Remedial Law: Questions and Suggested Answers

Remedial Law Q&As (2007-2013) hectorchristopher@yahoo.
com JayArhSals
A Compilation of the
Questions and Suggested Answers
In the
PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATIONS 2007-2013
In
REMEDIAL LAW
Compiled and Arranged By:
Salise, Hector Christopher “Jay-Arh” Jr. M.
(University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law)
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the

UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010)
&
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)
“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige
Page 1 of 198
FOREWORD
This work is a compilation of the ANSWERS TO BAR
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX ,
Philippine Association of Law Schools from 2007-2010 and
local law students and lawyers’ forum sites from 2011-2013
and not an original creation or formulation of the author.
The author was inspired by the work of Silliman University’s

College of Law and its students of producing a very good
material to everyone involved in the legal field particularly the
students and the reviewees for free. Hence, this work is a
freeware.
Everyone is free to distribute and mass produce copies of this

work, however, the author accepts no liability for the content of
this reviewer, or for the consequences of the usage, abuse, or
any actions taken by the user on the basis of the information
given.
The answers (views or opinions) presented in this reviewer are

solely those of the authors in the given references and do not
necessarily represent those of the author of this work.
The Author
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Titles are based on Silliman‟s Compilation [Arranged by Topic])
General Principles
Rights of the Accused; Miranda Rights (2010)..............................................................................10
Jurisdiction
Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of Judgment (2012)......................................................................10
Jurisdiction; Over the Plaintiff, Subject Matter (2009)..............................................................10
Jurisdiction; RTC (2009).......................................................................................................................11
Jurisdiction; RTC; Counterclaim (2008)..........................................................................................12
Jurisdiction; RTC; MeTC (2010).........................................................................................................13
Katarungang Pambarangay; Parties (2009).........................................................................................14
Civil Procedure (Rules 1-56)
Actions; Cause of Action (2013)..........................................................................................................15
Actions; Specific Performance (2012)....................................................................................................16
Appeals; Abandonment of a Perfected Appeal (2009)......................................................................17
Appeals; Modes of Appeal (2012)............................................................................................................17
Appeals; Modes of Appeal (2009)............................................................................................................18
Appeals; Modes of Appeal; RTC, CA (2009)..........................................................................................19
Appeals; Second Notice of Appeal (2008).............................................................................................20

Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (2008)............................................................................................20
Demurrer to Evidence (2009).................................................................................................................... 21
Demurrer to Evidence; Civil Case vs. Criminal Case (2007).....................................................22
Discovery; Modes of Discovery; Refusal to Comply (2010).......................................................22
Discovery; Production and Inspection (2009)..............................................................................23
Forum Shopping; Certification (2009).............................................................................................23
Judgment; Enforcement; 5yr Period (2007)...................................................................................24
Judgment; Execution; Judgment Obligor‟s Death (2009)..........................................................24
Judgment; Execution; Stay (2009)....................................................................................................25
Judgment; Execution; Successors in Interest (2008)..................................................................26
Judgment; Foreign Judgments; Foreign Arbitral Award (2007).....................................................27
Judgment; Judgment on the Pleadings (2012).....................................................................................28
Judgment; Judgment on the Pleadings (2009).....................................................................................28
Petition for Relief (2007)............................................................................................................................ 30
Petition for Relief; Injunction (2009)......................................................................................................30
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint (2009).................................................................................30
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint (2008).................................................................................31
Pleadings; Counterclaim (2010)........................................................................................................33
Pleadings; Counterclaim (2007)........................................................................................................34
Pleadings; Motion (2007)............................................................................................................................ 34
Pleadings; Motions; Bill of Particulars (2008).....................................................................................34
Pleadings; Motions; Omnibus Motion Rule (2010).............................................................................36

Subpoena; Viatory Right of Witness (2009)...................................................................................37
Summons; By Publication (2008)......................................................................................................37
Summons; Served by Email (2009)...................................................................................................37
Summons; Valid Service (2013)................................................................................................................38
Trial; Court of Appeals as Trial Court (2008)......................................................................................40
Venue; Real Actions (2012)..................................................................................................................40
Venue; Real Actions (2008)..................................................................................................................41
Provisional Remedies (Rules 57-61)
Attachment; Bond (2008).....................................................................................................................42
Attachment; Garnishment (2008)......................................................................................................42
Attachment; Kinds of Attachment (2012)......................................................................................43
Attachment; Preliminary Attachment (2012).....................................................................................45
Injunction; Preliminary Injunction (2009)...........................................................................................45
Special Civil Actions (Rules 62-71)
Certiorari; Petition for Certiorari, Rule 65 (2012)........................................................................45
Certiorari; Petition for Certiorari; Contempt (2012)...................................................................46
Expropriation; Motion to Dismiss (2009)........................................................................................47
Forcible Entry; Remedies (2013)............................................................................................................. 48
Foreclosure; Certification Against Non Forum Shopping (2007).................................................49
Jurisdiction; Unlawful Detainer (2010)..................................................................................................50

Jurisdiction; Unlawful Detainer (2008)..................................................................................................50
Mandamus (2012)......................................................................................................................................... 51
Partition; Non-joinder (2009)................................................................................................................... 51
Unlawful Detainer; Preliminary Conference (2007).........................................................................51
Unlawful; Detainer; Prior Possession (2008)......................................................................................52
Special Proceedings (Rules 72-109)
Absentee; Declaration of Absence vs. Declaration of Presumptive Death (2009)..............52
Cancellation or Correction; Notice (2007).....................................................................................54
Habeas Corpus (2007).................................................................................................................................. 54
Habeas Corpus; Bail (2008)....................................................................................................................... 55
Habeas Corpus; Jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan (2009)........................................................................56
Letters of Administration; Interested Person (2008)................................................................56
Probate of Will (2010)................................................................................................................................. 56
Probate of Will (2007)................................................................................................................................. 57
Probate of Will; Jurisdictional Facts (2012)..................................................................................57
Probate of Will; Application of Modes of Discovery (2008)......................................................58
Probate of Will: Will Outside of the Philippines (2010)..................................................................58
Settlement of Estate (2010).................................................................................................................59
Settlement of Estate (2009).................................................................................................................59
Criminal Procedure (Rules 110-127)
Actions; Commencement of an Action (2012).................................................................................60

Actions; Commencement of an Action; Criminal, Civil (2013).................................................60
Actions; Commencement of an Action; Party (2013)..................................................................62
Actions; Complaint; Forum Shopping (2010)................................................................................64
Actions; Hold Departure Order (2010)..................................................................................................66
Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Searches (2007)................................................................................67
Bail; Application (2012)........................................................................................................................67
Discovery; Production and Inspection (2009)..............................................................................68
Information; Motion to Quash (2009)..............................................................................................69
Information; Motion to Quash (2009).............................................................................................70
Jurisdiction; Complex Crimes (2013)...............................................................................................70
Jurisdiction; Reinvestigation; Arrest (2008)..................................................................................71
Res Judicata In Prison Grey (2010).........................................................................................................72
Search & Seizure; Plain View (2008)...............................................................................................72
Search & Seizure; Warrantless Search (2010)....................................................................................72
Search Warrant; Application; Venue (2012).................................................................................73
Trial; Remedies (2013)................................................................................................................................. 76
Trial; Reverse Trial (2007)......................................................................................................................... 80
Trial; Speedy Trial (2007).......................................................................................................................... 81
Trial; Trial in Absentia (2010)...................................................................................................................82
Evidence (Rules 128-134)
Admissibility; Admission of Guilt (2008)........................................................................................82
Admissibility; Death of Adverse Party (2007)..............................................................................83

Admissibility; DNA Evidence (2010)................................................................................................83
Admissibility; DNA Evidence (2009)................................................................................................84
Admissibility; Evidence from Invasive and Involuntary Procedures (2010)......................84
Admissibility; Offer to Settle; Implied Admission of Guilt (2008)..........................................85
Best Evidence Rule; Electronic Evidence (2009).........................................................................85
Chain of Custody (2012)....................................................................................................................... 86
Character Evidence; Bad Reputation (2010).................................................................................87
Doctrine of Adoptive Admission (2009)................................................................................................87
Hearsay Evidence; Objection (2012)......................................................................................................87
Hearsay Rule (2007)..................................................................................................................................... 88
Hearsay; Inapplicable (2009)..................................................................................................................... 88
Offer of Evidence; Failure to Offer (2007)......................................................................................89
Offer of Evidence; Fruit of a Poisonous Tree (2010).........................................................................89
Offer of Evidence; Fruit of a Poisonous Tree (2009).........................................................................90
Privilege Communication (2013)......................................................................................................91
Privilege Communication; Lawyer-Client (2008).........................................................................93
Privilege Communication; Lawyer-Client (2008).........................................................................94
Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege (2010)....................................................................94
Witness; Examination of Witness (2009)........................................................................................96
Summary Procedure
Prohibited Pleadings (2010)...................................................................................................................... 96
Miscellaneous
Alternative Dispute Resolution; Court Diversion; Stages (2012)............................................97
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC; Precautionary Principle (2012)..........................................................................97
Habeas Data (2010)....................................................................................................................................... 98
Habeas Data (2009)....................................................................................................................................... 98
R.A. 3019; Pre-Suspension Hearing (2012)...........................................................................................99
R.A. 3019; Remedies (2013)............................................................................................................100
Small Claims (2013)............................................................................................................................102
Writ of Amparo; Habeas Corpus (2009)..............................................................................................103
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
2013 Remedial Law Exam MCQ (October 27, 2013)......................................................................104
2012 Remedial Law Exam MCQ (October 28, 2012).......................................................................121
2011 Remedial Law Exam MCQ (November 27, 2011).............................................................169
General Principles
On appeal, X’s counsel faulted the trial court
Rights of the Accused; Miranda Rights in its interpretation of his client’s answer,
(2010) arguing that X invoked his Miranda

rights when he remained quiet for the first
No.XI. X was arrested for the alleged two hours of questioning. Rule on the
murder of a 6-year old lad. He was read assignment of error. (3%)
his Mirandarights immediately upon being
apprehended. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the course of his detention, X was The assignment of error invoked by X‟s
subjected to three hours of non-stop counsel is impressed with merit since
interrogation. He remained quiet until, on there has been no express waiver of X‟s
the 3rd hour, he answered "yes" to the Miranda Rights. In order to have a valid
question of whether "he prayed for waiver of the Miranda Rights, the same
forgiveness for shooting down the boy." The must be in writing and made in the
trial court, interpreting X’s answer as an presence of his counsel. The
admission of guilt, convicted him. uncounselled extrajudicial confession of

