"e=\) SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY ‘COLLEGE OF LAW Centralized Bar Operations PRE-WEEK NOTES Remedial LawOver-all Chairperson Chairperson for Academies (Chairperson for Hotel Operations Vice Chairperson for Secretariat Vice Chairperson for Operations Vice Chairperson for Finance Vice Chairperson for Audit Vice Chairperson for EDP Vice Chairperson for Logistics Vice Chairperson for Membership BAR OPERATIONS 20 SAN BEDA LAW. 4 A CENTRALIZED Mary Cyriell C. Sumanqui Eriea Mae C. Vista Ben Rei E. Barbero Jhelsea Louise B. Dimaano Earl Justin M. Yambao Ma. Angelica B. De Leon ‘Arra Olmaya J. Badangan Jordan N. Chavez Hanz Darryl_D.Tia Dohn Alfred E. Aquilizan SUS xormetel nada Subject Chair for Political Law Subject Chair for Labor Law ‘Subject Chair for Civil Law Subject Chair for Taxation Law Subject Chair for Mercantile Law ‘Subject Chair for Criminal Law Subject Chair for Remedial Law Subject Chair for Legal Ethics Chetish Kim B. Ferrer Kristina D. Cabugao Ma. Cristina D. Arroyo Maria Carissa C. Guinto 5 Dentzen S. Villegas Maria Regina C. Gameng Raymond F. Ramos Rhev Xandra Acuiia Roger P. Cuaresma Gabrielle Anne S. Endona Joelle Mae J. Garcia iicah Regina A. Gonzales Camille Victoria D. Dela Cruz Jose Ronilo V. Ditching Jr. Paulo 0. Hernandez 4 ZenniaS. Tirrecha Nestor J. Porlueas, Jr. “SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW eeu ale Dean Vice Dean Prefect of Student Affairs Administrative Officer Legal Aid Bureau Director Atty. Marciano G. Delson Atty. Risel G. Castillo-Taleon Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel ‘Atty. Francesca Lourdes M. Sefiga Atty. Peter-Joey B. Usita 2015 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS CORE GROUP | Mary Camille Asi Castillo, Joanna Garcia Sarah C. Barcena, Pagar Paolo G. Gai, Jose Ronilo V. Ditching. ,Camille Victoria D. Dela Cruz, Pauio O. Hernandez, Nestor J. Porlucas, Jt, Zennia S. Turrecha, Arcturus Viktor R, Palos, Jezaryl Blas P. Sualibio, Aiden Cyrus S. Tinoco, Josiah C. Jimenet, Patricia Camille P. Sitchon, Ciorgio Luigt T. Juaio, Zayzra Bernice L. 2 Malto, Evin T. Galvez, Marion Patricia 1. Rodriguez, Christian Emest C. Biagtan, Elizabeth Marino, Kenneth Aldwin M. ‘Quejada, Aira Marielle Geronimo, Ma. Consolada V. Ben, Raph Kevin L. Santos, Christine Grace 8, Panahon, Cheyenne Hope Dumlao, Corina R Tampus, Marielle Cielo B. Belgira, Jericho L. Jamig, Katheriné F. Dimayacyac, Lex Angelo A. Rosario, 4 Alissa Marie DC. Delos Santos, Angelee C. Inovejas, Antonio Jun-Jun C. Manaligod IV, Aifa Regine G. Pangilinan, Roger P. ; ‘Cuaresma, Gabrielle Anne S. Endona, Joelle Mae J. Garcia, Micah Regina A. Gonzales, Cayenne Mae G. Teodoro, Arvy Keith ‘Chung, Lorenzo Thaddeus Ruel D. Galandines, Eric Winson F. Cea, Mark Benedict S. Francisco, Paola Beatriz A. Escobar, Ronalyn A. Gaculs, Juan Ihigo 8. Miguel, Christopher Angelo Y. VaquilarRese ae RAYMOND F. RAMOS Subject Chair KAREN JOY D. TECSON Assistant Subject Chair SUBJECT HEADS Civil Procedure JASMIN N. APOSTOLES MARLO P. DIMACULANGAN : Criminal Procedure VIKTOR KEVIN S. RUBIO : Evidence ALYSSA CHRISTINE C. DELA CRUZ ! Special Civil Actions JOSHUA V. CONSTANTINO ‘Special Proceedings VINCE NOEL L. LUPANGO SUBJECT MEMBERS ANNE KATHLEEN $. VICHO. MA. LALAINE T. BALOLOY FLORENCIO F. STA. ANA IIL MARY JOIE S. TECSON GELAINE P. MARANAN MATT LORENZ D. QUIAMBAO GIANCARLO LORENZO S, GEMPIS NEIL KIRBY L. ADA i IRIS L. MENDIOLA. PETER PAUL P. CAGURANGAN Ss JENNIFER FAITH A. MONDIGO RUIZA V. TOLENTINO. KIMBERLY ANN I. HONRALES | ADVISERS Dean ED VINCENT S. ALBANO Judge WILHELMINA B. JORGE-WAGAN Atty. FRANCESCA LOURDES M. SENGATABLE OF CONTENTS ‘Si EDA COLE OF AN CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2097, |. GENERAL PRINCIPLES A. Substantive Law vs. Remedial Law... B. Rule-making Power of the Supreme Court C. Principle of Judicial Hierarchy D. Doctrine of Non-Interference/Judicial Stability I, JURISDICTION Classification of Jurisdiction... Doctrines of Hierarchy Of courts and Continuity Jurisdiction of Various Philippine Courts Aspects of Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction vs. Exercise of Jurisdiction Jurisdiction vs. Venue Jurisdiction over Cases Covered by Barangay C Conciliation, Smail Claims Cases, and Cases Covered by Summary Procedure ... WI, CIVIL PROCEDURE . General Provisions (Rule 1) Cause of Action (Rule 2).... Parties to Civil Actions (Rule 8) Venue (Rule 4).. Pleadings Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments, Final orders, and Resolutions .. Summons, Motions Dismissal... Pre-trial (Rule 18), Intervention (Rute 19) Subpoena (Rule 21)... - Computation of time (Rule 22) Modes of discovery... . Trial (Rule 30). Consolidation or Severance (Rule 31) |. Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 33)...... Judgments and Final Orders Jurisdiction O7™mMD0@> pOVOZEP AL“ xTOMMIOw> S. Post-Judgment Remedies T. Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments (Rule 39) IV. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES ‘A. Nature, Purpose, and Jurisdiction over Provisional Remedies. B. Preliminary Attachment (Rule 57). C. Preliminary Injunction (Rule 58) D. Receivership (Rule 59). E. Replevin (Rule 60)... V. SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS A. Jurisdiction and Venue.. B. Interpleader (Rule 62). C. Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (Rule 63) D. Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the COMELEC and COA (Rule 64 inrelation to Rule 65) E. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus . F. Quo warranto (Rule 66).. G. Expropriation... H. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage \. Partition (Rule 69).. J. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer K. Contempt (Rule 71) fy | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS RRONNS sTABLE OF CONTENTS SAN BEDA COULEGE OF LAW CENTRALE BAR OPERATIONS 2019 VI. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS A. Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons 34 B. Escheat (Rule 91) = 38 C. Guardianship 39 D. Writ of Habeas Corpus... 40 E. Change of Name (Rule 103 z teensenn se 4 F. Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry (Rule 108) 42 G. Clerical Error Law (RA 9048). —— 43 Vil. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE A. General Matters . 43 B. Prosecution of Offenses (Rule 110)... 45 | C. Prosecution of Civil Action (Rule 111) 48 D. Preliminary Investigation 0.0 46 E. Arrest (Rule 113). 47 F. Bail (Rule 114)... 48 G. Arraignment and Plea (Rule 116) 49 H. Motion to quash (Rule 117) 50 1. Pre-trial (Rule 118)... 50 J. Trial (Rule 119) 51 K. Judgment (Rule 120). 52 L. New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 121). 53 M. Appeal (Rules 122, 123, 124 and 125) 54 N. Search and Seizure (Rule 126)...... 54 O. Provisional Remedies in Criminal Cases (Rule 127) .. 55 P. Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC) - 56 Q. The Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. ‘No, 17-11-03-SC).. 56 Vill. EVIDENCE A. General concepts... 58 B. Admissibility 58 C. Object (Real) Evidence (Rule 130, A). 59 D. Documentary Evidence (Rule 130, B) 60 E. Testimonial Evidence (Rule 130, C) 61 F. Burden of Proof and Presumptions (Rule 131)... 64 G. Presentation of Evidence (Rule 132)... 64 H. Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M, No, 12-8-8-SC) 66 |, Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence (Rule 133)... 67 J. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M, No. 01-7-01-SC) 67 IX, WRIT OF AMPARO (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) = 68 X. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC) 69 Xl. RULES OF PROCEDURE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CASES (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC) A. Temporary Environmental Protection Order * (TEPO).. 70 B. Writ of Continuing Mandamus 70 C. Writ of Kalikasan sesso 70 | i 2019 SAN BEDA LAW: (TRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS |ver sacs oes natant mantras -REMEDIAL LAW. & PS LU GENERAL PRINCIPLES oo 1. Distinguish Substantive Law from Remedial Law. ‘Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action, On the other hand, remedial law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasions (People v. Moner, G.R. No. 202208, March 05, 2018, Covered Case), 2. What is the rule-making power of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Constitutional rights, pléading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, 4nd shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. (CONST, Ar. Vill, Sec. 5(6)). The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of the govemment has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of the Supreme Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court (Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017, Covered Case). 3. Discuss the Principle of Judicial Hierarchy. The principle of judicial hierarchy provide’ that lower colts shall initially decide a case before it is considered by @ higher court. A higher court will not entertaladirect rasortto it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts (Santiago v. Vasquez, G-R. Nos, 99289-90, January 27, 1993). 4, Discuss the Doctrine of Non-interference or Judicial Stability. Under the’ doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court, the various trial courts of a province or city, having the same equal authority, should not, cannot, and. are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments. The 1 fationale for the rute is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case sand renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and over all incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial officers ‘acting in connection with this judgment (Def Rosario vs. Ocampo-Ferrer, G.R. No, 215348, June 20, 2016). Se SPS ORIGINAL V. APPELLATE Distinguish Original Jurisdiction from Appellate Jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is the power of the court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial ‘action for the first time under conditions provided by lav. Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court higher in rank to re-examine the final order or judgment of a lower court which tried the case now elevated for judicial review, Since the two jurisdictions are exclusive of each other, each must be expressly conferred by law. One does not flow from, nor is inferred from, the other (Garcia v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 88158, March 4, 1992). 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 42019 PRE-WEEK NOTES {SW BEDA COUEGe OF LAW CENIALZED Ba OFERATONS 2075 GENERAL V. SPECIAL XYZ, a group of registered agricultural landowners, leased a portion of their lots to ABC, a domestic corporation. During the effectivity of the lease contracts, XYZ offered their respective lots for agrarian reform, and availed of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) under the CARP. As the duly designated financial intermediary of the CARP, the Land Bank of the Philippines arrived at its own valuation, XYZ lisagreed with the LBP's valuation. Thus, they protested before the DARAB. Meanwhile, Certificates of Land Ownership over the lots were issued in favor of the CARP beneficiaries. This prompted XYZ to file before the RTC as Special Agrarian Court (SAG) a Petition for injunction with an Application for the Issuance of a TRO to restrain the takeover of the lots. The SAC took cognizance of the petition and granted its prayer. Did the RTC as a SAC acquire jurisdiction to issue the injunctive orders? No, the RTC as a SAC did not acquire jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction of the RTC as a SAC is in the nature of a limited and special jurisdiction, that is, the RTC's authority to hear and determine a class of cases is confined to particular causes or can only be exercised under the limitations and circumstances prescribed by statute. Thus, the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a SAC as delineated by law is to cover only the following controversies: (1) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and (2) the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA No. 6657. In this case, the petition for injunction filed by private respondents shows that it does not raise either of the foregoing issues. The principal averments of the Petition and the relief prayed for therein actually assert a cause of action to enjoin the “installation! physical takeover” of the subject landholdings by the ARBs affliated with the Cooperative (Antig v. Antiouesto, GR. No. 192396, January 17, 2018, Covered Case). EXCLUSIVE V. CONCURRENT 7 Di tinguish Exclusive Jurisdiction from Concurrent Jit Exclusive jurisdiction -precides the idea of co-existelita ahd refers to jurisdiction possessed to the exclusion of others (Cuber y, Laguna West Mutt-Purpose Cooperatives, Thc. GR. No. 166023, December s 2006). When two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the fist to validly acquire t takes It to te ‘exclusion of the othet r:he rest (Alimajen v. Valea, G.R. No, L+13722, Februaty 29, 1960) ZThe doctrine of hierarchy.of courts requires that reccufée’ must first be obtained from the lower courts sharing concurrent jurisdiction wit a higher court. This ito ensure that the Supreme Court remains @ court of last resort so as to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to itby the fundamental charter and immemorial tcadition (Tho Provincial Bus Operators-of the: Philippines ys. DOLE, G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018). Continuity of jurisdiction implies that once the jurisdiction of atourt