Barican, 157 Phil. 134).
Where
a fact is alleged with
a
a
B
some qualifying or modifying language, and the denialh
is conjunctive, a negative pregnant
s
exists, and only the qualification or modification is denied,
while
the
fact
itself
is
admitted.

C
e
Denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be
l
b
ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is intended to be denied.
o
Profession of ignorance about a fact which is patently and necessarily within the pleader's
R
knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is no denial at all. In fine, respondent
n(Agusan Del
failed to refute the claim of payment. (Venzon v. Rural Bank of Buenavista
a
Norte) Inc. , G.R. No. 178031, August 28, 2013).
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
REVISED KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r
a
B

RULE 9 - DEFAUT

Q State the effect and remedies of a party in default. Explain.

Ch

b
o
R
an

Answer: When defendant is declared in default, the proper remedy is to file a motion to set
aside the order of default upon a proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense.
(Rule 9, Sec. 3(b).

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

A party declared in default loses his standing in court and his right to adduce evidence and
to present his defense. He, however, has the right to appeal from the judgment by default
on the ground, that the amount of the judgment is excessive or is different in kind from that
prayed for, or that plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his complaint, or that
the decision is contrary to law. He may not seek the reversal of the decision on the basis of
evidence submitted in the appellate court. Otherwise, his right to adduce evidence would
have been returned to him. He can also file a motion for new trial or petition for declaration
of nullity or annulment of judgment or special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
(Nabua, et al. v. Lu Ym, G.R. No. 176141, December 16, 2008).

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

RULE 14 - SUMMONS

an
Ch

r
a
B

Q In an action, summons was served upon the defendant through a security guard.
It was not shown that he was authorized to receive summons. Did the court acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant? Explain.

s
e
l
b
o

Answer: No. Courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs upon the filing of the complaint.
On the other hand, jurisdiction over the defendants in a civil case is acquired either through
the service of summons upon them or through their voluntary appearance in court and
their submission to its authority. (Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, G.R.
No.182729, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 596, 612, citing Orion Security Corporation v.
Kalfam Enterprises, Inc. , G.R. No. 163287, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 617, 622; Chu v. Mach
Asia Trading Corp. , G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013, Peralta, J).

Ch

an

r
a
B

s
e
l of summons?
Q What is required of the sheriff if there is a substituted service
b
Explain.
o
R
Answer: In case of substituted service, there should be a report
r
n indicating that the person
who received the summons in the defendant's behalf wasaone with whom the defendant
a
B
had a relation of confidence, ensuring that the latter would
actually receive the summons.
h
s
C
The service of summons is a vital and indispensable ingredient of due process. As a rule,l
ife
defendants have not been validly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over b
their
o
person, and a judgment rendered against them is null and void. Since the RTC
never
Rthe court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, the judgment rendered by
n
could not be considered binding upon him for being null and void. (Chu v. Mach Asia
a
Trading Corp. , G.R. No. 184333, April 1, 2013, Peralta, J).
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

rRULE 16 - MOTION TO DISMISS

a
B

Q State the rule in ruling a MTD on the ground of failure to state a cause of actions.
Explain.

Ch

b
o
R
an

Answer: Settled is the rule that in a Motion to Dismiss based on failure to state a cause of
action, the issue is passed upon on the basis of the allegations in the complaint, assuming
them to be true. The court does not inquire into the truth of the allegations and declare
them to be false; otherwise, it would be a procedural error and a denial of due process to
the plaintiff. Only the statements in the complaint may be properly considered, and the
court cannot take cognizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to ascertain
their existence. The test for determining whether a complaint states or does not state a
cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically the truth
of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, the judge may validly grant the relief
demanded in the complaint. (St. Mary of the Woods School Inc. , et al. v. Office of the
Registry of Deeds of Makati City, et al. , G.R. Nos. 174290, 176116, January 20, 2009).