X being without a valid waiver of his correctible only by appeal; whereas an
Miranda Rights, is inadmissible, as well error of jurisdiction is one which the
as any information derived therefrom. court acts without or in excess of its
jurisdiction. Such an error renders an
Jurisdiction order or judgment void or voidable and
is correctible by the special civil action
Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of
of certiorari. (Dela Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil.
Judgment (2012)
213; Cochingyan vs. Claribel, 76 SCRA
361; Fortich vs. Corona, April 24, 1998,
No.III.A. Distinguish error of jurisdiction
289 SCRA 624; Artistica Ceramica, Inc.
from error of judgment. (5%)
vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner‟s
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 167583-84,
June 16, 2010).
An error of judgment is one which the
court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. Such an error does not Jurisdiction; Over the Plaintiff, Subject
deprive the court of jurisdiction and is Matter (2009)
No.III. Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen

permanently residing in New York City, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
filed with the RTC of Lipa City a complaint

The first ground raised lacks merit
for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land
because jurisdiction over the person of a
against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San
plaintiff is acquired by the court upon the
Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. The subject
filing of plaintiff‟s complaint therewith.
property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa
Residency or citizenship is not a
City, has an assessed value of 19,700.
requirement for filing a complaint,
Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s
because plaintiff thereby submits to the
verification and certification of non-forum
jurisdiction of the court.
shopping executed in New York City, duly
notarized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a (b) The RTC does not have jurisdiction over
notary public in the State of New York. the subject matter of the action involving
Brigod filed a motion to dismiss the real property with an assessed value of
complaint on the following grounds: P19,700.00; exclusive and original
jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial
(a) The court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over the person of Amorsolo because he is
not a resident of the Philippines; (2%)
Court where the defendant resides; (3%) No.II. Angelina sued Armando before the
and Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila to
recover the ownership and possession of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: two parcels of land; one situated in
Pampanga, and the other in Bulacan.
The second ground raised is also
without merit because the subject of the (a) May the action prosper? Explain.
litigation, Rescission of Contract, is
incapable of pecuniary estimation the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
exclusive original jurisdiction to which

No, the action may not prosper, because
is vested by law in the Regional Trial
under R.A. No. 7691, exclusive original
Courts. The nature of the action renders
jurisdiction in civil actions which
the assessed value of the land involved
involve title to, or possession of real
irrelevant.
property or any interest therein is
determined on the basis of the assessed
value of the land involved, whether it
Jurisdiction; RTC (2009)
should be P20,000 in the rest of the
Philippines, outside of the Manila with action was for foreclosure of the mortgage
the courts of the first level or with the over the two parcels of land? Why or why not?
Regional Trial Court. The assessed value
of the parcel of land in Pampanga is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
different from the assessed value of the

NO, the answer would not be the same. The
land in Bulacan. What is involved is not
foreclosure action should be brought in the
merely a matter of venue, which is
proper court of the province where the
waivable, but of a matter of jurisdiction.
land or any part thereof is situated, either
However, the action may prosper if
in Pampanga or in Bulacan. Only one
jurisdiction is not in issue, because
foreclosure action need be filed unless
venue can be waived.
each parcel of land is covered by distinct
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: mortgage contract.
Yes, if the defendant would not file a In foreclosure suit, the cause of action is
motion to dismiss on ground of for the violation of the terms and
improper venue and the parties conditions of the mortgage contract;
proceeded to trial.
(b) Will your answer be the same if the

hence, one foreclosure suit per as for P250,000 as the balance of the
mortgage contract violated is purchase price of the 30 units of air
necessary. conditioners he sold to Fe.
[Note: The question is the same as 2008 (a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over
Remedial Law Bar question No.III. See Ramon’s counterclaim, and if so, does he
Civ.Pro Venue; Real Actions, Infra – have to pay docket fees therefor?
JayArhSals]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, applying the totality rule which

Jurisdiction; RTC; Counterclaim (2008)
sums up the total amount of claims of
No.II. Fe filed a suit for collection of the parties, the RTC has jurisdiction
P387,000 against Ramon in the RTC of over the counter claims. Unlike in the
Davao City. Aside from alleging payment as case of compulsory counterclaims, a
a defense, Ramon in his answer set up defendant who raises a permissive
counterclaims for P100,000 as damages counterclaim must first pay docket fees
and 30,000 as attorney’s fees as a result of before the court can validly acquire
the baseless filing of the complaint, as well jurisdiction. One compelling test of
compulsoriness is the logical relation at this time; Alday vs. FGU Insurance
between the claim alleged in the Corporation, G.R. No. 138822, 23
complaint and the counterclaim (Bayer January 2001).
Phil, Inc. vs. C.A., G.R. No. 109269, 15
(b) Suppose Ramon’s counterclaim for the
September 2000). Ramon does not have
unpaid balance is P310,000, what will
to pay docket fees for his compulsory
happen to his counterclaims if the court
counterclaims. Ramon is liable for
dismisses the complaint after holding a
docket fees only on his permissive
preliminary hearing on Ramon’s affirmative
counterclaim for the balance of the
defenses?
purchase price of 30 units of air
conditioners in the sum of P250,000, as
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
it neither arises out of nor is it
connected with the transaction or The dismissal of the complaint shall be
occurrence constituting Fe‟s claim (Sec. without prejudice to the prosecution in
19 [8] and 33 [1], B.P. 129; AO 04-94, the same or separate action of a
implementing R.A. 7691, approved counterclaim pleaded in the answer (Sec.
March 25, 1994, the jurisdictional; 3, Rule 17; Pinga vs. Heirs of German
amount for MTC Davao being P300,000
Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30,
2006).
Jurisdiction; RTC; MeTC (2010)

(c) Under the same premise as paragraph
(b) above, suppose that instead of alleging No.II. On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper
payment as a defense in his answer, and consignee, loaded on the M/V
Ramon filed a motion to dismiss on that Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of
ground, at the same time setting up his century eggs. The shipment arrived in
counterclaims, and the court grants his Manila totally damaged on August 14,
motion. What will happen to his 2008. A filed before the Metropolitan Trial
counterclaims? Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against
B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the M/V Atlantis, for recovery of damages
amounting to P167,899. He attached to the
His counterclaims can continue to be
complaint the Bill of Lading.
prosecuted or may be pursued
separately at his option (Sec. 6, Rule 16;
(a) B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon
Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago, G.R.
the ground that the Regional Trial Court
No. 170354, June 30, 2006).
has exclusive original jurisdiction over "all damages, attorney‟s fees, litigation
actions in admiralty and maritime" claims. expenses and costs: this jurisdiction
In his Reply, A contended that while the includes admiralty and marine cases. And
action is indeed "admiralty and maritime" where the main cause of action is the
in nature, it is the amount of the claim, not claim for damages, the amount thereof
the nature of the action, that governs shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction. Pass on the Motion to Dismiss. jurisdiction of the court (Adm. Circular
(3%) No. 09-94, June 14,
1994).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The MeTC denied the Motion in question
The Motion to Dismiss is without merit A. B Lines thus filed an Answer raising the
and therefore should be denied. Courts defense that under the Bill of Lading it
of the first level have jurisdiction over issued to A, its liability was limited to
civil actions where the demand is for P10,000.
sum of money not exceeding
P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila, At the pre-trial conference, B Lines defined
P400,000.00, exclusive of interest, as one of the issues whether the stipulation
limiting its liability to P10,000 binds A. A binding effect of said stipulation. The
countered that this was no longer in issue oath is not required of B, because the
as B Lines had failed to deny under oath issue raised by the latter does not
the Bill of Lading. Which of the parties is impugn the genuineness and due
correct? Explain. (3%) execution of the Bill of Lading.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Katarungang Pambarangay; Parties

The contention of B is correct: A‟s
(2009)
contention is wrong. It was A who
pleaded the Bill of Lading as an No.XV.B. Mariano, through his attorney-in-
actionable document where the fact, Marcos filed with the RTC of Baguio
stipulation limits B‟s liability to A to City a complaint for annulment of sale
P10,000.00 only. The issue raised by B against Henry. Marcos and Henry both
does not go against or impugn the reside in Asin Road, Baguio City, while
genuineness and due execution of the Mariano resides in Davao City. Henry filed a
Bill of Lading as an actionable motion to dismiss the complaint on the
document pleaded by A, but invokes the ground of prematurity for failure to comply
with the mandatory barangay conciliation.

Resolve the motion with reasons. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Civil Procedure (Rules 1-56)

The motion to dismiss should be denied
Actions; Cause of Action (2013)
because the parties in interest, Mariano
and Henry, do not reside in the same No.VI. While leisurely walking along the
city/municipality, or is the property street near her house in Marikina, Patty
subject of the controversy situated unknowingly stepped on a garden tool left
therein. The required behind by CCC, a construction company
conciliation/mediation before the based in Makati. She lost her balance as a
proper Barangay as mandated by the consequence and fell into an open manhole.
Local Government Code governs only Fortunately, Patty suffered no major injuries
when the parties to the dispute reside in except for contusions, bruises and scratches
the same city or municipality, and if that did not require any hospitalization.
involving real property, as in this case, However, she lost self-
the property must be situated also in the
same city or municipality.
esteem, suffered embarrassment and
ridicule, and had bouts of anxiety and bad
dreams about the accident. She wants
vindication for her uncalled for experience
and hires you to act as counsel for her and
to do whatever is necessary to recover at
least Php100,000 for what she suffered.
What action or actions may Patty pursue,

against whom, where (court and venue),
and under what legal basis? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patty may avail any of the following

remedies:
a) She may file a complaint for damages

arising from fault or negligence under
the Rules on Small Claims against CCC
Company before the MTC of Marikina
City where she resides or Makati City
where the defendant corporation is
holding office, at her option (A.M. No. 8- 8-
7-SC in relation to Section 2, Rule 4, Rules
of Court).
b) She may also file an action to recover

moral damages based on quasi-delict
under Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code. The law states that, whoever by
act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence
is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no
Remedial Law Q&As (2007-2013) hectorchristopher@yahoo.com JayArhSals
pre-existing contractual relation between as the aggregate of the claims for

the parties, is called a quasi-delict. damages does not exceed Php 400,000.
Under Article 2217 of the New Civil

