You are on page 1of 46

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
s
Pointers in Remedial Law

l e 2016 BAR EXAMS

o b By:

R PART I: The Velasco Cases

n a r
PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY (Mendoza et al., v. Villas, et al)

B
s
Question: X filed a Petition with the Supreme Court but failed to cite the particular rule upon

e
which the petition was based. What are the corresponding effects if the petition will be treated as

l
one filed under Rule 65 or one filed under Rule 45?

o b
Answer: If the petition is to be treated as a petition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the
petition must be dismissed outright for having been filed prematurely. The principle of hierarchy

R
of courts should be applied. Verily, a direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original

an r
jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and

a
important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. On the other

B
h
hand, direct recourse to this Court has been allowed for petitions filed under Rule 45 when

C s
only questions of law are raised. Thus, the Court ruled in Barcenas v. Tomas that Section 1 of

e
Rule 45 clearly states that the following may be appealed to the Supreme Court through a

l
petition for review by certiorari: 1) judgments; 2) final orders; or 3) resolutions of the Court

b
of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or similar courts, whenever

o
authorized by law. The appeal must involve only questions of law, not of fact. In this case, the

R
Court exercised liberality and considered the instant petition as one filed under Rule 45. In
Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowners Association, Inc., citing Republic v.

an r
Court of Appeals, the Court noted that with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in

a
the interest of justice, it has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed

B
Ch
under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE OR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY
e s
(Rombe Eximtrade vs. Spouses Peralta)

b l
o
Question: X Corporation filed a Petition for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of

R
Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan with the RTC (RTC A) which then
issued a stay order in X Corporation's favor. Thereafter, RTC A dismissed the petition for

an r
rehabilitation of X Corporation because of misrepresentations about its financial status in its
petition. On the other hand, respondent Z Corporation initiated a foreclosure proceeding against

B a
C h
X Corporation's properties. However, Z Corporation was prevented by the issuance of TRO and
injunction issued by another RTC (RTC B) filed by X Corporation Did RTC B interfere with the
s
jurisdiction of RTC A in issuing the TRO and injunction?

l e
o b
Answer: No. The rehabilitation case is distinct and dissimilar from the annulment of
foreclosure case, in that the first case is a special proceeding while the second is a civil

R
action. xxx Indeed, the two cases are different with respect to their nature, purpose, and the

n
reliefs sought such that the injunctive writ issued in the annulment of foreclosure case did

a
not interfere with the rehabilitation case. The purpose of the rehabilitation case and the reliefs
prayed for by Rombe are the suspension of payments because it "foresees the impossibility of

C h
meeting its debts when they respectively fall due," and the approval of its proposed rehabilitation
plan. The objective and the reliefs sought by Rombe in the annulment of foreclosure case are,
s
among others, to annul the unilateral increase in the interest rate and to cancel the auction of the
mortgaged properties.
l e
MEANING OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER (Cojuangco, Jr. v.
o b
R
Republic)

an
Question: May subject matter jurisdiction be conferred by the acquiescence of the parties?

C h
Answer: No. Jurisdiction over a subject matter is conferred by law, not by the consent or
acquiescence of any or all of the parties. In turn, the issue on whether a suit comes within the

1|Page

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

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
penumbra of a statutory conferment is determined by the allegations in the complaint, regardless

B
of whether or not the suitor will be entitled to recover upon all or part of the claims asserted.

s
JURISDICTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY (Baltazar vs. Ombudsman)

e
b l
Question: X was hired by Y to serve as a fishpond watchman over Y's 7-hectare fishpond.
However, X's salaries and 10% share in the harvest as agreed upon by them remained unpaid. X

R o then filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) a Complaint for
Maintenance of Peaceful Possession, Collection of Sum of Money and Supervision of Harvest,

n r
alleging that he is an agricultural tenant in possession of the fishpond and is about to be ejected

a
from it. The case was assigned to a Provincial Adjudicator of DARAB. Y contends that the issue

B
does not present an agrarian dispute; that X is not an agricultural tenant as alleged, but is a
watchman and therefore, the case is outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian

s
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Should DARAB take cognizance of the case?

e
b l
Answer: Yes. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint. The nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the

R o
complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the defenses asserted in the answer
or motion to dismiss. Given that X's complaint and its attachment clearly spells out the

an r
jurisdictional allegations that he is an agricultural tenant in possession of the fishpond and is

a
about to be ejected from it, clearly, the Provincial Adjudicator could not be faulted in assuming

h B
jurisdiction as said allegations characterize an agricultural dispute. Besides, whatever defense

s
asserted in an answer or motion to dismiss is not to be considered in resolving the issue on

C e
jurisdiction as it cannot be made dependent upon the allegations of the defendant.

b l
DOCTRINE OF ADHERENCE OF JURISDICTION (People v. Court of Appeals)

R o
Question: X was the accused in a criminal case for violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705 (Cutting,
gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license; Forestry Reform Code), as

an r
amended by EO 277 filed before the RTC. The offense is punished with the penalty of prisiόn

a
correccional in its medium and maximum period, if the value of the thing stolen is more than

B
Ch
6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.”

e s
During the proceedings, Republic Act 7691, a law expanding the jurisdiction of the MTCs to

l
include criminal cases punishable by not more than 6 years of imprisonment, took effect. X was

b
convicted by the RTC. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA granted X's appeal and dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. Is the CA correct?

R o
Answer: No. As a general rule, the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be

an r
determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Where a court has

a
already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a controversy, its jurisdiction to proceed to

h B
the final determination of the cause is not affected by new legislation placing jurisdiction over

s
such proceedings in another tribunal. The exception to the rule is where the statute expressly

C e
provides, or is construed to the effect that it is intended to operate as to actions pending

l
before its enactment. Where a statute changing the jurisdiction of a court has no retroactive

b
effect, it cannot be applied to a case that was pending prior to the enactment of a statute. Where

o
a court acquired jurisdiction over an action, its jurisdiction continues to the final
conclusion of the case. Such jurisdiction is not affected by new legislation placing

R
jurisdiction over such dispute in another court or tribunal unless the statute provides for
retroactivity.

a n
h
JURISDICTION OF COURTS (PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY)

SUPREME COURT (Star Electric Corp vs. R&G Construction)
C e s
Question: In what instances may the Supreme Court resolve not only questions of law but
questions of fact as well?
bl
R
Answer: It is an established rule that in the exercise of its power of review under Rule 45, the o
an
Supreme Court only resolves questions of law and not questions of facts. However, this rule is
not absolute. Jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be

h
resolved by the Supreme Court, such as: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,

C
absurd or impossible; (3) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (4)
2|Page

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

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
when the findings of facts are conflicting; (5) when in making its findings the Court of

B
Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of
both the appellant and the appellee; (6) when the findings are contrary to the trial court;

e s
(7) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs

l
are not disputed by the respondent; (8) when the findings of fact are premised on the

b
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (9) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties,

R o which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

n r
REVIEW OF FACTUAL FINDINGS (Estate of the late vda. De Panlilio v. Dizon)

B a
Question: May the Supreme Court review the factual findings of the PARAD, DARAB and the
CA?

e s
l
Answer: No. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and is not tasked to calibrate and

b
assess the probative weight of evidence adduced by the parties during trial all over again.
However, in rare occasions, exceptions are allowed. One exception is when there are competing

R o
factual findings by the different triers of fact, such as those made by the quasi-agencies on the
one hand and the CA on the other, this Court is compelled to go over the records of the case, as

an r
well as the submissions of the parties, and resolve the factual issues.

B a
ANNULMENT OF FINDINGS IN AN ARBITRATION CASE (Please read very carefully)

C h
COURT OF APPEALS (Diesel Construction v. UPSI)
s
l e
Question: May the Court of Appeals annul the findings of a highly specialized agency such as

b
the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC)?

o
R
Answer: Yes. The CA was correct in holding that it may validly review and even overturn such

an r
conclusion of the facts by the CIAC when the matter IS NOT adequately supported by

a
substantial evidence duly adduced on record comes to the fore and is raised as an issue.

B
Ch
In context, what the appellate court said is that the said members do not really enjoy a special

e s
advantage over the members of the CA in terms of fleshing out the facts from the evidence
on record. The fact remains that the CA stands justified in reviewing the CIAC decision.

JURIDICTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN OVER SHARES OF STOCKS OF A
b l
SEQUESTERED PRIVATE COMPANY (Cuenca v. PCGG)

R o
Question: UHC shares were sequestered by the PCGG for being the alleged ill-gotten wealth of

an a r
former President Marcos and Cuenca. A civil case was filed with the RTC involving the
performance of contractual obligations relative to the said UHC shares, particularly, the transfer

h
of stock and subscription rights thereof. Does the RTC have jurisdiction to decide the case?
B
C
Answer: None. Under EO 14, Section 2: The Presidential Commission on Good Government
e s
exclusive and original jurisdiction thereof.”
b l
shall file all such cases, whether civil or criminal, with the Sandiganbayan, which shall have

R o
Thus, it is clear that it is the Sandiganbayan and not the Makati City RTC that has

n
jurisdiction over the disputed UHC and PNCC shares, being the alleged ill-gotten wealth of

a
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and petitioner Cuenca. The benchmark is whether
said UHC shares are alleged to be ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their perceived cronies.

C h
More importantly, the interests of orderly administration of justice dictate that all incidents
affecting the UHC shares and PCGG’s right of supervision or control over the UHC must be
s
addressed to and resolved by the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, the law and courts frown upon split

l e
b
jurisdiction and the resultant multiplicity of suits, which result in much lost time, wasted
effort, more expenses, and irreparable injury to the public interest.

JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OVER MATTERS INCAPABLE OF
R o
an
PECUNIARY ESTIMATION (Surviving heirs of Alfredo Bautista v. Lindo, et al)

Question: Is a complaint to redeem a land subject of a free patent a civil action incapable of
pecuniary estimation, hence within the jurisdiction of the RTC?

C h
3|Page

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

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
Answer: Yes. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable

B
of pecuniary estimation, the Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the

e s
claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the

l
municipal courts or in the RTCs would depend on the amount of the claim. But where the

b
basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim
is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, the Court has considered

R o such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money,
and, hence, are incapable of pecuniary estimation. These cases are cognizable exclusively by

n r
RTCs. The instant cause of action to redeem the land is one for specific performance. It is clear

a
that his action is for specific performance, or if not strictly such action, then it is akin or

B
analogous to one of specific performance. Such being the case, his action for specific

s
performance is incapable of pecuniary estimation and cognizable by the RTC. Having fully

e
participated in all stages of the case, and even invoking the RTC’s authority by asking for

l
affirmative reliefs, respondents can no longer assail the jurisdiction of the said trial court. Simply

b
put, considering the extent of their participation in the case, they are, as they should be,

o
considered estopped from raising lack of jurisdiction as a ground for the dismissal of the action.

R
JURISDICTION OF SHARI'A COURTS IN AN ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE

an r
(Tomawis v. Balindong)

B a
h
Question: Private respondents filed with the Sharia District Court (SDC) an action for quieting

s
of title of a parcel of land against Tomawis who argued that SDC does not have jurisdiction over

C e
the case. The respondent judge asserted that SDC has original jurisdiction over the case,

l
concurrently with the RTC by force of Article 143, paragraph 2(b) of Presidential Decree No.

b
(PD) 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. Is the judge correct?

R o
Answer: Yes. The allegations, as well as the relief sought by private respondents, the elimination
of the cloud of doubts on the title of ownership on the subject land, are within the SDCs

an r
jurisdiction to grant. We have held that a general law and a special law on the same subject

a
are statutes in pari materia and should be read together and harmonized, if possible, with a

B
Ch
view to giving effect to both. In the instant case, we apply the principle generalia specialibus

s
non derogant. A general law does not nullify a special law. The general law will yield to the

e
special law in the specific and particular subject embraced in the latter. BP 129 and PD 1083

b l
must be construed together, then by taking PD 1083 as an exception to the general law to
reconcile the two laws. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the court below cannot be made to

o
depend upon defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss, or in a motion for

R
reconsideration, but only upon the allegations of the complaint

an r
CIVIL PROCEDURE

B a
h
CAUSE OF ACTION; MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION (St. Michael School v. Masaito

C s
Development Corp) (Please read carefully)

l
Question: What are the requirements to establish a cause of action in an easement complaint
e
b
under Article 649 (Easement of Right of Way) of the Civil Code?

R o
Answer: For a complaint to state a cause of action in an easement case, more specifically, Art.
649 of the Civil Code has laid down the following requirements: (1) the dominant estate is

a n
surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) there
is payment of proper indemnity; and (3) the isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor

h
of the dominant estate. The Complaint, first, asserts that petitioners have a right to an easement

C s
of right-of-way that cuts across respondents’ property; second, it refers to respondents’

e
correlative obligation not to fence off and close the single gate which is used as the only entry
and exit points of the school population; and third, it refers to respondents’ expansion and
excessive terms and conditions, constituting the acts violating petitioners’ right. Hence, the
bl
o
Complaint’s material allegations are enough to entitle petitioners to a favorable judgment if these

R
are assumed to be true.

an
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (Vitangcol v. New Vista Properties)

h
Question: Is a lack of cause of action a ground for dismissal under Rule 16?

4|Page
C

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

The Executive Secretary exempted the property from CARL coverage. When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action. JURISDICTION OF CIAC IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS – LEGAL STANDING l e b OF A TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE (Please read carefully) (Heritage Park o Management v. and is therefore a stranger to the consortium agreement. a distinct corporation. b PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS: LEGAL STANDING AND CAPACITY TO SUE (Samahang Magsasaka v. Is the CA correct? o b Answer: Yes. Later. and the other members of the consortium. X Corporation filed a complaint against the other corporations to receive what it alleged to be its share in the project. It has three elements: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff. who are not approved awardees of CARP. Z a applied for exemption from the coverage of CARL alleging that the property is above 18% slope h B and unfit for cultivation. The Supreme Court stood by its ruling in Fortich v. A cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a h B right of another. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. are based on the consortium agreement. What is dismissible via that mode is s failure of the complaint to state a cause of action. Does X Corporation have a cause of action against MIAA? an a r Answer: None. MIAA is not privy s of. are not real parties-in-interest for a being mere recommendees. Inc. or granted CLOAs. According to Sec. a e l defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts b contained in the plaintiff’s complaint. BF Corp has no right of action against MIAA for the following reasons: b l (1) There is no contractual relation between MIAA and BF Corp. an a r (2) The reliefs prayed for by BF Corp. for the determination of a lack of cause of action can only be made during and/or after trial. CIAC) Question: Public Estates Authority (PEA) was designated to develop the Heritage Park in R an Taguig. In the case at bar. (2) a duty s on the part of the defendant to respect the right of the plaintiff. in violation of Section 6-D of CARL. MIAA recognized MTOB Consortium as a corporation with a distinct personality from its component corporations. a ruling thereon should. The rule is that in a motion to dismiss. The Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) awarded the contract to MTOB b Consortium. If BF Corp.) a (BF Corp v. X filed a Complaint with the CIAC seeking to 5|Page www. its recourse is against MTOB Consortium. the members of MTOB had serious business differences. which is a B Ch contract among BF Corp. that it is not an actual grantee of the land but mere l qualified beneficiary. a real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled R to the reliefs of the suit. actually C s awarded lands.chanroblesbar.com. n r DEFINITION OF CAUSE OF ACTION (Basic information that you need to remember. the contract period was extended and among the h causes of delay was PEA’s inability to deliver to X some 45 hectares of the property due to the C presence of squatters and a public cemetery. Lack of cause of action is not a ground for a dismissal of the complaint through a B motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.ph . and (3) a breach of the C e defendant’s duty. a r Answer: No. wants its share in e the consortium.com : www. R o From the start. as the contractor. 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Y Corporation and two other corporations formed the MTOB s Consortium. for purposes of bidding for the construction of the NAIA II e l Project. Corona that n farmer-beneficiaries. MIAA) B Question: X Corporation. members of petitioner Samahan are mere h qualified beneficiaries of CARP but they have not yet been approved as awardees. s The case subsequently reached the CA where it ruled that the association is not a real party-in- C e interest and has no legal standing to sue. Mosquera) l R o Question: An association of farmer-beneficiaries filed a case against Z alleging that the land an r they tilled was sold to Z without a DAR clearance. not MIAA. The agreement over the NAIA Terminal II Project was between MIAA and MTOB Consortium. as rule. R o X Corporation likewise filed a complaint against MIAA to enjoin it from directly paying Y corp. be based only on the facts alleged in the R o complaint. PEA entered into an agreement with X where X undertook to perform all landscaping works on the Heritage Park.chanroblesbar. Due to delays.