attaches, it continues untl the case is finally {erminated. The court cannotsbe usted therefrom by.subsequent-happenings or events, although of & Character that would have prevented jurisdiction from attacting inthe first instance (Baritua v. Morcader, GR. No. 136048, January 23, 2001). ets 9. X subleased certain real properties to Y. During the lease period, Y Fental fees despite sevoral demand letters. X then commenced a complaint for unlawful detainer against ¥ before the MeTC. Y filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of violation of the rule on non- forum shopping, lack of jurisdiction over the case, and [itis pendencia. Y claims that X failed to inform the MeTC that there were two (2) pending cases with the Manila RTC involving one of the properties leased. It further alleged that while there were lease contracts, the existence of other contracts between Xand Y make their relationship as one of concession. Having several cases pending on aspects of the ‘Same concession contract, MeTC is thus ousted to try the case. Det he. MeTC has udton ove the sane! compl snc it hat boon shown hatte ceniste luteal als have been alogd ropross of th Cans oPlensos acca je dacene Stee Possession F do facto posscaan the Soe ae te Tesohed reek meee hae fli ieicon oven win th exetone of oer schon based on sean eee wens that as ong ashe reins ruil ears poser and aisaee nine ence on Te Iuicson ovr ho cnet cave regaess te sams o aelreoe tees hh ne see ssl i tat the MoTC nis te fredcton on te ae sue of pee presse ‘nsteton OtcoreContuctonDovsbpnent Co, Oh Ne oses NeoPa one 2 | 2019 SAN AEOA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSREMEDIAL LAW 10. " REMEDIAL LAW. & X, pursuant to a loan agreement secured by a real estate mortgage, obtained a loan from Y amounting to Php 100,000,000.00. Despite several demands, X failed to pay the principal amount and its accrued Interest; hence, Y filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. On its part, X filed a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage before the RTC on the ground that it never received the alleged amount. Y contended that RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction over the annulment ‘case, such being a real action. Is the argument of Y correct? ‘No, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. A complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniaty estimation because the principal action or relief sought must be ascertained. The brincipal relief sought is not for the recovery of sum of money or real property. X never prayed for the Feconveyance of the properties foreclosed during the auction sale, nor did it assert its ownership or possession over them, Rather, it assailed only the validity of the loan contract with real estate mortgage that it entered into with respondent because it supposedly never received the proceeds of the P100,000,000.00 loan agreement, ‘Such subject matter is incapable of pecuniary estimation (First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Ine. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018, Covered Case). X and ¥ entered into a Lease Agreement whereby X undertook to lease Y’s condominium unit at ‘Skytowors, Makati City. Tho lease period is for 2 years, starting on January 4, 2019, and the rental was Set at Php 100,000.00 per month, covered by post-dated checks. X was prohibited from sub-leasing the premises without the prior written consent of Y. Y discovered that X had entered into a sub-lease with Agreement, Recovery of Possession and Damages against X before the RTC of Caloocan City. Attached to the Complaint were the Lease Agreement and Y's demand letter to X. Will the complaint prosper? 'No, the complaint will not prosper for lack of juisdiction. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have jurisdiction over the complaint of Y. These courts havo Jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases, as provided under Section:9(2) of B.P. Big. 129. In this case, Y fled 2 complaint for rescission of the lease agreement, recovery of possession and damages, which in essence is. an unlawful detainer case, against X. 2, 13, JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES How Is jurisdiction over the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant acquired? jurisdiction over the pelitoneriplaintif is acquired by ing the (1) complaint; or (2) other intiatory pleading by which he signifies his submission to the court's power and authority (Davao Light & Power Co, ine. v. CA. E.R. No. 93262, December 29, 1991). Jurisdiction over the respondentefendant is acquired elther by (1) by service of summons; or (2) by his voluntary appearance in court, which is equivalent to service of summons (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 20). JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER Define jurisdiction over the subject matter. “lurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court aod Gofines its powers (Mitsubishi Motors v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015) X instituted an action for reconveyance and damages with the RTC against Y. X alleged that she has been the lawful owner and possessor for 12 years of the subject lot, that she purchased the same snd has been paying real property taxes for such. Y, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss the selion gn the ground of lack of jurisdiction, since the amount of the property is only Php 2,826 a8 seen in the Tax Declaration attached to.the complaint. initially, the motion was granted. But the RTC reversed iisof 2g proceeded with the case since the market value of the property alleged in the complaint amounts to Php 200,000.00. Is the RTC correct in proceeding with the case? ng, the determination of jurisdiction forall actions which involve tle to or possession of real property or tie Glerest therein is based on the assessed value of the property and not its market value. The allegation n {he complaint that the property is “worth P200,000.00" pertains toils salo or “market value”, not is sceessed value (Foronda-Crystal v. Lawas Son, G.R. No, 221816, November 20, 2017, Covered Case).2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES e jurisdiction over the issues. 15, Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court fo try and decide the issues raised in the pleadings of the parties (Bemabe v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, September 16, 1942). Unlike jurisdicion over the subject-matter, it may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties (ROC, Rule 17, Sec. 4). JURISDICTION OVER THE RESOR THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION 16. Discuss the jurisdiction over the res or the property in litigation, ‘Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court's jurisdiction over the thing or the property under Itigation. Itis ‘acquired either by the (1) seizure of the property under legal process, whereby itis brought into actual custody cof the law or (2) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective (¢.9. suits involving the status of parties or property of a non-resident defendant) (Biaco v. PH Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, February 08, 2007). Jurisdiction is the power and authority to hear, try and’decide,a case. It is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein (Estate of Yujuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 168661, October 26, 2007). Where there is jurisdiction aver the person-and subject matter, the resolution of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of Jurisdiction. The errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are proper subjects of appeal (Republic v. "G" Holdings, Inc. G.R. No. 141241, November 22, 2008). a Jurisdiction v. Venue ‘The following are the distinctions between jurisdiction and venue’ 3 As to nature : eee Substantive; power of the court to hear and decide a | Procedural; place where the cause of action is instituted, case. . heard or tried, __ Ee ‘As to whether it may be a ground for motu proprio dismissal ornot [itmay be a ground for motu proprio dlemissal. Its nota ground, except in summary provedurs ; ERATIONSREMEDIAL LAW & mien tet penal ued ieon pe Rereion ‘when one such was filed, and, (c) the date when notice of the denial lereof was receivec 'ese dates should be reflected in the petition to enable the : if the petition was filed on time. The reason be Yan apse in to manne ond reason being that, a a ule, he perfection ofan appeal int within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional and failure tc uired by law renders lunediclona and faire to perfect an appeal as requ by ine pr ac f perfect an appeal as requed bylaw renders we executor (Yu v SF Metals, no, GR. No. 214245, September 25,2017, Covered Note: The Court ntod that failure o comply wth the ul le ona statement of matral dates inthe pe Rpm xe te cles ar oidentromth ear, Tho ae meta cota or purpose open ee sip of he order or resolution denying the mation for reconlaerston: Yor ceneor to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be ff ary fo cet tals weal rocedure shouldbe an efor on te prof the pry fo teat oxi is fare toca with he nes. nis at, there at ect a oovonata atom a calancs wth th ules: peitoners made a persuasive explanation ast the inadertonce and wore Wt cbatnate eek oe servance of procedural rules (SR Metals, nc, G.R No, 214240, September 25, 5017, Covered Gacy) Review of Judgments or Final Orders of the COA, Comelec 73. How can you appeal the decision of COA directly to the Supreme Court? Article [X-A, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that decisions, orders, or rulings of the COA may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party. This Is echoed by Section 2, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court, which states that a judgment or final order or resolution of the COA may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Court on certiorari under Rule 65 (Fontanilla v. COA, G.R. No. 209714, June 21, 2016) Review of Judgments or Final Orders of Quasi-Judicial Agencies m4 78. 76. 17. Does the trial court have jurisdiction to take cognizance of a petition for certiorari against a quasi- judicial agency? No, Rule 68, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides that “fit involves the acts or omissions of a quasi jusicia agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the pettion shal be fled in and cognizable by the Court of Appeals." PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (RULE 38) Discuss the grounds and the time for filing petition for relief from judamient, order, or final proceeding under Rule 38. A petition for relief may be filed on the following grounds: (1) when a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against the pettionetin-any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or ‘excusable negligence (ROC, Rule 38, Sec.'t); or (2) when the petitioner, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal (ROO, Rule 38 Sec. 2). ‘A petition from relief must be verified and filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's ‘good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be (ROC, Rule 38, Sec. 3). ANNULMENTS OF JUDGMENT (RULE 47) ‘What is annulment of judgment? Itis a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where thera is no available or other remedy. Judgments may be annulled only on grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process (Bisco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007). ‘The MTC rendered judgment in favor of the N. On appeal, the RTC and CA affirmed the MTC’s judgment. M, the other party in the case, filed a Petition for Annulment of the Judgment before the RTC alleging that they were victims of extrinsic fraud, with their counsel having failed to submit the documents in support of their defense. RTC rendered a judgment dismissing the Petition for Annulment as the decision sought to be annulled had been affirmed by the RTC and CA. Is the filing of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment proper? No, the petition is improper. For purposes of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, only extrinsic fraud is recognized as a ground. Fraud is extrinsic when it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his 14 LAW CENTRALIZED BAAR OPERATIONS | 240 EDA COLLEGE OF LAW CENTUMZED BAR OPERATIONS 209, Bia 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES 78. 79. 