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

an

Ch

s
e
l

RULE 26

r
a
B

b
o
R

Q Petitioners filed a Request for Admission with the RTC and served it upon
respondents requesting that the fact that they filed a written claim for refund with
the City Treasurer of Manila be admitted. In the respondents MTD and answer to the
complaint, they have already stated that petitioners failed to file any claim for tax
refund or credit. Is there a need to answer the request for admission? Explain.

an
Ch

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

Answer: No considering that respondents have already stated in their MTD and answer
that petitioners failed to file any written claim for tax refund or credit. Their failure to file a
reply to the same is not an admission of the veracity and truth of the requested fact.

an

r
a
B

Under Rule 26, Secs. 1 & 2, of the Rules of Court, once a party serves a request for
admission regarding the truth of any material and relevant matter of fact, the party to
whom such request is served is given a period of fifteen (15) days within which to file a
sworn statement answering the same. Should the latter fail to file and serve such answer,
each of the matters of which admission is requested shall be deemed admitted. (See
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 385, 399; Manzano
v. Despabiladeras, G.R. No. 148786, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 123, 134; Motor Service
Co. , Inc. v. Yellow Taxicab Co. , Inc. , 96 Phil. 688, 691-692 [1955]).

Ch

s
e
l
b
o

h
C

an

s
e
l

The exception to this rule is when the party to whom such request for admission is served
had already controverted the matters subject of such request in an earlier pleading.
Otherwise stated, if the matters in a request for admission have already been admitted or
denied in previous pleadings by the requested party, the latter cannot be compelled to
admit or deny them anew. In turn, the requesting party cannot reasonably expect a
response to the request and thereafter, assume or even demand the application of the
implied admission rule in Section 2, Rule 26. (Limos v. Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11,
2010, 628 SCRA 288). The rationale behind this exception had been discussed in the case of

r
a
B

b
o

an

h
C

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

Ro

e
l
b

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

CIR v. Manila Mining Corporation, G.R. No. 153204, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 571, citing
Concrete Aggregates Corporation v. CA, 334 Phil. 77 [1997]; Metro Manila Shopping Mecca
Corp. , et al. v. Ms. Liberty Toledo, et al. , G.R. No. 190818, June 5, 2013).

s
e
l

ob

RULE 33 DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

R
an

Effect of demurrer to evidence.

Ch

r
a
B

Q State the effect if demurrer to evidence is granted in a criminal case. Explain.

s
e
l
b
o

Answer: If demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, is filed after the prosecution had rested
its case, and when the same is granted, it calls for an appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the
accused. Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of demurrer to evidence may not
be appealed, for to do so would be to place the accused in double jeopardy. But while the
dismissal order consequent to a demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal, the same is
still reviewable but only by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, in such
case, the factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the reviewing court, and the
only legal basis to reverse and set aside the order of dismissal upon demurrer to evidence
is by a clear showing that the trial court, in acquitting the accused, committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus
rendering the assailed judgment void. (People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005,
471 SCRA 668; Dayap v. Sendiong, et al. , G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009).

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

an
Ch

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

RULE 36 - JUDGMENT

When there may be a several judgment.

an

r
a
B

Q There was an action for partition. There were properties under the names of the
plaintiffs and the defendants. The court rendered judgment on the properties in the
name of defendants but deferred judgment on the properties under the names of the
plaintiffs considering that the properties are separable. The CA affirmed the partial
judgment. Is the ruling of the CA correct? Why?

Ch

s
e
l
b
o

R
r
n
A several judgment is proper when the liability of eachaparty is clearly separable and
a
distinct from that of his co-parties, such that the claims
hagainst each of them could have B
been the subject of separate suits, and judgmentC
for or against one of them will not s
e
necessarily affect the other. (Fernando v. Santamaria, 487 Phil. 351 [2004]).
l
b
oin the
Although sued they were collectively, each held a separate and separable interest
R
properties, hence, the pronouncement as to the obligation of one or some did not affect the
determination of the obligations of the others. (Heirs of Jose Sy Bang, et al. v.n
Rolando Sy, et
a
al. , G.R. Nos. 114217 and 150797, October 13, 2009).
h
C
e
l
b
Ro

Answer: Yes. The judgment is in the nature of a several judgment.