it would be the height of injustice to allow R o parties that disagree with the decision of a judicial tribunal to annul the same through the expedient of transferring their interests or rights involved in the case.com : www. 1. the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. C e s l COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM (Metrobank v. PEA executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of Heritage which then B filed a petition for prohibition/injunction with TRO against the CIAC and X. ULTIMATE FACTS IN PLEADINGS B e s l COMPLAINT (Locsin.chanroblesbar.com. Is the CA correct? s Answer: No.” Ultimate facts mean the important and substantial facts which C h either directly form the basis of the plaintiffs primary right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. (b) it does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. a remand of the case for further reception of evidence would unduly prolong h B the proceedings of the instant case and render inutile the proceedings conducted before the lower courts. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. For failure to pay despite demands. Inc. Metrobank alleged that there remained a deficiency balance plus n other charges as agreed in the REM. Thus. A counterclaim is l e b compulsory if: (a) it arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. Is X correct? e s Answer: No. X failed to file an Answer. A plaintiff should not be made to suffer for the respondent’s failure to file an b l answer and concomitantly. Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides: “Every pleading shall contain in a an r methodical and logical form. the bank an r eventually won the case after judgment was rendered in accordance with the Rule on Summary a Procedure. the CIAC lost its s jurisdiction. The CA however reversed the decision and ordered Metrobank to refund an amount representing an alleged remainder in the proceeds of the C h foreclosed property. the CA modified the amount due. Metrobank filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. a and is bound by the proceedings had in the case before the property was transferred to it. It is evident that a claim for recovery of the h excess in the bid price vis-à-vis the amount due should be interposed as a compulsory counterclaim in an action for recovery of a deficiency filed by the mortgagee against the debtor- C mortgagor. Sandiganbayan) b Question: What are “ultimate facts” under Section 1 of Rule 8? o R Answer: Sec. which X alleged in his appeal brief before the CA. For failure to pay the charges and balance under his credit R card.ph . except that in an original action before the RTC. Respondents belatedly raised their compulsory counterclaim. Thus. Thus. BPI) o b Question: X is a credit card holder. et al vs. For failure to pay the deficiency. R Notwithstanding foreclosure. Certainly. X filed with the SC B a petition asking for the dismissal of the case or its remand to the lower court for a more Ch appropriate disposition. a dismissal of the case would cause great injustice to respondent a BPI. omitting the statement of B mere evidentiary facts. and (c) the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to its amount R o an and nature. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. claiming that when PEA transferred its rights and obligations over the project to Heritage Park. the bank initiated a complaint against X. Similarly. CPR Promotions) o b Question: X obtained a loan from Metrobank secured by a real estate mortgage.chanroblesbar. The RTC ruled in Metrobank's favor. Metrobank filed a a collection suit. A transferee pendente lite n r stands in exactly the same position as its predecessor-in-interest. the summons R o and a copy of the complaint were served upon petitioner Macalinao and her husband failed to file their Answer despite service of summons. in both cases. Based on the records. the original defendant. When the case reached the CA. a plain. s l e EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER (Macalinao v. as the case may be. First. a r collect from PEA damages. substantially the same evidence is needed in order to prove their 6|Page www. concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which a the party pleading relies for his claim or defense. to allow the latter to submit additional evidence by dismissing or remanding the case for further reception of evidence. Is Heritage correct? e b l Answer: No. respondent BPI moved that judgment be an r rendered accordingly.

(3) it must have been rendered by a court b having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. and (5) an Employment Specialist in a labor case. and (c) identity with respect to the two (2) preceding particulars in the two (2) cases is such that any 7|Page www. (4) n Personnel Officer. R (2) the President of a corporation. all substantially founded on the B same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances. or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions. (2) the e l judgment or order must be one on the merits. R o RES JUDICATA (Clark Development v.” LITIS PENDENCIA (Subic Telecom v. Atas) an a r Question: X was the incorporator and President of ABC Corporation which was granted a B franchise to construct the toll facilities of North Luzon/South Luzon Expressways.com. and (4) between the first and second actions. judicially acted upon or decided. adjudication in favor of one will necessarily bar the other since these B two actions are absolutely incompatible with each other. simultaneously or successively. the relief being founded on the same facts. CIR) C e Question: Which officials and employees of a company may validly sign the Verification and s l Certification of Non-Forum Shopping even without a board resolution? o b Answer: The following officials or employees of the company can sign the verification and certification without need of a board resolution: (1) the Chairperson of the Board of Directors. a debt cannot be fully paid and partially unpaid at the same time. It degrades the administration of justice and adds to b the already congested court dockets. it would e l definitely entail a substantial and needless duplication of effort and time by the parties and the b court." Forum e s shopping is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with l the courts and abuses their processes. there must be identity of parties. X filed with the Securities and Exchange b Commission (SEC) a case to determine whether the GFIs are stockholders of ABC Corporation and their respective number of shares. Inc. And finally. Third. if these two claims were to be the subject of separate trials. or s settled by judgment. Did X commit forum shopping? R an r Answer: Yes. an a r VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING (Cagayan h B Valley Drug Corp. subject matter.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar. A close perusal of both the Amended Complaint in SEC and the Amended Complaint in Civil Case shows that both cases are derived from the same R o factual issues involving substantially the same parties. yet it can be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of action. R o FORUM SHOPPING (Cuenca v. Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure C h The rationale applied in the foregoing is to justify the authority of corporate officers or s e representatives of the corporation to sign the verification or certificate against forum shopping. Its requisites are: (1) the former judgment or order must be final. This complies with Sections a 4 and 5. There is forum shopping "when a party repetitively avails of several judicial a remedies in different courts. (b) C h identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. (3) the General Manager or Acting General Manager. and the same evidence. Then President Marcos issued a Letter of Instruction directing the creditor l e GFIs to convert into ABCs shares of stock. X likewise filed a civil case for the enforcement and o compliance of the said Letter of Instruction. a r respective claim. these two opposing claims arose from the same set of s transactions. SBMA) o b Question: What factors will indicate that there exists litis pendencia? R an Answer: For litis pendentia to exist. l being "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. and all raising substantially the Ch same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court. the same transaction. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. the following requisites or elements must concur: (a) identity of parties. In the course C h of its operations.ph . Mondragon) n a r Question: What are the requisites of res judicata? B Answer: Res judicata means a matter or thing adjudged. for said actions would involve the same parties. v. Although the actions seem to be different. and causes of action. Second. ABC incurred credit obligations from various Government Financial s Institutions (GFIs).

regardless of which party is successful. A party may amend his B a C h pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. X corp. Inc. and (3) l e b Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at defendant’s house or residence. NOT A RESPONSIVE PLEADING (Marcos-Araneta v. (3) reliefs n r founded on the same facts and the same basis. B would amount to res judicata in the other case s ELEMENTS OF LITIS PENDENCIA (Forbes Park Assoc v. A motion to dismiss l e is not a responsive pleading. the third requirement was also not strictly complied with as the substituted service was made not at petitioner’s house or residence but in the PNP Detention Center where 8|Page www. where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document. According the Sec.chanroblesbar. Gen.ph . a Ch Reply specifically denying it under oath must be made. X Corporation failed to pay PhilBank which promoted the latter to file a collection an r case. Responsive s pleadings are those which seek affirmative relief and/or set up defenses. Rule 8. a r judgment that may be rendered in the pending case. Pagrel. answered that the complaint stated no cause of action because the parties executed a a Dacion en Pago with the intention of extinguishing X Corporation's obligations. the genuineness and due execution of the document will be deemed admitted e s b l MOTION TO DISMISS. (2) Specific details in the return. and (4) identity of the two preceding a particulars should be such that any judgment. Garcia did not comply with the first two (2) requirements mentioned above for a valid substituted service of C h summons. Sandiganbayan) (PLEASE COMMIT R o n TO MEMORY) a Question: What are the requirements for a valid substituted service of summons? C h Answer: The following are the requirements for substituted service of summons to be valid: (1) s Impossibility of prompt personal service. It is more controlling than Rule 6.ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING (Casent Realty v. 2 Rule 4 indicates quite clearly that when there b is more than one plaintiff in a personal action case. 2 Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. According to Sec. it is apparent that no valid substituted service of summons was made on petitioner and her children. the residences of the principal parties should be the basis for determining proper venue. Moreover. PhilBanking Corp) b l o Question: PhilBank was the assignee of two promissory notes issued by X Corporation. Thus. SUMMONS: SUBSTITUTED SERVICE (Garcia v. PhilBank did not file any Reply. Is X corporation correct? l e o b Answer: Yes. B will. as the service made through Maj. R o an From the foregoing requisites. regardless of which party is successful. amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. e s DENIAL UNDER OATH . claims that the failure to C h file a Reply to the Answer which raised the defense of Dacion en Pago constituted an admission s of the genuineness and execution of the documents such as the Confirmation Statement. which may be rendered in the other action. (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for.com. otherwise. Court of Appeals) R o Question: Is a Motion to Dismiss a responsive pleading the filing of which will preclude the an r amendment of the Complaint? Answer: No. Upon R due date.com : www. Section 10 which merely provides the effect of a failure to file a Reply which is all the new matters alleged in the Answer were deemed B controverted.chanroblesbar. or on a competent person in charge of defendant’s office or regular place of business. as evidenced B by a Confirmation Statement. Inc.) e l Question: What are the elements of litis pendentia? b o Answer: The essential elements of litis pendentia are as follows: (1) identity of parties or R representation in both cases. Section 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses founded upon a written instrument and provides the manner of denying it which must be under oath and R specifically denies the instrument otherwise its genuineness and due execution shall be an r admitted. X corp.

was B served by the sheriff upon Manotoc's resident caretaker. The Court held that Art. and (4) there must be. Sec. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. It was not mentioned in the decision whether the dismissal was with or s without prejudice." Hence.com : www. 494 is an C e exception to Rule 17. It was also held that Garcia did not voluntarily appear before the court. (3) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. substantial C s e identity is sufficient. It must clearly show that the substituted service must be made o on a person of suitable age and discretion living in the dwelling or residence of defendant. May a co-owner later ask for partition of the property by way of a e counterclaim in a case for Queting of Title. that is.com. it shall be deemed to be b without prejudice. 494 of the Civil Code. R MOTION TO DISMISS (Quintos v. even if the latter is of suitable age and discretion. These facts must be b specifically narrated in the Return. identity of parties. To construe otherwise would B a h diminish the substantive right of a co-owner through the promulgation of procedural rules. Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17. (2) the judgment or order must be on the h merits. it must faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed requirements and s circumstances authorized by the rules. For the presumption of regularity in the performance of C e official duty to apply. s Substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural rule. Absolute identity of parties is not required for res judicata to apply. 9|Page C www. no valid B substituted service of summons was made. "it is extraordinary in character and in derogation of the usual method of h B service.chanroblesbar. In an action strictly in personam.L. 3 of the Rules of Court to the effect that even if the order of dismissal l for failure to prosecute is silent on whether or not it is with prejudice. of subject matter and of causes of action. Gen. cannot be served with the summons within a an r reasonable period. ALS Management) R o a n Question: Is absolute identity of parties necessary for res judicata to apply? h Answer: No. for excusable reasons. While substituted service of a summons is permitted. personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service. REQUISITES (Cano v. Spouses Jose) bl Question: What are the requisites for the application of Res Judicata? R o an Answer: Res judicata operates as bar by prior judgment if the following requisites concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final. Uy Realty Corp v. a r Maj. Hence. 3 and the right granted to co- owners under Art. the Sheriff’s Return must show that serious efforts or attempts were l exerted to personally serve the summons and that said efforts failed. Is the position of Manotoc tenable? o b Answer: Yes. provided that there is no actual adjudication of ownership of an r shares yet. Manotoc moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of s jurisdiction of the trial court over her person due to an invalid substituted service of summons e l which the court denied. Inc.ph . or should the counterclaim for partition be considered l already barred by the prior judgment of dismissal? o b Answer: The counterclaim for partition is not barred by prior judgment. If defendant.chanroblesbar. then substituted service can be resorted to. Nicolas) an a r Question: The court dismissed an action for partition for failure of the parties and their counsels B Ch to appear despite notice. because the pleadings filed by petitioner were filed solely for special s appearance with the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over her e l person and that of her three children. Between dismissal with prejudice under Rule 17. The trial court issued the summons which. between the first and second action. along with the copy of the Complaint. ABSOLUTE IDENTITY NOT NECESSARY FOR RES JUDICATA TO EXIST (P. the latter must prevail. o b INVALID SERVICE OF SUMMONS (Manotoc v. Garcia is detained. RES JUDICATA. by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in R person. Sec. Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court cannot defeat the right of a co-owner R to ask for partition at any time. Court of Appeals) R Question: A foreign court’s judgment involving the death of X committed by the Philippine n r Military Intelligence Officials allegedly under the command of Imelda Manotoc was sought to be a enforced. The trial court declared Manotoc in default for failure to file her Answer.

Inc. To resolve the conflicting claims. the issues resolved in the interpleader case revolved around the conflicting claims of Arreza and Diaz. In the instant case. The RTC ruled that Arreza had a better right over the property. The CA aptly held that the Order which declared the e l haring to be a pre-trial and allowed the Spouses to adduce evidence ex parte. a seaman who was repatriated because of heart disease. INTERPLEADER (Bliss Development v. Melgazo sold R o to him the rights over the property. R an PRE-TRIAL.chanroblesbar. won in the Labor Arbiter C e s level on his claim for disability benefits against his employer ABC. BDC filed a complaint for Interpleader. between the interpleader case and the one at bar. Later. nor identity of subject matter. Sps. APPEARANCE OF R an PARTIES. NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL (PNB v. While it was BDC that initiated the interpleader case. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review.chanroblesbar.) C h Question: Sps. Arreza and Diaz. citing res judicata. (RBCI) and Reyes alleging that A 10 | P a g e www. Later. Thus. Section 3. Its n absence. First. These concepts of the doctrine b of res judicata are applicable to second actions involving substantially the same parties. Is the complaint barred by res B judicata because of the previous decision of the court in the interpleader case? s Answer: No. and not whatever R o claim either of them may have against BDC. Bastol) h B Question: X.” The order does not mention anything about a C pre-trial to be conducted by the trial court. Arreza however claims that the heirs of Sps. is void. an r hence the CA violated the principle of Res Judicata and the “law of the case.com : www. Arreza a and Tapay.com. there is no identity of parties. A and B filed a complaint for Nullification of Real Estate Mortgage and Special Power of Attorney (SPA) against Rural Bank of Cabuyao. Perez) B a r h Question: May the judge validly consider or treat an ordinary hearing to be the pre-trial C s e conference between the parties? b Answer: No. Diaz e s claimed to be the transferee of the said property and traced his right from one Domingo Tapay. therefore. which decision n r became final and executory. Diaz) B Question: BDC sold its property to Sps. Melgazo. The employer ABC claims that the decision of the NLRC ordering the remand of the case to the Labor Arbiter has attained finality. Arreza filed a Motion to Dismiss. time and place of the pre-trial and to require them to file their respective pre-trial briefs within the time prescribed by the rules. an a r RES JUDICATA. but the NLRC on appeal. the b opposing parties in that prior case is. The doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable. LIBERALITY IN APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL RULES. Diaz then introduced improvements on the property. the interpleader case e l was between Arreza and Diaz. Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure unequivocally requires l that the notice of pre-trial shall be served on counsel. Rural Bank of Cabuyao) (Please take note of this case. and BDC issued a permit to occupy b l the property in favor of Diaz. is proper. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO APPEAR (Spouses Leyba v. LABOR CASE (Oriental Ship management v. or on the party who has no counsel. both of whom are now deceased. there is no second action to speak of. the order issued by the trial court merely spoke of a “hearing” and required s PNB “to prepare a complete statement of account. Inc. the same o subject matter. a h In the case at bar. b its ruling that the Decision and all subsequent orders issued pursuant to said judgment are also o null and void.” Is the employer a correct? B Ch s Answer: No. Second. The July 30. The NLRC however l remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for the conduct of clarificatory hearings for a more b certain determination of the state of health of X. a r RES JUDICATA.ph . involving as it is the very same action albeit the NLRC remanded it to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. X appealed R o to the CA which reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision. Res judicata has two concepts: (a) l bar by former judgment and (b) conclusiveness of judgment. in fact. A contract to sell was later issued in favor of Diaz. The essential elements of res judicata are not present. Similarly. and cause or causes of action. the Labor Arbiter still ruled in favor of X and granted him disability benefits. 1999 NLRC Decision e cannot and does not constitute res judicata to the instant case. Diaz then paid BDC the amortizations due on the property. renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings null and void. Diaz filed a complaint for sum of money against BDC. R o The notice of pre-trial seeks to notify the parties of the date. reversed the decision.