Code, moral damages include physical
Actions; Specific Performance (2012)
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, No.IV.A. A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC
wounded feelings, moral shock, social Cars for P 5.0M. ABC Cars, before
humiliation, and similar injury. Though delivering to A, had the car rust proofed
incapable of pecuniary computation, and tinted by XYZ Detailing. When
moral damages may be recovered if they delivered to A, the car's upholstery was
are the proximate result of the found to be damaged. ABC Cars and XYZ
defendant‟s wrongful act or omission. Detailing both deny any liability. Who can A
sue and on what cause(s) of action?
Since moral damages are incapable of
Explain. (5%)
pecuniary estimation, Patty should file
the action before the Regional Trial SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Court of Marikina City where she resides
or Makati City, where the defendant A can file an action for specific
corporation is holding office, at her performance and damages against ABC
option (Section 19(1), B.P. 129). Cars since the damage to the Volvo
Sedan‟s upholstery was caused before
c) Patty can also file a civil action for the delivery of the same to A, and
damages against the City of Marikina for therefore prior to the transfer of
maintaining an open manhole where she ownership to the latter. (Article 1477,
unfortunately fell. Under article 2189 of New Civil Code). Under Article 1170 of
the Civil Code, provinces, cities, and the New Civil Code, those who
municipalities shall be liable for contravene the tenor of the obligation
damages for the death of, or injuries are liable for damages. Hence, an action
suffered by, any person by reason of the for specific performance against ABC
defective condition of roads, streets, Corporation to deliver the agreed Volvo
bridges, public buildings, and other Sedan in the contract, free from any
public works under their control or damage or defects, with corresponding
supervision. The proper court having damages will lie against ABC Cars.
jurisdiction over the case is at least Php
100,000 for as long ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Page 16 of 198
A can sue ABC Cars for specific (1) An order of execution issued by the RTC.
performance or rescission because the (1%)
former has contractual relations with
the latter. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65

before the Court of Appeals.
Appeals; Abandonment of a Perfected
Appeal (2009) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No.XI.E. The filing of a motion for the

The mode of elevation may be either
reconsideration of the trial court’s decision
by appeal (writ of error or certiorari), or
results in the abandonment of a perfected
by a special civil action of certiorari,
appeal.
prohibition, or mandamus. (Banaga vs.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Majaducon cited in General Milling
Corporation-Independent Labor Union
FALSE. The trial court has lost
vs. General Milling Corporation, G.R.
jurisdiction after perfection of the
No. 183122, June 15, 2011, Perez, J.).
appeal and so it can no longer entertain
a motion for reconsideration. (2) Judgment of RTC denying a petition for
Writ of Amparo. (1%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
FALSE, because the appeal may be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
perfected as to one party but not yet

Any party may appeal from the final
perfected as to the other party who may
judgment or order to the Supreme Court
still file a motion for reconsideration
by way of a petition for review on
without abandonment of his right of
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
appeal even though the appeal of the
Court. the period of appeal shall be five
case is perfected already as to the other
(5) working days from the date of notice
party.
of the adverse judgment, and the appeal
may raise questions of fact or law or
both. (sec. 19, Rule on Writ of Amparo,
Appeals; Modes of Appeal (2012)
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September
2007).
No.X.A. Where and how will you appeal the
following: (3) Judgment of registration case
MTC on a land based on its
Page 17 of 198
delegated Appeals Division (a) Judgment of a

jurisdiction. (1%) may be appealed Municipal Trial
to the CTA en Appeals; Modes of Court (MTC)
SUGGESTED Appeal (2009)
banc. pursuant to its
ANSWER:
delegated
No.VIII. On July
The decisions of jurisdiction
The appeal 15, 2009, Atty.
the Court of Tax dismissing his
should be filed Manananggol
Appeals are no client’s
with the Court of was served
longer application for
Appeals by filing copies of
appealable to the land registration?
a Notice of numerous
Court of Appeals.
Appeal within unfavorable
Under the SUGGESTED
15 days from judgments and
ANSWER:
modified appeal
notice of orders. On July
procedure, the
judgment or 29, 2009, he filed By notice of
decision of a
final order motions for appeal, within
division of the
appealed from. reconsideration 15 days from
CTA may be
(Sec. 34, Batas which were notice of
appealed to the
Pambansa Blg. denied. He judgment or
CTA en banc. The
129, or the received the final order
decision of the
Judiciary notices of denial appealed from,
CTA en banc may
Reorganization of the motions to the Court of
in turn be
Act of 1980, as for Appeals;
directly
amended by reconsideration
appealed to the (b) Judgment of
Republic Act No. on October 2,
Supreme Court the Regional Trial
7691, March 25, 2009, a Friday.
by way of a Court (RTC)
1994). He immediately
petition for denying his
informed his
(4) A decision of review on client’s petition
clients who, in
the Court of Tax certiorari under for a writ of
turn, uniformly
Appeal's First Rule 45 on habeas data?
instructed him to
Division. (1%) questions of law.
appeal. How,
(Section 11, R.A. SUGGESTED
when and where ANSWER:
SUGGESTED 9282, March 30,
should he pursue
ANSWER: 2004).
the appropriate By verified
The decision of remedy for each petition for
the Court of Tax of the following: review on

Page 18 of 198
certiorari modification Internal Revenue By petition for

under Rule 45, that appellant Code? review filed
with the may raise with the court of
SUGGESTED
questions of fact 3, Rule 41, ANSWER: Tax Appeals
or law or both, Rules of Court). (CTA) en banc,
within 5 work within 30 days
(d) Order of the
days from date from receipt of
RTC denying his
of notice of the the decision or
client’s petition
judgment or ruling in
for certiorari
final order to question (Sec. 9
questioning the
the Supreme [b], Rule 9, Rev.
Metropolitan Trial
Court (Sec. 19, Rules of CTA).
Court’s denial of a
A.M. No. 08-1-
motion to suspend
16-SC).
criminal
(c) Order of a proceedings? Appeals; Modes
family court of Appeal; RTC,
denying his SUGGESTED CA (2009)
ANSWER:
client’s petition
for habeas corpus No. XIX.A.
By notice of
in relation to Distinguish the
appeal, within 15
custody of a two modes of
days from notice
minor child? appeal from the
of the final order,
judgment of the
to the Court of
SUGGESTED Regional Trial
ANSWER: appeals
Court to the Court
(Majestrado vs.
of Appeals.
By notice of People, 527 SCRA
appeal, within 125 [2007]). SUGGESTED
48 hours from ANSWER:
(e) Judgment of
notice of
the First Division In cases decided
judgment or
of the Court of Tax by the Regional
final order to
Appeals affirming Trial Courts in
the Court of
the RTC decision the exercise of
appeals (Sec. 14,
convicting his their original
R.A. No. 8369 in
client for violation jurisdiction,
relation to Sec. appeals to the
of the National
Page 19 of 198
Court of notice of appeal rendered the required with the

Appeals shall shall be filed judgment or final deposit for cost
be ordinary with the RTC order appealed should be paid.
appeal by filing which rendered from (Secs. 4 and The 15- day
written notice the judgment 5, Rule 41, Rules period may be
of appeal appealed from of Court). The extended for 15
indicating the and copy periods of days and another
parties to the thereof shall be 15 or 30 days 15 days for
appeal; served upon the above-stated are compelling
specifying the adverse party non- extendible. reasons.
judgment/final within 15 days
order or part from notice of In cases decided
thereof judgment or by the Regional

Appeals; Second
appealed from; final order Trial Court in the Notice of Appeal
specifying the appealed from. exercise of its (2008)
court to which But if the case appellate
the appeal is admits of jurisdiction,
being taken; multiple appeal to the
and stating the appeals or is a Court of Appeals
material dates special shall be by filing a
showing the proceeding, a verified petition
timeliness of record on for review with
the appeal. The appeal is the Court of

Appeals and
required aside order appealed
furnishing the
from the written from. The full
RTC and the
notice of appeal amount of the
adverse party
to perfect the appellate court
with copy thereof,
appeal, in which docket fee and
within 15 days
case the period other lawful fees
from notice of
for appeal and required must
judgment or final
notice upon the also be paid
order appealed
adverse party is within the period
from. Within the
not only 15 days for taking an
same period for
but 30 days appeal, to the
appeal, the
from notice of clerk of the
docket fee and
judgment or final court which
other lawful fees
Page 20 of 198
No.XII. After Atty. Sikat to 65 of the Rules of The certiorari

receiving the file a second Civil Procedure? jurisdiction of
adverse decision notice of appeal the Supreme
SUGGESTED
rendered against after receiving ANSWER: Court under the
his client, the the amended Constitution is
defendant, Atty. decision. In
the mode by the part of any
Sikat duly filed a Magdalena
which the Court branch or
notice of appeal. Estate vs. Caluag
exercises its instrumentality
For his part, the (11 SCRA 333
expanded of the
plaintiff timely [1964]), the
jurisdiction, government and
filed a motion Court ruled that
allowing it to there is no other
for partial new a party must re-
take corrective claim speedy
trial to seek an take an appeal
action through remedy available
increase in the within fifteen
the exercise of to a party in the
monetary [15) days from
its judicial ordinary course
damages receipt of the
power. of law.
awarded. The amended ruling
Constitutional
RTC instead or decision,
certiorari
rendered an which stands in
jurisdiction Demurrer to
amended place of the old Evidence (2009)
applies even if
decision further decision. It is in
the decision was
reducing the effect, a new No.XVI.A. After the
not rendered by
monetary decision. prosecution had
a judicial or
awards. Is it rested and made
quasi-judicial
necessary for its formal offer of
body, hence, it is
Atty. Sikat to file evidence, with the
Certiorari; Rule broader than the
a second notice 45 vs. Rule 65 court admitting all
(2008) writ of certiorari
of appeal after of the prosecution
under Rule 65,
receiving the No.XXI.A. evidence, the
which is limited
amended Compare the accused filed a
to cases
decision? certiorari demurer to
involving a grave
jurisdiction of evidence with
SUGGESTED abuse of
the Supreme leave of court. the
ANSWER: discretion
Court under the prosecution was
amounting to
Yes, it is Constitution with allowed to
lack or excess of
necessary for that under Rule comment thereon.
jurisdiction on
Thereafter, the
Page 21 of 198
court granted the NO, the motion evidence in a of court,

demurer, finding will not criminal case and otherwise, the
that the accused prosper. With its filing in a civil accused would
could not have the granting of case. (5%) lose his right to
committed the the demurrer, present defense
offense charged. the case shall be SUGGESTED evidence if filed
ANSWER:
If the prosecution dismissed and and denied; in
files a motion for the legal effect civil cases, no
The following
reconsideration is the acquittal leave of court is
are the
on the ground of the accused. required for
distinctions in
that the court A judgment of filing such
effects of
order granting acquittal is demurrer.
demurrer to the
the demurer was immediately
evidence in
not in accord with executor and no (2) In criminal
criminal cases
law and appeal can be cases, when
from that in
jurisprudence, made such demurrer
civil cases:
will the motion therefrom. is granted, the
prosper? Otherwise the dismissal of the
(1) In criminal
Constitutional case is not
SUGGESTED cases, demurrer
ANSWER: protection appealable
to the evidence
against double inasmuch as the
requires leave
jeopardy would
dismissal would
be violated.
amount to an (3) In criminal
acquittal, unless cases, the
made by a court accused loses his
Demurrer to
acting without or right to present
Evidence; Civil
in excess of his defense-
Case vs.
jurisdiction; in evidence in the
Criminal Case
civil cases, when trial court when
(2007)
such demurrer is he filed the
No.V. (a) granted, the demurrer
Distinguish the dismissal of the without prior
effects of the case can be leave of court;
filing of a appealed by the while in civil
demurrer to the plaintiff. cases, the
Page 22 of 198
defendant loses damaged on (c) On July 21, notice;

