REMEDIAL LAW

Recent Jurisprudence

CIVIL PROCEDURE
Payment of Filing Fees
o Sun Insurance Corp Case, 1989: whatever award is given in
excess of what was prayed foryou have to pay for the filing
fees for that; becomes a first lien on the judgment.
o La Sallete Case, 2003: the payment of docket fees is NO longer
jurisdictional, but it is MANDATORY; consider the circumstances
for the rule to be relaxed.
o Jurisdiction is not acquired but conferred by laweither BP129 or
RA7691depending on what law was enforced at the time of the
filing of the complaint.
o If you do not pay the filing fees, the court still has an option to
give the plaintiff period of time to pay the docket fees. Failure of
the plaintiff to pay within such time warrants dismissal of the
case. Same with appellate court docket fees.
o Remedy of the plaintiff when his case is dismissed because of
non-payment
MR
If MR denied, re-file complaint
When you re-file, pay the docket fees: re-file within the
prescriptive period of the action.
o Payment of filing fees is not required in COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIMS (2008 SC Circular)
Korea Technologies Case, 2009: dismissal of the case
because of non-payment of filing fees
SC Circular: payment of filing fees for compulsory
counterclaims is still suspended
o Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction: Once jurisdiction is
conferred by law at the time of the commencement of the action,
that jurisdiction remains with that court until the termination of
the case, irrespective of subsequent amendatory laws. Except
when the amendatory law provides for retroactive application.
Applies to both civil and criminal cases.

CNFS as part of the pleading

o Initiatory pleadingmust contain CNFS
o Substantial compliance rulemay not be applied to the
existence itself of CNFS; may only refer with the respect to the
contents of the CNFSthat you only filed the case before that
court
o Plaintiff is an individual personno problem with signing of CNFS

1
 o Plaintiff is a corporationcan only act through its Board of
Directors
The signatory must be specifically authorized through a
board resolution.
Cagayan Drug Valley Corp Case, 2008: officers exempt
from board resolution:
Chairman of the Board
President of the Corporation
GM or Acting Manager or Industrial Manager
Personnel Officer (HR Department)
Employment Specialist in Labor Cases

Amended Pleading
o Supersedes the pleading it amends
o What if the original pleading contain admissions? Can these
admissions be used against the pleader?
YES, under the rules, but the provisions contain the word
MAY
Hence, it must first be proved before being admitted in the
records of the case, since the admission in the original
pleading is considered extra-judicial admission.
Same with the rule that when the judicial admissions used
in case #1 will be used in case #2, these admissions would
still need proof before being admitted into the case.

Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal

o Perpetuation of testimony: preservation of known testimony from
danger of loss or destruction

Deposition on Oral Examination: it is as if the witness is on the witness

stand; notice to the adverse partyopportunity for him to cross-
examine the witness. If the adverse party, despite notice, does not
attend, then cross-examination is considered waived.

Deposition on Written Interrogatories: DWI is a mode of deposition

taking;
o Written direct, written cross, written re-direct, written re-cross
served with the person to be deposed
o Different from Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties: a separate
mode of deposition; person must give an answer within 15 days
from service of interrogatories
o As long as the witness can come to court, his previous deposition
will be set aside

2
 Request for Admission: must be served on the person on whom
admission is requested and filed with court
o Answer to request for admission is also filed in courtif the
answer to the request contains admissions and it is filed in court,
these admissions become judicial admissionsconclusively binds
the person making the admissions.
o No answer to request for admission is filed: considered implied
admissionconclusively binds the person, as if you made a
written admission

Production of Books, Papers..

o Related to Bill of Particularsa more definite statement, detailed
explanation to help respondent prepare an answer
o Production of Booksyou want to obtain copies for inspection
only.

Examination of the Defendant

o The physical and mental condition of the person must be in issue

Rule33: Demurrer to Evidence

o Ground is INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Rule17: Dismissal of the Action
o At the instance of the plaintiff (S1)
o Due to the fault of the plaintiff (S2)
o If case is dismissed due to the fault of the plaintiff, without any
qualificationadjudication on the merits
Without qualification: without prejudice; case may be
revived
o Topacio v BF Savings Bank, 2010: the order of dismissal (without
qualification) does not become final and executory when copy
thereof is not properly served on the adverse party. Hence, res
judicata cannot as yet set in/attach.