chanroblesbar.com : www. In other words. the court or quasi-judicial agency shall determine whether such contractual a provision for arbitration is sufficient and effective. the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of interest to prosecute the case. Sps. In the interest of s substantive justice. They B also have adequately explained their failure to attend the pre-trial conference.com. promulgated on April 2. arbitration also R o an hastens the resolution of disputes. V. 2004 and became effective on April 28. or completely. 5. Is the RTC e l correct? o b Answer: No. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets. Y was reminded of the arbitration stipulation in their contract and a filed an Application for Arbitration before the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board pursuant to h Article 15 of the Contract. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups. Petitioners stand to lose a lot on account of a a mere technicality. a r was made to sign an SPA. held: Being an inexpensive. e s l Co. Availment of voluntary arbitration before resort is made to the courts or quasi-judicial agencies of the government is a valid contractual stipulation that must be R o adhered to by the parties. It is the policy of the Court to afford party-litigants the amplest opportunity to enable them to have their cases justly determined.. Is X correct? C e Answer: No. It was stipulated in the contract that in case of conflict between the R parties. arbitration along with mediation. An Act to Institutionalize the Use of an Alternative Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines and to R o Establish the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution. to obviate jeopardizing substantive justice. 46 of Republic Act No. Citing Sec. Inc. The Court noted that the subject matter of the complaint is to petitioners a n r valuable parcel of land measuring 259 square meters. This liberality underscores l the importance of an appeal in our judicial grievance structure to give party-litigants the b amplest opportunity for the just disposition of their cause freed from the noose of o technicalities. that Reyes used the B SPA to obtain loan from RBCI guaranteed by a real estate mortgage over the subject land. If in affirmative. (RA) 9285. granting Reyes the authority to mortgage a land. especially of the commercial kind. X contends that the arbitration stipulation in their contract is null and s void for being against public policy as it ousts the local courts of jurisdiction over the instant controversy. Inc. The Court. reiterating its ruling in LM Power Engineering Corporation v. the parties should first attempt to settle their dispute through arbitration. b otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004. an a r NATURE OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION (Benguet Corp.ph . ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. RCBC) (Please read this very well) an a r Question: What is the mode of appeal in assailing the RTC decision that confirmed an arbitral h B award? C e s Answer: The proper mode of appeal assailing the decision of the RTC confirming an arbitral l award is an appeal before the CA pursuant to Sec. in the event a case that should properly be the subject of voluntary arbitration is erroneously filed with the courts or quasi-judicial agencies. free from the constraints of R technicalities. A conflict n erupted between the parties. and for other Purposes. Brushing aside a contractual h agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward. Submission to arbitration is a 11 | P a g e www. speedy and amicable bl method of settling disputes. DENR) B Ch Question: Is a stipulation requiring voluntary arbitration before resort is made to the courts or quasi-judicial agencies a valid contractual stipulation? e s b l Answer: Yes. The arbitration C clause was mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. we allow the petitioners an opportunity to present their side during a e trial on the merits. conciliation and negotiations encouraged by the Supreme Court. R ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (EPCIB v. 2004. It is thus regarded as the wave of the future in international civil and commercial disputes. C EFFECT OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN CASE OF CONFLICT (Korea Technologies. A and B and their counsel failed to attend. V. 2004 after its publication on April 13. Rule 18 of the Rules s of Court. on motion an r of the defendant. During the pre-trial. They have manifested their interest to pursue the case even on appeal. the court or quasi-judicial h B agency shall then order the enforcement of said provision.chanroblesbar. Lerma) o b Question: X entered into a contract with Y whereby the former shall construct a liquefied gas cylinder manufacturing plant.

which would otherwise require a single judgment. and inexpensive determination of their cases before B the courts. It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice. speedy. due to the absence of specific completion dates within which to 12 | P a g e www. Nos. X Corp. consolidation aims to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to an r the parties-litigants. Far from containing an admission of liability. Is summary judgment proper in this case? an a r Answer: No. This prompted DMCI to file with the B RTC a petition for the annotation of contractor’s lien on the property of Duvaz which the RTC Ch granted. Consolidation of actions is expressly authorized under Sec. prevent delays. the an r contractual price remained unpaid. Further. Equitable PCIB) R o Question: The trial court approved the Petition for Rehabilitation and appointed a Receiver for n r X Corp. TRIAL e s b l CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE OF HEARING OR TRIAL (Steel Corp. R o judgment. Duvaz’ b Answer contained a specific denial of petitioner’s claim. In this case. and simplify the work of the trial court. Duvaz specifically denied DMCI's averment and by way of affirmative defenses to support its counterclaims. and h DMCI’s liability and Duvaz’ corollary right for damages arising from the alleged mal-execution s of the construction works. The purpose of this rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits. Duvaz filed a petition for the declaration of a state of a suspension of payments with the SEC which SEC granted. However. In its b Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims. From this order by the Rehabilitation Court sprung several appeals filed with the CA. Rule 34.chanroblesbar. V. s JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS l e b SUMMARY JUDGMENTS (DMCI v. DMCI moved for summary judgment alleging that Duvaz' counterclaims have already prescribed.R. To h implement the Decision. guard against R o oppression and abuse. Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. Duvaz alleged serious defects in the R o construction. In short. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay) o b R an Question: In 2008. RENDITION OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS (MMDA v. clear congested dockets. it results in the avoidance of the possibility of conflicting decisions being C h rendered by the courts in two or more cases. should resolve doubts in favor of the party against whom it is directed. l DMCI’s posture on estoppel is untenable. among others. Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides two (2) requisites for h B summary judgment to be proper: (1) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact. 171947-48 ordering various government agencies to clean up Manila Bay which decision had attained finality. Such doubt should be resolved against the grant of the motion for summary judgment. DMCI made s demands from Duvaz which proposed settlement in the amount of 1million for the next three e l years which DMCI found unacceptable. DMCI filed a collection suit against Duvaz. When DMCI learned that Duvaz withdrew its petition with the SEC. genuine issues exist. Duvaz Corp) o R Question: DMCI entered into a construction contract with Duvaz but after completion. prescription. When faced with a motion for summary party the benefit of all favorable inferences.ph .chanroblesbar. Other creditors filed their respective comments on the petition and the Receiver B submitted his recommended rehabilitation plan which the court approved.com. 1. Should the CA consolidate the appeals filed? e s b l Answer: Yes.com : www. giving such a n With the parties’ conflicting postures on. a r contract and that a clause in a contract providing that all matters in dispute between the parties B shall be referred to arbitration is a contract. Inc. the Manila Bay Advisory Committee was created to receive and evaluate the quarterly progressive reports on the activities undertaken by the said agencies and to C monitor its execution. except for the amount of damages. and (2) the party presenting the motion for summary C e s judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. filed its own counter rehabilitation plan and submitted it for the consideration a of the court. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. the only way to ascertain whose position jibes with facts on the C ground is obviously through the presentation of evidence by the parties in a full blown trial on e l the merits. the Supreme Court rendered a Decision in G. the issues of estoppel. Later. and is in accord with the a aim of affording the parties a just.

This is a fundamental principle in our justice an r system. as petitioners presently urge. Hence. It is clear that the final judgment includes not only what appears upon its face to have been so adjudged but also those matters actually and necessarily included therein or necessary e s thereto. Any act. A decision that acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous an r conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the a highest court of the land. FINALITY OF JUDGMENT (Spouses Coloso v. Verily. a disposition only ordering partial partition and without accounting. the Committee recommended that time B frames be set for the said purpose. Is the court's order proper? R o Answer: Yes.com. This quality C e s of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment. With the final and executory judgment in the MMDA case. which violates such principle. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. Resolutions were issued by the SC to implement the Decision. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of B a Ch adjudication. The orderly administration of justice requires that. h COMPLETE PARTITION v. the writ of continuing l mandamus issued means that until petitioner-agencies have shown full compliance with the b Courts orders.ph . PARTIAL PARTITION OF LAND (Monteroso v. the Court exercises continuing jurisdiction over them until full execution of the o judgment. the R o judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law.chanroblesbar.com : www. R an EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS (Anastacio Tuballa v. eschewing rules tending to frustrate rather b than promote substantial justice. Inc. without which there would be no end to litigations. This was viewed as an encroachment on the power and functions of the Executive s Branch headed by the President. While additional activities are n r required of the agencies like submission of plans of action.) Question: What are the exceptions to the rule on immutability of judgments? C h 13 | P a g e www. C h would be most impractical. it being preferable if they take a complete view of the case and in the process l come up with a just and equitable judgment. VIII of the Constitution. The issuance of subsequent resolutions by the Court is simply an exercise of judicial power under Art. even if the modification is l meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether b the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. Court of B Appeals) C e s b l Question: X prayed for partial partition of a parcel of land but the court ordered a complete partition thereof with accounting. Garilao) e s b l Question: May the DAR Secretary modify a final and executory judgment of the court? R o Answer: No. at the risk of occasional errors. In the instant case. Courts have been cautioned against being dogmatic in rendering s e decisions. courts should always strive to settle the entire o controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seed of future litigation. these directives a are but part and parcel of the execution stage of a final decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of B Court. The Philippine judicial system requires courts to apply the law and grant remedies n when appropriately called for by law and justice. courts have the a discretion to apply equity in the absence or insufficiency of the law. et al. In the exercise of this mandate. data or status reports. a r accomplish the assigned tasks given to the agencies. must immediately be struck down. Ramirez) an a r Question: Explain the principle of immutability of judgment vis-a-vis a final decision. Did the Court encroach on the power and function of the e l President? o b Answer: No. h B Answer: A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. Cabrera.chanroblesbar. R IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT (Mocorro v. because the execution of the Decision is R but an integral part of the adjudicative function of the Court.

we find that Batalla already perfected his appeal by filing his l e Notice of Appeal and by paying the PhP 1. Unfortunately for respondent- an a r movants. an C h 14 | P a g e www. h B b. the foregoing requirements do not obtain in the case at bench. a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A B final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect. 07-4-15-SC. B a C h PERFECTION OF APPEAL (Batalla v. to the MCTC. In the instant case. and (3) void judgments. v. X was proclaimed the o b Punong Barangay. 2008. No. MCTC rendered its Decision finding that X and Y had garnered an equal number R of votes. If the ruling sought to be reconsidered was rendered by the Court through one of its Divisions.com : www. BCDA) s Question: When may the Supreme Court allow the filing of a second Motion for e l Reconsideration of its decision? o b Answer: The concurrence of the following elements are required for a second motion for reconsideration to be entertained: R an r a. Inc. The favorable vote of at least two-thirds of the Court En Banc’s actual membership must be mustered for the second motion for reconsideration to be granted. X paid the PhP 1. even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. when they can be an r contested in a single appeal. and b l at least three (3) members of the said Division should vote to elevate the case to the Court En R o d. The Comelec First Division C h dismissed the appeal.chanroblesbar.ph .000 appeal fee. The motion must be made before the ruling sought to be reconsidered attains finality. The appropriate remedy is thus for the party to wait for the final judgment or order and assign such interlocutory order as an error of the court on appeal. rules. Court of Appeals) e s Question: What is the rationale for the rule disallowing appeals from interlocutory orders of the court? b l o Answer: The rationale behind the rule proscribing the remedy of appeal from an interlocutory R order is to prevent undue delay. (2) the so-called R o nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party.000 appeal fee to the trial court within the five-day a n period from receipt of the decision and the additional PhP 3. a r Answer: As a rule. pursuant to A. B Ch APPEALS IN GENERAL (Silverio. and by paying the additional appeal fee o b R of PhP 3. Aggrieved.M. and whether it be made by the court that rendered s it or by the highest court in the land. X timely filed his Notice of Appeal of the decision elevating the election protest before the Comelec.200 appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division within 15 days from the filing of his notice of appeal. The motion should satisfactorily explain why granting the same would be in the higher interest a of justice. within the five-day reglementary period. The orderly administration of justice requires that the e l judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the b law. v. Y filed an election protest and claimed that there was a misappreciation of seven ballots.chanroblesbar.. and the Comelec En Banc denied his motion for reconsideration for X's failure to pay the appeal fee and because of Verification issues. useless appeals and undue inconvenience to the appealing party by having to assail orders as they are promulgated by the court. Banc. n r POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES B a MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (SM land Inc. C e s c. Is the Comelec correct? s Answer: No. Jr. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. The only exceptions to the rule that final judgments may no longer be modified in any respect are (1) the correction of clerical errors. COMELEC) s l e Question: X and Y were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay. and regulations.com.200 to the Comelec Cash Division on March 5.

Puregold) o b Question: The CIR filed with the Supreme Court a petition introducing an entirely new matter which it did not raise in its pleadings filed with the lower courts. and (7) importance of the issues involved. (2) good faith of the defaulting party by paying within a reasonable time from o b R the time of the default. May the Supreme Court R entertain the new matter? an a r Answer: No. the CIR never challenged Puregold's eligibility B to avail of the tax amnesty under RA 9399 on the ground that its principal place of business. such rule an r admits of an exception as enunciated in Canlas v. However. the Court Ch may give due course to the petition and resolve the principal issues raised therein e s l NEW MATTERS CANNOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL(CIR v.R. Curata v. resolving the issues presented by a petitioner. Nevertheless. (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is frivolous and dilatory. Sps. while the Ombudsman’s s discretion in determining the existence of probable cause is not absolute. Tubil(G. PPA) a Question: In what instances may the strict requirement of payment of docket fees for the perfection of appeal be loosened up? C h s Answer: Among the grounds that pertinent jurisprudence has recognized as justifying the loosening up of the stringent requirement on payment of docket fees are: (1) to relieve a litigant l e from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. In this case. (6) no unjust prejudice to the other party. petitioner fails. During the proceedings in the CTA. petitioner e l must prove that such discretion was gravely abused to warrant the reversal of the Ombudsman’s b findings by this Court. It affirms that "courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a o b question not in issue. LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW (Lim v. Neither did s the CIR present the supposed Articles of Incorporation nor formally offer the same in evidence l e for the purpose of proving that Puregold was not entitled to the tax amnesty under RA 9399. The main issue of whether probable cause exists that will warrant the filing n r of the appropriate complaint is a question of fact. the Court cannot take cognizance. Desierto) e s Question: May the Supreme Court under Rule 45 review the exercise of discretion of the l Ombudsman in determining whether probable cause exists? b o Answer: No. Inc. An appeal under Rule 45 should be limited to questions of law only. Pampanga. would require a review of the factual findings of the Ombudsman.chanroblesbar. nevertheless. (3) the merits of the case. PERFECTION OF APPEAL R o n (Sps. No. as in this case. This Court's consistent policy has been to maintain non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of o probable cause." Thus. The rule rests on the fundamental tenets of fair play. MODES OF APPEAL a r B RULE 45. this argument as a ground to divest Puregold of its right to avail of the benefits of RA 9399. C h of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to 15 | P a g e www. Veloso) B a Question: May a party change his cause of action or theory of the case on appeal? Is there an C h exception to the rule? s l e Answer: The settled rule is that a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal. Thus. however. b Hence. is not only irregular but also extrajudicial R and invalid. LIBERALITY OF APPLICATION PROCEDURAL RULES. provided there is no grave abuse of discretion.com : www. per C h its Articles of Incorporation.com. R an r ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL (Bote v. In this respect. a judgment that goes beyond the issues and purports to adjudicate something on which the court did not hear the parties. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. much less consider. 184285. it is B beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it.chanroblesbar. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. 2009) to wit: When the a factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party B in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory. not R questions of facts. (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the an fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules.ph . is in Metro Manila and not in Clark Field.

when such findings are not anchored on their credibility and their testimonies. Neither is there any supervening a event which materially and substantially altered the situation of the parties such that execution h would be unjust and inequitable. unless the decision is not appealable owing to the penalty imposed. after due investigation. or where there is no compelling urgency for the execution because it b is not justified by the prevailing circumstances.com. However. PPA is a government instrumentality charged with carrying out C governmental functions through the management. 2 (a) of Rule h 39 does not apply to eminent domain proceedings. control and regulation of major 16 | P a g e www. Section 9 of Bates Pambansa Blg. acting through its minority stockholder. adjudged petitioners guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty and meted the R o corresponding penalty. DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION NOT ALLOWED IN EXPROPRIATION CASES bl o (Curata v. Pasimio) s Question: May the Court of Appeals entertain questions of fact raised in a Rule 41 appeal? e b l Answer: Yes. The court stayed the execution. Dalida. PPA) Question: Is execution pending appeal applicable to expropriation proceedings. SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS (Dalida v. The court may stay immediate execution of a judgment where supervening B C events bring about a material change in the situation of the parties which makes the e s l execution inequitable. It would be an anathema to the orderly administration of justice if such an easy excuse is entertained to n abrogate a final decision based on a compromise agreement. EXECUTION. supervision. categorically states that the CA has. reliance on the trial courts factual findings finds no application. or if the terms are so e palpably unconscionable. R an Answer: No. inter alia. In the case at b bar. The compromise agreement has the force of law between the C s parties unless it is void. receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction. Naguit) B a Ch s Question: Astra Corp. otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Is the stay of execution a proper? h Answer: No. A TRIER OF FACTS. in the exercise of his administrative disciplinary jurisdiction had. Rule 43 governs appeals to the CA from decisions or final orders of quasi-judicial an r agencies. an appeal from the OMB’s decision should be taken to the CA l e under Rule 43. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. B However. Hernandez) R o Question: What is the remedy to question the Ombudsman's decision in administrative an r disciplinary cases? B a Answer: The nature of the case before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) determines the C h proper remedy available to the aggrieved party and with which court it should be filed. Recourse to the CA via a Rule 43 petition is the proper mode of appeal. The parties filed a compromise agreement that mandated the dismissal of the derivative suit and criminal complaints. e b l REVIEW OF FINAL JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN (Aguilar v. The RTC granted Dalida's Motion for R o Execution but Naguit filed an Urgent Motion to Recall/Quash Writ of Execution on account of supervening events – Astra’s loss of revenues after the approval of the compromise agreement an r made it impossible for them to comply. but on the assessment of documents that are available to appellate magistrates and subject to their s scrutiny. a r COURT OF APPEALS. Respondent Eliseo Naguit cannot renege R o on his obligation under the compromise agreement by claiming an inability to pay. or there is forgery. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS OR FINAL B ORDERS OF THE RTC (PNB v. Inc. It is also worthy to note n r that the appellate court's reliance on the factual findings of the trial court is hinged on the latter's a firsthand opportunity to hear the witnesses and to observe their demeanor during the trial. PPA’s monies.chanroblesbar. In s administrative disciplinary cases. Discretionary execution of judgments pending appeal under Sec. (BP) 129. the power to try R o cases. the reason put forward by respondents is insufficient to merit a stay of execution. facilities and assets are government properties. instituted a derivative suit e l for accounting/receivership with TRO against Naguit because of Naguit's unauthorized b withdrawal of corporate funds. the Ombudsman. Sps. none of which applies in this case.ph . there is a vice of consent.chanroblesbar.com : www.