his right to August 14, 2008. 2009, B Lines
present his A filed before the served on A a (b) If failure was
defense- Metropolitan Trial "Notice to Take for valid reason,
evidence only if Court (MeTC) of Deposition," then set another
the plaintiff Manila a setting the date for taking
appealed such complaint against deposition on the deposition.
dismissal and B Super Lines, Inc. July 29, 2009 at
the case is (B Lines), owner (c) If failure to
8:30 a.m. at the
before the of the M/V appear at
office of its
appellate court Atlantis, for deposition
counsel in
already since recovery of taking was
Makati. A failed
the case would damages without valid
to appear at the
be decide only amounting to reason, then I
deposition-
on the basis of P167,899. He would file a
taking, despite
plaintiff‟s attached to the motion/applicat
notice. As
evidence on complaint the Bill ion in the court
counsel for B
record. of Lading. where the action
Lines, how would
is pending, for
you proceed?
and order to
(3%)
show cause for
Discovery;
SUGGESTED his refusal to
Modes of
ANSWER: submit to the
Discovery;
discovery; and
Refusal to
As counsel for B
Comply (2010)
lines (which (d) For the court
No.II. On August gave notice to to issue
13, 2008, A, as take the appropriate
shipper and deposition), I Order provided
consignee, shall proceed as under Rule 29 of
loaded on the follows: the Rules, for
M/V Atlantis in noncompliance
(a) Find out why
Legaspi City with the show-
A failed to
100,000 pieces of cause order,
appear at the
century eggs. The aside from
deposition
shipment arrived contempt of
taking, despite
in Manila totally court.
Page 23 of 198
Discovery; give a detailed list confidential and privileged, the

Production and of the products’ privileged detailed list of
Inspection ingredients and character. ingredients and
(2009) chemical Otherwise, CCC chemical
components, would eventually components
No.XIII.A. relying on the right be exposed to may not be the
to avail of the unwarranted subject of mode
Continental
modes of discovery business of discovery
Chemical allowed under competition with under Rule 27,
Corporation (CCC) Rule others who may Section 1 which
filed a complaint 27. CCC objected, imitate and expressly makes
for a sum of invoking market the same privileged
money against confidentiality of kinds of information an
Barstow Trading the information products in exception from
Corporation (BTC) sought by BTC. violation of its coverage (Air
for the latter’s Resolve BTC’s CCC‟s Philippines
failure to pay for motion with proprietary Corporation vs.
reasons. (3%) rights. Being
its purchases of Pennswell, Inc.,
industrial SUGGESTED 540 SCRA 215
chemicals. In its ANSWER: [2007]).
answer, BTC
contended that it I will deny the
refused to pay motion. The

ingredients and Forum Shopping;
because CCC
Certification
misrepresented chemical (2009)
that the products components of
it sold belonged to CCC‟s products No.III. Amorsolo,
a new line, when are trade secrets a Filipino citizen
in fact they were within the permanently
identical with contemplation of residing in New
CCC’s existing the law. Trade York City, filed
products. To secrets may not with the RTC of
substantiate its be the subject of Lipa City a
defense, BTC filed compulsory complaint for
a motion to disclosure by Rescission of
compel CCC to reason of their Contract of Sale of
Page 24 of 198
Land against certification of

Brigido, a non- forum
resident of shopping are
Barangay San fatally defective
Miguel, Sto. because there is
Tomas, no accompanying
Batangas. The certification
subject property, issued by the
located in Philippine
Barangay Consulate in New
Talisay, Lipa York,
City, has an authenticating
assessed value of that Mr. Brown is
19,700. duly authorized
Appended to the to notarize
complaint is
Amorsolo’s
verification and
certification of
non-forum
shopping
executed in New
York City, duly
notarized by Mr.
Joseph Brown,
Esq., a notary
public in the
State of New
York. Brigod
filed a motion to
dismiss the
complaint on the
following
grounds:
(c) The
verification and
Page 25 of 198
the document. (3%) Rule on the foregoing the court in here favor a few months after
grounds with reasons. she had left. Can A file a motion for
execution of the judgment? Reason briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The third ground raised questioning the
On the assumption that the judgment
validity of the verification and
had been final and executory for more
certification of non-forum shopping for
than five (5) years as of A‟s return to the
lack of certification from the Philippine
Philippines seven (7) years later, a
Consulate in New York, authenticating
motion for execution of the judgment is
that Mr. Brown is duly authorized to
no longer availing because the execution
notarize the document, is likewise
of judgment by mere motion is allowed
without merit. The required certification
by the Rules only within five (5) years
alluded to, pertains to official acts, or
from entry of judgment; thereafter, and
records of official bodies, tribunals, and
within ten (10) years from entry of
public officers, whether of the
judgment, an action to enforce the
Philippines or of a foreign country: the
judgment is required.
requirement in Sec. 24, Rule 132 of the
1997 Rules refers only to paragraph (a)
of Sec. 29 which does not cover notarial
documents. It is enough that the notary Judgment; Execution; Judgment
public who notarized the verification Obligor‟s Death (2009)
and certification of non-forum shopping
is clothed with authority to administer No.VII. Cresencio sued Dioscoro for
oath in that State or foreign country. colletion of a sum of money. During the
trial, but after the presentation of plaintiff’s
evidence, Dioscoro died. Atty. Cruz,
Dioscoro’s counsel, then filed a motion to
Judgment; Enforcement; 5yr Period dismiss the action on the ground of his
(2007) client’s death. The court denied the motion
to dismiss and, instead, directed counsel to
No.X. (b) A files a case against B. While
furnish the court with the names and
awaiting decision on the case, A goes to the
addresses of Dioscoro’s heirs and ordered
United States to work. Upon her return to
that the designated administrator of
the Philippines, seven years later, A
Dioscoro’s estate be substituted as
discovers that a decision was rendered by
representative party.
Page 24 of 198
After trial, the court rendered judgment in Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered
favor of Cresencio. When the decision had judgement in favor of Jonathan, who then
become final and executory, Cresencio filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of
moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. The MTC issued the writ.
execution against Dioscoro’s estate to
(a) How can mike stay the execution of the
enforce his judgment claim. The court
MTC judgment? (2%)
issued the writ of execution. Was the
court’s issuance of the writ of execution SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proper? Explain.
Execution shall issue immediately upon
SUGGESTED ANSWER: motion, unless Mike (a) perfects his
appeal to the RTC, (b) files a sufficient
No, the issuance of a writ of execution supersedeas bond to pay the rents,
by the court is not proper and is in damages and costs accruing up to the
excess of jurisdiction, since the time of the judgment appealed from, and
judgment obligor is already dead when (c) deposits monthly with the RTC
the writ was issued. The judgment for during the pendency of the appeal the
money may only be enforced against the amount of rent due from time to time
estate of the deceased defendant in the (Rule 70, Sec. 19).
probate proceedings, by way of a claim
(b) Mike appealed to the Regional Trial
filed with the probate court.
Court, which affirmed the MTC decision.
Cresencio should enforce that judgment Mike then filed a petition for review with
in his favor in the settlement the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the
proceedings of the estate of Dioscoro as petition on the ground that the sheriff had
a money claim in accordance with the already executed the MTC decision and had
Rule 86 or Rule 88 as the case may be. ejected Mike from the premises, thus
rendering the appeal moot and academic. Is
the CA correct? (3%) Reasons.
Judgment; Execution; Stay (2009) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.XII. Mike was renting an apartment unit NO. The Court of Appeals is not correct.
in the building owned by Jonathan. When The dismissal of the appeal is wrong,
Mike failed to pay six months’ rent, because the execution of the RTC
Jonathan filed an ejectment suit. The judgment is only in respect of the
eviction of the defendant from

Page 25 of 198
the leased and Salvio sold the middle

premises. Such inherited from third of the
execution their father a vast southern half to After trial, the
pending appeal tract of Nina. Salvio did court rendered
has no effect on unregistered land. not amend the judgment
the merits of the Roscoe succeeded complaint to ordering Roscoe
ejectment suit in gaining implead Nina. to reconvey the
which still has to possession of the entire southern
be resolved in parcel of land in half to Salvio. The
the pending its entirety and judgment became
appeal. Rule 70, transferring the final and
Sec. 21 of the tax declaration executory. A writ
Rules provides thereon in his of execution
that the RTC name. Roscoe sold having been
judgment the northern half issued, the sheriff
against the to Bono, Salvio’s required Roscoe,
defendant shall cousin. Upon Carlo and Nina to
be immediately learning of the vacate the
executor, sale, Salvio asked southern half and
“without Roscoe to convey yield possession
prejudice to a the southern half thereof to Salvio
further appeal” to him. Roscoe as the prevailing
that may be refused as he even party. Carlo and
taken therefrom sold one- third of Nina refused,
(Uy vs. Santiago, the southern half contending that
336 SCRA 680 along the West to they are not
[2000]). Carlo. Thereupon, bound by the
Salvio filed an judgment as they
action for are not parties to
reconveyance of the case. Is the