20, at. entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself, but to the ‘manner in which the judgment is procured. The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in court. in this case, however, N as the prevailing party had no part in the commission of the fraud committed by the petitioners’ counsel. As such, the dismissal of the petition for annulment is proper (Estreliado-v. Presiding Judge of the MTC, G.R. No, 164482 4 211320, November 08, 2017, Covered Case). COLLATERAL ATTACK ON JUDGMENTS What is the concept of a collateral attack? A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action (Co v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93687, May 6, 1991). Execution of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only a final judgment may be executed. Hence, under Sec 2, Rule 39 of the Rules, the existence of good reasons for the immediate execution of a judgment is an indispensable requirement in order for the court to issue execution pending appeal. Define the term “good reasons.” ‘Good reasons consist of compelling circumstances justifying immediate execution, lest judgment becomes iiusory, that Is the prevailing par's chances for recovery on execution from judgment debtor aro altogether nullified. The good reason yardstick imports a superior circumstance demanding urgency that will outweigh injury or damage to the adverse, paity (Centennial: Guarantee Assurance Corporation v. Universal Motors Corporation, G. R. No. 189358, October 8, 2014). Some examples of good reasons are the following: (1) when there is danger of the judgment becoming ineffectual (Scottish Union v. Macadaeg, G.R. Nos. L-8717 & L- 5751-56, August 20, 1992); (2) old age (De. Borja v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-4179, May 30, 1951); and (3) when an appeal is for the purpose of delay if coupled with other reasons (Home Insurance Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 47916, April 17, 1990). In contrast, the following are examples of insufficient or inadequate reasons: (1) posting of a bond (Stronghold Insurance Co. ine. v. Fell, G.R. No. 148090, November 28, 2006); (2) when appeal is dllatory (Manacop v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 1632814-17, August 25, 2006); (3) husband of plaintiff is sick and money is needed for medicine (Stronghold Insurance Co. Inc. v. Felix, supra); and (4) the financial cistress of a corporation (Diesel Construction v. Jollibee, G.R. No. 136808, January 28, 2000). A, a resident of Tuguegarae City, secured a favorable judgment in an ejectment case against X, a resident of Dagupan City, from the MTC of Pangasinan. The Judgment, entered on June 15, 2010, had not as yet been executed. In July 2016, A decided to enforce the judgment of the MTC of Pangasinan. What is the procedure to be followed by A in enforcing the Judgment? With what court should A institute the proceedings? (1997 Bar) ‘can enforce the judgment by another action reviving the judgment because it can no longer be enforced by motion as the five-year period within which a judgment may be enforced by motion has already expired. (RQC, Rule 39, Sec. 6); A may institute the proceedings In the RTC in accordance with the rules of venue because the enforcement of the judgment is a personal action incapable of pecuniary estimation. ‘Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1,000,000 from antique collector Benjamin. Mercedes issued a postdated check in the same amount fo Benjamin to cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin deposited it but it was dishonored. As despite demands, Mercedes falled to make good the check, Benjamin filed in January 2009 a complaint for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Davao. Judgment was rendered against Mercedes for P1,000,000. The judgment became final and exocutory and a wrt of execution was correspondingly issued. Since Mercedes did not have cash to settle the judgment debt, she offered her Toyota Camry model 2008 valued at P1.2 million. ‘The Sheriff, however, on request of Benjamin, seized Mercedes’ 17th century ivory image of the La Sagrada Familia estimated to be worth over P1,000,000. Was the Sheriffs action in order? (2010 Bar) No, in satisfaction by levy, Sec. 9(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court gives the judgment obligor the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied if he cannot pay all or part of the obligation. In this problem, the option is vested by law upon judgment abligor, Mercedes, not upon judgment obligee, Benjamin, Only ifthe judgment obligor does not exercise the option, is the Sheriff authorized to levy on personal properties if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the Judgment. 22 | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED SAR OPERATIONSBEDA COLLEGE OF AW CENTRALZED A OPERATIONS 2019 DIAL LAW 7 Requisites of Res Judicata or Bar by Prior Judgment ‘The requisites are: 4. Afinal judgment or order; 2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties by the court rendering it; 3. Judgment on the merits; 4. Between the two cases: (a) There is identity of parties; or (b) the actions are between those in privity with them, as between their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the same capacity; or (c) where there is substantial identity even if there are additional parties (Noceda v. Arbizo-Directo, G.R. No. 178496, July 26, 2010). Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of Judgment Any right, act, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily invalved in the determination of an action before @ competent court in which a judgment or decree is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claims or demands, Purposes, or subject matters of the two suits are the same, This is also known as estoppel by verdict or estoppel by ecord, of collateral estoppel by judgment or preclusion of issue or rule of auter action pendant (Noceda v. Arbizo- Directo, G.R. No. 178495, July 26, 2010). 82, _JK’s real property is being attached by the sheriff in a civil action for damages against LM. JK claims that he is not a party to the case; that his property is not involved in said case; and that he Is the sole registered owner of said property. Under the Rules of Court, what must JK do to prevent the Sheriff from attaching hi property? (2000 Bar) If the real property has been attached, the remedy Is to file a third-party claim. The third-party claimant should make an affidavit of his title to the property attached, stating the grounds of his tile thereto, and serve ‘Such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latterhas possession of the altached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party (ROC, Rule 57, Seo. 14). The'thitd-Baity.claimant may also intervene or fle a separate action to vindicate his claim to the property involved and securé the necessary reliefs, such as preliminary injunction, which will not be considered as interference with a court of coordinate jurisdiction 83. J and | were married. Their marriage produced four children. However, J filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. As the case wae Pending, the trial court issued an order - granting J's application for support pendente lite. on the Other hand, filed a Motion to Reduce Support - which was granted by the trial court. Subsequently, the Sia! Court finally rendered its decision about the case. Thereafter, J filed a notice of appeal. She pointed out that she is not appealing the decision of the trial court but rather its order of granting I's motion to reduce support. Will J's appeal prosper? No, the order granting the motion to reduce support is an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is not “* appeatable and merely resolves incidental matters, leaving something more to be done lo meoe tne tone tra Ga8e, It also stated that provisional remedies are wrls and processes available during the pendency of {he action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect cortain rights and interests thoven Pending rendition, and for purposes of the ullimate effects, ofa final judgment in the case. In this case, tis Se sat tne subjected order is that of interlocutory nature and, as provided by law, is prohibited from being ‘appealed from (Calderon v, Roxas, G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013) 54. VWX Corp, contracted YZA Company to dry dock and repair its vessel. When YZA Company conducted acne aee oats the vessel's engine emitted smoke. YZA Company paid for the vessel's new engine Seukshat. crankpin, and main bearings. It then billed WX Corp. US$318,571,50 for its repair and dry Gocketing services. VWX Corp. refused to pay and demanded that YZA Company to pay US$471,462.60 se dhavment for the income that the vessel lost in the six months that it was not operational and dry Aocked at YZA Company's shipyard. The latter then filed a complaint against VWX Corp. before the RTC seeking the issuance of an order to arrest the vessel and/or writ of preliminary attachment Pursuant to Sec. 21 of the Ship Mortgage Decree and Rule 57 of the ROC. The RTC eventually issued 2urit of preliminary attachment without hearing. Was the application for a writ of attachment property ranted without hearing and despite lack of proof of one of the grounds under Rule 57? 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 23SA 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES “St 670 CLLEGE OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2019 No, a wrt of preliminary attachment is available only in specific cases enumerated under Section 1 of Rule 57. As itentails interfering with property prior to a determination of actual liability, itis issued with great caution ‘and only when warranted by the circumstances. The rules on the issuance of the wrt of preliminary attachment {88 a provisional remedy are strictly construed against the applicant because it exposes the debtor to humiliation ‘nd annoyance. Jurisprudence has consistently held that a court that issues a wrt of preliminary attachment when the requisites are not present acts in excess ofits jurisdiction. The record does not state that WWX Corp. has no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced which is a requirement under Section 3, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court (Tsuneishi Heavy Industries v. MIS Maritime Corporation, G.R. No. 19357, April 4, 2018, Covered Case). “a 85. PP, entered into several growership agreements with Spouses QR covering the latter's titled lands. Under the parties’ agreements, the Spouses QR were the growers and undertook, among others, to sell and deliver the bananas produced from the contracted areas exclusively to PP. Such bananas had ‘to conform to the volume and quality specifications defined by the agreements. In 2010, PP filed a ‘Complaint against the Spouses QR, alleging that the Spouses QR flagrantly violated their agreements when the Spouses QR harvested the bananas without the consent of PP, packed them in boxes not provided by PP, and sold them to buyers other than PP. PP made several demands upon the Spouses QR to comply with their contractual obligations, but they refused to heed the demands. In tho ‘complaint, PP prayed for the issuance of preliminary injunction which the RTC denied, finding that there was no urgency to issue the injunctive reliefs prayed for in order to prevent injury or irreparable damage to PP pendente lite. Is the RTC correct in denying the Issuance of the preliminary injunction? Yes, a writ of preliminary injunetion, being an extraordinary event, one deemed as a strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy, must be granted only in the face of injury to actual and existing substantial rights ‘A ight to be protected by injunetion means a right-clearly founded on or granted by law or is enforceable as ‘matter of law. An injunction is not a remedy to protect or enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse, and which may never arise, or to restrain an act which does not give rise to a cause of action. When the complainant's right is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and, therefore, injunction is not proper. In this case, the RTC found that PP did not establish any clear right to the injunction as it failed to show any irreparable damages that would result if the Spouses QR are enjoined from continuing with their acts. Thus, the injunction was correctly denied (Sumifru v. Spouses Cerefio, G.R. No, 218236, February 07, 2018, Covered Case) DEF was appointed as a receiver of a land by the court. He subsequently entered into agreement with a third-party involving the subject proporty. This agreement caused the postponement of the sale at a public auction of the land, Do DEF's acts bind the court in charge of the receivership? No, a raceiver is not an agent or representative of any party to the action. He is a real party in interest; however, he cannot file a case without the consent of the court. He is an officer of the court exercising his functions in the interest of neither the plaintiff nor defendant, but for the common benefit of all the parties in interest. He porforms his duties “subject to the control of the Court’. In this case, DEF did not secure the court's apiroval for the agreement he entered into. As such, such agreement is not binding to the court (Pacific ‘Merchandising Corporation v. Consolacion Insurance and Surely, G.R. No. L-30204, October 29, 1976). 87. Does one need to be the holder of the legal title to the subject property before he can apply for replevin? No, one does not necessarily need to be such holder. Itis in the nature of a possessory action and the applicant who seeks the immediate possession of the property need not be the holder of the legal title to the property, It added that itis sufficient that, at the time he applied for a writ of repievin, he is found to be entitled toa possession thereof (Alim v. CA, G.R. No, 93213, August 9, 1991). 1 i 24 | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS| | REMEDIAL LAW.., ie os V. SPECIAL CIVIL A.CTIONS area MTC — Where the value of the claim or the personal property does not exceed 300,000 or P400,000 in Metro Manila or where the value of the real property does not exceed 20,000 or PS0,000 in Metro Manila, RTC- If the value ‘exceeds the above amounts or if the subject matter is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the RIC (e.g. specific performance, recovery of title) (B.P. 129, as amended). Where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides or where the defendant fr any of the principal defendants resides Declaratory Relief. | RIC = incapable of pecuniary estimation (ROG, RULE 63, See. 1). ‘Where the petitioner or the respondent | resides a =| (Other similar’ remedies under Rule 63 Reformation of instrument — RTC uieting of tile, and Consolidation. of ‘ownership - MTC or RTC, depending Gn: the assessed value (Concha v. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007) Where plaintiff or any of the ‘principal Plaintifs reside or where the defendant or | any ofthe principal defendant reside. | Where the property is located Prohibition, «= Certiorar, | Mandamus) | RTC, CA, Sandiganbayan, COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction (A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC). Note: R.A. No. 7975 as amended by R.A. No. 8249, conferred certiorari jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan only in aid of its appeliate jurisdiction, concerning cases filed pursuant to the Sequestration Cases. RTC of the place where the respondent ‘cour, ‘corporation, officer or person situated; or | It petition’ is fled in the CA, or ‘Sandiganbayan, in which case’ the location of the respondent is immaterial (ROC, Rule 65, Sec 4) RTC, CA, Sandiganbayan and SC Note: A petition for quo warranto, contesting the election of the President or Vice-President on the ground of ineligibility or distoyalty to the Republic of the Philippines, may be filed before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Rule 14, AM, No. 10-4-29-SC) RTC of place where the respondent resides or where any of the respondent resides; However, if the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought | in the RTC in Manila,’ CA or SC (ROC, Rute 66, Sec 7). The Sandiganbayan has exclusive ‘original jurisdiction on quo warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed | under EO 1,2,14, 14-A but this must be in | aid of its appellate’ jurisdiction and not exclusive of the SC (Sec. 4, RA 8249). Note: if filed with the SC, CA or Sandiganbayan, the residence of respondent is immaterial Expropriation, | Main View — RTC (incapable of pecuniary estimation — Barangay San Roque . Heirs of Pastor, G.R. No. 138896, June 20, 2000); Second View ~ MTC also has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting tile to real property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the pattition Where the property is located in case the | subject is a land; In cases where the subject _ of expropriation is personal property, venue is the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, 2019 san 1A LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 252019 PRE-WEEK NOTES ees wenn ‘or expropriation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on real property (Barrida, v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October*20, 2014); Noto: there be an inverse condemnation S MTC. of RTC, depending on the assessed value (National Power Corp. v Spouses Asoque, G.R. No. 172607, September 14, 2016) Main View — MTC also has jurisdiction to take cognizance of real actions or those affecting tile to real property, or for the recovery of possession, or for the partition cr expropriation of, of foreclosure of a ‘mortgage on real property (Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, Where the land or any ‘part thereof is located. Foreclosure Dora ‘Second View — It is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, thus the RTC. has : jurisdiction (Russell'v. Vestil, G.R. No. | 119347, March 17, 1999). MTC or RTC, depending on the assessed”, Where the real property or a portion value (Bardo v.Nonato, G.R. No. | “thereof s located; October 20, 2014). Partition If the subject matter is personal property (RULES OF COURT, Rule 69, Sec. 13), in the place where the plaintiff or the defendant resides. Forcible MTC (GP. 129, as amended, Sec. 33/2). | Where the property is located | | Entry/Untawful Interpleader MTC, RTO, CA, SC “B.Interpleade (Rule G2)" “Were te cour invoved ating — Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest wihiich in whole or in partis not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several cisims among themselves (ROC, Rule 62, Sec. 1) 26 | 2019 san, 102. For failure of ABC Corpation to settle its obligations, XYZ Bank instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding against X Corporation Y Bank was then adjudged as the highest bidder. Thus, ABC Bank demanded payment of rents from DEF Corpation which was leasing the property from ABC Corpation. Meanwhile, ABC Corpation filed an action for Unlawful Detainer against DEF Corpation before the ‘MeTC. In turn, DEF Corpation filed a Complaint for Interpleader against ABC Corpation and XYZ Bank to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves and to determine ‘which among them shall rightfully receive the payment of monthly rentals on the subject property. Judgment was rendered in the Unlawful Detainer case, which, among other things, ordered DEF Corpation to pay ABC Corpation whatever rentals due on the, subject premises. The said decision became final and executory. By reason thereof, DEF Corpation and ABC Corpation separately filed a motion to dismiss the interpleader case. Will the motion prosper? Yes, it should be remembered that an action of interpleader requires, as an indispensable requisite, that “conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against the plaintiff-in-interpleader who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter or an interest which in whole or in partis not disputed by the claimants." In this case, the decision in the Unlawful Detainer case resoived the conflicting claims insofar as payment of rentals was concerned. Thus, the case should be dismissed as DEF Corporation has no other 1A LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS —_——104, 105, 106, a REMEDIAL LAW & ‘481 8604 Toltece OFLA CETRALETD EAT OPERATIONS 209 ‘akemative left but to pay the rentals to ABC Corporation (RCBC v. Metro Container Corporation, G.R. No. 127913. September 13, 2001). wees ees pursuant to the plan of the MMDA to decongest traffic in EDSA by eliminating the bus terminals now located along major Metro Manila thoroughfares through the establishment o terminals, the President issued Executive Order (EO) No. 69. designati implementing agency for the closure of | will le an action for declaratory reli on XYZ Transportation Company's behalt. Under Rulo 63 ofthe Russ oF Court, any person whose rights are affected by an executive order, may before breach or moutes ereot bring an action for declaratory relief to determine any question of validity arising tereunder I tne Case there is @ question as regards the validity of the executive order, that the closure of thelr bus lerminats ak Mean the loss of income from the operations thereat. Precisely, XYZ Transportation Compariys tars Saas tel Constitutional right to property which was without due process of law is a proper subject of an action for dectaratory relief (MMOA v. Viron Transportation Co, Inc, GR. No, 170656, August 15, 2007). ‘When will there be a conversion of a pet ion for declaratory relief to an ordinary action? J before the final termination ofthe case, a breach or violation ofthe instrument or statute, exoctive order may bo corneas ance, OF any other governmental regulation occur, then the action for declaratory vole! ments and | Be eS eae is lecand COA (Rule Se te Xa losing candidate for Mayor of Baguio Cty fled an election protest against Y who emerged as Monet Afar She revlon of blingiitin RIG ebbclaimed Xe fwyeal winoat tie tre eee tation fo Execution of X pending appeal. Y weno the COMELEC which iued’s THO nee I First Division of COMELEC issued an injunction enjoining tae ree Enforcing ts decision. X quostioned the vabctyof the otded apa a atc or oe a ‘Special First Division. Without filing a Motion for Reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc, X went urt under Rule 64m relation to Rule 65. Is X covrect? Eaclan, oa seein order oF resolution ofa dlvsion ofthe COMELEC must be reviewed by the COMELEC En Gane wa 2 ation for reconsideration before the final En Barc decision may be brocont tee ‘Supreme Court Slain ran. The pre-requisite fling of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory. With the availabilty of a Plain. speedy. and adequate remedy at petitioners disposal, his hasty resort 9 codon othe ‘Supreme Court GR No. B13 90 gs ground alone, the instant petition should be-dsmissed outight (Vilocee m fooes G.R. No. 212953, August 5, 2014) Tegermbudsman found probable cause to charge with plundor the provinéial governor Saaanger budget officer, and accountant of X Province. An Information for phindar ovis cog with the Sendiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the teasnrer whe nee granted immunity phan he agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the care Immediately, the BAR OPERATIONS | 272019 PRE-WEEK NOTES 107. An information was filed against X, Y, and Z before the RTC of Sta. Rosa, Laguna (RTC). X immediately filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation. The RTC, without resolving the motion, arraigned X, Y, and Z._ The reinvestigation conducted by the Assistant Prosecutor resulted to the dropping of the information against X and the filing of an amended information against Y and Z. The RTC granted the Assistant Prosecutor's motion and admitted the amended information. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the private complainant, but the same was denied. Thus, it filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari attributing the RTC's grave abuse of discretion. Will the petition prosper? Yes, as a rule, the OSG has the sole authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the CA. Thus, when a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court ori there is an acquital,an appeal on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. ‘The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal; but may only do so as to the cll aspect of the case. However, as a matter of exception, the private complainant has logal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion. In cases where the dismissal of the criminal case is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the aggrieved parties are both the State and the private complainant. The right of the private complainant is anchored on his interest on the civil aspect of the case that is deemed instituted in the criminal case (Rural Bank of Mabitac v. Melanie Canicon, G.R. No. 196016, June 27, 2018, Covered Case). REQUISITES, WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE (RULE 65) Period for filing a petition for certiorariunder Rule 65. Generally, the petition for certiorari must be filed stricly within 60 days from notice of judgement or from order denying the motion for reconsideration (ROC, Rule 65, Sec. 4, as amended by A.M, No. 07-7-12-SC). However, under exceptional citcumstances, and subject to the sourid discretion of the Court, said period may be extended (Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. G.R. No, 192908, August 22, 2012) Exceptional circumstances allowing the filing of a petition for certiorari even beyond the 60-day period ‘The 60-day period may be extended under any of the circumstances: 1. Most persuasive and weighty reasons; 2. Torelieve a iigant from an injustice not commensurate with his fallure to comply with the prescribed procedure; 3. Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default: 4. The existence of special or compelling circumstances; 5. The merits of the case; : 6. A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; 7. Alack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; 8. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; _, 9. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; 10. Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case: 11. In the name of substantial justice and fair play; 42. Importance of the issues involved; and 13. Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendaht circumstances (Francisco Labao v, Lolito Flores, G.R. No. 187984, November 15, 2010). 108. In what court should a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamuis be filed? ‘Acts or omissions of a municipal trial court, or of @ corporation, a board, an officer or a person Ifitinvolves the acts of omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules @ Election cases Involving an a MTC or RTC ‘or omission of the | 109. In an unlawful detainer case, A moved to declare B in default. The court, however, denied the motion. A filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, with arguments involving only Pure questions of law. Should the SC give the petition due course? No, the SC should not give due course to the petition. tis not enough to argue only questions of law in a petition for certiorari‘under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. One must also show that the court who made the 28 | 2018 SAN BEDALAW CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS| | REMEDIAL LAW fea 110, docision has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is 10 appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. While itis true that an ‘order denying a motion to declare a party in defaults interlocutory and hence unappealable, A did not forward any evidence or arguments pointing out that the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. EXCEPTIONS TO FILING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE FILING PETITION Respondent employees filed a complaint with the NLRC against petitioner ABC Company for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of ABC Company and dismissed the complaint. Respondent ‘employees thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's judgment partly granting an increase of respondents’ entitiement to separation pay. The NLRC included. in the said decision the phrase “No further motion of similar import shall be entertained.” Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which was later denied on procedural grounds. Is the dismissal of the CA of the petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC proper? : No, the general rule that a motion for reconsideration is required before resorting to the remedy of certiorari ‘admits exceptions: 10x (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; xxx. In this case, it was due to the words importad in the NLRC decision partially granting the motion for reconsideration, which sa) ‘No further motion of similar import shail bo entertained, "that gave an impression on the minds of the petitioner that moving for reconsideration with the NLRC would be futile. The tenor of the warning effectively derived Petitioners of the opportunity to file an MR, thereby violating their right to due process (Genpact Services, Inc. v. Santos-Falceso, G.R. No. 227695, July'31, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J., Covered Case). Distinctions between quo warrantoand impeachment proceedings. The distinctions are the following: Political in nature (Republic v. Sereno, GR. As 'No, | Julcial in nature (Republic v. Sereno, supra) 297428, May 11, 2018, Covered Case). : i ‘The House of Representative shall have the exclusive | Thé petition is brought in the SC, the CA, or the RTC. ‘Power to initiate all cases of impeachment (CONST:Art Xi, Sec. 3, par. (1). ‘The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment (CONST.Art. XI, Sec. 3, par. (6d. ‘AstoJuristiction ay ene The Congress shall promulgate its rules on | Rule 66 of the Rules of Court impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section (CONST.Art. XI, Sec. 3, par, (8). z "AS to Applicable Rules) 2S Taste Extent of Sudgement ae udgement shall not extend further than removal from | Judgement is limited fo ouster or forfeiture and may not be ‘office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted | corporate duties (Republic v. Sereno; supra). shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, tial, and punishment according to law (CONST.Art. XI, Sec. 3, par. (7)). imposed retroactively upon prior exercise of official or “AS Limitations No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one | year (CONST.Art. Xi, Sec. 3, par. (5). ‘The petition must be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right ofthe petitioner to hold ‘such office or position, arose if there is a contestant (ROC, Rule 66, Sec. 11) 2018 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 29,2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES s iB yeiicieines g Note: Quo warranto proceedings seeking ouster of a public official. (commenced by the State) are govemmental function,’ thus, no_statute of imitations “is_therefore | applicable (Republic v. Sereno, supra) ino 111. Agroup of businessmen formed an association in lligan City calling itself Vortex Co. to distribute and ‘ell cars in said city. It did not incorporate itself under the law nor did it have any government permit or license to conduct its business as such. The Solicitor General filed before Manila RTC Branch 121 a verified petition for quo warranto questioning and seeking to stop the operations of Vortex Co. Vortex Co. then filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of improper venue claiming that its main office and operations are in lligan City and not in Manila. Is the contention of Vortex Co. correct? (2001 Bar) No, when the Solicitor General commences the action for quo warrant, it may be brought in a RTC in the City of Manila, as in this case, in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court (ROC, Rule 66, Sec. 7) Expropriation RULE67 Inverse Condemnation Inverse condemnation is when the governmient-takes:-property for public purpose without payment of just compensation or instituting expropriation proceedings, which constrains the landowner to bring an action for the payment of just compensation, tobe reckoned fromthe time of taking or fling of the complaint, whichever comes first (National Transmission Corp. v. Oroville Development Corp., G.R. No. 223366, August 1, 2017, Covered Case). 142. "In 1997, the DPWH took parcels of land belonging to X for its SWIM Project but, no expropriation proceedings were instituted. In 2002, X-filed a complaint for mandamus and damages before the RTC for the payment of just compensation for the taking and use of the properties. The-RTC ruled that the allegations in the complaint establish an action for recovery of just compensation which was the only relief of X since it was no longer feasible to demand the return-of the properties because constructions were already made. Is the RTC correct? Yes, jurisprudence provides that the landowner's remedies when his property is taken by the government for public use are: (1) he may recover his propery if its return is stil feasible or, iit is not, (2) he may demand payment of just compensation for the land taken. In.this case, the return of the subject properties is no longer feasible. Thus, X's relief was to recover just compensation. It is true that the case flled by the X was one for "mandamus and damages,” but the complaint plainly sought to recover just compensation for the taking of their properties (Paz E. Rebadulla v. Republic, G.R: No.-222169, January 31, 2018, Covered Case). 113, The Republic of the Philippines, through the DPWH filed with the RTC a complaint for the expropriation of the parcel of land owned by X. After deposit equivalent of the assessed value of the property was ‘mate, the DPWH filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. X filed a motion to dismiss the ‘complaint on the ground that there are other properties which would better serve the purpose. Will X's motion to dismiss prosper? Explain. (2009 Bar) No, a motion to dismiss is not permitted in a complaint for expropriation. Any objection or defense to the taking of the property of a defendant must be set forth in an answer. The proper recourse of X is not to file a ‘motion to dismiss, but to fle an answer (Lourdes Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006). GUIDELINES FOR EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (RA 8974), AS AMENDED BY RA 10752 414, The DPWH filed with the RTC a complaint for expropriation over a parcel of land to be used as an ‘extension of a national highway. Attached to the complaint is a bank certificate showing that there is, on deposit with the Land Bank of the Philippines, an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property. Then DPWWH filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. As a judge, will you grant the writ of possession prayed by the DPWH? (2009 Ba’) No, R.A. No. 10752 requires that the implementing agency immediately deposit to the court in favor of the ‘owner the amount equivalent to the sum of: (1) 100% of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the BIR issued nat.more than three years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint; (2) the replacement cost at current market value of the improvement and structures; and (3) the current market 130 | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSRE L LAW é my {aus of crops and trees located within the property as determined by a government financial institution or an ‘dependent property appraiser, before the goverment can take possession of the property under expropriation (R.A. No, 10752, Sec. 6 (a)). ‘Writ of Possession; Instances When it may Issue ‘A writ of possession is as a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the possession of land. it Free anes the sherif to enter the land and give its possession to the person entitled under the judgment. Thore are Fe dastances when a writ of possession may be issued: (a) in land registration proceedings under Section 17 of ct To acca judicial foreclosure, provided the debtor is in possession of the mortgaged realty and no third parson See fea foreciosure sult, had intervened; and (c) in extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE (ACT 3135, AS AMENDED) 118. When may a writ of possession be issued in relation to extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage? Jy aurtf possession may issue either (1) within the one-year redemption period, upon the fling of a bond, 61.2) after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of a bond (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Go. & Hoy Abad Santos, G.R. No. 157867, December 15, 2009). 116. Security Bank granted spouses ABC a revolving credit line. To secure the credit line, Spouses ABC eects Sareea! Estate Mortgage (REM) over parcels of land in favor of Security Bank, Thereatte, Security Bank filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure because the Spouses defaulted in ther Circulation ee o28 Of the foreclosure sales of the properties Were published in nowspapers of general Circulation as required by Act No. 3135. However, the: publication of notices of foreclosure of the properties contained errors with respect to theit technical descriptions (lot numbers and omlesien ot is Jocation). ‘Security Bank caused the publication of an erratum in a newspaper to comect ines tho roger meclosure proceedings ensued where Security Bank was adjudged as the winning bidder ie the foreclosure sale conducted valid? NG allure to advertise a mortgage foreclosure sale in compliice with statutory requirements conettutes Grins sone defect which invalidates the sale. In this case, the ertors consist ofthe fochncl deserve orgs gubiect properties. With the properties misidentiied and thelr locations Oniled, the Proper ‘nether to participate in the public auction (Security Bank Corporation v. Spouses Merced, Ge Ne 192934, June 27, 2018, Covered Case) ‘THE GENERAL BANKING ACT OF 2000 (SEC. 47, RA 8791) Redemption Period for Natural Persons on Foreclosure of | Mortgage invol 1g Banks gee debt. whois a natural person, whose roa property has beon sold forthe ful or partal payment enoryoar etal have the ght within one (1) year afr the sale ofthe real esal, to redeem ne aeneeay an OF acd paeamption period should be counted from the date ofthe registration of the ceric of cele wake aoe Register of Deeds (Sec. 47, RA 8791), Redemption Period for Juridical Persons on Foreclosure of Mortgage? 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 312019 PRE-WEEK NOTES cose ua erecpmcenerenr ren oe aes 1147. Petitioners A, B, and C are children of Spouses X and.Y, who acquired a 200-square meter iand. The said parcel of land was registered under the name of Spouses X and Y. Upon the death of the spouses, A filed with the RTC a complaint for partition. The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that it did not acquire jurisdiction for failure to allege the market value of the subject property. Is dismissal of the RTC of the complaint for partition proper? ‘Yes, an action for partition, while one incapable of pecuniary estimation, falis under the jurisdiction of either the first or second level courts. Hence, a failure by the plaintiff to indicate the assessed value of the subject property in histher complaint, or at the very least, in the attachments in the complaint is dismissible because i the court which would exercise jurisdiction over the same could not be identified (Ma. Rosario Agarrado et. al v. Cristita Librando-Agarrado, G.R. No. 212413, June 6, 2048, Covered Case). ESE : Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer DIFFERENTIATED FROM ACCIONPUBLICIANA AND ACCIONREINVINDICATORIA Distinctions between AccionInterdictal, Accion Publiciana and AccionReinvindicatoria. ‘The distinctions are as follows: AS to Nature ‘Summary action for the recovery of physical possession where the ispossession has not lasted for more than one (1). year (Encarnacion v. 15, 2006). Amigo, G.R. No, 169793, September Plenary action for the recovery of the feal right of possession where the dispossession has lasted for more tha fone (1) year (Serdoncillo v. Sps. 8, 1998) Benolirac, G.R. No. 118328, October ‘An. action for the recovery of ‘ownership, which necessarily includes" the recovery of possession (Viray v. Usi, GR. No. 192846, November 21, 2012). As to Purpose itis intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right 10 possession of property (Javier v. De Guzman, GR. No. 186204, independently of title (Valdez v. CA, G.R. No. 132424, May 2, 2006) It is a proceeding to determine the | better right of. possession of realty | claims recovery of ownership over | it is an action whereby a party the properly including the possession thereof (Valdez v. CA, GR. No. 132424, May 2, 2006). September 2, 2018) “As to Jurisdiction ees ‘The RTC has jurisdiction ifthe value of the property exceeds P20,000 outside Metro Manila; or exceeds P50,000 within Metro Manila, MTC has jurisdiction if the value of the property does not exceed the above amounts (Vda, De Barrera v. Heirs of Legaspi, G.R. No. 174346, September 12, 2008) ‘All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), imespective of the amount of ‘damages of unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, should be brought to the MTC (Penta Pasific ° Really Corporation v. Ley Construction and | Development Corporation, G.R. No. | 161589, November 24, 2014). RULE 70 + 118. Petitioner X filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondent Y. X contends that the sometime in 2002, Y entered the property without his knowledge and consent and had been occupying 2/3 pertion 4 of the property without paying any rental. Since X wanted to take possession, X sent a demand letter for ¥ to vacate the premises. Is the action for unlawful detainer a proper remedy? No, the Rules are clear that if the entry into the property i illegal, the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry and this action must be brought within one (1) year from the flegal entry. But if the entry Is originally legal then became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess, an unlawful detainer case may be brought within one (1) year from the date of the last demand; this action will only prosper in a case where the plaintiff allows the defendant to usé the property by tolerance without any contract, and the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate on demand (Bugayong-Santiago v. Bugayong, G.R. No. 220389, December 6, 2017, Covered Case). 