or that it is defective in substance. denied the motion. Such motion a was opposed by the Republic alleging that the sequestered lots stand as security for the satisfaction of any judgment the Republic may obtain against the estate of Lim. the Sandiganbayan. Sr. However. considerations of justice and equity dictate that there be b some mode available to the party aggrieved of elevating the question to a higher court. or 6) it appears that the writ of execution has been a improvidently issued. The Republic then prayed for the reconveyance of all funds and property acquired by them in abuse of power through unjust enrichment. the applicant must sufficiently show the factual circumstances of the alleged fraud 17 | P a g e www. amassed ill-gotten wealth. MINISTERIAL DUTY OF SHERIFF (Alconera v. Heirs of Prudencio) B Question: What are the instances when the issuance of a writ of execution may be appealed? e s l Answer: The following are the instances where a writ of execution may be appealed: 1) the writ b of execution varies the judgment. It is an attached agency of the Department of Transportation and B Communication pursuant to PD 505. The Republic also filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment against respondents in the amount of its claims. or mandamus. 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust. a r ports of the country. 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there an r remains room for interpretation thereof. there was no legal impediment preventing respondent R o sheriff from performing his responsibility of enforcing the writ of execution. or by a special civil action o of certiorari. being government properties. he is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. acted in unlawful collusion with the Marcoses. When Lim. to counter the effects to the lifting of the sequestration order.chanroblesbar. Sr. Cua Beng who prevailed in the unlawful an r detainer case is entitled as a matter of right to the immediate execution. or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied. Funds of PPA partake of government funds. passed n away. That mode of elevation may be either by appeal (writ of error or certiorari). and such may s not be garnished absent an allocation by its Board or by statutory grant. Estate of Lim) e s b l Question: The Republic filed before the Sandiganbayan a complaint averring that Lim. or the writ was issued s without authority. Jr. Sr. then filed a s demurrer to evidence alleging that the Republic’s evidence did not prove or disprove that the l e b defendants on their own or in concert with the Marcoses. and took undue advantage of their R o relationship with the latter. Is the Sandiganbayan correct? C h Answer: No. 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court.1 (d). If the PPA funds cannot e l be garnished and its properties. they are exempt from execution whether by virtue of a final judgment or pending appeal. cannot be levied via a writ of b execution pursuant to a final judgment. For a writ of attachment to issue under Sec. R an r EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT. as it would run afoul of the established R o jurisprudence that government properties are exempt from execution.chanroblesbar. Since Rafols failed to comply with the requirements under the Rules. Sr. then the trial court likewise cannot grant discretionary execution pending appeal. stating that bare allegations of the commission of fraud by R o an respondents in incurring the obligations are not sufficient for the granting of the writ of preliminary attachment. Inc. prohibition. The estate of Lim. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. 3) execution is sought to be enforced against R o property exempt from execution. C h The Sandiganbayan then lifted the sequestration order. C e l In these exceptional circumstances.com. Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.com : www. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. his estate filed a motion to lift the sequestration over certain real properties. a Pallanan) B Ch Question: May the sheriff exercise discretion whether or not to execute the judgment? e s l Answer: Well-settled is that the sheriff’s duty in the execution of a writ is purely b ministerial. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. B a h PROVISIONAL REMEDIES C PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT (Republic v.ph .. and Lim. Ergo. n a r ISSUANCE AND CONTENTS OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION (Parel v. or is issued against the wrong h B party.

inadequacy of b pecuniary compensation. The Spouses an r ordered stop payment of the check. which would be converted to the proceeds of the forced sale pursuant to the l requisites under Sec. 1828. However. The denial of the prayed writ. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests l in the existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury. It is incongruous. et al. James College. 3135. and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury. The bank demanded full settlement of spouses’ loan which a was unheeded. Sevandal) h Question: What should the applicant comply with before an injunctive relief may be issued by C the court? 18 | P a g e www. Jaime Torres chose and agreed to pay the equal annual amortizations of PhP 6. (3) there is an urgent a n need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant. B a Ch s The one-year redemption period is another grace period accorded petitioners to pay the e outstanding debt. does ownership of the land sold become consolidated in the purchaser or winning bidder.ph . and the prevention of multiplicity of suits.com. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. The B Court ruled that the Republic has sufficiently discharged the burden of demonstrating the commission of fraud committed by the respondents as a condition sine qua non for the issuance s of a writ of preliminary attachment. Equitable PCI Bank) s Question: Spouses Jaime and Myrna Torres. also in accordance with Sec. Inc. without the judgment debtors having made use of their right of redemption. James College v. Where facts are not shown o to bring the case within these conditions. for the b Sandiganbayan to deny the writ of preliminary attachment when the pieces of evidence on record which it used and based its findings and conclusions in denying the demurrer to evidence were R o the same ones which demonstrate the propriety of the writ of preliminary attachment. C h It should be granted only when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the s e emergency demands it. title does not ipso facto pass title to the winning bidder over the an r mortgaged property. they failed to pay. The injunctive writ is conditioned on the existence of a clear and positive right b of the applicant which should be protected. Foreclosure proceedings will not preclude the property to owner R participate in the auction.chanroblesbar. an REQUISITES FOR GRANT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Marquez. 6 of Republic Act No. owner of St. (2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right. Thereafter. EPCIB reminded Spouses that its receipt of the check payment is without prejudice to the bank's rights considering the overdue nature of Spouses’ loan. therefore. And so the bank filed a Petition for Sale to extra-judicially foreclose the h B mortgaged property. that is a right R in esse. The requisites of preliminary injunction whether mandatory or prohibitory are the following: (1) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right. B a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (St. a r in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought. 78 of the General Banking Act. B a r h Sanchez) C e s Question: Did the trial court's refusal in this case to grant injunction amount to grave abuse of l discretion? o b Answer: No. However. and (4) no other ordinary. EPCIB made a counter proposal on the b restructuring of the loan. It is only upon the expiration of the redemption R period. The main supporting proving document of the Republic was e l unqualifiedly admitted in evidence by the Sandiganbayan. speedy. an o extraordinary peremptory remedy which can be availed of only upon the existence of well- defined circumstances. the relief of injunction should be refused.com : www. for the redemption of a property b sold in an extrajudicial sale. thus. the writ being the strong arm of equity. v. defaulted in their loan e l of PhP25M secured by REM in favor of EPCIB. and the same is subject to the right to redeem within one year from the auction sale. RTC issued an Order granting a writ of preliminary injunction in s favor of Spouses. Was the RTC Correct? C e l Answer: No. partial payment was R o accepted by the bank. evidently constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the part of n r Sandiganbayan. Extreme R caution must be observed in the exercise of such discretion an REQUISITES FOR GRANT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Compania General v. as o amended by Presidential Decree No. as amended.chanroblesbar.000 payable every May.100.

Inc. (petitioners) filed for Partition and Recovery of Real Estate. The court appointed a receiver. lest the injury thereby caused be far C greater than the injury sought to be averted. Is the court correct? R an Answer: No. Thus. without prior court approval. Antonio-Valenzuela) R n r Question: The Supervision and Examination Department (SED) of the Bangko Sentral ng a Pilipinas (BSP) conducted examinations of the books of the respondent banks. his a executor and remaining heir. and no other ordinary.ph . The court should consider the consequences to 19 | P a g e www. The power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one and should be exercised with extreme caution and only under circumstances requiring summary relief or where the h court is satisfied that there is imminent danger of loss. J and T had an oral partition of the properties left by their n father. the applicant must show that: (1) the B right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable. The actions of the Monetary l Board under Sections 29 and 30 of RA 7653 may not be restrained or set aside by the court b except on petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction o or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Sec. (2) the invasion of the right sought to be protected is material and substantial. The issuance by the RTC of writs of preliminary injunction is an C e unwarranted interference with the powers of the Monetary Board. h Petitioners later filed a Motion to Place Properties in Litigation under Receivership alleging that s to their prejudice. B a h The purpose of the ancillary relief is to keep things as they peaceably are while the court passes s upon the merits. or will grant the principal objective of the parties before merits l can be passed upon. The banks noted none of them s had received the Report of Examination (ROE) which finalizes the audit findings. J had. R MANDATORY INJUNCTION (PLRA v. Court of Appeals) an a r Question: Should the court grant a preliminary prohibitory or mandatory injunction if it will B Ch result in a premature resolution of the case. and adequate remedy an r exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury. APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER (Vivares v. sold to third parties and transferred in his C own name several common properties.chanroblesbar. SED B sent separate letters to the Board of Directors of each bank. 2) there is a material and R o substantial invasion of such right.com : www. and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to s prevent serious damage. The RTC ruled that the banks were entitled to the writs of preliminary injunction prayed for. 3. a r Answer: In order that an injunctive relief may be issued. (b) the right of the complainant is clear h B and unmistakable. speedy. informing them that the SED found that the banks failed to carry out the required remedial measures. Thereafter. Reyes) o b R Question: S was the father of J and T. or will grant the principal objective of the parties s before merits can be passed upon? l e Answer: No. the prayer for the relief should be properly denied. J filed his Opposition denying that he had fraudulently e l transferred any property of the estate of S and asserting that any transfer in his name of said b properties was a result of the oral partition between him and T that enabled the latter as well to o transfer several common properties in his own name. o b ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OVER ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS (BSP v. holding that the banks are entitled to copies of the o ROEs. the e l respondent banks filed a complaint for nullification of the BSP ROE with application for a TRO b and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC. and (3) there is an urgent and paramount s necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.com. Where a preliminary prohibitory or mandatory injunction will result in a C e premature resolution of the case.chanroblesbar. The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of right a sought to be protected is material and substantial. and 3) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant. Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the b issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted provided that 1) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right. Upon T's death and believing that T did not receive his full share in the estate of S. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. that is a right in esse. RECEIVERSHIP. Is the RTC correct? R an r Answer: No. All of these elements must concur and the e l absence of even one of them would be fatal in petitioners’ application for the writ.

however. this would limit the provision's coverage to the decisions. COMELEC) B Question: Are Orders issued by the COMELEC in the exercise of its administrative functions covered by Rule 64? e s b l Answer: No. (4) where an appeal would be slow. orders. a r all of the parties and the power should not be exercised when it is likely to produce irreparable B injustice or injury to private rights or the facts demonstrate that the appointment will injure the interests of others whose rights are entitled to as much consideration from the court as those of s the complainant. second was a complaint-affidavit for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. should likewise s e be read in the same sense—that of excluding from its coverage decisions. the imputation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the h Ombudsman cannot be sustained in the instant case because. (3) where there may be danger of failure of justice. h GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION (Parma. Court of R an r Question: What are the exceptions to the rule that errors not relating to jurisdiction nor a involving grave abuse of discretion shall not be decided upon by the court in a Petition for B Certiorari? Ch s Answer: The Court has consistently held that where the error sought to be corrected neither e l relates to the court’s jurisdiction nor involves grave abuse of discretion. we ruled that the appointment of a receiver is e l not proper where the rights of the parties. In Descallar v. or ruling" of constitutional commissions. In this case. and qualifications of elective offices. review of the error b through certiorari will not be allowed. R o SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS n r REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTION OF COMELEC a AND COA. returns. This rule. Section 7. Appeals) o b CERTIORARI. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. and insufficient. and (7) in a case of urgency. one of whom is in possession of the property. Rule 64. Court of Appeals.com : www. X. v. failed to file a counter-affidavit. It is well-settled that an act of a court or o b tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the R an act was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. third was R o another complaint for falsification of official document and a fourth. admits exceptions such as (1) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party. The Court has consistently held that the phrase "decision. n The OMB issued a resolution finding probable cause for Falsification of Official Document and a recommended the filing of information for said crime against X. Parma veritably latches his case on C the lame argument that had the Ombudsman duly considered its findings on the second and third 20 | P a g e www.chanroblesbar. (6) where public interest is involved. Did the OMB's act amount e l to grave abuse of discretion? Answer: No. order. Consequently. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. inadequate. In the case an r of the COMELEC. PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS (Francisco Motors v. or rulings a issued pursuant to its authority to be the sole judge of generally all controversies and contests B relating to the elections. for the same crime and offense charged in the first and second complaint. and orders l rendered by the COMELEC in the exercise of its administrative functions. C h which complemented the procedural requirement under Article IX-A. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman) B C e s l Question: Several complaints were filed against councillor X before the Office of the b Ombudsman: First was a complaint-affidavit for falsification of official documents. (5) an r where the issue raised is one purely of law.com.chanroblesbar. and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions' exercise of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. are still b to be determined by the trial court. Jr.ph . (2) where the trial R o judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment. rulings. APPLICATION OF RULE 65 UNDER RULE 64 (Querubin v. the COMELEC included. that may be brought directly to the R o Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing. Inc. however. X accused the OMB of committing grave abuse of discretion s against the OMB in recommending the filing of information for Falsification of Official C Document despite the OMB's dismissal of the other complaints filed. The OMB later dismissed the h second and third complaints.

Does the MeTC have jurisdiction over the s l e Answer: Yes. It was admitted that petitioner Dela Cruz was a lessee of the Reyeses for around four (4) decades. since government funds and properties may not be an r seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments.ph . Y argued that MeTC B had no jurisdiction over the case because it falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC as more than complaint for ejectment? C h one year had elapsed from Y's forcible entry. a r complaint. the issue of ownership can be properly resolved in a separate and Ch more appropriate proceeding. b EJECTMENT CASE. but Y refused. Naturally. the last being the January 14. Court of Appeals) C Question: What are the two mandatory allegations that should be found in a complaint for 21 | P a g e www. 1997. Camus and Paredes. Sps. 1997 letter of b demand.com : www. thus: The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law. the nature of the complaint is one of unlawful detainer and the Manila MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint. an r only prior possession de facto and deprivation thereof by force. Thus. In any case. In turn. REQUISITES (Gonzaga v. the rights of the Reyeses. Flora through her agents and her predecessors-in-interest s have prior possession over the lot. The subject lot was a eventually bought by Z who filed an ejectment complaint against Y. n the Reyeses considered the lease terminated. the action was instituted well within the one (1) year period reckoned from January 14. In actions for forcible entry. it would have found no reason to give due course to the fourth one. When fire destroyed her house. Quitalig unduly deprived e l Flora of her possession. respondent Tan Te. Based on the complaint and the answer. or a stealth needs to be proved. Since the action was filed with the MeTC on September 8. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Dela Cruz v. were transferred to their s e subrogee. Owing to the summary nature of an action for forcible entry. who for a time also tolerated the stay of petitioner until she decided l to eject the latter by sending several demands. the complaint should be granted. Quitalig) C e s Question: In a complaint for forcible entry. courts should resolve R the issue of possession. Thus. but petitioner Dela Cruz persisted in returning to a the lot and occupied it by strategy and stealth without the consent of the owners. is based on obvious a considerations of public policy. intimidation. Hence. Court of Appeals) o R Question: X had been leasing his land to Y for over 40 years. with respect to the lot. is a species of unlawful detainer cases. San Diego. as a personal B judgment against the Government could not be realized upon execution. 2(a) of Rule 39 does not apply to eminent domain proceedings. Thus. When a fire gutted the dwelling of an r Y. Here. initially petitioner as lessee is the R legal possessor of the subject lot by virtue of a contract of lease. as a rule. like the R o an Tan Te's complaint. strategy. threat. the Court held: When the n r Government is plaintiff the judgment will naturally take the form of an order merely requiring a the payment of the award as a condition precedent to the transfer of the title. Hence.chanroblesbar.chanroblesbar.com. R As early as 1919 in Visayan Refining Co. h B FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Flores v. PPA) e s Question: Is execution pending appeal applicable to expropriation proceedings? b l Answer: The Court rules that discretionary execution of judgments pending appeal under o Sec. The Reyeses however tolerated the continued occupancy of the lot by petitioner. is the MTC correct in dismissing the same for failure l of the plaintiff to prove her ownership over the subject premises? b o Answer: No. the issue of ownership. and it was established that the Sps. when the lot was sold C h to respondent Tan Te. no less than the eminent Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee explained the rationale behind the doctrine that government funds and properties cannot be b l seized under a writ of execution. 1997. Inc. In Commissioner of e s Public Highways v. it may limit claimants action only up R o to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered. avoiding. v. Curata v. h FORCIBLE ENTRY. the complainant may recover such possession even from B the owner himself. X made several verbal demands for her to vacate the lot. an ejectment complaint based on possession by tolerance of the owner. it is apparent that the Tan Te's ejectment o b complaint is after all a complaint for unlawful detainer. B EXPROPRIATION (Sps.