Judgment; contention
the southern half
Execution; tenable? Explain
against Roscoe
Successors in fully. (4%)
only. Carlo was
Interest (2008)
not impleaded.
SUGGESTED
After filing his ANSWER:
No.XV. Half-
answer, Roscoe
brothers Roscoe
As a general
Page 26 of 198
rule, no became a co- mistake of law or

stranger should owner before fact (Rule 39, Sec.
be bound to a the case was Judgment; 48 [a], Rules of
judgment filed Foreign Court); and
where he is not (Matuguina Judgments; In case of
included as a Integrated Foreign Arbitral judgment against
party. The rule Wood Products, Award (2007) a person, the
on transfer of Inc. vs. C.A., G.R. judgment is
No.I. (a) What
interest No. 98310, 24 presumptive
are the
pending October 1996; evidence of a right
rules on the
litigation is Polaris vs. Plan, as between the
recognition and
found in Sec. 69 SCRA 93; See parties and their
enforcement of
19, Rule 3, 1997 also Asset successors in
foreign judgments
Rules of Civil Privatization interest by
in our courts?
Procedure. The Trust vs. C.A., subsequent title,
(6%) SUGGESTED
action may G.R. No. 121171, unless otherwise
29 December ANSWER:
continue unless repelled by
1998). Judgments of
the court, upon evidence on
foreign courts
motion directs However, Nina grounds above
are given
a person to be is a privy or a stated (Rule 39,
recognition in
substituted in successor in Sec. 48 [b], Rules
our courts thus:
the action or interest and is of Court).
In case of
joined with the bound by the However,
judgment upon a
original party. judgment even judgments of
specific thing,
Carlo is not if she is not a foreign courts
the judgment is
bound by the party to the may only be
conclusive upon
judgment. He case enforced in the
the title to the
(Sec. 19, Rule 3, parties and their Philippines
thing, unless
1997 Rules of successors-in- otherwise
Civil Procedure; interest repelled by
Cabresos vs. title subsequent evidence of lack
Tiro, 166 SCRA to the case (Sec. of jurisdiction,
400 [1998]). A 47, Rule 39, want of due
judgment is 1997 Rules of notice to the
conclusive Civil Procedure). party, collusion,
between the fraud, or clear
Page 27 of 198
through an foreign (c) How about a defendant therein

action validly judgment, and global injunction who has assets in
heard in the pursuant to the issued by a the Philippines?
Regional Trial Alternative foreign court to Explain briefly.
Court. Thus, it Dispute prevent (2%)
is actually the Resolution Act dissipation of SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
judgment of the of 2004 (R.A. funds against a
Philippine No. 9285), in Yes, a global civilized states by
court enforcing relation to 1958 injunction issued which final
the foreign New York by a foreign judgments of
judgment that Convention on court to prevent foreign courts of
shall be the Recognition dissipation of competent
executed. and funds against a jurisdiction are
Enforcement of defendant who reciprocally
(b) Can a foreign Foreign Arbitral has assets in the respected and
arbitral award Awards, the Philippines may rendered
be enforced in recognition and be enforced in efficacious under
the Philippines enforcement of our jurisdiction, certain
under those the foreign subject to our conditions that
rules? Explain arbitral awards procedural laws. may vary in
briefly. (2%) shall be in different
SUGGESTED accordance with As a general rule, countries (St.
ANSWER: no sovereign is
the rules of Aviation Services
No, a foreign bound to give Co., Pte., Ltd. v.
procedure to be
arbitral award effect within its Grand
promulgated by
cannot be dominion to a International
the Supreme
enforced in the judgment or Airways, Inc.,
Court. At
Philippines order of a
present, the 505 SCRA
under the rules tribunal of
Supreme Court 30[2006];
on recognition another country.
is yet to Asiavest
and However, under
promulgate Merchant
enforcement of the rules of
rules of Bankers [M]
foreign comity, utility
procedure on Berhad v. Court
judgments and convenience,
the subject of Appeals, 361
above-stated. A nations have
matter. SCRA 489
foreign arbitral established a [2001]).
award is not a usage among
Page 28 of 198
material Request for attached to the
allegations stated admission by complaint. In his
in the complaint, the plaintiff. answer with

Judgment;
what should (Rule 34 in counterclaim,
Judgment on the
plaintiff do? (5%) connection with Ernesto alleged
Pleadings
Sec.2, Rule 26, that Modesto
(2012)
SUGGESTED Rules of Court). coerced him into
ANSWER:
signing the
No.VII.B. Plaintiff
promissory note,
files a request for The Plaintiff
but that it is
admission and should file a Judgment;
Modesto who
serves the same Motion for Judgment on the
really owes him
on Defendant who Judgment on the Pleadings
P1.5M. Modesto
fails, within the Pleadings (2009)
filed an answer to
time prescribed by because the
Ernesto’s
the rules, to failure of the No.IX. Modesto
counterclaim
answer the defendant to sued Ernesto for
admitting that he
request. Suppose answer a a sum of money,
owed Ernesto,
the request for request for claiming that the
but only in the
admission asked admission latter owed him
amount of P0.5M.
for the admission results to an P1M, evidenced
at the pre-trial,
of the entire implied by a promissory
Modesto marked
admission of all note, quoted and
and
the matters
which an identified Modesto filed a
admission is Ernesto’s motion for
requested. promissory note. judgment on the
Hence, a motion He also marked pleadings, while
for judgment on and identified Ernesto filed a
the pleadings is receipts covering motion for
the appropriate payments he made summary
remedy where to Ernesto, to the judgment on his
the defendant is extent of P0.5M, counterclaim.
deemed to have which Ernesto did Resolve the two
admitted the not dispute. motions with
matters reasons.
After pre-trial,
contained in the
Page 29 of 198
SUGGESTED the instrument. sum less than actionable

ANSWER:
Thus, Ernesto‟s what was document, such
Modesto‟s failure to deny claimed – non-denial will
motion for the genuineness amounted to an not bar
judgment on the of the admission of a Ernesto‟s
pleadings promissory note material fact evidence that
should be cannot be and if the Modesto
denied. While it considered a amount thereof coerced him into
is true that waiver to raise could signing the
under the the issue that he summarily be promissory
actionable was coerced in proved by note. Lack of
document rule, signing the same. affidavits, consideration,
Ernesto‟s failure Said claim of deposition, etc., as a defense,
to deny under coercion may without the does not relate
oath the also be proved as need of going to to the
promissory note an exception to trial, then no genuineness and
in his answer the Parol genuine issue of due execution of
amounted to an Evidence Rule. fact exists. the promissory
implied note.
On the other ALTERNATIVE
admission of its ANSWER:
hand, Ernesto‟s
genuineness and Likewise,
motion for
due execution, Modesto‟s Ernesto‟s
summary
his allegation in motion for motion for
judgment may be
his answer that judgment on the summary
granted.
he was coerced pleadings judgment should
Modesto‟s
into signing the should be be denied
answer to
promissory note denied because because there is
Ernesto‟s
tendered an there is an issue an issue of fact –
counterclaim –
issue which of fact. While the alleged
that he owed the
should be tried. Ernesto did not coercion –
latter a
The issue of specifically raised by
coercion is not deny under oath Ernesto which
inconsistent the promissory he has yet to
with the due note attached to prove in a trial
execution and Modesto‟s on its merits. It
genuineness of complaint as an is axiomatic that

Page 30 of 198
summary respect to the of execution. posting a bond

judgment is coercion alleged When the writ equivalent to
not proper or by Ernesto as was issued, the the value of the
valid whent his defense, sheriff levied property levied
there is an since coercion upon a parcel of upon; or assail
issue of fact is not capable of land that Patricio the levy as
remaining being owns, and a date invalid if ground
which requires established by was set for the exists. Patricio
a hearing. And documentary execution sale. may also simply
this is so with evidence. pay the amount
(a) How may
no longer required by the
Patricio prevent
appealable. As an writ and the
the sale of the
Petition for Relief extraordinary costs incurred
(2007) property on
remedy, a therewith.
execution?
petition for relief
No.II. (b) A
from judgment SUGGESTED (b) If Orencio is
defendant who
may be availed ANSWER: the purchaser of
has been declared
only in the property at
in default can Patricio may file a
exceptional cases the execution
avail of a petition Petition for
where no other sale, how much
for relief from the Relief with
remedy is does he have to
judgment preliminary
available. pay?
subsequently injunction (Rule
rendered in the 38), SUGGESTED
case. (3%) ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
Petition for Orencio, the
ANSWER:
Relief; Injunction
judgment
(2009)
False. The creditor should
remedy of No.XVII. Having pay only the
petition for relief obtained excess amount
from judgment is favorable of the bid over
available only judgment in his the amount of
when the suit for a sum of the judgment.
judgment or money against

(c) If the property
order in question Patricio, Orencio
is sold to a third
is already final sought the
party at the
and executor, i.e., issuance of a writ
Page 31 of 198
execution sale, amount of the issue sought to after the plaintiff’s

what can purchase price be brought in by second witness
Patricio do to with interests of the amendment, had testified, the
recover the 1% monthly, the motion to defendant’s
property? plus assessment amend may be counsel moves for
and taxes paid granted upon the amendment of
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: by the due hearing. It is the pre-trial order
purchaser, with a policy of the to include a fifth
Patricio can interest Rules that (5th) triable issue
exercise his thereon, at the parties should be vital to his client’s
right of legal same rate. afforded defense. Should
redemption reasonable the motion be
within 1 year opportunity to
from date of bring about a
Pleadings;
registration of complete
Amendment of
the certificate determination of
Complaint
of sale by the controversy
(2009)
paying the between them,
consistent with
No.X. Upon should move for its
substantial
termination of the amendment to
justice. With this
pre-trial, the include a fourth
end in view, the
judge dictated the (4th) triable issue
amendment
pre-trial order in which he allegedly
before trial may
the presence of inadvertently
be granted to
the parties and failed to mention
prevent manifest
their counsel, when the judge
injustice. The
reciting what had dictated the order.
matter is
transpired and Should the motion
addressed to the
defining three (3) to amend be
sound and
issues to be tried. granted? Reasons.
judicious
(2%)
(a) If, immediately discretion of the
upon receipt of SUGGESTED trial court.
ANSWER:
his copy of the
(b) Suppose trial
pre-trial order, Depending on
had already
plaintiff’s counsel the merit of the
commenced and
Page 32 of 198
granted over the commenced, Amendment of Robert on the

objection of more so the Complaint condition that
plaintiff’s adverse party (2008) Rober execute a
counsel? Reasons. had already promissory note
(3%) presented No.XI. Arturo lent for the loan and a
witnesses, to P1M to his friend real
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: allow an
estate mortgage lack of cause of
amendment
over his property action as the debt
The motion would be unfair
located in was not yet due.
may be denied to the party who
Tagaytay City. The resolution of
since trial had had already
Rober complied. the motion to
already presented his
In his promissory dismiss was
commenced witnesses. The
note dated delayed because of
and two amendment
September 20, the retirement of
witnesses for would simply
2006, Robert the Judge.
the plaintiff had render
undertook to pay
already nugatory the (a) On October 1,
the loan within a
testified. Courts reason for or 2007, pending
year from its date
are required to purpose of the resolution of the
at 12% per annum
issue pre-trial pre-trial Order. motion to dismiss,
interest. In June
Order after the Arturo filed an
2007, Arturo
pre-trial Sec.7 of Rule 18 amended
requested Robert
conference has on pre-trial in complaint alleging
to pay ahead of
been civil actions is Robert’s debt had
time but the latter
terminated and explicit in in the meantime
refused and
before trial allowing a become due but
insisted on the
begins, modification of that Robert still
agreement. Arturo
precisely the pre-trial refused to pay.
issued a demand
because the Order “before” Should the
letter and when
reason for such trial begins to amended
Robert did not
Order is to prevent complaint be
comply, Arturo
define the manifest allowed
filed an action to
course of the injustice. considering that
foreclose the
action during no answer has
mortgage. Robert
the trial. Where been filed?
moved to dismiss
trial had
Pleadings; the complatint for SUGGESTED
already
Page 33 of 198
ANSWER: C.A., G.R. No. different had should have