32 | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS,EMEDIAL LAW Sa on ste PLceA EEA ay "18. Z bought a parcel of tand from his parents, Z claimed thar onioown of the said lot to B. This notwithstanding, Z all | Baler seapanment of rentals forthe period of February 2007 to Mac Seite te May 2011, Z sent Coneraag ating that the consignation did not extinguish obliga ay rent because the amount from 8 tee suas sufficient to cover the unpaid rentals from Feleusey soe May 2011. Z demanded dota Payment ofthe said tents and to vacate the [ot On dune oh ef suit for unlawful | ‘etalner for B's fllure to comply with z"last demand. ts the action crepe tres, etainer proper? 135, for an unlawful dotainer suit to prosper, the plaintif-essor must show that: first, initially, the Gefendant-tessee legally possossed the leased premises by shine ers Subsisting lease contract; second, such | Contract or te entualy Became ilegal, ether due to the lators Violation et ing Provisions of the said lease i tr eect the termination thereat; thir, the defendant leases teneyoeaty Possession of the leased premises, { {hus effectively depriving the plaintf.iessor enjoyment thercor arn fourth, there must be a demand both to i the rst thea oY and Vacate and that the sultis brought within one (1) seer horse last demand. In this case, ite third, and fourth requisites have been indubitably complied Gay Regarding the second requisite, even IT respondent's consignation of its monthly rental {he lease contract to pay monthly rentals, At the ime pellioner fe tro unlawful detainer suit, eespondent was | 120. Xs one of the co-owners ofa parcel of land covered bya TCT registered under the name of X's parents. 20 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES Requisites for the rule on disqualification by reason of death or insanity of an adverse party ‘The rule, also known as the Dead Man's Statute, has the following requisites: 4. ‘The witness is a party, or an assignor of that party, or‘a person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted; 2. The action is against the executor or administrator or a representative of the deceased or the person of unsound mind; . 3, The subject matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of a deceased or person of unsound mind; and 4. The subject ofthe testimony is any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before: such person became of unsound mind (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 23) Requisites of the rule on marital communicati n privilege Ithas the following requisites: ‘That the spouses must have been legally married; ‘The spouse against whom such evidence is being offered has not given his/her consent to such testimony; ‘That the privilege is claimed with regard to communication, oral or written, made during the marriage; That said communication was made confidentially; and ‘That the action or proceeding where the privilege is claimed is not in a civil case by one against the other, or ina criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or latter's direct descendants or ascendants (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 24, par. (a) 223. Does the attorney-client privilege cover future crimes? No, a distinction must be-made between confidential commufiications relating to past crimes already committed and future crimes intended.to be committed by the client. Statements and communications regarding the commission’ of a crime’already committed, made by a party. who committed It, to an attorney, consulted as such, are privleged:comminications. Conirarily,. communications between altomey and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or in ald or furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of privileges ordinarily existing in reference to communications between attorney and client (People v, Sandiganbayan, G.R_ Nos. 115439-41, July 16, 1997). 224. Is blood relationship essential for the parentallflial privilege? ‘Yes, blood relationship is essential for the parental/flial privilege: The court ruled that the rule applies only. to “direct” ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by common ancestry (Lee v. CA G.R. No. 177861 July 13, 2010). ‘Adoptive Admission f ‘An adoptive admission is wheré.a party, by hi8 words or conduct, voluntarily adopts or ratifies another's statement. Evidence of the statement would then,be admissible against himr (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, April 3, 2001). Its a party's reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party's reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the"other person. By adoptive admission, a third person's E statement becomes the admission ofthe party emibracing or espousing it ‘Adoptive admission may occur when a party: Expressly agrees to or concurs in an oral statement made by another, Hears a statement and ater on essentially repeats it; Ultters an acceptance or builés upon the assertion of another; Replies by way of rebuttal to some specific points raised by another but ignores further points which he or she has heard the other make; or fe. Reads and signs a written statement made by another (Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, G.R. ‘No, 149576, August 8, 2006). : Res Inter Alios Acta Alteri Nocere Non Debet ‘The principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet means that “things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them” (Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor Advertsing Services, Inc., et al. v. Potongan, G.R. No, 156589, June 27, 2005). This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against them (People v. Cachuela, G.R. No, 191752, June 10, 2013). 62 | 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED SAR OPERATIONS i-REMEDIAL LAW & Two Branches of the Res Inter Alios ActaRule They aré the following: + Frnelule tha the rights ofa party cannot be Frejudloed by an act, declaration, or omission of another (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 28); and 2 The rule that evidence of previous conductor simlar acts at one time is not admissible o prove that one did ©F didnot do the same act at another time (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 34), Mi Propensity Rule 2 reeeensity rule isthe second branch of the rule of res inter alias acta and apples to both ermal and civil Snot oe re tt one dil or didnot do a certain thing atone timo Is not admissible in Ovidence ta ore wen oc Tron og he same or similar thing at another time; but i may be received to prove a epociin nae knowiedge, “dently, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage, and the like (ROC, Rule 120, See's). 725. te Gummer of XYZ Bank, was charged with corruption of public officials. A, a former treasurer in XYZ Bony submitted an affidavit stating that X instructed A to deposit monoy to B (former employee of bank aeacount a his “professional fee" as B would give X “advance warning" of Impending terrae Ne, owing tothe initatory nature of preliminary investigations the technical rules of evidence should not Pe applied in the course of its proceedings. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probtle cecce ot i {hat probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantia bovis for, crediting 201g) Sey Phlingine Deposit insurance Corporation (PDIC) v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 206866; Septonber > 2018). 226. X was shot to death by two assailants. Witness ¥ testified that ‘he was inside the house of X; and while Ant outside his house with his infant grandson, Y heard four successive gunshots. Then, ¥ wert 0 assailants but he was not able to identify them. On the way to the hospital, X told ¥ who shot him. This statement was repeated by X to his wife, A. Do the statements of X constitute a dying declaration? Nes, X's statements constitute a dying deciaration, ven=that:they pertained to the cause and Faouimstances of his death and taking info consideration the riumber and severty of his wounds, it may be | ‘This dectaration ls considered evidence ofthe highest order and is entitled to utmost credence snes 10 person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation. Verily, because the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every motive of falsehood Is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems lie aes Situation 50 solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court (People v. Palanas, G.R. No, 214453, June 17, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe, 4.) 227. Seeking damages for work-related disease, X sued ABC Corporation, claiming that it had made some “of the toxie-containing products that X had worked with as a factory worker. May X introduce testineny given by a witness at another plaintiff's trial against ABG Corp. if that witness is now deceased and the testimony concerned a general issue of the degree to which ABC Corp's products did or did not contain toxic materials? No, such testimony constitutes hearsay evidence, being an out-of-court statement offered to prove the {uth of the matters therein asserted. To qualify for exception Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the following requisites must be complied with: (1) the witness is deceased or unable to testity: (2) the testimony was given by the witness in a prior proceeding; and (3) such prior proceeding involved the same parties and the same issues as the current proceeding. In this instant case, the prior proceeding was between another Plaintif albeit the same defendant. From this fact alone, the requisite that both proceedings involve the same parties was not complied with | 228. ‘Is the opinion of a witness admissible in evidence? ‘As a general rule, itis not admissible, Witnesses must give the facts and not their inferences, conclusions oF opinions, except forthe following: 1. Opinion of an Expert Witness ~The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, sil, experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence (RULES OF | COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 43); SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 63,x 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES 2. Opinion of an Ordinary Witness — The opinion of an ordinary witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding: The identity of a person about whom he has adequate knowledge; ‘A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity, ‘The mental sanity of a person with whom he is-sufficiently acquainted; The witness’ impression on the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person (testimony of collective facts) (ROG, Rule 130, Sec. 50). Proof and Presumpticns "Ss 229. An Information was received that X is engaged in selling drugs, Police officers Y and Z conducted a fest buy and they were able to purchase suspected shabu from X which eventually lod co tre ants at the later. X claimed thatthe seized illegal drug was not marked accordingly, Further another besa ok the chain of custody was due tothe failure of the prosecution to present officer YE, tne person ate allegedly received the Request for Laboratory Examination, The non-presemtation of YE became tara considering that there is an addtional marking "RGE” onthe plastic sachet Did the faire we saboay the additional marking of RGE created a reasonable doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug? eel Yes, itis well-settled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the police officers wil not save the prosecution's case, given the foregoing lapses and gaps in the chain of custody. ‘The presumption stands only when no reason. exists.in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the Performance of official duty (People v. Diputado; GR. No. 219922, July 5, 2017, Covered Case). 230, What are conclusive presumptions? Conclusive presumptions. are those that may not be overiummed by evidence, however strong the evidence is (University of Mindanao v. BSP, G.R: 194964, January 11, 2016), The following are the éonclusive presumptions under the Rules of Court: | 2. Estoppe! in pais.- Whenever a party has, by his own deciaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing to be true ahd to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any Itigation arising out of such dectaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsity it b. Estoppe! against tenant ~ The tenant isnot permitted t6 deny the tile of his landlord atthe time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 2) 231. What are disputable presumptions? ‘These are presumptions that may be overcome by contrary evidence. They are disputable in recognition of the variabilty of human behavior and its application on a given circumstance must be based on the existence Of certain facts on which they are meant to operate. Disputable presumptions apply only in the absence of contrary evidence or explanations (University. of Mindanao v, Bangko, Sentral ng Pillpinas, et. al, G.R. Nos. 10406465 Januaryti, 2010). mane URE G Bresehtation of evidence if! Se EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES 232. What are the methods of impeact 9 the adverse party's witness? witness may be impeached through the following modes: a. By contradictory evidence; b. By evidence that the general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity of the witness is bad; or ©. By prior inconsistent statements (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 11). 