forcible entry? a r B Answer: For a forcible entry suit to prosper. Samuel. appalling. not possession de jure. she addressed two letters C h to then Chief Justice Hilario G. she published On the Edge of Heaven. Davide. While most of her statements were in the form of l questions instead of categorical assertions. and (2) deprivation of said possession by another by means of b force. Florentino and h Samuel predeceased Engracia. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. Domingo) o b Question: May issues on heirship be decided in a civil action? R a n Answer: It has indeed been ruled that the declaration of heirship must be made in a special h proceeding. threat. Litigants. of the e l property by the plaintiff. Upon the death of Engracia. An Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Clarification was filed thereafter.chanroblesbar. Another letter was given where she called the decision s e in the case Ramon K. With regard to Erlinda’s authorship of the On the Edge of Heaven. and l unprecedented.ph . R o Y moved for its reconsideration.chanroblesbar. Inc. Statements such as B Ch “Was justice sold?” and “How can the highest court of our land be a party to the breakup of s my family and. However. she is found an r guilty of indirect contempt. a book carrying Y's name as author b and which contained her commentaries on the aforesaid habeas corpus case was also alleged to be contemptuous. when taken together went beyond the e permissible bounds of fair criticism. the Court had allowed exceptions to the e l rule requiring administration proceedings as when the parties in the civil case already presented b their evidence regarding the issue of heirship. Moreover.com. However. no matter how aggrieved or dissatisfied they may be of court’s decision. and the RTC had consequently rendered judgment o upon the issues it defined during the pre-trial. unilaterally brazen. LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION (Manungas v. The burden of instituting an action to try the property right is upon he who claims rightful possession n a r The proper remedy in the instant case is to file an accion publiciana case which differs from a B forcible entry action in that it does not require prior physical possession in order to prosper. Diosdado filed with the court a petition 22 | P a g e www. Sps. do not have the unbridled R freedom in expressing their frustration or grievance in any manner they want. possession de facto. First. the complaint must contain two mandatory s allegations: (1) prior physical possession. strategy or stealth. Engracia filed an illegal detainer suit against Diosdado. with a the caveat that no further pleadings shall be entertained. who claimed to be the illegitimate son of Florentino. Ilusorio) e b l Question: Y filed various manifestations and motions in relation to her appeals from the decision of the CA denying the petition for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband. represented by Dela Cruz B Albano & Associates. Also. The B a h letters to the Chief justice were also found not to be contumacious in character. Loreto) R an Question: Florentino and Engracia were married with an adopted son. the an r various motions and manifestations filed by Erlinda Ilusorio which neither contained offensively disrespectful language nor tended to besmirch the dignity of the Court are not contemptuous. Her statements pose a different threat to the Courts repute. disregarding the Family Code”. She followed this with a Motion to Set Case for Preliminary Conference. The CA an r once again denied the MR and resolved to expunge from the records her repetitive motions. this Court had likewise held that s recourse to administration proceedings to determine who heirs are is sanctioned only if there is a C good and compelling reason for such recourse. Hence. Engracia won the case and the decision has C become final and executory. s CONTEMPT (Buildner v. not in an independent civil action. she sought leave to file an urgent MR. but only a sleigh C s but sub-rosa attempt to influence the letter-addressee. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS l e SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS (Rebusquillo v. Ilusorio v. The person claiming rightful possession cannot be permitted to R o exclude the actual possessor and thereby disturb social order and violate individual security. Baguio Country Club.com : www. The purpose of the law is to protect the person who in fact has actual possession. However. Jr. Are Y's acts contemptuous? R o Answer: Yes. Indirect contempt is a deliberate act to bring the court or judge a into disrepute. the effect is still the same: they constitute a b stinging affront to the honor and dignity of the Court and tend to undermine the o confidence of the public in the integrity of the highest tribunal of the land. intimidation.

Hirsch v. It must be remembered that the estate of Florentino Manungas was already the subject of intestate proceedings that have long been terminated with the proceeds distributed to e s the heirs with the issuance of a Decree of Final Distribution. be prudent n r and reasonable to appoint someone interested in preserving the estate for its eventual distribution a to the heirs. a r for the issuance of letters of administration in his favor.ph . Caloocan and Mandaluyong. It may. the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan can still be implemented in Quezon City. not otherwise directly injured. Since the writ cannot be served despite diligent efforts. He alleged that he. Will RTC-Caloocan acquire jurisdiction over Y if the latter is R served with a copy of the writ in Quezon City? an a r Answer: Yes. insanity. justice and legal principles. therefore. Diosdado. In e view thereof. Malabon. In fact. s Makati. as an illegitimate heir of Florentino b Manungas.com. is an heir of Engracia Manungas. Given this duty on the part of the special administrator. unemployment. Cada-Deapera) C e s Question: X filed before the RTC-Caloocan a verified petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking l Y to produce before the court her biological daughter. Inc. by o an a Government act.chanroblesbar. LOCUS STANDI (Funa v. minor C and to return to her the custody b over the child. abandonment. Las Piñas. the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of Engracia B Manungas. The National Capital Judicial Region consists of the cities of Manila. Diosdado is a debtor of the estate and would have no interest in preserving its value. B Ch Pasay. There is no reason to appoint him as its special administrator. San Juan. The RTC appointed him as Special Administrator. Pateros. Pasig. o respondent filed the petition before the family court of Caloocan City. it is indubitable that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas l corpus before a family court in any of the cities enumerated is proper as long as the writ is b sought to be enforced within the National Capital Judicial Region. The mother is declared R unsuitable to have custody of her children in one or more of the following instances: a n neglect. immorality. standing to sue provided a constitutional issue of critical significance is at stake. or with material interest affected. Is the RTC correct? e s Answer: No. maltreatment of the child. or affliction with a communicable disease.chanroblesbar. While the trial court has the discretion to appoint anyone as a special b l administrator of the estate. Since Caloocan City and R Quezon City both belong to the same judicial region. being an illegitimate B son of Florentino Manungas. To reiterate. and Valenzuela. With the termination of the intestate l estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas. guided by the directives of equity. and drug addiction.com : www. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. Muntinlupa. Taguig. o RTC-Caloocan directed the Sheriff to serve the alias writ upon Y at the Office of the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City. is still not an heir of Engracia Manungas and is not entitled to receive any part o of the Estate of Manungas. therefore. as here. The R trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as special administrator of an r the Estate of Manungas B a h WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Tujanmilitante v. Quezon. C h 23 | P a g e www. RTC granted the same. such discretion must be exercised with reason. Court of Appeals) C e Question: What are some of the instances when the mother may be declared unsuitable to have s l custody of her children? o b Answer: The so-called tender-age presumption under Article 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mother’s unfitness. B a h CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN (Gamboa. In the case at bar. it would. Villar) C h s Question: What is the general rule in the appreciation of the legal standing of a party to the l e b case? Answer: The Court has time and again acted liberally on the locus standi requirements and has R accorded certain individuals. not be remiss to reiterate R o that the role of a special administrator is to preserve the estate until a regular administrator is appointed. Parañaque. Whether petitioner resides in the former or the latter is an r immaterial in view of the above rule. habitual drunkenness. Marikina. and the municipalities of Navotas. PARTIES.

R. CAUSE OF ACTION l e Question: What constitutes sufficiency of cause of action? o b R Answer: A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of the three essential an r elements of a cause of action. or relaxed. NO. a r To have legal standing. Inc. albeit they may not have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act. the bar. s The remedy in non-joinder of a party is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. and e s (c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said right b l RECEIVERSHIP (TANTANO vs. Gochico & Co is instructive: The power to appoint a receiver is a delicate one R an and should be exercised with extreme caution and only under circumstances requiring summary relief or where the court is satisfied that there is imminent danger of loss. b l in a catena of cases involving a subject of transcendental import. e s The rule on locus standi is after all a mere procedural technicality in relation to which the Court. thus allowing non-traditional plaintiffs. to R o sue in the public interest. ESPINA-CABOVERDE. 201816 R [2013]) an r Question: What is the remedy of a party who failed to include an indispensable party to case? B a Ch Answer: The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.chanroblesbar. NO. has waived. voters or legislators. and (2) whether or not the appointment l e will imperil the interest of others whose rights deserve as much a consideration from the court as those of the person requesting for receivership. B a h (3) When constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the C s bench.com : www. 195580 (2014)) e s l Question: Under what circumstances can courts decide a moot case? b Answer: Instances where courts can decide a moot case: o R (1) There is a grave violation of the Constitution.R.ph . a suitor must show that he has sustained or will sustain a B “direct injury” as a result of a government action.R. REDMONT CONSLIDATION CORP. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review.com. an r (2) The exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest is involved. such as concerned citizens. G. or have a “material interest” in the issue affected by the challenged official act. v. Before appointing a receiver. C (b) The correlative obligation of the defendant. NO. G.chanroblesbar. taxpayers. 203585 [2013]) R o n Question: What factors must be considered in determining the appointment of a receiver? a Answer: Receivership is a harsh remedy to be granted with utmost circumspection and only in C h extreme situations. The court should consider the consequences to all of the parties and the power should not be exercised when it is likely to 24 | P a g e www. and l e (4) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review o b NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES (HEIRS of MESINA vs. G. courts should consider: (1) whether or not the injury resulting from such appointment would probably be greater than s the injury ensuing if the status quo is left undisturbed. o b Velasco & Co. HEIRS of FIAN. n MOOT CASES (NARRA NICKEL MINING a rand DEVELOPMENT B CORPORATIONCORP v. lest the injury thereby C h caused be far greater than the injury sought to be averted. namely: B a h (a) The legal right of the plaintiff. therefore. and the public.

192217 [2011]) b l Question: Cite instances when a Writ of Execution can be a subject of an appeal? R o Answer: Instances where a writ of execution may be appealed: an r (1) the writ of execution varies the judgment.com : www. Department of Labor and Employment.R. e s l QUESTIONS OF FACTS vs. b l o (b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within R contemplation of law. or is issued against the wrong party. B a Ch s APPEAL OF WRIT OF EXECUTION (PAREL vs. considerations of justice and equity dictate that there be l e b some mode available to the party aggrieved of elevating the question to a higher court. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. G. or that the judgment debt has been paid or C h otherwise satisfied. an r (c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of a justice or to avoid B C h dispensing piecemeal justice. NO. prohibition. G. B a h (2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust. NO. HEIRS of SIMEON PRUDENCIO e G. 187730 [2010]) Question: What will trigger a review of findings of facts in a criminal case? C h 25 | P a g e www.chanroblesbar. s In these exceptional circumstances.chanroblesbar.ph . That mode of elevation may be either by appeal (writ of error or certiorari). or the writ was issued without authority. GALLO. a r produce irreparable injustice or injury to private rights or the facts demonstrate that the B appointment will injure the interests of others whose rights are entitled to as much consideration from the court as those of the complainant. QUESTIONS OF LAW (GENERAL MILLING CORP b (GMC) vs.com. an r (f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned. we explained that an appellate B court has a broad discretionary power in waiving the lack of assignment of errors in the following instances: e s (a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. NO. l thereof. s l e (d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored. or that it is defective in substance. R o an APPEAL OF CRIMINAL CASE (PEOPLE vs. Inc. or R o (5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation a n (6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued. C (3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution.R. RAMOS. or by a special civil action of certiorari. is dependent. e s b (4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court. 193723 [2011]) R o Question: Under what circumstances may an appellate court proceed with resolving an issue in the absence of assignment of errors? n a r Answer: In Diamonon v. o b R (e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned. or mandamus.R.

and bare denials of the accused. 207 SCRA 591 (1992): The s circumstance that the Judge who rendered the judgment was not the one who heard the e l witnesses.R. does not detract from the validity of the verdict of conviction. who R heard the witnesses. with testimonies on direct and cross examination as well as questions from the Court carefully passed upon. does not render the B judgment erroneous. misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have materially affected the outcome of the case. The trial an r judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe the demeanor of a the witnesses during trial. Such a reliance does not violate substantive and procedural due process of law. Moreover. the Supreme Court R o accords the trial court’s findings with the probative weight it deserves in the absence of any compelling reason to discredit the same. 185390 B [2011]) s Question: Is judgment valid despite the fact that the judge who rendered it was not the one who e l heard the case? o b Answer: The fact that the judge who rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses does not adversely affect the validity of conviction. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. knowledge and observation of ordinary men. R o an r CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES (PEOPLE vs.” h (PEOPLE vs. 5 of Rule 114. does not detract from the validity of the verdict of conviction. ALFREDO. Even a cursory perusal b of the Decision would show that it was based on the evidence presented during trial and that it was carefully studied. BAUTISTA. but merely relied on the records of the case. on the one hand. conduct and attitude under grilling examination. a bail- 26 | P a g e www. n a r CONVICTION BY NEW JUDGE (PEOPLE vs. NO. 188601 (2010)) B Question: What is the general rule in appreciating the testimonies of witnesses in case which is a a subject of an appeal? C h s l e Answer: It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court. an Question: When can the appellate court grant bail? C h Answer: Bail pending appeal is governed by Sec.R. or when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.chanroblesbar. RIGHT TO BAIL (QUI vs. As this Court held in People v. or when n certain facts of substance and value. e s b l Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses. such as when the trial R court’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record. NO. the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the o b R RTC of an offense not punishable by death. Competente. NO. G. The appellate court can deny petitioner’s application for bail pending appeal on the ground that she is a flight risk. G. The trial court has the unique o b opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and note their demeanor. The new judge “can rely on the R transcripts of stenographic notes and calibrate the testimonies of witnesses in accordance with an r their conformity to common experience. Inc. on the other hand. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. G. G. likely to change the outcome of the case have been a overlooked by the lower court. a r Answer: It is a fundamental judicial dictum that the findings of fact of the trial court are not B disturbed on appeal except when it overlooked. however. NO. 188560 (2010)) B C e s Question: Can a conviction be sustained despite the fact that the same was rendered by a judge who did not hear the case? b l o Answer: The circumstance that the judge who rendered the judgment was not the one. the former must prevail. PEOPLE.R.com.com : www.ph . 196161 (2012)) C h s Question: When is bail a matter of right? l e Answer: Under the present rule. This rule admits of exceptions.R. especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its Ch conclusion.chanroblesbar. PALING and VILBAR.

184681 (2013)) Question: What is the determination of probable cause? e s b l Answer: The determination of probable cause is.R. and are evidence against a n him. an r Sec. the materiality of the erroneous designation of the a offended party would depend on whether or not the subject matter of the offense was sufficiently B described and identified. more so if the variance relates to the designation of the offended party. which compelled said court to issue s three warrants for petitioner’s arrest. R Petitioner’s argument that she has the constitutional right to bail and that the evidence of guilt n r against her is not strong is spurious. DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE (SALAPUDDIN vs. b l against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them under the principle of res R o Tamargo vs. neither ought their acts or conduct be used C s as evidence against him. R Otherwise. NO. which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. and petitioner does not deny the fact. NO. the presumption a of innocence.R. So are his conduct and declarations. o b This fact alone should weigh heavily against a grant of bail pending appeal. that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers.com : www. and with it. as when she failed to attend the hearings before the RTC. an r EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS B a h Question: Will a valid extrajudicial confession bind his co-accused? C e Answer: An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. ends. the RTC issued warrants for her arrest. The exception provided under Sec. B DISCREPANCY IN ALLEGATIONS AND DENOMINATION OFFENSE (SENADOR vs. viz. 180452 (2011)) Question: When may a law enforcer effect a valid warrantless arrest? an C h 27 | P a g e www. pointed out by the OSG. The appellate court anchored its denial on several B circumstances. o b R In case of an error in the designation of the offended party in crimes against property. a man’s own acts are binding upon himself. Rule 110. NO.chanroblesbar. entitling her to an acquittal? R an r Answer: No. the constitutional right to bail. an executive o function that the courts cannot interfere with in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. Inc. 30. o b R VALIDITY OF WARRANTLESS ARREST (PEOPLE vs. a mere formal defect. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the admission of a conspirator requires the prior establishment of the l e conspiracy by evidence other than the confession. which showed petitioner’s propensity to evade the law.R.: [O]n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience. G. Awingan elaborated on the reason for this rule. There is no dispute. thus. 5 (d) of Rule 114. e l that on various dates. under our criminal justice system. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient. a violation of the basic principle of separation of powers will ensue. COURT OF APPEALS B a Ch G.com. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. It cannot be admitted s inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. but also manifestly unjust. G. Certainly one is convicted by the trial court. a r negating factor under Sec.12 of the Rules of Court mandates the correction of the information not its dismissal. and if h a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers. C h s Variance between the allegations of the information and the evidence offered by the prosecution l e does not of itself entitle the accused to an acquittal. NG YIK BUN.chanroblesbar. s PEOPLE. 201620 (2013) e b l Question: Will an error in the designation in the Information of the offended party violates petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against o her. In offenses against property.ph .