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r 39 JUDGMENTS AND EXECUTION

RULE
a
B

Q After the final and executory judgment declaring the donation void, the donee
filed an action for quieting of title against the donor. Will the action prosper? Why?

b
o
R
an

Answer: No. The action for quieting of title will not prosper anymore because of the
principle of res judicata.

r
a
Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, such material fact becomes binding and
B
h
conclusive on the parties. When a right or fact has been juridically tried and determined by
s or when an opportunity for such trial has been given,
C a court of competent jurisdiction,
e
l as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the
judgment of the court as long
b
parties and those in privity with him. Thus, petitioners can no longer question donors
o
ownership over the
land in the suit for quieting of title. Simply put, conclusiveness of
R
judgment bars the
litigation between the
rinv. another
nrelitigation of particular facts or issues
same partiesa
on a different claim or cause of action. (Tan
CA, 415 Phil. 675 [2001]; Sps.
a
Noceda v.h
Directo, G.R. No. 178495, July 26, 2010). B
s
C
e
APPEALS
l
b
Modes of appeal from RTC to CA, etc.
Ro
Q State the modes of appeal
CA.ar
anfrom a decision of the RTC to the B
hby the RTC in the exercise of its original
Answer: In a case decided
s jurisdiction, appeal to
C
the Court of Appeals is taken by filing a notice of appeal.e
On the other hand, in cases
l appeal to the Court of
decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
b
Appeals is by a petition for review under Rule 42. o
R
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not
interrupt the course of the principal case
r
n
a
a
unless a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction from further
B under
proceeding has been issued against theh
public respondent. A petition for certiorari
s
Caction.
Rule 65 is, without a doubt, an original
e
l
Since the decision of the RTC in the petition for certiorari under Rule b
65 was rendered in
o
the exercise of its original jurisdiction, appeal from the said RTC decision to the Court of
R
Appeals should have been made by filing a notice of appeal, not
a petition for review under
r
n
Rule 42.
a
a
B
h
However, in numerous cases, the Court has allowedC
liberal construction of the rules when s
e
to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice. Dismissal of the appeals purely on
l
technical grounds is frowned upon. It is better to excuse a technical lapse rather b
than
owhile
dispose of a case on technicality, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases
R
actually resulting in more delay, if not miscarriage of justice. In the present case, a
n the same
dismissal on technicality would only mean a new round of litigation between
a
parties for the same cause of action, over the same subject matter. Thus, notwithstanding
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

petitioners wrong mode of appeal, the Court of Appeals should not have so easily
dismissed the petition. (BF Citiland Corp. v. Otake, G.R. No. 173351, July 29, 2010).

s
e
l

Q What is the effect of dismissal of a petition thru a minute resolution? Explain.

Ch

b
o
R
an

Answer: Although contained in a minute resolution, the dismissal of the petition is a

disposition of the merits of the case. When the court dismissed the petition, it effectively
affirmed the CA ruling being questioned. As a result, the ruling in that case has already
become final.

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties,
it constitutes res judicata. However, if other parties or another subject matter (even with
the same parties and issues) is involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent. x x
x. (Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No.
167330, September 18, 2008, 600 SCRA 413; PNB v. Lim, et al. , G.R. No. 171677, January
30, 2013, Reyes, J; Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. Valderama, G.R. No.
186614, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 299).

an

Ch

s
e
RULE
l 58
b
o

r
a
B

Preliminary injunction will not issue if damage is quantifiable not irreparable.

an
Ch

r
a
B

Q There was a controversy over the ownership of parcels of land. But during the
pendency of the same, there was a motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to recover possession alleging irreparable damage due to loss
of the fruits, etc. over the same If you were the judge, how would you rule on the
motion? Explain.

s
e
l
b
o

an

r
a
B

Answer: I would deny the motion. Granting that there is strong evidence to prove private
respondents ownership and possession of the disputed lot, still, they are not entitled to the
grant of preliminary mandatory injunction. As the damage alleged by them can be
quantified, it cannot be considered as grave and irreparable injury as understood in law.