110274, 21 Arturo filed already
No, the March 1994;
instead a contained a
complaint may Soledad vs.
supplemental cause of action
not be amended Mamangun, 8
complaint stating (Sec. 6, Rule 10).
under the SCRA 110), but
that the debt However, if no
circumstances. A the amendment
became due after cause of action is
complaint may should refer to
the filing of the alleged in the
be amended as facts which
original original
of right before occurred prior
complaint? complaint, it
answer (Sec. 2, to the filing of
cannot be cured
Rule 10; See the original SUGGESTED
ANSWER: by the filing of a
Ong Peng vs. complaint. It
supplement or
Custodio, G.R. thus follows
A supplemental amendment to
No. 14911, 12 that a complaint
complaint may allege the
March 1961; whose cause of
be filed with subsequent
Toyota Motors action has not
leave of court to acquisition of a
[Phils} vs. C.A., yet accrued
allege an event cause of action
G.R. No. 102881, cannot be cured
that arose after (Swagman
07 December or remedied by
the filing of the Hotels & Travel,
1992; RCPI vs. an amended or
original Inc. vs. C.A., G.R.
C.A., G.R. No. supplemental
121397, 17 complaint that No. 161135, 08
pleading
April 1997, April 2005).
alleging the
citing Prudence
Pleadings; Benjamin to cover
Realty & Dev‟t. existence or
Counterclaim
Corp. vs. the debt.
accrual of a (2010)
cause of action
On the due date of
while the case is No.VI. Antique
the check,
pending dealer Mercedes
Benjamin
(Swagman borrowed
deposited it but it
Hotels & Travel, P1,000,000 from
was dishonored.
Inc. vs. C.A., G.R. antique collector
As despite
No. 161135, 08 Benjamin.
demands,
April 2005). Mercedes issued a
Mercedes failed to
postdated check
(b) Would your make good the
in the same
answer be check, Benjamin
amount to
Page 34 of 198
filed in January damages. SUGGESTED t. The Revised

2009 a complaint ANSWER:
Rules of Court
for collection of (a) Benjamin
now provides in
sum of money soon after moved Mercedes‟
Rule 17, Sec. 2
before the RTC of for the dismissal Motion for
thereof that “If a
Davao. of the case. The Reconsideratio
counterclaim
trial court n is impressed
has been
Mercedes filed in accordingly with merit: the
pleaded by a
February 2009 dismissed the trial courts
defendant prior
her Answer with complaint. And it should not have
to the service
Counterclaim, also dismissed dismissed her
upon him of the
alleging that the Counterclaim. counterclaim
plaintiff‟s
before the filing despite the
motion for
of the case, she Mercedes moved dismissal of the
dismissal, the
and Benjamin had for a Complaint.
dismissal shall
entered into a reconsideration of
Since it was the be limited to the
dacion en the dismissal of the
plaintiff complaint. The
pagoagreement in Counterclaim. Pass
(Benjamin) who dismissal shall
which her vintage upon Mercedes’
moved for the be without
P1,000,000 Rolex motion. (3%)
dismissal of his prejudice to the
watch which was
Complaint, and right of the
taken by
at a time when defendant to
Benjamin for sale
the defendant prosecute his
on commission
(Mercedes) had counterclaim x x
was applied to
already filed x x.”
settle her
indebtedness; her Answer
(b) Suppose there
and that she thereto and
was no
incurred with
Counterclaim and
expenses in counterclaim,
Benjamin’s
defending what the dismissal of
complaint was
she termed a the
not dismissed,
"frivolous counterclaim
and judgment
lawsuit." She without
was rendered
accordingly conformity of
against Mercedes
prayed for the defendant-
for P1,000,000.
P50,000 counterclaiman
Page 35 of 198
The judgment did not have cash Sheriff True. A

became final and to settle the authorized to counterclaim is
executory and a judgment debt, levy on personal a pleading by
writ of execution she offered her properties if any, which a
was Toyota Camry and then on the defending party
correspondingly model 2008 real properties if makes a claim
issued. valued at P1.2 the personal against an
million. properties are opposing party
Since Mercedes insufficient to (Sec. 6, Rule 6,
The Sheriff, Mercedes, the answer for the Rules of Court).
however, on judgment judgment.
request of obligor/debtor.
Benjamin, seized The option to
Mercedes’ 17th immediately Pleadings; Motion
Pleadings; (2007)
century ivory choose which Counterclaim
image of the property or part (2007) No.II. (c) A motion
is a pleading. (2%)
La Sagrada thereof may be
No.II. (d) A
Familia estimated levied upon,
counderclain is a
SUGGESTED
to be worth over sufficient to pleading. (2%)
ANSWER:
P1,000,000. satisfy the
False. A motion
judgment, is SUGGESTED
is not a pleading
Was the Sheriff’s ANSWER:
vested by law
action in order? but a mere
(3%) (Rule 39, Sec. 9
application for
(b) upon the
relief other than
SUGGESTED judgment
ANSWER: by a pleading
obligor,
(Rule 15, Sec. 1,
Mercedes, not
No, the Sheriff‟s Rules of Court).
upon the
action was not
judgment
in order. He
obligee,
should not have Pleadings;
Benjamin, in this
listened to Motions; Bill of
case. Only if the
Benjamin, the Particulars (2008)
judgment
judgment
obligor does not No.V. Within the
oblige/ creditor,
exercise the period for filing a
in levying on the
option, is the responsive
properties of
Page 36 of 198
pleading, the stating that the other order at its state a cause of
defendant filed a allegations of the discretion (Sec. action, but it was
motion for bill of complaint were 4, Rule 12). denied. It thus
particulars that sufficiently made. filed an Answer.
he set for
(a) Did the Pleadings;
hearing on a (a) In the course
judge gravely Motions;
certain date. of the trial,
abuse his Omnibus Motion
However, the Charisse admitted
discretion in Rule (2010)
defendant was that she was a US
acting on the
surprised to find citizen residing in
motion without No.V. Charisse,
on the date set Los Angeles,
waiting for the alleging that she
for hearing that California and
hearing set for was a resident of
the trial court that she was
the motion? Lapu-Lapu City,
had already temporarily
filed a complaint
denied the billeted at the
SUGGESTED for damages
motion on the ANSWER: Pescado Hotel in
against Atlanta
day of its filing, Lapu-Lapu City,
Bank before the
There is no need the trial judge drawing the bank
RTC of Lapu-Lapu
to set the dismiss the case if to file another
City, following the
motion for the plaintiff does motion to
dishonor of a
hearing. The not comply with dismiss, this time
check she drew in
duty of the clerk the order? on the ground of
favor of Shirley
of court is to improper venue,
SUGGESTED against her
bring the motion since Charisse is
ANSWER: current account
immediately to not a resident of
which she
the attention of Yes, the judge Lapu-Lapu City.
maintained in the
the judge, who may dismiss the
bank’s local Charisse opposed
may act on it at case for failure
branch. the motion citing
once (Sec. 2, of the plaintiff to
Rule 12). the "omnibus
comply with its The bank filed a
motion rule."
order (Sec. 3, Motion to Dismiss
(b) If the judge
Rule on the
Rule 17) or the complaint on
grants the motion
motion. (3%)
order the the ground that it
and orders the
striking out of failed to
plaintiff to file SUGGESTED
the pleading and ANSWER:
and serve the bill
may issue any
of particulars, can
Page 37 of 198
The bank‟s improper venue improper venue ground of

second motion as an issue after became known improper venue,
to dismiss its first motion and thus and subsequently
which is to dismiss was available only to filed an Answer
grounded on denied. the movant bank wherein the
improper after the motions improper venue
venue, should Under the to dismiss were has not again
be denied. The “omnibus filed and been raised.
improper motion rule” resolved by the Hence, the
venue of an (Rule 15, Sec. 8, court, and in the question of
action is Rules of Court) course of the improper venue
deemed waived which governs trial of the case. has become moot
by the bank‟s the bank‟s In fairness to the and academic.
filing an earlier motion to defendant bank,
motion to dismiss, such it should not be The only grounds
dismiss without motion should precluded by the not barred by the
raising include all “omnibus motion “omnibus motion
improper objections then rule” from rule” are (a) lack
venue as an available; raising objection of
issue, and more otherwise, all to the improper

so when the objections not venue only when
bank filed an so included said ground for
Answer without shall be deemed objection
raising waived. became known
Although the civil actions is to it.
improper venue defined for the

The court may
became known convenience of
not resolve the
only in the the parties, nay
second motion to
course of the jurisdictional.
dismiss precisely
trial, the same
ALTERNATIVE because of the
should not be
ANSWER: “omnibus motion
allowed to
rule”, since the
obstruct or The “omnibus bank filed an
disturb the motion rule” earlier motion to
proceedings should not apply, dismiss but did
since venue of because the not raise the
Page 38 of 198
jurisdiction that the should you take? As counsel of the

over the subject objection (3%) bank, I shall
matter; (b) litis became recommend to
pendencia; and available to SUGGESTED the bank as
ANSWER:
(c) bar by prior him. judgment
judgment or by
statute of (c) Suppose the obligor, to make not to comply with
limitations. judge correctly a tender of the subpoena.

denied the payment to the
SUGGESTED
(b) Suppose second motion to judgment oblige ANSWER:
Charisse did not dismiss and and thereafter
raise the rendered make a FALSE. The
"omnibus judgment in consignation of viatory right of a
motion rule," can favor of Charisse, the amount due witness,
the judge ordering the by filing an embodied in Sec.
proceed to bank to pay her application 10, Rule 21 of
resolve the P100,000 in therefor placing the Rules of Civil
motion to damages plus the same at the Procedure, refers
dismiss? Explain. legal interest. disposal of the to his right not to
(3%) The judgment court which be compelled to
became final and rendered the attend upon a
SUGGESTED executory in judgment (Arts. subpoena, by
ANSWER:
2008. To date, 1256 and 1258, reason of the
Charisse has not Civil Code). distance from the
Yes, the judge
moved to execute residence of the
can proceed to
the judgment. witness to the
resolve the
The bank is place where he is
motion to
Subpoena;
concerned that to testify. It is
dismiss,
Viatory Right of
its liability will available only in
because the
Witness (2009)
increase with the civil cases
ground raised
delay because of (People vs.
therefor No.XI.B. The
the interest on Montejo, 21 SCRA
became known viatory right of a
the judgment 722 [1965]).
to the movant witness served
award.
only during the with a subpoena
trial, such that ad testificandum
As counsel of the
it was only then refers to his right
bank, what move Summons; By
Page 39 of 198
Publication Rose, who is a 15, Rule 14).