233. How is the witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements? impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements requires the "laying of the predicate," the elements of which are as follows: : ‘a. The alleged statements must be related to the witness including the circumstarices of the times, places and persons present; i b. He must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so, he must be allowed to explain them; | and ©. I the statements are in writing, they must be shown to the witness; (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 13). BAR OPERATIONSi i j | DIAL LAW OFFER AND OBJECTION 234. When is an offer made? ‘The proper time to offer evidence depends on its form, a. win respect {0 testimonial or oral evidence, the offer must be made at the time the witness is called to testify; b. For documentary and object evidence, it shal be offered after the presentation of a party's testimonial evidence. Such offer shall be done orally unless allowed by the court tebe done ge writing (ROC, Rule 132, See. 35) 238. When is the proper time to object? arse oper tie to make a protest or objection against the admission of evidence depends on the manner the evidence is offered. Br Spreetion t evidence offered orally must be made immediately aftr the offer is made; ©. Objection o a question propounded in the course ofthe oral examination of &witece shall be made 48 Soon as the grounds therefore shall become reasonably apparent, &[nease of an offer of evidence in wring, the objection must be within 3 days after notice of the offer Unless a different period is allowed by the court (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 36) Note: A protest or objection against the admission of any evidence must be made at the Proper time, and iEnot so made, it will be understood to have been waived (Mactan Cebu Intemelona Airport Authority v: CA, Fake RO. 121806, Cctobor 30, 1996). Ths is true even i by iis nature the evidence is nadiniseble wed vaca have surely been rejected ifit had been challenged at the proper time (Intorpacife Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, G.R. 590702 sane 6, 1980). n any case, the grounds fr tho objections must be spocied (ROG Rue 19e, oc 36). 288. May objections to documentary evidence be made'diiting the presentation of testimonial evidence? irgagblection to the documentary evidence must be made atthe tne itis formally offered, not earie, The ifentifcation of the document before itis marked as an exhibit does not constitute the formal citer at te Note: Documents which may have been marked as exhibits during the hearing but which were not: formally Peony, ‘evidence cannot be considered as evidenca nor.can they be given any evidentiary value (Borat People, G.R. No. 167454, September 24, 2014), 237. What is offer of proof and what is its rationale? Xf documents or things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the offeror may have the same Attached to or made part of the record. If the evidence excluded is oral, tho offeror may state for the reno + Troe re and the other personal circumstances ofthe witness and the substance of tho proposed testimony (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 40), Ofer of proof also known as tender of excluded evidence and are made for purposes of appeal. If an Srerse kudgement is eventually rendered against the offeror, he may in his appeal assign ae error ve rejection Of he excluded evidence (Cruz-Arevalo v. Querubin-Layosa, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2005, July 14, 2006). Harmless Error Rule ‘pcgeiling with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the tnslantive rights of the litigant. f the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it wll x avorsome Caieretnt ofthe properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party (People v. Tachankee, G.R. NO. 11120605, October 6, 1995) AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF 238. Should a document be authenticated before it may be received in evidence? {itis @ private document, as a rule, it must be authenticated before they may be received in evidence (ROG; Rule 132, Seo. 20). If itis a public document, itis Admissible in evidence even without further proot ot ‘heir due execution and genuineness (Salas v, Sta, Mesa Market Corp., G.R. No. 157766, July 12, 2007) 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 65 cnn nent5 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES [20 EDA COLLEGE OFAN CENTRALIZED a CPERATIONS So The due execution and authenticity of a private document must be 8. Anyone who saw the document executed or written; or 5 Evidence ofthe genuineness of the signature or handwriting ofthe maker (ROC, Rule. 132, Sec, 20) 240. Wher Proved either by: 's evidence of authenticity of private writing not necessary? Evidence of authenticity of a private writing is not required: When the document is an ancient one within the context of Sec. 21, Rule 132; be wien the genuineness and authenticity of an actionable document have not been specifically denied under oath; When the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted: & When the document is not boing offered as genuine (Patula v. People, GR. No. 164457, April 11, 2012). 241. How is an official record proved? The records of public documents, when 2. An official publication; or >. A copy thereof aitested by the officer having the custody of the record or his deputy, with a certificate that such officer has the custody ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 24) ‘admissible for any purpose may be evidenced by: Ifitis @ foreign record, it may be evidenced by: . : @. An official publication; or ». Acopy thereof attested bY the dficer having the'custody ofthe record or his deputy, accompanied by a certificate that such officer has the custody; which may be'made by the secretary of the embassy oF tegation, consul- general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agént or foreign service officer and with a seal of his office (ROC, Rule 132;-So0: 24). S 242. How may a foreign judicial reéord be authenticated? . Foreign judgments may be authenticated in the following modes: a. By an official publication; b. By copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document, P If the record is lot kept in the Philippines such copy must be: Accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic ot éonsular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the records are kept; b. Authenticated by seal of his office (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 24), 243. In what instances does the Judicial Affidavit Rulé apply in ‘This rule shall apply to all criminal actions; ‘2. Where the maximum of the imposable panially does not exceed 6 years; “b. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or ‘© With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved (A.M. No, 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 9). 244._XYZ Inc. was insured against fire and other allied risk with ABC Corporation. A fire broke out and razed the compound of the former. ABC Corporation denied the claim for coverage of liability under the insurance policy, prompting XYZ Inc. to file a complaint for specific performance and damages. XYZ Inc. presented Mrs. X as their witness. During Mrs. X’s crass examination, XYZ Inc. furnished ABC Corporation with a copy of the 2nd Supplemental Judicial Affidavit of Mrs. X. Does the JAR and Guideline on Pre-Trial proscribe the submission of additional evidence even after the trial had already commenced? No, the JAR and the Guidelines on Pre-Trial do not totally proscribe the submission of additional evidence oven after trial had already commenced. It bears to note that Sec, 10 does not contain a blanket prohibition on the submission of additional evidence. However, the submission of evidence beyond the mandated period in the JAR is strictly subject to the conditions that: a) the court may allow the late submission of evidence only ‘once; b) the party presenting the evidence proffers a valid reason for the delay: and c) the opposing party wi Not be prejudiced thereby. Corollary thereto, the Guidelines on Pre-Trial instructs the parties to submit their respective pre-trial briefs at least three (3) days before the pre-trial, containing, inter alia, the documents or exhibits to be presented and to state the purposes thereof. (Lara's Gift and Decors, Inc., v. PNB General Insurers Co., Inc and UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. G.R. No. 230429; January 24, 2018, Covered Case) 66 | 2012 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS__EREDIAL LAW 245. When is circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction? Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: ‘a. There is more than one circumstances; . The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and © The combination of al the circumstances is such as to produce a convietion beyond reasonable doubt (ROG, Rule 133, Sec, 4) 246. testified that when he returned home from work, he discovered that his saved money was missing, Uiiness W testified that on the day of the incident, she saw X climb the fence and scale the ree hs hag Sith se,heuse, and enter the house. When he returned, she noticed that he had a bulge in his pocket wibich she lator found to be a plentiful sum of money. X then bought two mobile phones. A ether Taaiiied that he had treated X as his kumpare and would often invite the latter to drinking eeceinns inside his house, At times, he would also call X to repair his Vehicle, because Zabala is also emechaene, te Would allow X to follow him to his bedroom to get cash whenever spare parts are to be bought for the repair of his vehicle. X alleges that the evidence presented before the trial court is insuffent oo convict him of theft. Decide. No, the rule in circumstantial evidence cases is that the evidence must exclude the possibilty that some other person commited the crime. Here, however, the prosecution failed to prove, or even allege: that It mas impossible for some other person to have committed the crime of theft against A, The prosecution fallod residents in the house, but these persons were neVer presented to prove thelr whoteabraks athe incident took place (Zabala v. People, G.R. NO. 210760, lanuayy 26, 2079) SRG tron Original of an Electronic Document ‘An electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalant of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule {Fits printout or output readable. by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately (A.M No, 01-7-01. SG, Rule 4, Section 1) ? : : Requisites for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: For an electronic evidence to be admissible: a. The evidence must be relevant; b. The evidence is not excluded by the rules, or otherwise stated, it must be competent; and ©. The evidence must be authenticated in-the manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence (.M No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 3, Sec. 6) 247, How are private electronic documents authenticated? Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, ts authenticity rust be proved by any ofthe folowing means: a. By evidence thatt had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same; . By evidence that other appropriate securty procedures or devices as may Be authorized by the ‘Suprome Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were apped to the decumost we I By other evidence showing is integrity and reliably to the satefacton of he udge (A.M No. On7-On, } SO, Rute’, Soe. 2). | Note: The burden of proving authenticity of an electronic document lies with the person seeking to introduce such document in any legal proceeding (A.M No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 5, Section 1) Ephemeral Electronic Communication Eonar secre canmicon ff phone i, x messages chatoom ssh, searing sudo a ‘and Video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained (A.M No.:01- 7-01-SC, Rule 2, Section 2(k)). 2019 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 67Ma 20112 PRE-WEEK NOTES | 248, 249. 250. 2st. 282. 68 | 2019 SAN EEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS. Fuspect X was invited by the police to come aboard their car. Thereafter, the police got involved in a firefight ata 7-11 store which resulted in the death of one gunman and one officer. On that occasion. X disappeared but left his cellphone in his cab. The police officer obtained the phone and while Protencling to be X, he was able to cause the entrapment and arrest of the suspects in the killing, X was arrested and was charged with murder. The text méssages sent to the phone recovered from the taxi driven by X made references to the 7-11 shootout. May the transcript of the text messages be uced ma evidence against the accused? ‘Yes, Such transcript of text messages may be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the Same or has personal knowledge of them. Here, the police officer, posing as the accused X, exchanged text messages with the other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent {rom and to the mobile phone in is possession, the police officer had personal knowledge of such messages ‘and was competent to testify on them (People v. Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014) A foreign vessel bumped and damaged a power barge of X Corp. Thé corporation sued A, the local ship agent. During the trial, X Corp offered in evidence photocopies of letters, protest forms, and written computations to prove damages. Such documents were reproduced and printed using a ‘software program and contained written signatures and some handwritten notations on the date of receipt. May the photocopies be admitted in evidence without the offeror accounting for the non~ production of the original? No, what differentiates an electronic document from a paper-based document is the manner by which the Information is processed; clearly, the information contained in an electronic document is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced électofiieally. A perusal ofthe information contained In the photocopies submitted by X,Corp. will reveal hat not al ofthe contents therein, such as the signatures of the Persons who purportedly signed the documents; may be recofded dr produced electronically. By no stretch Of the imagination can a person's signature affixed manually be considered as information electronically received, recorded, transmitted, stored,.procéssed, Tetrieved dr produced, (National Power Comoration v. Codi, dr, G.R. No. 170491, April 3, 2607) 5 DTS el Pierce ‘Aand B were complaining to a Cebu Pacific desk at the airport regarding thelr lost baggage when they noticed X taking a Video of them. They approached X and a brawl subsequently ensued in which A and B got the bottor of X. Days'after the incident Y and 2, brothérs of X, airs on their TV program comments and expletives against A and B and threatened that they will retaliate: Terrified by the gravity of the. throats hurled, A andB filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of amiparo against X, ¥, and 2. The brothers filed a motion to dismiss. arguing that thelr’statements’ did not involve any actual threat. A and B opposed the motion saying that a motion to’dismiss is a prohibited motion. May the RTC grant the motion to dismiss? Se : ‘Yes, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo s-presently.coffined to casés involving extralegal killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. There must be 'a showing of direct or indirect government Participation in order for the Rule to'apply: Here, the amparo petition does not involve any case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, orany.threals.theréot. Their petition is merely anchored on a broad invocation of a purported violation of their right to life and security, carried out by private individuals without hy showing of direct or indirect government participation (Spouses Santiago v. Tulfo, G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015, Pertas-Bernabe, J). Is hearsay admissible in writ of amparo cases? ‘Yes, technical rules of evidence are not striclly observed in writ of amparo case. The rules of evidence are. reduced to the most basic test of reason ~ i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand. And its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies the basic minimum test. The courts should exercise flexibility in the consideration of evidence, including hearsay evidence, in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance cases (Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, June 22, 2010) Are decisions in writ of amparo and writ of habeas corpus cases immediately executory? ‘Yes, there Is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Summary proceedings are immediately executory without prejudice to appeal (Boac v. Cadapan, G.R. Nos. 184461-62, May 31, 2011).0 EDR OLLEGE OFLA CENTRALE EAR GPERATENS 2019 REMEDIAL LAW ka : 253. May the doctrine of command responsibility apply in amparo cases notwithstanding the fact that the 254, Rule on the Writ of Amparo does not determine civil, criminal and adini istrative liability? nef. ommand responsibilty may be Toosdly applied in amparo cases in order to identi those aren abl individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo rout the cusang 2" S4eh applcation, the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibilty but merely prngont ae atberors it considers to be in the best postion to protect the righis of the aggrievea party. Such {dentitcation of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of wiv yen Fae satich, of course, is stil subject to further investigation by the approptiate.govemment rency (Rodriquez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, November 1, 2011) The RTC granted the privilege of the writ of amparo, thereby commencing the conduct of séveral ta vgeuzations by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) fo determine the whereabouts and the circumstances behind the disappearance of A. In its Feemey Report submitted to the RTC, the PNP stated that it encountered problems in gathering evidence that Would lead to the resolution of the case, and thus, proposed that their investigation be terminated, Meanwhile, the AFP overturned the suspicions behind the involvement of an active service officer of Recarmy in A's abduction, which likewise led to a standstill in its own investigation, As a result, the Feestieeommended, among others, the archiving of the case, considering that the ongoing {vestigation had reached an impasse, Eventually, the consolidated cases were brought to the ‘Supreme Court. Should the SC adopt the recommendation of the RTC to archive the case? ‘Yes, the SC should adopt the recommendation of the RTC to archive the case. Archiving of cases is a procedural measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases in which no immediate action is expected. but where no grounds exist for thelr outright dismissal. Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance util the situation obtains in which action thereon can be taken. To be sure, tho Amparo rule sanctions the archiving of cases, provided that itis impelled by a valid cause, such as when the witnesses fail to appear due to threats on their lives or to similar analogous causes that would prevent the court from effectively hearing and conducting the airipara proceedings (Balao, et.al v. Secrotary Ermita, G.R. ‘Nos. 186050 & 186059, August 1, 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J,, Covered Case), Requisites for the issuance of a writ of habeasdata ‘The requisites are: b. 258. ‘The existence of a person's right to informational privacy; and ‘An actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in lif, liberty or security of the victim (proven by at least Substantial evidence). Note that the writ will not issue:on the basis merely of an alleged unauthorized access {0 information about a person (Vivares v. St. Theresa's College G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014). X and Y, both minors, were graduating high school students. They were subjected to disciplinary actions by the school's Discipline Officer in view of their Facebook posts containing pictures of them wearing only their undergarments and while drinking liquor. The high school principal informed thelr Parents the following day that, as part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the commencement exercises. X and Y's parents asked for a TRO which the Court granted but the school ignored. ‘Subsequently, the parents filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data arguing that the privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at “Friends Only”, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected. The school contends, that the writ of habeas data may not issue, it not being an entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. Is. the contention of the school correct? NNo, the writ of habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public‘offcials and of private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her correspondences, or about his or her family. To “engage In something is different from undertaking 8 business endeavour. To “engage” means "to do ar take pait in something,” It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting, or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent. the wri from getting to said person or entity (Vivares v. St. Theresa's College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014). 2018 SAN BEDA Law ITRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 69le 2019 PRE-WEEK NOTES : ; Ce STola a eresa esta ae)es NMR IE er aS Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) TRIS derived from the nature of an EPO, which, as defined, is an “order issued by the court arectng or enjoining rehabilitate the covemment agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect presone, eo Focal ine environment.” I integrates both prohibitive and mandatory relies In order to approprstaly sadoce Une Praia Groumstances surrounding the case. A TEPO may only be issued in mattors of extome uigeney od the applicant wil suffer grave injustice and ireparable injury and shall only be valid for 72 hours. (Rule 1, Soc. # (a). ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) J fetes $0 an action whether civil, criminal or administrative, brought against any person, insituton or any government agency or local government unit or its officals and empiayees, with the intent to harass, vex, exert undo oererceene rear’, any legal recourse that such person, institution or government agenoy has taken or may take in the enroreament of environmental laws, protection af the environment, or assertion of environmental rights (Rule 1 Sec. Par. [g)). ee Wwri ikea — rit Writ of Continuing Mandamus. Writ of Kalikasan __ When available 3 5 Itis directed against: : [Its available against uniawful act or omission of a public 2. The unlawful neglect in the performance of an-act.| offical or employes, or private incvidual or entity, involving which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting | environmental damage of such magnitude as to projudion from an office, trust or station in connection withthe | the life, health’ or property of inhabitants in two" or more ‘onforcement of violation of an environmental law, | cites. rule oF regulation or a right therein; or ». Tho unlaivul exclusion of anther from the use or | The magnitude of environmental damage is a condition sine enjoyment of such right ua non in a petition forthe issuance of a Writ of Kalkasan and must be contained in the verified petition. Note: In both instances, there isino plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. z eee ‘Whe may file Se ie Avaliable only to one who is personally aggrieved by | Available fo natu or juridical person, entity authorized by the unlawful act or omission, law, people's organization, or any public interest group accredited or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened to be violated z a = TRespendent’- 2 nae. [Only the government or its officers. “The government or private individual or entity. ue fe as Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the | Supreme Court; or Court of Appeals territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred; Court of Appeals; or Supreme Court. Modes of Blscavery T= ea Does “not contain any provision for —dscovery | Incorporates the procedural environmental ght of access | measures. toinformation trough the use of dacovery measures cash | 2 ocular inepection order or production order ‘Aviard forDamages | pcan Allows damages for the malicious neglect of the | No damages may be awarded in a petition for the issuance Performance of the legal duty of the respondent | of Writ of Kalikasan consistent with the public interest ‘identical to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court character of the petition, 70 | 2012 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONSMED Wiit of Continuing Matidatig ieee A party who avails ofthis petition but who also wishes to be + Indemnified for injuries suffered may file another sult for the recovery of damages since the Rules allows for ihe li | institution of separate actions, Requisites for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan 256. _¥. for and on his behalf, and in representation of the People ofthe Citios of Cebu and Talisay and the filute Generations, including the unborn filed a petition for wit cf rato with prayer for the Seuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) botore wes. Me asserted that the throstene oberation of the Inayawan landfill in Cebu causes serious eneirocmereas ‘damage which the aians and violates their right to a balanced and healthful ecology, The Ge granted the issuance of seine of kalikasan, and directed X, the incumbent mayor of Cetus to fo ease return. In X's Soeday: rogar”, he alleged that respondent failed to comply with the condition preceders anne requires RA apace to the public officer concerned prior to the filing of s ltizove can eo i 9003 and R.A. 8749, Decide, The contention of Mayors wthout med. The wit of klasan under the RPEG ie a saparte ad tne Geton from RA. S008 and R.A. 8749. Aveo alasoniyanexrageary eo aca ae Ut In Omnibus Glorificetur Deus! That in all things God may be: ‘glorified! SAN BEDA LAW fe CENTRALIZED >i” BAR OPERATIONS a 2019 ; THIS IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF THE ee SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS. THE UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ANY OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, 2018 SAN BEDA LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS | 71 -