Ch

s
e
l
Here, any damage petitioner may suffer is easily subject to mathematical computation
and,
b
if proven, is fully compensable by damages. Thus, a preliminary injunction is not
o
warranted. As previously held in Golding v. Balatbat, the writ of injunction should never
R
issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate
r
n the injuries caused. The
very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests a
in the probability of irreparable
a
B
injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, andh
the prevention of the multiplicity of
s
suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case
within
these
conditions,
the
relief
of
C
e
injunction should be refused. (Power Sites & Signs, Inc. v. United Neon, G.R. No. 163406,
l
November 24, 2009; PPA v. Cipres Stevedoring & Arrastre, Inc. , G.R. No. 145742, Julyb14,
2005).
Ro
Furthermore, they could still be fully compensated for the damages they n
may suffer by
a
simply requiring petitioners to file a bond to answer for all damages that may be suffered
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B of Court, Rule 58, Sec. 6; Heirs of Uy v. CA, et al. , G.R. No. 182371,
by such denial. (See Rules
sPeralta, J).
September 4, 2013,
e
l
b
RULE 86 CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE
o
Q R
In a case, the spouses obtained a loan secured by mortgage over their properties.
r of his estate was filed where one of the
n
Flaviano died, a petition for settlement
a
aAfter
children was appointed as administrator.
Notice to creditors was issued hence, the
B
h
notified the probatescourt of its claim. In the meantime, the administrator
C mortgagee
e by PNs. The probate court terminated the intestate
obtained several loans secured
l
proceeding due to an extrajudicial
partition of the properties of the estate; but the
b
loan remained unsatisfied.
The
creditor
extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage,
o
became the highest,
A suit to recover the
R bidder, but there was a deficiency.
deficiency wasn
filed against the estate where the court
rendered
a judgment holding
r
a
a
it liable. The decision was appealed contending that with the foreclosure of the
B the deficiency. The CA ruled that
h
mortgage,
the creditor waived the right to recover
sIs the ruling of the CA correct? Why?
C is entitled to claim the deficiency.
the creditor
e
l
b
Answer: No, because having foreclosed the mortgage, it relied on the security and waived
the right to claim the deficiency.
Ro
r
nshould be filed during the settlementaproceedings
Claims against deceased persons
of their
a
estate. (Metropolitan Bank
& Trust Company v. Absolute Management
B Corporation, G.R. No.
h
170498, January 9, 2013,
688
SCRA
225).
Section
7,
Rule
86
of
the
Rules (Section 7, Rule
s
C
e
86) provides the rule in dealing with secured claims against
l the estate when it provides
that a creditor holding a claim against the deceasedb
secured by a mortgage or other
collateral security, may abandon the security ando
his claim in the manner
R prosecute
provided in this rule, and share in the general distribution
of the assets of the estate; or he
may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon n
his security, by action in court, making r
the
a
a
executor or administrator a party defendant, and if there is a judgment for a deficiency,
B or
h
after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property pledged, in the foreclosure
s
C
other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency judgment
the
le or inother
manner provided in the preceding section; or he may rely upon hisb
mortgage
security alone, and foreclose the same at any time within the period
of the statute of
o
limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor,
and
shall receive no
R
share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate; but nothing
r
n herein contained shall
a
prohibit the executor or administrator from redeeming thea
property mortgaged or pledged,
B
h
by paying the debt for which it is held as security, under
the direction of the court, if the
s
C estate that such redemption shall bee
court shall adjudged it to be for the best interest of the
made. (Heirs of the Late Spouses Maglasang v. Manila Banking Corp. , G.R. No. 171206,
l
b
September 23, 2013).
o
R
DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED
n
a
Q Mercado was one of the accused in the anomalous situation where
officials of the
h
Department of Finance (DOF) formerly assigned at its One-Stop
C Shop Inter-Agency
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

Tax Credit & Drawback Center (DOF-One-Stop-Shop) issued Tax credit certificates to
JAM Liner for domestic capital equipment although it did not qualify. Showing
willingness to testify against the criminal syndicate, Homer Mercado applied with
the DOJ for immunity as a state witness under its witness protection program which
was granted. But inspite of the immunity he was charged before the SB by the
Ombudsman where he filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was granted, hence,
there was an Immunity Agreement subject to the condition that he would produce all
relevant documents in his possession and testify against the accused. The SB denied
the Motion of the Ombudsman to discharge him on the ground that there was no
compliance with Rule 119, Sec. 17 of the Rules of Court and held that the testimony of
Mercado is not absolutely necessary because the State has other direct evidence that
may prove the offense charged.

s
e
l

Ch

b
o
R
an

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

It was likewise contended by his co-accused who opposed the grant of immunity to
him, that the immunity that the Ombudsman gave Mercado did not bind the court,
which in the meantime already acquired jurisdiction over the case against him. That
immunity merely relieved Mercado from any further proceedings, including
preliminary investigation, which the state might still attempt to initiate against him.
Is the contention of the co-accused correct? Why?