(2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved. absent any showing of ill motive on e s l the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter.R. As held in People v. he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 194379 (2011)) n a r Question: Can an accuse claim sweetheart defense in a rape case? B Answer: Yes. an r As held in Salvador v. C h 28 | P a g e www.com.R. in o many cases. prevails over the defense of denial. granting they had an illicit affair. Inc. circumstantial evidence shall be sufficient for conviction when the following requisites are complied with: B Ch s (1) there is more than one circumstance. As the Court held. the sweetheart defense can be claimed as an affirmative defense but it must be s supported by convincing proof. result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the community” DENIAL CANNOT PREVAIL OVER POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION (PEOPLE vs. Alunday. the sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense o that must be supported by convincing proof. 564 SCRA 135 (2008). e b l The theory that Cias and AAA were having an illicit affair is unsupported by evidence. In the case at bar. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial e evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. and l e o b (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond R reasonable doubt. e b l In flagrante delicto arrest must consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. the Court held that when a police officer B sees the offense. R o SWEETHEART DEFENSE IN RAPE (PEOPLE vs. LUCERO. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. or even a single photograph––to substantiate his claim that they had a romantic a relationship. He did not offer any other evidence––such as a love letter. 188705 (2011)) o b R Question: What factors will support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence? an a r Answer: Under Sec. a r Answer: In People v. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which b l proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. their testimonies are entitled to full an faith and credit. Besides. 4. NO. NO. as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view.chanroblesbar. 189301 (2011)) a n h Question: Can denial prevail over positive identification of the accused? C Answer: Categorical and consistent positive identification. accused-appellant relied solely on R his testimony and that of his wife. At times.R. They have no reason to o perjure and accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were moved by R any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Accused- b appellant was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses.chanroblesbar. Cabanilla. NO. People: B a h “Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its C s conclusion and finding of guilt. Rule 113 s of the Rules of Court. Thus.ph . 635 SCRA 300 (2010). this fact alone does not rule out rape as it B does not necessarily mean that consent was present. resort to circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct testimony would. G. R COMBATE. G. although at a distance. and proceeds at once to the scene.” s l e REQUISITES OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (PEOPLE vs. CIAS. a an r memento. the presumption that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands. 5(a). “A love affair does not C h justify rape for a man does not have an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will.com : www.appellants. G. or hears the disturbances created thereby.

” (Resident Mammals v. whether it represents proprietary. s or charitable causes. a n Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. and the consideration. they neither vitiate the a essential integrity of the evidence in its material entirety nor reflect adversely on the credibility B C h of witnesses. or petitioner and respondent. Section 1. Can inanimate objects be parties in environmental cases? o b R A. NO. Reyes. 2015) l e Q. o b R B filed a motion to dismiss claiming venue was improperly laid as the larger part of the real an property is situated in Quezon City. is situated.is an C h acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases.a creature of ecclesiastical law . venue may be conferred by the act or agreement of the parties. [Justice] Florenz D. venue. (c) a Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter.chanroblesbar. (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law.B. or C h interest therein. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes. a relation B Ch between plaintiff and defendant.R. opined: s l e “The critical question of "standing" would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we o b fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled. wherein Justice William O. In the case. s e PART II: CONCEPTS. a r MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONIES (PEOPLE vs.chanroblesbar. and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. the object. A ship has a legal personality. 2005) l e Q. the Court may take cognizance of the case to protect the interests of the mammals. of procedural law. G. Rogers C. Douglas. defaced. Regalado differentiated jurisdiction and venue as follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. b l The trial court explained that the inconsistencies found in the testimonies of the witnesses for the o prosecution were minor and even made their testimonial evidence more believable and R unrehearsed.ph . venue. The corporation sole .com : www. Is B correct? A. are badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of their R o testimonies. spiritual. a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. venue is the place where the case is to an r be heard or tried. and. (Nocum v Lucio Tan. or a portion thereof. No. The Supreme Court invoked the newly-adopted Rules on Environmental Cases holding that since the resident mammals of Tanon Strait are represented by natural persons acting as stewards an r of creation. n r Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details a concerning the principal occurrence. Is venue synonymous with jurisdiction? o R A. more frequently than not. B 186120 (2011)) s Question: Will minor inconsistencies invalidate a conviction? e b l Answer: Minor variances in the details of the witnesses’ accounts. an r Minor discrepancies in their testimonies are. PRINCIPLES AND OTHER LEADING JURISPRUDENCE l b Q. aesthetic. dissenting to the conventional thought on legal standing. the prosecution must be e s able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller.com. It is also worth pointing 29 | P a g e www. Petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards cited the 1972 United States B a C h case Sierra Club v. B In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs. (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by s law and cannot be conferred by the parties. shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved. A filed a case for forcible entry before a first level court of Manila against B praying that the latter be ejected from a parcel of land situated at the boundary of Manila and Quezon City. x x x. SOBANGEE. of Rule 4 states that actions affecting title to or possession of real property. or invaded R by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. in fact. Morton. Hon. No. Inc. to be expected.

real property. What are the factors to determine which court has jurisdiction? B A. Rule 70) n a r Q. Once the court acquires jurisdiction by virtue of a valid complaint. the Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction.ph . If a case is such that its determination requires the expertise. that jurisdiction shall o b R continue up to the end of the case. exclusive of interests. the Sandiganbayan should not dismiss the case because of this principle as it had already acquired jurisdiction. or any interest therein where the assessed value of e the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20.00) exclusive of interest. Sec. Asdala. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts [include] "all civil actions which C s involve title to. Suppose an action for reconveyance of real property valued at P19. What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction? o b R n A. in civil actions in Metro Manila. In a number of cases. B a C h attorney’s fees.000. (Sec. Inc. 2006) s Q.000. specialized training and a knowledge of an administrative body. (Euro –Med Laboratory v. R an r Q. Note that the courts of law HAVE jurisdiction but will defer to administrative bodies because of their expertise.chanroblesbar. In all other cases in which the demand. Sandiganbayan b l has jurisdiction over some offenses of public officers regardless of where the crime was committed) or who the victim is (where one or more of the victims is a minor at the time of the 5) R o commission of the offense.999.99 is filed before a a Municipal Trial Court. an (Example: when a public officer resigns during the pendency of a case against him before the Sandiganbayan. The motion to dismiss may be allowed as the rules allow said motion if based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and failure to comply with the conciliation R requirement under Section 12. Province of Batangas. the Court has held that actions for reconveyance of or l e for cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under the classification of cases that involve "title to. damages of whatever kind. attorney's fees.paraphrased) l e (P400. family Courts have jurisdiction over the criminal case. damages of whatever kind.com.00) [outside b l Metro Manila or.000. or possession of. litigation expenses. In some criminal cases.000. What is the doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction? l e A. real property. litigation expenses and costs. or any interest therein. and territorial jurisdiction will determine jurisdiction in criminal actions. 2009) This means that the jurisdiction over the case will be determined based on the assessed value of the real property involved. No. s Q.00) in Metro Manila. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the matter may well be within their proper C h jurisdiction. 13 Rule 70. imposable penalty. you will have to consider who the accused is (ex. What is the rule on jurisdiction over cases involving real property? h B A. R o an r Q. RA 8396. What is the rule on jurisdiction over money claims and personal property? A. an a r Q. would it be correct to ask for the dismissal of the case for lack of B jurisdiction over the subject matter as reconveyance is incapable of pecuniary estimation? Ch s A. 13.) C h 30 | P a g e www. where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50. and costs or the value of the property exceeds Three hundred thousand pesos (P300.chanroblesbar.00) outside Metro Manila or Four hundred thousand pesos s of BP 129. Nature of action and amount claim will determine jurisdiction in civil actions while nature of e s the offense. (Section 19 (8) Q. a r out that B should not have filed a motion to dismiss based on an objection to venue as said B motion is a prohibited pleading in an ejectment case under Sec. What if A filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that resort to conciliation had not been e l previously resorted to? o b A. as amended . o b (San Pedro v. Rule 70. or possession of. Rule 70 in relation to Section 12. Intervening facts will not deprive the courts of jurisdiction. *Please refer to previous question.com : www.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. (b) where the n r challenged administrative act is patently illegal. and the Commission on Audit. Rule 2 A. executive order. (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided s by the courts of justice. o b R (c) cases raising novel questions of law. are appropriate for transfer to the Court en banc. (h) where the controverted acts violate due process. The court will defer to the administrative agency before taking cognizance of the case. e s Otherwise stated. s l e (b) criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpetua. 3. law. the reinstatement of a lawyer in the roll of attorneys. (l) o in quo warranto proceedings (Republic v Lacap. 10-4-20-SC) 31 | P a g e C www. When may the Supreme Court En Banc take cognizance of a case? B a A. 2007. order. (f) where judicial intervention is urgent. or any s e Associate Justice of the collegial appellate court. R (k) cases where three votes in a Division cannot be obtained. ordinance. international or executive C h agreement. (i) when b the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. the disbarment forty thousand pesos. What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? B A. (c) where a there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant.com. and orders of the Civil Service Commission. and consuls.chanroblesbar.com : www. or regulation is in question. B a C h (h) cases involving the discipline of a Member of the Court. an a r (d) cases affecting ambassadors. b l Q. and h (o) all matters involving policy decisions in the administrative supervision of all courts and their personnel. the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year.) R an r Q. resolutions. presidential decree.ph . x x x (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine. What are the exceptions? R o A. a r Q. and.chanroblesbar. R an (n) Cases that the Court en banc deems of sufficient importance to merit its attention. (k) when strong public interest is involved. B Ch (e) cases involving decisions. a n h (l) Division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact on businesses or affects C s e the welfare of a community. in the opinion of at least three bl o Members of the Division who are voting and present. proclamation. No. a party must exhaust all remedies before administrative bodies before judicial recourse unless case falls within the exceptions.M. other division cases that. (a) cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. amounting to lack of jurisdiction. the s Commission on Elections. (m) Subject to Section 11 (b) of this rule. b l (i) cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court en banc or by a Division may be o modified or reversed. B (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive. or the lifting of a judge’s suspension or a lawyer’s suspension from the practice of law. or a Presiding Justice. instruction. o b of a lawyer. (j) cases involving conflicting decisions of two or more divisions. (j) when there is no other plain. Inc. (Sec. speedy and adequate remedy. or a fine exceeding R (g) cases covered by the preceding paragraph and involving the reinstatement in the judiciary of an r a dismissed judge. l e (f) cases where the penalty recommended or imposed is the dismissal of a judge. other public ministers. (g) when its application may e l cause great and irreparable damage.

moved to dismiss s the case. other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari.ph . it C s did so only on sufficient and justifiable grounds that compelled a liberal approach while avoiding e the effective negation of the intent of the rule on non-forum shopping. 2006). To be taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint. this does not automatically denote substantial compliance.com. x x x It is expressly prohibited xxx because it b trifles with and abuses court processes. (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. I will grant the Motion to Dismiss. B Q. and congest our court dockets.chanroblesbar. 2013) Q. Q. opposing counsel. A wilful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum shopping is a ground for Tomas (2013) R o summary dismissal of the case. Non- h compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally C defective. Atty.com : www. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. and may also constitute direct contempt. the Court b finds that the CA correctly dismissed Anderson’s Petition for Review on the ground that the certificate of non-forum shopping attached thereto was signed by Atty. While the Court notes that Anderson tried to correct this error by later submitting an SPA and by explaining her failure to execute one prior to the filing of the n petition. Reyes. and not merely speculative. The Court held in a decided case: “In this light. (Orpiano v. (3) when R o there is grave abuse of discretion. It may also be the institution of e s two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or l the other court would make a favorable decision. Inc. of seeking and possibly getting a favorable opinion in another Ch forum. other pleadings of the plaintiff. a r Please take note of letter (n) just in case you forget any specific ground. (6) when in making its findings the Court of an r Appeals went beyond the issues of the case. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. It must be remembered that a a defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent correction. Ho. (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed l absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. or (11) when the Court of b Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties. How do you determine the sufficiency of a cause of action? e s A. which. and is substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of 32 | P a g e www. As judge. the court could render a valid verdict in b l accordance with the prayer of the complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative. Spouses an a r Q. As a general rule. Inc. the Supreme Court may not look into the questions of facts passed to it on an appeal. and while it is true h that in some cases the Court considered such a belated submission as substantial compliance. surmises or conjectures. or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both a the appellant and the appellee. China Banking Corp. In the Certification of Non-Forum h B Shopping. extraneous facts and R o circumstances or other matter aliunde are not considered but the court may consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents. B a Q: May the Supreme Court look into or determine questions of fact? e s A. What would suffice as compliance to the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum bl o Shopping? R A It is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are an not jurisdictional. The test is whether or not admitting the facts alleged. against whom an adverse judgment or order B has been rendered in one forum. if properly considered. What is forum shopping? R o an a r A. However.chanroblesbar. or n r admissions in the records (Zepeda v. (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court. David). Oliva on her R o behalf sans any authority to do so. (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken. C h (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are s e not disputed by the respondent. he signed it on behalf of his client. the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the lower courts in b l the following instances: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations. “Forum shopping is defined as an act of a party. degrades the administration of justice. Atty.” (Anderson v. (8) B when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based. Santos filed a pleading before the trial court. would justify a different conclusion. will you grant the Motion to Dismiss? C e l A. vs. (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting. absurd or impossible.

X filed an amended complaint impleading UST as a defendant. Eugene L. Therefore.com. her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings. While undoubtedly. the Dean for the College of Law. aggrieved. h The CA denied the petition. a r the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition. which was C denied. becomes a litigant therein to enable him. n a r A. it may only be permitted by the court when the movant establishes facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing it. Jurisprudence describes intervention as a remedy by which a third party. Musli.49 Civil Procedure. He retired as chancellor and was subsequently hired by Aliga. Online Networks International. prompting him to file a petition under Rule 65 with the CA. and not on behalf of UST. While the certification requirement is obligatory. The CA granted the e l petition filed by X and reversed the omnibus motion dismissing the complaint directing the b RTC to hear the case. it may not avail l e itself of the remedy of intervention in this particular case where Musli filed the present appeal in his personal capacity. May the trial court motu proprio dismiss a case without conducting any proceeding without a violating the principle of due process? B Ch A. Musli. X then filed a motion for summary judgment. May UST intervene? A. Musli then filed a motion for reconsideration. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. R o The case being remanded back to the RTC. (b) litis l pendentia. 2011). As a general e l rule. o b Q: X was the Chancellor for University of Science and Technology (UST). as the Court finds in the instant case. For a question to be one of law. the certification against forum shopping is required based on the principle that a party litigant should not be allowed to s pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora. the rule C e s of substantial compliance may be availed of. In X's Amended 33 | P a g e www. in the same R University. X then filed a motion for reconsideration. namely: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. and when matters alleged in the petition B have been made in good faith or are true ad correct. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. UST is not a third party in the o b proceedings herein. (c) res judicata. UST has a legal interest in the outcome of the case. The RTC then granted the a n summary judgment ruling in favor of X and subsequently the motion for execution pending appeal. UST then decided to C s intervene. The right to C h intervene is not an absolute right. The case was dismissed by the RTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction reasoning that s the case is an illegal dismissal complaint. v. Rule 9 provides for only four instances when the court may motu e s proprio dismiss the claim. Inc. Yes.ph . and (d) prescription of action. On the other hand.”(Sps.chanroblesbar.. (Estel v.com : www.chanroblesbar. an a r Note: Liberal Application of the Rule in the following instances: h B It is settled that with respect to the contents of the certification against forum shopping. filed with the CA a petition for certiorari in his personal capacity. Inc. X then filed a Complaint for Injunction with a Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) before the h B RTC. not R an originally impleaded in the proceedings. the new chancellor. Lim and Constancia Lim v. Section 1. to teach Law subjects as a substitute professor. a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) shall raise only b questions of law.T Kee Computer Systems. No. One who claims the benefit of an estoppel on the ground that he has been misled by the representations of another must not have been misled R o through his own want of reasonable care and circumspection (F. e l non-compliance or a defect in the certificate could be cured by its subsequent correction or b submission under special circumstances or compelling reasons or on the ground of “substantial compliance. Inc. It does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions o under justifiable circumstances. This is because the requirement of strict compliance l with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum shopping merely underscores its b mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. which must be distinctly set forth. 2013) R o Q: Distinguish question of law from question of fact.A. 2012) R an r Q. Diego. subject to exceptions. the same must not involve an examination of the probative s value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. CA. B while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. wrote a an r letter addressed to X requiring him to retire.

and causes of action be shown in the two cases. resolutions and decisions of the HRET. UST came under the jurisdiction of the RTC when it was served with summons and s participated in the case. UST was already impleaded as one of the defendants in the first civil B case. and 3) identity in the two particulars is such that any judgment which may be h rendered in the other action will. Under the Rules. Intervention requires that they were not impleaded in a former l b proceedings so as not to enable them to protect or preserve their right. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. or. res judicata embraces two concepts: (1) bar by prior judgment as enunciated in Section 47(b) of the said Rule and (2) conclusiveness of judgment as o b explained in Section 47(c) of the same Rule. which C states: e b l “SEC. 2012). Inc. or (b) by leaving copies at defendants e office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. subject matter. 6. then res judicata as 34 | P a g e www. In Federico S. the relief is founded on the same facts). b l o Q. Rule 14. the service of the summons was made through registered mail. the defendant cannot be served a within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section. (Mangudadatu v. Whenever practicable. (The Board of Regents of Mindanao State University v.” Datu was e unable to file his answer to counter the protest even after 43 days so HRET entered a general l denial for him. 1) an identity between the parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both a n actions. by tendering it to him. what are the two concepts of res judicata and when can each be applied? l e A. it being impracticable to send the same by s personal service to protestee or respondents who reside in said far provinces. it has been its practice to B serve the summons through registered mail. Significantly.ph . ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. the rights and interests of UST were duly presented before the e RTC in the former Civil Case. the summons shall be o served handling a copy thereof to the defendant in person. In h B view of the failure of the HRET Rules to specify the authorized modes of service of summons. C only identity of parties can be shown. R o Q. a r Complaint before the RTC. The 2004 HRET Rules on summons is silent on how the summons should be served on the protestee.com : www. for justifiable causes.” b l In the case at bar. Sandoval II v. service may be effected (a) B Ch by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of s suitable age and discretion then residing therein. Q. If in ordinary civil cases (which involve only private and proprietary interests) personal service of summons is preferred and B a h service by registered mail is not allowed on jurisdictional and due process grounds. If as between the two cases. Hilario. Evidently. 7. R an Should identity of parties. if he refuses to receive and sign for it. with more C s reason should election cases (which involve public interest and the will of the electorate) strictly e follow the hierarchy of modes of service of summons under the Rules of Court. Rule 14 of an r the Rules of Court apply suppletorily to the Rules of the HRET. Substituted service. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Service in person on defendant. R an r SEC. s resort then is necessary to Sections 6 and 7. 2) a similarity of rights asserted and relief prayed for (that is. this Court has held that in the matter of service of summons. An election protest was filed by Montilla against Datu. Rule 80[15] of the 2004 HRET Rules provides that the 1997 Rules of an r Civil Procedure applies by analogy or suppletorily in so far as the latter may be applicable and a not inconsistent therewith as well as with the orders. May summons in HRET cases be served by registered mail? R o A. regardless of which party is successful. If.chanroblesbar. 2008).com. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. fully adjudicate or settle C s the issues raised in the action under consideration (RCBC v. 2012). he filed a motion for reconsideration to accept his b answer but it was denied. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and Aurora Rosario A. Osop. which o is not among the allowed modes of service under Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Sections 6 and 7. R Oreta. then h res judicata in its aspect as a “bar by prior judgment” would apply.chanroblesbar. but not identical causes of action. When Datu learned this. What are the elements of res judicata? R A. The service of summons has been n r done through registered mail: this is according to their internal rules: “In cases filed before a the Tribunal involving distant legislative districts and provinces.