(2008) SUGGESTED
resident of Publication of
ANSWER:
Singapore and is the notice in
No.I. Lani filed an
not found in the Partition is an Bulgar, a
action for
Philippines. Upon action quasi in newspaper of
partition and
moition, the rem. Summons general
accounting in the
court ordered the by publication is circulation,
Regional Trial
Publication of the proper when the satisfies the
Court (RTC) of
summons for defendant does requirements of
Manila against
three weeks in a not reside and is summons by
her sister Mary
local tabloid, not found in the publication
Bulgar. Linda, an Philippines, (Perez vs. Perez,
OFW vacationing provided that a G.R. No 145368,
in the copy of the 28 March 2005).
Philippines, saw summons and

the summons in order of the
Bulgar and court are sent by
Summons; Served
brought a copy of registered mail by Email (2009)
the tabloid when to the last
she returned to known address No.I.E. Summons
may be served by
Singapore. Linda of the mail.
showed the defendant (Sec.
tabloid and the SUGGESTED then by
ANSWER:
page containing substituted
the summons to service in
FALSE. Rule 14 of
Mary Rose, who accordance with
the Rules of
said, “Yes I know, Sec. 7 thereof; or
Court, on
my kumara Anita (c) if any of the
Summons,
scanned and e- foregoing two
provide only for
mailed that page ways is not
serving Summons
of Bulgar to me!” possible, then
(a) to the
with leave of
Did the court defendant in
court, by
acquire person; or (b) if
publication in
jurisdiction over this is not
accordance with
Mary Rose? possible within a
the same Rule.
reasonable time,
Page 40 of 198
ALTERNATIVE loan. Charlie’s Charlie in default

ANSWER:
office secretary, and to be allowed In an action
Esther, received to present strictly in
TRUE, but only in
the summons at evidence ex personam like a
extraterritorial
Charlie’s office. parte. Ten days complaint for a
service under
later, Charlie sum of money,
Sec. 15 of the
Charlie failed to personal service
Rule on filed his verified
file an answer on the
Summons where answer, raising
within the defendant is the
service may be the defense of
required period, preferred mode
effected “in any full payment with
and Alfie moved to of service, that
other manner the interest.
declare is, by handing a
court may deem
(A) Was there copy of the
sufficient.”
proper and valid summons to the
service of defendant in
summons on person. If
Summons; Valid Charlie? (3%) defendant, for
Service (2013) excusable
SUGGESTED reasons, cannot
No.I. Alfie Bravo ANSWER:
be served with
filed with the
No. There is no the summons
Regional Trial
showing that within a
Court of
earnest efforts reasonable
Caloocan, a
were exerted to period, then
complaint for a
personally substituted
sum of money
serve the service can be
against Charlie
summons on resorted to
Delta. The claim is
the defendant (Manotoc vs.
for Php1.5Million.
before Court of
The complaint
substituted Appeals, G.R.
alleges that
service was No. 130974,
Charlie borrowed
resorted to: August 16, 2006,
the amount from
hence, the Velasco, J.).
Alfie and duly
executed a service of
Otherwise
promissory note summons was
stated, it is only
as evidence of the improper.
Page 41 of 198
when the service may be appears to be in 1) he may, at any

defendant made. charge. time after
cannot be Impossibility of Consequently, discovery of the
served prompt service the substituted default but
personally should be service of before
within a shown by summons to the judgment, file a
reasonable stating the defendant‟s motion, under
time that a efforts made to secretary in the oath, to set aside
substituted office is valid. the order of
find the substituted default on the
(B) If declared in
defendant service through ground that his
default, what can
personally and defendant‟s failure to
Charlie do to
the fact that secretary is answer was due
obtain relief? (4%)
such efforts valid. to fraud,
failed. This accident,
SUGGESTED
statement In Gentle ANSWER: mistake, or
should be made Supreme excusable
in the proof of Philippines, Inc. If Charlie is neglect, and that
service (Galura vs. Ricardo declared in he has a
vs. Math-Agro Consulta, G.R. No. default, he has meritorious
Corporation, 183182, the following defense;
G.R. No. 167230, September 1, remedies to wit:
August 14, 2010, the 2) if judgment
2009, 1st Supreme Court has already been
Division, Carpio, held that it is not rendered when
J.). necessary that he discovered

the person in the default, but
ALTERNATIVE charge of the before the same
ANSWER:
defendant‟s has become final
regular place of and executor, he
Yes. If earnest
business be may file a motion
efforts were
specifically for new trial
exerted to serve
authorized to under Section
the summons in
receive the 1(a) of Rule 37:
persons but the
summons. It is
same proved
enough that he 3) if he
futile, then
Page 42 of 198
discovered the Longspan November 17, of full payment.

default after the Builders, Inc. vs. 2010, the The belated filing
judgment has R.S. Ampeloquio Supreme Court of verified
become final Realty held that where Answer amounts
and executor, he Development, the answer is to voluntary
may file a G.R. No. 169919, filed beyond the submission to the
petition for September 11, reglementary jurisdiction of
relief under 2009). period but before the court and
Section 2 of Rule the defendant is waiver of any
38; and [Note: there are declared in defect in the
additional default and there service of
4) he may also remedies to is no showing that summons.
appeal from the address defendant
judgment judgments by intends to delay
rendered default: Motion the case, the
against him as for Trial; Court of
answer should be
contrary to the Reconsideration Appeals as Trial
admitted. Thus, it
evidence or to (Rule 37), Court (2008)
was error to
the law, even if Annulment of declare the
no petition to Judgment (Rule defending party
set aside the 47) and Petition in default after
order of default for Certiorari the Answer was
has been (Rule 65)]. filed (See Sablas
presented by vs. Sablas, G.R. No.
him. (B.D. ALTERNATIVE
144568, July 3,
ANSWER:
The court for certiorari 2007).
committed under Rule 65 is

After all, the
grave abuse of the proper
defect in the
discretion when remedy.
service of
it declared the
In San Pedro summons was
defending party
Cineplex cured by
in default
Properties vs. Charlie‟s filing of
despite the
Heirs of Manuel a verified
latter‟s filing of
Humada Enano, answer raising
an Answer.
G.R. No. 190754, only the defense
Thus, a petition
Page 43 of 198
No.XXI.B. Give at original and a resident of

least three appellate Pasay, to compel deeds of
instances where jurisdiction the latter to conveyance of
the Court of (Sec. 12, Rule
execute a Deed of real property.
Appeals may act 124)
Sale covering a lot (Gochan vs.
as a trial court? situated in Gochan, 423
(5) In cases of
new trial based Marikina and that Phil. 491, 501
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: on newly transfer of title be [2001]; Copioso
vs. Copioso, 391
discovered issued to him
The Court of SCRA
evidence (Sec. claiming
Appeals may 325 [2002])
14, Rule 124 of ownership of the
act as a trial
the Rules on land. Where
court in the
Criminal should A file the
following
case? Explain. Venue; Real
instances: Procedure).
Actions (2008)
(5%)
(1) In (6) In Cases
No.III. (a) Angela, a
annulment of involving claims SUGGESTED
ANSWER: resident of Quezon
judgments (Sec. for damages
City, sued Antonio,
5 & 6, Rule 47) arising from
A should file the a resident of
provisional
case in Marikina, Makati City before
(2) When a remedies
the place where the RTC of Quezon
motion for new
the real property City for the
trial is granted (7) In Amparo
subject matter of reconveyance of
by the Court of proceedings
the case is two parcels of land
Appeals (Sec. 4, (A.M. No. 07- 9-
situated. An situated in Tarlac
Rule 53) 12-SC)
action for specific and Nueva Ecija,
(3) A petition performance respectively. May
for Habeas would still be her action
Corpus shall be Venue; Real considered a real prosper?
Actions (2012)
set for hearing action where it
9Sec. 12, Rule seeks the SUGGESTED
No.III.B. A, a ANSWER:
102) conveyance or
resident of
transfer of real
(4) To resolve Quezon City, No, the action
property, or
factual issues in wants to file an will not prosper
ultimately, the
cases within its action against B, because it was
execution of
Page 44 of 198
filed in the it should have dismiss the real action (BPI

wrong venue. been filed action for vs. Green, 57
Since the action separately in improper Phil. 712; Sec. 1,
for Tarlac and venue. Rule 4; Bank of
reconveyance is Nueva Ecija, America vs.
(b) Assuming that
a real action, where the American Realty
the action was for
parcels of land Corp., G.R. No.
foreclosure on the
are located 133876, 29
mortgage of the
(Section 1, Rule December
same parcels of
4; United 1999). However,
land, what is the
Overseas Bank an improperly
proper venue for
of the laid venue may
the action?
Philippines vs. be waived if not
Rosemoore pleaded as a
SUGGESTED
Mining & ANSWER: ground for
Development dismissal (Sec. 4,

The action must Rule 4).
Corp., et al., G.R.
be filed in any
nos. 159669 &
province where [Note: The
163521, March
any of the lands question is the
12, 2007).
involved lies – same as 2009
However, an
either in tarlac Remedial Law
improperly laid
or in Nueva Bar question
venue may be
Ecija, because No.II. See
waived, if not
the action is a
pleaded in a
timely motion Jurisdiction: attached,
to dismiss (Sec. Jurisdiction; RTC, defendant Porfirio
4, Rule 4). Supra – filed a sufficient
Without a JayArhSals] counterbond. The
motion to trial court
dismiss on the discharged the
ground of attachment.
improperly laid Attachment; Bond Nonetheless,
venue, it would (2008) Porfirio suffered
be incorrect for substantial

No.VI. After his
the Court to prejudice due to
properties were
Page 45 of 198
57), an by the latter be