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
Answer: No. The filing of the criminal action against an accused in court does not prevent
R power that the Congress has granted him. Section 17
the Ombudsman from exercising the
r prosecution
n
of R.A. 6770 provides that the
Ombudsman may grant immunity froma
criminal
a
to any person whose testimony
or whose possession and production
of documents or other
B
h
evidence may be necessary
s inquiry or proceeding
C to determine the truth in any hearing,
being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its authority,e
in the performance or in the
l
furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutoryb
objectives. The immunity granted
under this and the immediately preceding paragraph
shall not exempt the witness from
o
criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony
Rnor shall he be exempt from demotion
r
n
or removal from office.
a
a
B
The authority enables the Ombudsmanh
to carry out his constitutional mandate to ensure
s
accountability in the public service.C
(Quarto v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 169042, October
5, 2011,
e
l
658 SCRA 580). It gives the Ombudsman wide latitude in using an accused discharged from
b
the information to increase the chances of conviction of the other accused and attain a
o April 26, 1994, 231
higher prosecutorial goal. (Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 100295,
R
SCRA 783). Immunity statutes seek to provide a balance between
the states interests and
r
n
the individuals right against self-incrimination. To securea
his testimony without exposing
a
B
him to the risk of prosecution, the law recognizes thath
the witness can be given immunity
s
from prosecution. In such case, both interests and C
rights are satisfied. (People v. The Hon.
e
SB, et al. , G.R. No. 185729-32, June 26, 2013).
l
b
RULE 113 ARREST
Ro
n final and
Q A judgment was rendered by the MTC-Muntinlupa City which became
a
executory. A motion for execution was filed but as there was no action, the Clerk of
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

Court, Atty. Fria, was charged under Art. 231, RPC for open disobedience. The
accused filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause which was
opposed. In the meantime the RTC declared the proceedings in the MTC void for lack
of jurisdiction. Finding no probable cause, the MTC dismissed the criminal case
which was affirmed by the RTC, hence, this petition with the SC alleging grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the RTC. Will the petition prosper? Why?

s
e
l

b
o
R No. Under Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a trial court
Answer:
rcase if the evidence on record clearly fails to
n may immediately dismiss a criminal
a
ajudge
B
h
establish probable cause.
s
C
e
l dismiss a criminal case would only be warranted when
The judges power to immediately
b
the lack of probable cause is clear. In De Los Santos-Dio v. CA, G.R. Nos. 178947 and 179079,
oruled that while a judges determination of probable cause is
June 26, 2013, it was
R
generally confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest warrants, Section 5(a), Rule 112
r that a judge may immediately
n
of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states
a
a
dismiss ah
case if the evidence on record clearly fails B
to establish probable cause x x x.
s
C
e
In order not to transgress the public prosecutors
authority, the judges dismissal of a
l
case must be done only in clear-cut cases
b when the evidence on record plainly fails to
establish probable cause that iso
when the records readily show uncontroverted,
Runmistakably negate the existence of the elements
and thus, established facts which
rthat, more likely
of the crime charged. On then
contrary, if the evidence on record shows
a
a
than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent
probably guilty of
Btheisparties
h
the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order
to proceed
s
C
to trial. In doubtful cases, however, the appropriate course ofeaction would be to order the
l Miranda & Aseochi v. Atty.
presentation of additional evidence. (The Law Firm of Chavez,
b
Fria, G.R. No. 183014, August 7, 2013).
o
R
RULE 115 RIGHTSn
r
a
a OF THE ACCUSED
B &
Q Accused were charged before theh
Ombudsman with violation of the Anti-Graft
s
Corrupt Practices Act. However, C
it took the Ombudsman almost eighte(8) years to
resolve and file the same with the SB. The accused filed a Motion tolQuash, arguing
b
that their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was
violated as the
o
criminal charges were resolved only after almost eight (8) years since the
R
complaints were filed. The SB denied the Motions, hence, they filed the petition for
r
n
certiorari with the SC. Was there violation of the right of
a
athe accused? Why?
B
h
Answer: Yes. The right to speedy disposition of C
cases was violated as the preliminary s
e
investigation proceedings took a protracted amount of time to complete, causing prejudice
l
to the accused. Under the Constitution, all persons shall have the right to a speedy
b
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Ro (Sec.
16, Art. III, Constitution).
an
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends
to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as all proceedings,
either judicial or quasi-judicial. In this accord, any party to a case may demand expeditious
action to all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice. (Roquero v.
Chancellor of UP-Manila, G.R. No. 181851, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 723; Coscolluela v. SB,
et al. , G.R. No. 191411; Nacionales, et al. v. SB, et al. , G.R. No. 191871, July 15, 2013).