Rule 37: MR and MNT

o Neypes Doctrine: Fresh 15 day period ruleto standardize the
periods of appeals
Applies only to an order denying MR or MNT, not to any
other motions
Does not refer to the period within which to appeal the
order denying the MR or MNT (since it is unappealable) but
appeal the order of the original judgment
o File within the period to file notice of appeal15 days reckoned
from notice of judgment

3
 o When you file MR or MNT, you attack the proprietary of the
judgment
o MNT: FAME, newly discovered evidence
o MR: excessive damages, contrary to law, insufficient evidence to
support decision in law
o If no grounds for MNT or MR, go straight to appeal
o Under the present amendment (2007), Rule 41orders that are
NOT appealableorder denying MR or MNT was removed from
the list of unappealables. Is the order denying MR or MNT now
appealable? STILL UNAPPEALABLEno remedy against the order
denying MR or MNT; hence, proceed with the appeal of the
original decision, since the filing of the MR or the MNT is also
attacking the order itself, so same banana.
o Sec. 9, R37: remedy against an order against the order denying
MR or MNTWRONG TITLE but contents are correct.

Execution
o As a matter of discretion/pending appeal: has NOT yet attained
finality; must be set for hearing with notice to the adverse party;
prevailing party files for a motion for execution pending appeal
litigious motionnotice and hearing is still required. Court cannot
grant the motion without stating a good reason.
Finality of judgment for purposes of appeal: all incidents
have been resolved, hence proper for appeal
Finality of judgment for purposes of execution: no appeal
taken from the judgment
Illustration
Judgment/Decision
o P: receives the judgment on July 10; July 25 to
appeal
Files motion for execution on July 12
o R: receives the judgment on July 01; July 16 to
appeal
Files notice of appeal on July 05
o The fact that R filed his notice on appeal within
his own period, P is not precluded from filing
his own remedy within his own period. Hence,
the court can still act on the motion for
execution filed on July 12, even if appeal has
been perfected on July 05.
o If P files motion for execution on July 27, court
cannot act on the motion anymore.
o Court only loses jurisdiction on the case only
upon the perfection of appeal on both sides.
Can you stay execution of judgment? R42, S8 Par. B.

4
 Illustration: Case is under Rule on Summary
Procedure
o MTC RTC via Notice of Appeal, can you stay
execution of judgment of MTC? YES! Post
supersedeas bond, rental deposit as may be
adjudged.
o RTC affirms MTC CA via Petition for Review
R42, can you stay execution of judgment of
RTC? NO! It is immediately executory.
Illustration: Case is under regular rules
o MTC RTC via Notice of Appeal, can you stay
execution of judgment of MTC? YES! Post
supersedeas bond.
o RTC affirms MTC CA via R42, can you stay
execution of judgment of RTC? YES! Unless CA
orders otherwise

o As a matter of right: lapse of 15 days when no appeal taken,

judgment becomes final
Within a period of 5 years from finality of judgment
execution by motion
Date of finality is the date of entry
Failed to execute by motion within 5 years, the judgment
becomes dormant but you can still have the judgment
executed via an action to revive (independent action for
purposes of execution).
After the judgment has been revived, you have another 5
years within which to execute the judgment by motion. If
you still failed to execute, judgment becomes dormant
again and you can file another action for revival.
Action for revival is considered an original action, separate
from the other action.
Where to file action for revival: follow normal rules on
venue.
Aran Builders Case: originally decided by Makati RTC
(real action); real property involved is in Muntinlupa,
because theres no Muntinlupa RTC yet when case
was first filed. Action for revival should be filed in
Muntinlupa RTC, since it exists already and the case
is a real action.

o R39 S10 Par B: Removal of improvements on property subject of

executiononly upon special orderonly instance when a
special break open order is necessary. Otherwise he will be
charged with other forms of trespass.

5
 o Summary Procedure
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer: NO NEED for special
break open order. Because the writ of execution has
already the nature to evictimmediate possession of real
property.

Third Party Claim: in the course of the execution of the judgment

o R39 Execution: vindicate claim in a separate action; cannot
intervene anymore because judgment is final already. Execution
na nga eh.
o R57 Preliminary Attachment/R60 Replevin (ProvRem)
Same action: motion for intervention R19, since no
judgment yet, you can intervene anytime before judgment
is rendered
Separate action

Rule 45
o May include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or
other provisional remedies via a verified motion filed in the same
action or proceeding

Rule 65
o SC may still receive petitions for certiorari but the petitioner
must observe judicial hierarchy first.
o As long as theres no TRO or Preliminary Injunction issued
through petition for certiorari, proceedings will still have to
proceed
No more Eternal Gardens Case: judicial courtesyno
longer controlling
To stop proceedings, you have to file for and secure TRO or
preliminary injunction together with your petition for
certiorari
o 10 days from filing absent any TRO or preliminary injunction, the
judge has the proceed

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses
o Starts with the institution/filing of the complaint with the fiscals
office
o For purposes of a preliminary investigation, in order to determine
probable cause to indict
o In the last paragraph of Sec. 1: embodies doctrine laid down in
Zaldivia v Reyes (1992)interruption of period of prescription of