While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases. the substantive law on which the Rules of Court is based. and calls for res judicata’s application. the judgment of the court. Q. will you grant the motion? parties. makes no distinction between the l e periods to appeal in a civil case and in a criminal case. or matter in issue has previously been a either “directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action”45by a B competent court (Heirs of Miguel v. while the Court R an did not consider in Neypes the ordinary appeal period in criminal cases under Section 6. binding upon the parties to the action. the Court ruled that a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court. Yes. fact. For purposes of conclusiveness of n r judgment. e s Q. BP 129. demand. Yes.com. and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in a the other action. will. and Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure governing appeals by certiorari to this Court. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. it did include Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on petitions for review from the RTCs to C h the Court of Appeals (CA). Third. To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity o b to appeal their cases. as amended. A "minute resolution may amount to a final action on the case but it is not a precedent x x x x it cannot bind non-parties to the action. moved to dismiss the case filed by Production Bank against it C e s since the new complaint raises the same issues in a prior case which has become final and l executory? As judge. the provisions of Section 3 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of o b Criminal Procedure. CA. Heirs of Angel Miguel.(LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure since it involved a purely civil case.Valentino Development Co. Second. Is the Neypes Doctrine applicable to criminal cases? a n C h A. as provided by 35 | P a g e www. Gateway Property Holdings.chanroblesbar. or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which b l judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated whether or not the claim. First. we can conclude that a minute R o resolution. May a minute resolution be considered for purposes of res judicata? b l A. x x x x for purposes of the application of res an r judicata. 2014) e s Q: What are the elements of litis pendentia? b l R o A: (a) identity of parties. though differently worded. while not a precedent relative to strangers to an action. For res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment to apply. minute resolutions issued by this Court are as much precedents as promulgated a decisions. identity of issues means that the right. Inc. B Identity of parties is a requisite in the application of conclusiveness of judgment. hence.chanroblesbar. a r “conclusiveness of judgment” applies. identity of cause of action is not required but merely identity of issue. the relief being founded on the same an r facts. any right. the Court’s pronouncement of a "fresh period" to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under s Section 6 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure . Yes. or when an B opportunity for such trial has been given. (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for. purpose.com : www. What is the Neypes Doctrine? C h s l e A. or subject matter of the two actions R o is the same. So long as the e s parties or their privies are identical. Planters Development Bank.” Corollary thereto. or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions. o b A. both of which also apply to appeals in criminal cases. mean exactly the same. 2013) h B Q. 2014). should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them . amount to res judicata in the action B under consideration (PND v. 2012). as long as it remains Ch unreversed. counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a R new trial or motion for reconsideration should be given to litigants (Neypes v. regardless of which party is successful.ph .2005) Q. Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment is binding and conclusive on the R an r The doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment postulates that when a right or fact a has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. LIM. (PNB v. fact. nonetheless binds the parties therein.

com. 180206. They then applied for a a TRO before the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) seeking to enjoin The B Baguio Cleaning Movement Inc. both of which enjoin only the courts. Tajala. Termination or rescission of B any such contract/project. In this o b Presidential Decree No. in G. The Neypes ruling applies to judicial proceedings only as the reason for such ruling also b l known as the "fresh period rule" is to standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules of Court. 605and e projects covers only judges. e s l xxx b Should a judge violate the preceding section. The Supreme Court ruled that although the NCIP has the authority to issue temporary s restraining orders and writs of injunction. operation of any such contract or project. entitled to its own application of injunction against the tribes? C h A: Yes. this Court. 8975 that the prohibition against government l respect. acting under the government’s direction. cannot nullify the preliminary injunction order issued by NCIP on the ground of violation of said laws (The Baguio Regreening Movement. a r Section 3 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Yu v. R a n Q: Under the foregoing facts. (Panolino v. Samson-Tatad. Inc. 23 Proclamation No. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. No. shall suffer the penalty of suspension of at least sixty (60) days without pay. shall issue any temporary restraining order. 2011) B Q. any judge who shall issue a temporary restraining order. The law provides: an a r “Section 3. is Baguio Cleaning Movement. except the Supreme C h Court. the Supreme Court. the law which prohibits TROs against national government project cover TROs issued by NCIP? R o A. — In addition to any civil and criminal liabilities he or she an r may incur under existing laws. 1818. and others from fencing the Busol Watershed Reservation. Inc. No. officials or any l e person or entity. ultimately granted the petition of the City Government of Baguio and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued therein.R. Masweng. and does not apply to the NCIP or its hearing officers. RA 8975 provides the following penalty: o R Section 6. 15 does not appear to be a definitive l e recognition of the tribe’s ancestral land claim.ph . clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national government project. Commencement. Is the Neypes Doctrine applicable to administrative cases? e s A.” C h s It is clear from the foregoing provisions of RA. as it merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan families as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest Reservation. and thus may issue injunctive writs. Preliminary B Injunctions and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. or any of its subdivisions. b argued that NCIP has no jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly. 2013). to b restrain. Penal Sanction.chanroblesbar. – No court. preliminary in junction or preliminary s mandatory injunction against the government.chanroblesbar. Republic Act No. and The undertaking or authorization of any other lawful Ch activity necessary for such contract/ project. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders. 2010) R o Q: Members of the Ibaloi Tribes of Baguio City claim that their parents inherited from their n r ancestors several parcels of land in the Busol Watershed Reservation. It also ruled that the NCIP has jurisdiction over all s claims and dispute involving rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) and e l Indigenous Peoples. C h 36 | P a g e www. Bidding or awarding of cont ract/project of the national an r government as defined under Section 2 hereof. No. prohibit or compel the following acts: R o Acquisition. v. Does RA 8975. Inc. it was not convinced that the tribes were entitled to the relief granted by the Commission. execution. but does not acknowledge o b vested rights over the same. a preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in violation of Section 3 B hereof. prosecution. The Baguio Cleaning Movement Inc. The NCIP granted the TRO application. Since it is required before the issuance of a writ of preliminary R an injunction that claimants show the existence of a right to be protected. a implementation. whether public or private. 8975 conforms to the coverage of Presidential Decree No.com : www.

or officer (Dee C s Ping Wee v. He was forewarned n r that the sheriff is about to execute the judgment which would adversely affect his substantive a right. A petition for review. The tribes are therefore not l barred from proving their alleged ancestral domain claim in the appropriate proceeding. 2013) C e s Q. This is true even if the error. A petition for review is a mode of appeal. Esteban is not a party to a case which has become final and executory. The assailed orders relative to the incident of support pendent lite and support in arrears. and antithetical. 401 [1990]) we declared that for a third-party claim or a terceria to prosper. or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions n acted without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and a there is no appeal or any plain. and adequate remedy in law. board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions 37 | P a g e www. v. or one of the errors. a r The conclusions of this Court in both the case at bar and that in G. the claimant must first h B unmistakably establish his ownership or right of possession thereon.com. 2013). However. the Rules expressly provide: Section 1. What remedy is available to Esteban? B A. Inc. before the court can exercise its supervisory power to direct the release of the property a mistakenly levied and the restoration thereof to its rightful owner. as they are based merely on the allegations in the complaint or petition and not on evidence adduced e s in a full-blown proceeding on the merits by the proper tribunal. as the term suggests. In Spouses Sy v. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. on the h other hand. s Discaya (260 Phil. No. ascribed to the court R o an rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.chanroblesbar. Having chosen the wrong remedy in questioning the subject interlocutory orders of the RTC.R. 180206 as regards B private respondents’ ancestral land claim should therefore be considered provisional. b despite the denial of the temporary injunctive relief prayed for (The Baguio Regreening Movement. If a decision is rendered with grave abuse of discretion. Q.com : www. The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification of the judgment on the merits is appeal. or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the h decision (Sawadjaan v. Petition for C certiorari. CA. e 2013) Q. May orders pendente lite be appealed? b l R o A. R o Q.ph . speedy. to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of e l the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor. The right of a third-party claimant to file a terceria is founded on his title or right of possession. (Calderon V. were issued pending the an r rendition of the decision on the main action for declaration of nullity of marriage and are a therefore interlocutory. b l A. Section 16. or the exercise of power in excess thereof. Lee Hiong Wee. No. Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the s remedies of either terceria. Baldevia v. Distinguish a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 from a petition for review under Rule 43. support. 2005) Besides. seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court. mutually exclusive. Roxas. What is the nature of orders covering support pendete lite? R o A. C e the claimant must first sufficiently establish his right on the property. The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in an r excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. the person other than the judgment debtor who claims ownership or right over levied R o properties is not precluded from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his claim. Baldevia v. board. tribunal. and conjugal assets.chanroblesbar. They are interlocutory in nature. They did not finally dispose of the case nor did they consist of a final B Ch adjudication of the merits of petitioner’s claims as to the ground of psychological incapacity and s other incidents as child custody. No. Corollary an r thereto. Roxas. Hon. 2010). or an independent “separate b action” to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over the foreclosed property. while a special civil action for certiorari is an extraordinary process for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. petitioner’s appeal was correctly B a h dismissed by the CA. (Calderon V. (Villasi v. — When any tribunal. It is basic remedial law that the R o two remedies are distinct. should there always be resort to a l e b petition for certiorari under Rule 65? A. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper if the tribunal. Inc. Garcia 2014) b l Q. Masweng.

” Hence. What is Ali’s remedy? What court has jurisdiction? o b R A. (Acbang v. Necessarily then. Considering that ejectment is summary proceeding. must: (1) perfect an b appeal. but the defendant. C h Q. The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment. Y was adjudged loser in an ejectment case. and (3) periodically deposit the rentals becoming due during o the pendency of the appeal. b l Q. Petition for relief from judgment.com. an Q. The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari before the RTC. because said decision is unappealable. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting B to lack or excess of jurisdiction. order or other proceedings. and there is no appeal. alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered e l annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal. (2) file a supersedeas bond. Inc. Rule 38 of the Rules of Court an a r “SEC. As a general rule. The judge ruled in her favor. Considering that small claims cases are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the 38 | P a g e www. Was Ali correct? B a Ch s A. if the defendant- appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond. 2010) a n *Note that the Court treated the petition for relief from judgment before the RTC as a petition for certiorari in this case. (Agdal v. Jr. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.ph . Luczon. the immediate execution of an r the judgment would automatically follow. board or officer. The RTC has no jurisdiction over the petition. mistake or excusable negligence. No. the R o duty of the court in this respect being “ministerial and imperative. No. 1. Can Fernando.chanroblesbar. Section 23 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases states that the decision shall immediately be entered by the Clerk of Court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy o b R thereof forthwith served on the parties. to stay its immediate execution. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. R o Q. . When can she s ask for execution of the judgment? l e A. or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a C h party in any court through fraud. he may file s e a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment. (2) he files a supersedeas bond. Carlos.chanroblesbar. the losing party appeal the ruling of the Small Claims Court? C h A. Section 1. and (3) he periodically deposits b the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. the filing of a supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the s appeal is not perfected. a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately B executory in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. Gabby filed an unlawful detainer case against Ali and won. Hon. a petition for certiorari must be filed.When a B judgment or final order is entered. No. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in s the proper court. 2014) R Q. B a h Conversely. order or l proceeding be set aside. a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit l is immediately executory. the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period C e for the perfection of the appeal. and granting such b incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.com : www. or any plain.” Q. speedy. In short. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is s pending the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the e l defendant perfects his appeal. what remedy is available to Y to postpone the effectivity of the judgment? n a r A. Rosario filed a suit in the Small Claims Court. To question the decision. a r has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction. Ali filed a petition for relief an r from judgment before the same MTC that rendered the decision in the unlawful detainer case. accident. May Ali file his petition for relief from judgment before the RTC? provides: R o A. A Petition for relief from judgment is a prohibited pleading in an ejectment case e under Section 13(4) of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter . Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused .the offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of. the criminal an r action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or a territory where the vessel passed during such voyage. aircraft or other vehicle passed during such its trip. Inc.com : www. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. including the place of its departure and arrival. The distinction between the elements of the offense and the evidence of these elements is 39 | P a g e www. Under Section 3.chanroblesbar.chanroblesbar. venue is jurisdictional. Q. Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to the an court. This petitioner complied with when it s instituted its petition for certiorari before the RTC which. What are the distinctions between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts? C h A. It is the power of the State to try and punish a person for a violation of its penal laws.com. This must take precedence over the action for recovery B of possession and ownership. the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the a municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential B ingredients occurred. Mondejar. or a particular fact. l e 3. Ang Network. Municipal Trial Courts in Cities. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court R an r (a) Subject to existing laws. C h (d) Crimes committed outside the Philippines but punishable under Article 2 of the Revised s l e Penal Code shall be cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed(the case must be filed. Ch s (b) Where an offense is committed in a train. 1. 360 of the Revised Penal Code which provides R n Q.ph . Jurisprudence dictates that the determination of who are the legal heirs of the deceased n r must be made in the proper special proceedings in court. No. Municipal Trial Courts. (A. or other public or private vehicle while in l e the course of its trip. o b R (c) Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage. What are the requisites for a valid exercise of jurisdiction? a A. a right. generally. v. has e l jurisdiction over the same. 2014) o b Q: May the determination of heirs be made in an action for recovery of ownership of property? R A. an a r Q. In criminal cases. and not in an ordinary suit for recovery a of ownership and possession of property.L. What is the rule on jurisdiction and venue in criminal cases? provides: o b A. Section 15. a r Metropolitan Trial Courts. the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such train. and B Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. It is then decisively clear that the R o declaration of heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here are seeking the establishment of a status or right. The Court has consistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the civil action for the reason that such a declaration can only be made s in a special proceeding. Inc. as previously mentioned. certiorari petitions assailing its dispositions should be filed before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts. What is criminal jurisdiction? h B A. C h s 2. where the crime is committed – exceptions are provided by law and the rules multiple venues) o b such as the venue of actions for libel under Art. a civil e l action is defined as one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a b right. or the prevention or redress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status.the person charged with the offense must have o b R been brought to its presence for trial. C e s l Q. Jurisdiction over the Territory . aircraft. subject to the generally accepted principles B of international law.the offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction.

a r analogous or akin to the difference between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts in civil B cases. follow. Every element of the offense must be alleged in the Information. What are the elements of a prejudicial question? b l R o A. People. the action for specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial question that sufficed to suspend the o b proceedings determining the charge for the criminal violation of Section 2524 of Presidential R an Decree No. in a manner that B can enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action.com : www. and (b) the resolution of such issue determines n whether or not the criminal action may proceed (Sec. (Enrile v.chanroblesbar. of course. then. the evidence proving the common design or the facts connecting all the accused with one another in the web R o of the conspiracy. e s l Q. Rule 111).chanroblesbar. This is true simply because the action for specific performance was an action civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB. like the part that each of the parties therein have performed. 957. o b But if the information charges an offense and the averments are so vague that the accused cannot prepare to plead or prepare for trial. Quitlong) Q. Neither is it necessary to describe conspiracy with the same degree of particularity required in describing a substantive offense. Yet. If the information does not charge an offense. that a motion for bill of particulars cannot be used by an accused to b request that he be furnished with evidence? R o A. Thus viewed. 2015) B Ch Q. contrary to San Miguel Properties’ submission that there could be no prejudicial question to l e speak of because no civil action where the prejudicial question arose was pending. while dishonor of the check presented within ninety (90) days is merely the evidentiary fact of such R o knowledge. the prosecutor shall not be required to include in the bill of particulars matters an r of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the elements of the offense charged or a how the people intend to prove any item of factual information included in the bill of particular. Ultimate facts are the essential and substantial facts which either form the basis of the primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the s defendant. A conspiracy indictment need not. while evidentiary facts are those which tend to prove or establish said ultimate facts. 7. 2001) n r Q. matters of evidence – as distinguished from the facts essential to the nature of the offense – do not need to be alleged. What is the relevance of the distinction between ultimate facts and evidentiary facts? B a A. with as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution. Yes. a motion to quash and a motion for a bill of particulars are distinct and an r separate remedies. 2015) C h s Q. the latter presupposing an information sufficient in law to charge an a offense. It is enough that the indictment an r contains a statement of the facts relied upon to be constitutive of the offense in ordinary and a concise language. Thus. (Bautista v. The concept of a prejudicial question involves a civil action and a criminal case. CA. Inc. a Q. then a motion for a bill of particulars is the proper R remedy.com. Perez. People. Yes. then a motion to quash is in order. B (Enrile v. knowledge of b insufficiency of funds is the ultimate fact. 2013) C h 40 | P a g e www. or element of the offense that needs to be proved. Does it. When should a motion to quash be filed instead of a bill of particulars? l e A. whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. aver all the components of conspiracy or allege b l all the details thereof. e l Applying this analogy to [a case under BP22 or the Bouncing Checks Law].ph . and with such precision C h that the accused may plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment based on the s e same facts (People v. Is it possible that an action before an administrative body may be the basis to suspend a criminal case due to a prejudicial question? C h s A. (San Miguel v. How must a conspiracy be alleged? e s A.