s
e
l

Ch

b
o
R
an

s
e
l
b
o

rPLEA
a
B

Q What are the duties of a court if an accused pleads guilty to a grave offense and
why? Explain.

Answer: The duties of the trial court when the accused pleads guilty to a grave offense are:

an

r
a
B

(1) to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of
the consequences of the plea of guilt,

s the guilt of the accused and the precise

C(2)hto require the prosecution to still prove
e
l
degree of his culpability, and
b
o
(3) to inquire whether or not
the accused wishes to present evidence in his behalf
R
and allow him to do so ifn
r
a
a he desires.
Bmore care where the
h
The rationale behind the
rule is that the courts must proceed with
s
possible punishmentC
is in its severest form, namely death (now
perpetua), for the
eThereclusion
l
reason that the execution of such a sentence is irreversible.
primordial purpose is to
bwhere grave crimes are involved
avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused
o
since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeiting his life and liberty
R
without having fully understood the meaning, significance and consequence of his plea.
r
n
(People v. Ernas, 455 Phil. 829 [2003]). a
Moreover, the requirement of taking further
a
evidence would aid the Court on appellate
review in determining the propriety
B et al.or,
h
impropriety of the plea. (People v. Pastor,
428
Phil.
976
[2002];
People
v.
Gambao,
s
C
e
G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013).
l
b
BAIL
Ro
r
Q - a. ) When is bail a matter of right; when is it a matter of
a
andiscretion?
B
b. ) A was charged with the crime of plunder h
and now under detention. As his s
C
counsel, he asked you how he could have provisional liberty. Advice your client and e
l
state your reasons.
b
Answer: a. ) Bail is a matter of right in the following cases:
Ro
1.
Before and after conviction in inferior courts;
an
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

2.
Before conviction of an offense not punishable by death reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment in the RTC; or

s
e
l

3.
Before conviction of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, death or life
imprisonment when guilt of evident is not strong.

b
o
BailR
is a matter of discretion:
an

r
a
1. Upon conviction of an offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua, death or life
B
h
imprisonment; or
s
C
e
l punishable by imprisonment exceeding 6 years to 20 years
2. Upon conviction of an offense
b
when the convictee was not among the following:
o
R
a. Recidivist, habitual
n delinquent, quasi-recidivist oraisrcharged of an offense which is
aggravated by
aresteracion;
B
h
s
C of law before arrest;
b. A fugitive
e
l of parole, or probation;
b
c. Has evaded sentence or has violated conditions
o
R
d. Other similar cases from the foregoing;
r
n
a
a
e. That accused is a fighth
risk.
B
s
C
e perpetua as the case may
b. ) I will tell A that while plunder may be punishable by reclusion
l
be, the Constitutional right to bail is still availablebto him because there is yet a
determination of whether his evidence of guilt is o
strong. I will advise the filing of an
application for bail and in order that the court may
Rdetermine by evidence to be presented
by the prosecution if there is a strong evidence
of guilt against A. the right to bail under r
the
n
a
a
Constitution cannot be denied to A unless the Court has determined that there is strong
evidence as to As guilt. Bail is intendedh
to relieve those who are entitled thereto B
from the
s
C
vigors of imprisonment and premature punishments. In fact, even if the prosecutor
equestions.refuses
l
to present evidence as to As guilt, the Court is still to conduct searching
The
b
right to bail is premised on the Constitutional right of the accuseds presumption of
innocence.
Ro
r
n and the bases for the
Q - State the requisites of the admissibility of dying declaration
a
a
B
rule as exception to the hearsay rule.
h
s
C
e
Answer: To be admitted, a dying declaration must:
l
b
a. The declarant must be at the danger of imminent death and he is conscious of such;
Ro
nthe
b. The facts and circumstances declared was within the personal knowledge of
a
declarant to which he is qualified to testify had he been alive;
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