6
 the offense chargedupon filing of the complaint before the
fiscals office, including light offenses
o Qualifying and aggravating circumstances: to be appreciated in
the determination of imposable penalty and award of damages,
these circumstances must be both alleged in the information
and proved during the trial
Exception re: award of exemplary damages: Pp v Dalisay,
2009qualifying and aggravating circumstances were NOT
alleged but PROVED Court still granted exemplary
damages, in the light of the nature of the conduct of the
accused at the time of the commission of the offense
(heinous, odious, hateful, despicable)Super bad siya.
Ang bad bad niya.
o Probable cause to indict: to determine whether a crime has been
committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION: only the fiscal who can determine
probable cause to indict
vs. Probable cause to issue warrant of arrest: information
has already been filed in court, to determine whether
accused should be held JUDICIAL FUNCTION: only the
judge who can determine probable cause to issue warrant
of arrest
Allado v Diokno, 2004: Judge should have independent
evaluation, and not rely on the evaluation of the fiscal, in
determining probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.
BUT THIS IS ONLY EXCEPTIONAL.
Pp v Castillo, 2009: If the judge finds, upon a thorough
and independent evaluation of evidence, no probable
cause to issue warrant of arrest, judge can dismiss the
case but without prejudice. Judge cannot substitute his
evaluation (probable cause to issue warrant of arrest) with
that of the fiscal (probable cause to indict accused).
Leviste v Almeda, 2010: Once information is filed with
court, it is the obligation of the court to determine probable
cause to issue a warrant of arrest. Court does not need a
motion to determine probable cause, because that is its
obligation (Crespo Ruling, reiterated in Serezo Case).
DOJ Secretary cannot order judge to dismiss the case,
when the DOJ Secretary finds no probable cause to indict.
The most s/he can do is to order the trial prosecutor to file
a motion to withdraw, subject to courts discretion.

Rule 112
o On appeal, the prosecutor does not handle the case anymore. It
is the SolGen who will represent the people on appeal.

7
 Rule 114: Bail
o Security given for the release of the person in the custody of the
law
o Condition for grant of bail: arraignment of the accused CANNOT
and SHOULD NOT BE DONE, because it would be unfair,
especially if the accused is charged with a bailable offense.
If accused jumps bails before arraignment, the case will be
sent to the archives. Court needs to issue another warrant
of arrest in order to obtain jurisdiction over the person of
the accused again. But it did not lose jurisdiction of the
case.
Courts ask this as a condition for grant of bail, so that it
can proceed with trial in absentia in case accused jumps
bail.
Lavides v CA: It would place the accused in a position
where he has to choose
Motion to quash and thus delay the release on bail
Arraignment at once and thereafter be released on
bail
As long as the accused has been charged with a bailable
offense, the accused has the right to post bail
o Where to file bail:
1. Either in the court where case is pending, or in case of
absence of judge where the case is pending, with the RTC,
METC, MTC; or
2. Where he is arrested in a place different from where case is
pending (with RTC of said place; if no RTC, with METC or
MTC)
o Right to bail after conviction: After conviction, presumption of
innocence terminates and the constitutional right to bail ends.
From there on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion.
Hence, bail becomes a matter of discretion upon the court after
conviction.
o Bail negating circumstances: application for bail is denied
Recidivist, Quasi-Recidivist, Habitual Delinquent,
Committed Offense with Reiteracion/Habituality
Escaped from penal establishment
Evaded service of sentence
Violation of conditional pardon, probation, parole
Flight risk
Undue risk that he will commit another crime when
released on bail

8
 o None of these bail negating circumstances are present: Court
should NOT automatically grant bail because it is still subject to
courts discretion to grant/deny bail after conviction.
o RA 9344: Juvenile Justice Act: for purposes of determining the
amount of bail to be given to a child committed with
discernment; consider circumstances so that the amount can be
lowered

Pre-Trial Conference
o To limit the issues, propose facts for stipulations/admissions
o If the matter has already been stipulated/admitted, you dont
litigate anymore
o If both parties failed to agree, they cannot ask the court to
forego pre-trial conference, because it is still mandatory!
o Parties come to an agreement for expediting the resolution of the
case
Judicial affidavit to be used as direct testimony must be
jointly agreed upon
One-day examination of the witness rule: if both parties
agree, they cannot defer cross-examination to a later date
Material witness rule

Speedy Trial Act

o Trial to be completed within 180 days from first day of trial
o Exceptions
Criminal cases under Summary Procedure
RA4908: Person about the depart from the Philippines,
without definite date of return
RA7610: Child abuse cases, except election cases and
habeas corpus cases
Dangerous Drugs Law
Kidnapping
Robbery in Band
Robbery against Bank or Financial Institution
Carnapping or other heinous crimes
Trial is continuous (mandatory) for 60 days, judgment to be
rendered within 30 days from submission for decision
o Remedy against denial of right of accused to speedy trial
MOTION TO DISMISS
Dimissal amounts to, is tantamount to, operates as
acquittal DOUBLE JEOPARDY sets in
Where fiscal secures postponement of the trial without
good cause beyond reasonable length of time with