) bl o 2. or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. before being convicted of any criminal offense. Catral. or the case has been dismissed or b l otherwise terminated without his express consent. Double jeopardy only applies when: (1) a first jeopardy attached. h 2015) 41 | P a g e C www. the trial judge is expected to R o “In all cases. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. unless he is charged with a capital offense. Where bail is a matter of discretion. e pardon. If the guilt of the accused is not strong. Sandiganbayan.com. evaded sentence. discharge the accused upon the approval of the bailbond. When is bail a matter of right and when is it discretionary? n a r A. (Ocampo v.chanroblesbar. e s The grant of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable b l by death.com : www. as follows: R an r (a) That he is a recidivist. conduct a hearing of the application for bail C s regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the e guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. B shall be bailable.ph . (2) it has been validly e s terminated. Is it the trial court that determines whether the evidence of guilt is strong? b l A.” (Enrile v.chanroblesbar. h B (b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement. Sandiganbayan. or offenses punishable with reclusion R perpetua or life imprisonment lies within the discretion of the trial court. or a (e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of B Ch the appeal. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of R the prosecution. a r Q. by a competent court in a valid indictment for which the accused has entered a valid plea during arraignment. Sandiganbayan. notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18. What must the trial judge consider in granting bail in favor of an accused charged with a B a r h capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment? C In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense. as amended). or has committed the a crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration. Inc. to wit: b l offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (Section 19) Otherwise petition should be denied. What are the elements of double jeopardy? B A. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. quasi-recidivist. 2015) e s Q. (Enrile v. 2014) R o Q. or habitual delinquent. A first jeopardy attaches only after the accused has been acquitted or convicted. or violated C s the conditions of his bail without valid justification. or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years. and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. For purposes of admission to bail. Rule 114 is present. and the evidence of his guilt is strong. the determination of whether or not evidence of guilt o is strong in criminal cases involving capital offenses. (Enrile v. The general rule is x x x x that any person. or an e s comply with the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. b l (c) That he committed the offense while under probation. 2015) an Q. Hon. parole. provided none of the circumstances enumerated under o paragraph 3 of Section 5. or conditional R o (d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on an r bail. Yes. Abando. whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion. a n h 1. and an 3. (Section 7 and 8.

after requiring the b prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at o a hearing in support of the discharge.chanroblesbar.ph . Inc. the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with l their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when. 42 | P a g e C www. Yes. the Ombudsman directed that a case be filed a against the three accused. regardless of B the charge and the stage of the proceeding. Can bail be granted based on humanitarian grounds. more importantly. independent of the legal merits of the B case? e s A. the party may question the orders or resolutions before the Supreme Court via Rule 65. Ombudsman.chanroblesbar. a n h (b) The is no other Direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense C s committed. Sandiganbayan. the Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose R possession and production of documents or other evidence may be necessary to determine the an r truth in any hearing. The requirements for the discharge of an accused as a state witness are provided under an r Section 17 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. RA 6770 provides: Sec. is a a circumstance. should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge. Ricky and Nikki were charged with violation of the Anti. independently of the merits of the case. Under such terms and conditions as it may o determine. Upon finding probable cause. Granting bail x x x on the foregoing reasons is not unprecedented. During trial. 1. Is the power of the Ombudsman to grant immunity still subject to the C provisions of the Rules of Court? e b l A. — When two or more persons are jointly s charged with the commission of any offense. regardless of the crime charged. inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its a authority.com. the court is satisfied that: (ADSuMM) R (a) There is Absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested.47 x x x [G]ranting provisional liberty to [ill accused] will then enable him to e s have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians l in the hospitals of his choice. The immunity granted under this and the immediately preceding paragraph shall not s exempt the witness from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony nor shall he be e exempt from demotion or removal from office. will guarantee his appearance in court for the o trial. Zoleta. Indeed. Gerry. 17. (Enrile v. Nikki. 2015) R Q. The Court has already held in Dela Rama v. except the testimony of said accused. denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration R o during the trial. Yes. (Baviera v. influence the court to exercise its discretion to admit the prisoner to bail. (d) Said accused does not appear to be the Most guilty. [The grant of bail is proper if it will aid in accused’s] adequate b preparation of his defense [and]. The People’s Court: x x x [U]nless allowance of bail is forbidden n r by law in the particular case.com : www. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. (c) The testimony of said accused can be Substantially corroborated in its material l e b points. Ombudsman. the Ombudsman wanted to grant the request for h B immunity sought by Gerry and Ricky so that they may testify against the mastermind of the s corrupt act. x x x. the illness of the prisoner. and the humanity of the law makes it a consideration which should. provided his continued incarceration is clearly b l shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life.Graft and Corrupt an r Practices Act. in the performance or in the furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutory B Ch objectives. 2006) or an order granting immunity to an accused (Quarto h v. and R o an (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving Moral turpitude. 2011) b l Q. 2011) and there is grave abuse of discretion. a r Q. Immunities. What are the requirements for the discharge of an accused as a state witness? What is the o effect of an order granting the discharge of an accused as a state witness? R A. B a h “Discharge of accused to be state witness. upon motion of the prosecution before C e resting its case. (Quarto v. taking into account the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.

Section 3(d) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the subject of inquiry is s the contents of a document. Section 24 of Rule 132 provides that the record of public documents may be evidenced by a copy attested by the officer having an r the legal custody or the record. thus. to preclude the application b of Parol Evidence Rule. He executed an C h affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of the fact of birth of Charie Mae and he attached her s e duly-authenticated birth certificate of birth to his affidavit. (Heirs of Pacres vs. Moreover. are prima facie evidence of the a facts therein stated. Thus. in pursuance of h his duty under the Local Government Code to “enforce all laws and ordinances. purely executive in nature. No. Mr. Section 44 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court similarly provides that entries in official records are an exception to the rule. The Parol Evidence Rule applies to “the parties and their successors in interest.” 43 | P a g e www. 2014) Q. What is the Best Evidence Rule? a r B A. The issuance of a BPO by the Punong Barangay or. even assuming that the alleged oral undertakings invoked by petitioners may be deemed h stipulations pour autrui. it must be shown that “at least one of the parties to the suit is not party o or a privy of a party to the written instrument in question and does not base a claim on the instrument or assert a right originating in the instrument or the relation established thereby. B a Q. For purposes of the Parol Evidence Rule.ph . The rule provides that entries in R official records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the Philippines.chanroblesbar.” and to C “maintain public order in the barangay. Must Mr. Does a Protection Oder issued by a Barangay Chairman have any efficacy? bl A. and (2) threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review.” Conversely.com : www. As such. The necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of B Ch requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in the s course of his duty. a a person who claims to be the beneficiary of an alleged stipulation pour autrui in a contract (such h B as petitioners) may be considered a party to that contract.” A R beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui obviously bases his claim on the contract. Section 7 of the same Rule provides that when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office. in his unavailability. its contents may be proved by a R o certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. they are exceptions to the hearsay rule and are prima facie l evidence of the facts stated therein. Yes. by any available Barangay Kagawad. As to the hearsay rule. and the accused is probably guilty thereof. a r Q: Can the courts interfere in the COMELEC's finding that probable cause exists? B A.Cayetano affirm his l affidavit in open court? o b A. Heirs e of Ygoña. 2010) Q. The established rule is that a preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of R o the parties’ evidence.com. still petitioners’ claim cannot prosper. except when the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded b in a public office. or by a an r person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. (Dimaguila v. Cayetano is the custodian of the record of birth of Charie Mae. the Court will not interfere with such finding of the COMELEC absent a clear e s showing of grave abuse of discretion. a beneficiary of a stipulation pour autrui is required to communicate l his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation. except as may otherwise be provided by law. It is for the presentation of only such evidence as may engender a well- grounded belief that an offense has been committed. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document e l itself. This C e is why under Article 1311. because they are barred from C s proving them by oral evidence under the Parol Evidence Rule. Generally. Monteiro. n Q. Inc. He therefore a n cannot claim to be a stranger to the contract and resist the application of the Parol Evidence Rule. It has been held that a third party who s avails himself of a stipulation pour autrui under a contract becomes a party to that contract.chanroblesbar. This principle emanates from the COMELEC’s exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under the election b l laws and to prosecute the same. The document’s trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of e performance of official duty. an r it has no application to a stranger to a contract. What is the Parol Evidence Rule? o b R A. merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical R o an harm to the woman or her child.

401 for unauthorized installation of R o telephone communication. particularly described in the search warrant an . to wit: A Search Warrant should particularly describe the place to be o b R searched and the things to be seized. X Corporation and its officers sought to quash the search warrants on s the grounds that there was no probable cause. therefore. it is considered as a general warrant which is proscribed by both jurisprudence and the 1987 Constitution.ph . to the end that “unreasonable searches and seizures” may not be made. . Mangrobang. et al. The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that the victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to n r curtail access by a perpetrator to the victim. otherwise. be a challenged as violative of the right to due process. 2012). It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been B a h committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be C s searched. Evidence o reasonable doubt which. Hon. Probable cause. Should the trial court grant the Motion to Quash? l What is probable cause? Are the search warrants in this case in the nature of general warrants o b A. l e In Uy Kheytin v. and only those. the Court explained the purpose of the aforementioned requirement for a valid search warrant. Since “time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further violence is to be prevented. which is about to recur. h B Q.com : www. C h 44 | P a g e www. A search warrant proceeding is a special criminal and judicial process akin to a writ of discovery. PAOCTF filed b two applications for the issuance of search warrant for Violation of Article 308 of the RPC for Theft of Telephone Services and for Violation of P. A search warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and C s persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. The court should not grant the Motion to Quash the search warrants on the ground that there was no probable cause. It is a constitutional commonplace that the B ordinary requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests. Subsequently. is not required. the police team searched the premises of X Corporation an r and seized the articles specified in the search warrants. or in anticipation thereof. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review.chanroblesbar. the prosecutor a conducted a preliminary investigation and found that the officers of X Corporation were B Ch probably guilty thereof. 2014) e s l Q. had probably committed the crime of Theft through illegal activities.D. Can a trial court issue a Temporary Protection Order without hearing without violating the B constitutional guarantee to due process? e s A. and that the search warrants were general e warrants and were wrongly implemented. (Tua v. Villareal.that abuses may not be committed (HPS Software and Communication v. R The subject search warrants are not general warrants because the items to be seized were a n sufficiently identified and specifically identified by stating their relation to the offenses charged which are Theft and Violation of Presidential Decree No. Inc. are more than e sufficient to support a finding that probable cause necessary to engender a belief that X b to show probable cause to issue a search warrant must be distinguished from proof beyondl Corporation. as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant. if one has already been instituted. After receiving a complaint from PLDT of the illegal activity of X Corporation of using C e s Mabuhay card and other equipment capable of receiving and transmitting calls from the USA l to the Philippines without these calls passing through the facilities of PLDT. an order granting or denying a motion to quash a search a warrant may be questioned only via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Yes. at this juncture of the criminal case.com. a r Q. It is designed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure to respond only to an incident in the R main case. What is the nature of search warrant proceedings? o b A. limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC R o or to prevent such violence.what articles they shall seize. if taken together. is R such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that an r his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. Since it is at most an r incidental to the main criminal case. PLDT. In implementing the search warrants. The trial court issued two search warrants for the said violations. The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those.” the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing when the b l life. 401 through the conduct of illegal ISR h activities. PLDT was able to produce pieces of evidence that.chanroblesbar.

Provided. because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him.-The PDEA shall take charge b and have custody of all dangerous drugs. Article II of a RA9165 reads: h B Sec. Failure to photograph or inventory the confiscated illegal drugs is not fatal to the prosecution of the case against the accused. a n that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds. physically inventory and photograph the same C h in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated s e and/ or seized. Does failure to photograph or inventory the seized illegal drugs render them inadmissible as evidence against the accused? May this failure be raised as a ground for the first time on R o appeal? A. seized and/or surrendered. liberty and security.com. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated. the police officers’ alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. for proper disposition in the following an a r The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall.] RA 9165. and any elected public official who shall be required to b sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof [.com : www. or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Section 21(a). CA. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were R an instead raised for the first time on appeal. R o Q. Indeed. Provided. controlled precursors and essential chemicals. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. There should be proof to establish that the right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it b l amounted to a serious violation of his right to life. when a C party desires the court to reject the evidence offered. physically inventory and photograph the same in the Ch presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or e s seized. stipulates: R o On the other hand. and/or Surrendered Dangerous C s Drugs. 45 | P a g e www. he must so state in the form of objection.ph . No. a representative from the media and l the Department of Justice (DOJ). plant sources of dangerous drugs. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and h evidentiary value. Inc. paragraph 1. Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the h apprehending officer/team. as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory manner: R o equipment so confiscated. which implements said provision. Seized. that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is R o served. shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and C s custody over said items. However. a representative from the media and the l Department of Justice (DOJ). for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy (Reverend Father Robert Reyes v. in case of warrantless seizures. When a criminal action has been commenced. e b l Q. immediately B after seizure and confiscation. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The seized items may still be admitted in evidence as an r long as the evidentiary value thereof is preserved. or his/her representative or counsel. The writ or any relief available under the writ should be filed by filing in the same court s where the criminal action was pending (Reverend Father Robert Reyes v. Section 21. e l Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. whichever is practicable. 2009). May a writ of amparo or other reliefs granted by the writ be filed in another court if a n r criminal action has been filed or is pending? B a A. B immediately after seizure and confiscation.chanroblesbar.chanroblesbar. whatever justifiable l e b grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from o complying with Section 21 will remain unknown. CA. no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. 21.” The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. 2009). A Hold Departure Order does not automatically impair a person's right to travel. Does the issuance of a Hold Departure Order impair one's right to travel and is the B violation of the right to travel covered by the Writ of Amparo? e s A. or his/her representative or counsel. a r Q. and any elected public official who shall be required to b sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. further. Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of an a r (a)The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall.

unless the accused fails or refuses to testify against Ch his co-accused in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for the discharge. (Ada v.ph . s Q. The variance in the procedure in the special civil action of partition and in the ordinary civil action of rescission precludes their joinder in one complaint or n r their being tried in a single proceeding to avoid confusion in determining what rules shall govern a the conduct of the proceedings as well as in the determination of the presence of requisite B elements of each particular cause of action. e s b l R o an B a r C h s l e o b R a n C h s l e o b R an C h 46 | P a g e www. Inc. B Taculod. An action for partition is a special civil action governed by Rule 69 of the Rules of Court while an action for rescission is an ordinary civil action governed by the R o ordinary rules of civil procedure. If the b court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as state witness. then such misjoined cause of action has to be severed from the other causes of action. R o The effect of the discharge of an accused as a state witness is that of an acquittal under Section an r 18 which states: Section 18. Is the foregoing rule absolute? e b l A. If the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over a misjoined cause of a action. and then there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication of all the erroneously R o joined causes of action. no. ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review. Discharge of accused operates as acquittal. and B if not so severed. his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. s Q.com. [I]f there is no objection to the improper joinder or the court did not motu proprio direct a severance. any adjudication rendered by the court with respect to the same would be a C h nullity.chanroblesbar.chanroblesbar. 2013). Can an action to rescind a donation be joined with an action for partition? e b l A. a r Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal (People vs. x x x It should be emphasized that the foregoing rule only applies if the court trying the case has jurisdiction over all of the causes of action therein notwithstanding the an r misjoinder of the same.com : www. No. As a general rule. 2012) s l e Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the trial. — The order indicated a in the preceding section shall amount to an acquittal of the discharged accused and shall be a bar B to future prosecution for the same offense. Baylon.