r
a
B

c. The death of the declarant is in issue;

s
e
l

d. The declaration made was relating to the circumstances surrounding the death of the
declarant;

b
o
e. The declaration was complete; and
R
r
a
af.nThe declarant died.
B
h
is based on the truthfulnesssand the necessity to admit such declaration. Usually, the
C This
ecases involving dying declaration is unknown and the
identity of the perpetratorlin
prosecution of the death b
of the declarant would be inutile for lack of witness. This is to
o
assure efficient administration
of justice and prosecution of offenses despite absence of
R
direct evidence pursuant to public policy.
r
a
an
EVIDENCE B
h
s identified to prove entitlement to
C
e
Q At the trial pieces of evidence were
lthe court consider the same? Why?
commission, but were never offered. May
b
o
Answer: No. Rule 132, Sec. 34 of
the Rules of Court provides that the court shall not
R
consider any evidence which n
has not been formally offered. The purpose
for which the
rbecause
a
evidence is offered must bea
specified. The offer of evidence is necessary
it is the
B
hits findings of fact and its judgmentsonly and strictly upon the
duty of the court to rest
C
evidence offered by the parties. Unless and until admitted byethe court in evidence for the
purpose or purposes for which such document is offered,lthe same is merely a scrap of
paper barren of probative weight. Mere identificationbof documents and the markings
o on documents unless formally
thereof as exhibits do not confer any evidentiary weight
R
offered. (Landingin v. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 415).
r
n
a
a
The parol evidence rule forbids any addition
h to or contradiction of the terms of aBwritten
instrument by testimony or other C
evidence purporting to show that, at orsbefore the
e upon by
execution of the parties written agreement, other or different terms werelagreed
the parties, varying the purport of the written contract. When an agreement
has been
b
reduced to writing, the parties cannot be permitted to adduce evidence
to prove alleged
Roagreement.
practices which to all purposes would alter the terms of the written
Whatever
r
n
is not found in the writing is understood to have been waived and abandoned. None of the
a
a
above-cited exceptions finds application to the instant case, more particularly, the alleged
B
failure of the contract to express the true intent andh
agreement of the parties nor did s
C
Zamora raise any of the issues at the proceedings before the trial court.
e
l
b
With more reason, documentary evidence which was not formally offered cannot o
be used
to modify, explain or add to the terms of an agreement.
R
n
a
Q May a mentally retardate be qualified to testify? Explain.
h
C
e
l
b
Ro
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r
a
B

Ch

b
o
R
n Yes.
aAnswer:

r
a
B

Human experience teaches that even mentally deficient persons or

individuals having low intelligence can still narrate their ordeals in detailed manner and
recall painful experiences like any average individual could. Here, the victim notably could
not even recall feeling anything after appellant supposedly penetrated her private part.
(People v. Calango, G.R. No. 179280, August 27, 2009).

s
e
l
b
o

an

r
a
B

Q During the pendency of an action for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her
husband, she filed a motion for production of the hospital record as he underwent
hospital confinement for detoxication and rehabilitation. He opposed it arguing that
the medical records were covered by physician-patient privilege. The motion was
denied by the RTC. Imputing grave abuse of discretion of the court, she filed a special
civil action for certiorari with the CA which affirmed the lower courts order holding
that if courts were to allow the production of medical records, then patients would
be left no assurance that whatever relevant disclosures they may have made to their
physicians would be kept confidential. The prohibition covers not only testimonies,
but also affidavits, certificates, and pertinent hospital records. The CA added that,
although the husband can waive the privilege, he did not do so in this case. He
attached the Philhealth form to his answer for the limited purpose of showing his
alleged forcible confinement. Is the contention of the husband correct? Why?

Ch

s
e
l

b
o
R

an
Ch

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

Answer: Yes. The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a
physician who gets information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil
case be examined without the patients consent as to any facts which would blacken the
latters reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the
physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling
the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure.
Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all
that had transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus
putting his own health at great risk. (Josielene Lara Chan v. Johnny Chan, G.R. No. 179786,
July 24, 2013).

Ch

an

s
e
l
b
o

r
a
B

h
C

an

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o

an

h
C

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

Ro

e
l
b