9
 objection of the accused MANDAMUS to compel dismissal
of the information; HABEAS CORPUS if accused is detained

Rule 111: Prosecution of Civil Action

o Implied institution of civil with criminal NOT every civil action
is impliedly instituted with the criminal action
Only the civil action based on or flowing from the crime
subject of the action will be impliedly instituted with the
criminal action. Nexus/connection should be established.
Unless there is waiver, reservation or prior institution
EXCEPTION to the IMPLIED INSTITUTION
Pp v Bayotas: Accused dies during the pendency of the
action.
Was his criminal liability extinguished? YES, because
he dies before judgment.
Was his civil liability extinguished? Only the civil
liability extinguished if he died before judgment is
the civil liability arising from the crime committed
(nexus/connection). If its based elsewhere, it can be
prosecuted separately.
Pp v Binay, 2010: The death of the accused likewise
extinguishes the civil liability that is based exclusively on
the crime for which the accused was convicted, because no
final judgment has been rendered at the time of his death.
o Prejudicial Question: previously instituted civil action (ahead of
the criminal action) is determinative whether the criminal action
can proceed;
Resolve civil action first, before attending the criminal
action;
Prejudicial Question is exception to the preference of the
criminal action over civil action.
Tenebro Doctrine: first marriage is subsisting;
subsequent marriage.
Action for declaration of nullity of second marriage
on the ground of psychological incapacity
Bigamy filed by first wife.
Is there prejudicial question? NO, because as long as
the first marriage is subsisting and you contracted a
second marriage without judicial declaration of nullity
of the first marriage, bigamy has already been
consummated.

Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Cases

10
 o Order denying leave of court for demurrer to evidence and
motion for demurrer to evidence itself is denied NOT
APPEALABLE, present your evidence already
o No leave of court, or denied leave of court, to file demurrer of
evidence and motion for demurrer to evidence is denied no
right to present evidence
o Demurrer to evidence = nature of a motion to dismiss = acquittal
NOT APPEALABLE
o Reversal of order/judgment of acquittal Rule 65, Certiorari

Neypes Doctrine in Criminal Cases

o Yu v Samson-Tatad, 2011: Neypes ruling is applicable in
criminal cases, where law does not distinguish, you should not
distinguish

Double Jeopardy
o Jason Ivler Case, 2010: Reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property. Reckless imprudence resulting
in physical injuries.
Both information resulted from same act
Homicide and damage to property was first filed, than
physical injuries.
Why split? Art. 48one act producing 2 or more grave or
less grave felonies. But since both crimes charged were
light offenses only, the information was split.
Physical injuries: pleaded guilty No imprisonment,
convicted.
Homicide and damage to property Moved to quash
because it would result in double jeopardy
Art. 48 (what is penalized is the act) is NOT applicable to
criminal negligence (Art. 365) what is penalized is NOT
the act but the mental attitude behind the act
Double jeopardy already attached, hence he cannot be
prosecuted in the second case (reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and damage to property)

EVIDENCE
o Judicial Notice
o Mandatory Judicial Notice: MEMORIZE THESE
o Discretionary Judicial Notice
Notoriety: matter of common or public knowledge, well and
authoritatively settled, and within the jurisdiction of the
court that takes judicial notice of it
o Res inter alios acta rule

11
 o Applies only in extra judicial admissions/confessions
o Comiling Case: confession in open court; res inter alios acta
rule was invoked Court said it cannot be invoked
o Electronic Evidence
o Ang v CA, 2010: MMS received with a scandalous picture of the
woman
Boyfriend was charged with VAWC
Electronic evidence = it should still be authenticated
SC: You are prosecuted for VAWC (criminal action);
Electronic evidence is only applicable to civil cases,
administrative cases and quasi-judicial cases
o Ho Wai Ting Case, 2011: extra judicial confession inadmissible
because he was tortured into signing the confession and hence, a
violation of his Miranda rights
o SC: only the extra judicial confession is INADMISSIBLE. But with
respect to other pieces of evidence obtained during custodial
interrogation, these will not be affected by the inadmissibility of
the confession, as long as they are relevant and competent;
hence, admissible.
o Any evidence to be admissible, it must be both relevant and
competent
o Best Evidence Rule: applies when the subject of the inquiry pertains
to the contents of the document, hence the original should be
presented
o Subject of the inquiry pertains to the contents of the document
and the witness is presented with a photocopy of the document,
should the original be presented/the best evidence rule be
invoked? YES!
o Subject of the inquiry pertains to the contents of the document
and the witness is presented with the original document, should
the best evidence rule be invoked? NOT ANYMORE.

END

12