Provisional Remedies (Rules
application for insufficient or
57-61) damages on fail to fully
account of satisfy the
the unwarranted Porfirio‟s motion
improper, award. (D.M.
attachment. In the to charge the
irregular, or Wenceslao &
end, the trial plaintiff‟s
excessive Associates, Inc.
court rendered a attachment bond
attachment is vs. Readycon
judgment in is proper. The
allowed. Such Trading &
Porfirio’s favor by filing of the
damages may Construction
ordering the counterbond by
be awarded Corp., G.R. No.
plaintiff to pay the defendant
only after 154106, 29
damages because does not mean
proper hearing June 2004).
the plaintiff was that he has
and shall be
not entitled to the waived his right
included in the
attachment. to proceed
judgment on the
Porfirio moved to against the Attachment;
main case. Garnishment
charge the attachment bond
(2008)
plaintiff’s for damages.
Moreover,
attachment bond. Under the law No.VII. (a) The
nothing shall
The plaintiff and (Sec. 20, Rule writ of execution
prevent the
his sureties was returned
party against
opposed the unsatisfied. The
whom the
motion, claiming judgment obligee
attachment was
that the filing of subsequently
issued from
the counterbond received
recovering in
had relieved the information that
the same action
plaintiff’s a bank holds a
the damages
attachment bond substantial
awarded to him
from all liability deposit belonging
from any
for the damages. to the judgment
property of the
Rule on Porfirio’s obligor. If you are
attaching party
motion. the counsel of the
not exempt
from execution judgment oblige,
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: should the bond what steps would
or deposit given you take to reach
Page 46 of 198
the deposit to SUGGESTED award (Co vs. The judgment

ANSWER:
satisfy the Sillador, A.M. No. oblige may
judgment? P-07- 2342, 31 invoke the
I will ask for a obligor under an August 2007). exception under
writ of assumed name,
Sec. 2 of the
ALTERNATIVE
garnishment what is your
ANSWER: Secrecy of Bank
against the remedy to reach
Deposits Act.
deposit in the the deposit?
Bank Deposits
bank (Sec. 9[c],
SUGGESTED may be
Rule 57). ANSWER: examined upon
ALTERNATIVE order of a
I will move for
ANSWER: competent court
the examination
in cases if the
I shall move the under oath of the
money
court to apply to bank as a debtor
deposited is the
the satisfaction of the judgment
subject matter
of the judgment debtor (Sec. 37,
of the litigation
the property of Rule 39). I will
(R.A. 1405).
the judgment ask the court to
obligor or the issue an Order
money due him requiring the
in the hands of judgment Attachment;
another person obligor, or the Kinds of
Attachment
or corporation person who has (2012)
under Sec. 40, property of such
Rule 39. judgment No.IX.B. Briefly
obligor, to discuss/differenti
(b) If the bank
appear before ate the following
denies holding
the court and be
the deposit in the kinds of
examined in
name of the
accordance with
judgment obligor Attachment:
Secs. 36 and 37
but your client’s preliminary
of the Rules of
informant is attachment,
Court for the
certain that the garnishment, levy
complete
deposit belongs on execution,
satisfaction of
to the judgment warrant of
the judgment
Page 47 of 198
seizure and security for the served on third unable to pay all
warrant of satisfaction of parties. The third or part of the
distraint and any judgment, party garnishee obligation in
levy. (5%) where this must make a cash, certified
adverse party is written report on bank check or
SUGGESTED about to depart whether or not any other
ANSWER:
from the the judgment manner
PRELIMINARY Philippines, obligor has acceptable to the

ATTACHMENT- where he has sufficient funds oblige. If the
is a
intent to or credits to obligor does not
provisional
defraud or has satisfy the chose which
remedy under
committed amount of the among his
Rule 57 of the
fraud, or is not judgment. If not, property may be
Rules of Court.
found in the the report shall sold, the sheriff
it may be
Philippines. An state how much shall sell
sought at the
affidavit and a fund or credits personal
commencement
bond is the garnishee property first
of an action or
required before holds for the and then real
at any time
the preliminary judgment obligor. property second.
before entry
attachment Such garnish He must sell only
judgment
issues. It is amounts shall be so much of the
where property
discharged delivered to the personal and real
of an adverse
upon the judgment oblige- property as is
party may be
payment of a creditor (Rule 39, sufficient to
attached as
counterbond. Sec.9 [c]). satisfy judgment
GARNISHMENT- personal and other lawful

LEVY ON fees. (Rule 39,
is a manner of property not
EXECUTION- is a Sec.9 [b]).
satisfying or capable of
manner of
executing manual delivery
satisfying or
judgment where that are in the
executing
the sheriff may control or
judgment where
levy debts, possession of
the sheriff may
credits, royalties, third persons and
sell property of
commissions, are due the
the judgment
bank deposits, judgment obligor.
obligor if he is
and other Notice shall be
Page 48 of 198
WARRANT OF (a) Any court remedy and estate taxes,

SEIZURE- is within whose available to and real estate
normally territorial local taxes. Distraint
applied for, jurisdiction a governments is the seizure of
with a search crime was and the BIR in personal
warrant, in committed. (b) tax cases to property to be
criminal cases. For compelling satisfy sold in an
The warrant of reasons stated deficiencies or authorized
seizure must in the delinquencies auction sale.
particularly application, any in inheritance Levy is the
describe the court within the issuance of a of money. Alleging
things to be judicial region certification by fraud in the
seized. While it where the crime the proper contracting of the
is true that the was committed officer showing loan, A applies for
property to be if the place of the name of the preliminary
seized under a the commission taxpayer and the attachment with
warrant must of the crime is tax, fee, charge, the court. The
be particularly known, or any or penalty due Court issues the
described court within the him. Levy is preliminary
therin and no judicial region made by writing attachment after A
other property where the upon said files a bond. While
can be taken warrant shall be certificate the summons on B
thereunder, yet enforced. description of was yet unserved,
the description However, if the the property the sheriff
is required to criminal action upon which levy attached B's
be specific only has already is made. properties.
insofar as the been filed, the Afterwards,
circumstances application summons was
will ordinarily shall only be duly served on B. 8
allow. An made in the Attachment;
moves to lift the
application for court where the Preliminary
attachment. Rule
search and criminal action Attachment
on this. (5%)
seizure warrant is pending. (2012)
shall be filed SUGGESTED
WARRANT OF No.VIII.A. (a) A ANSWER:
with the
DISTRAINT AND sues B for
following: LEVY- is
collection of a sum
Page 49 of 198
Injunction; a person. It is attachment.

Special Civil Actions
Preliminary granted in the (Rule 57, Sec.5,
Injunction exercise of Rules of Court). 62-71)
(2009) equity of
jurisdiction and Certiorari;
No.I.C. A suit for has no in rem Petition for
injunction is an effect to Certiorari, Rule
action in rem. invalidate an 65 (2012)
act done in
SUGGESTED No.I. (a) After an
ANSWER: contempt of an
information for
order of the
rape was filed in
FALSE. A suit court except
the RTC, the DOJ
for injunction is where by
Secretary, acting
an action in statutory
on the accused's
personam. In authorization,
petition for
the early case the decree is so
review, reversed
of Auyong Hian framed as to act
the investigating
vs. Court of Tax in rem on
prosecutor's
Appeals [59 property. (Air
finding of
SCRA Materiel Wing
probable cause.
110 [1974]), it Savings and
Upon order of the
was held that a Loan
restraining Association, Inc. DOJ Secretary, the prosecutor during
order like an vs. manay, 535 trial prosecutor the preliminary
injunction, SCRA 356 filed a Motion to investigation, the
operates upon [2007]). Withdraw Court agrees that

Information which there is no
the judge granted. sufficient
I will grant the usly
The order of the evidence against
motion since no accompanied by
judge stated only the accused to
levy on service of
the following: sustain the
attachment summons. There
allegation in the
pursuant to the must be prior or
"Based on the information. The
writ shall be contemporaneou
review by the motion to
enforced unless s service of
DOJ Secretary of withdraw
it is preceded or summons with
the findings of Information is,
contemporaneo the writ of
the investigating
Page 50 of 198
therefore, DOJ Secretary), determine a n of the Order of

granted." the trial court prima facie the trial court. if
has the duty to case. The court the same has
If you were the make an must itself be been denied, I
private independent convinced that would file a
prosecutor, what assessment of there is indeed petition for
should you do? the merits of the no sufficient review on
Explain. (5%) motion. It may evidence certiorari under
either agree or against the Rule 45 on pure
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: disagree with accused. question of law,
the Otherwise, the which actually
If I were the recommendation judge acted with encompasses
private of the Secretary. grave abuse of both the
prosecutor, I Reliance alone discretion if he criminal and
would file a on the resolution grants the civil aspects
petition for of the Secretary Motion to thereof. The
certiorari under would be an Withdraw filing of the
Rule 65 with the abdication of the Information by petition is
Court of Appeals trial court‟s the trial merely a
(Cerezo vs. duty and prosecutor. continuation of
People, G.R. jurisdiction to (Harold the appellate
No.185230, Tamargo vs. process.
June 1, 2011). Romulo
It is well-settled Awingan et. al.
that when the G.R. No. 177727,
trial court is Certiorari;
January 19,
confronted with Petition for
2010).
a motion to Certiorari;
withdraw and ALTERNATIVE Contempt
Information (on ANSWER: (2012)
the ground of
If I were the No.IV.B. Mr.
lack of probable
private Sheriff attempts
cause to hold the
prosecutor, I to enforce a Writ
accused for trial
would file a of Execution
based on
Motion for against X, a tenant
resolution of the
Reconsideratio in a condominium
Page 51 of 198
unit, who lost in moves that X be 29 September and Highways

an ejectment declared in 1983; Medina vs. (DPWH) filed with
case. X does not contempt and Garces, L- 25923, the RTC a
want to budge after hearing, the July 15, 1980; complaint for the
and refuses to court held X Pascua vs. Heirs expropriation of
leave. Y, the guilty of of Segundo the parcel of land
winning party, Simeon, 161 owned by Jovito.
indirect contempt. who was SCRA 1; Patagan The land is to be
If you were X's directed to et. al. Vs. Panis, used as an
lawyer, what deliver the G.R. No. 55630, extension of the
would you do? property to Y. As April 8, 1988). national highway.
Why? (5%) the writ did not Attached to the
command the complaint is a
SUGGESTED judgment debtor bank certificate
ANSWER: Expropriation;
to do anything, Motion to showing that there
Dismiss (2009)
If I were X‟s he cannot be is, on deposit with
Lawyer, I would guilty of the facts the Land Bank of

No.XIV.A. The
file a petition for described in the Philippines, an
Republic of the
certiorari under Rule 71 which is amount equivalent
Philippines,
Rule 65. The “disobedience of to the assessed
through the
judge should not or resistance to a value of the
department of
have acted on lawful writ, property. Then
Public Works
Y‟s motion to process, order, DPWH filed a
declare X in judgment, or motion for the
contempt. The command any issuance of a writ
charge of court.” the of possession.
indirect proper Jovito filed a
contempt is procedure is for motion to dismiss
initiated the sheriff to the complaint on
through a oust X availing of the ground that
verified petition. the assistance of there are other
(Rule 71, Sec. 4, peace officers properties which
Rules of Court). pursuant to would better
The writ was not Section 10 (c) of serve the purpose.
directed to X but Rule 39 (Lipa vs.

(a) Will Jovito’s
to the sheriff Tutaan, L-16643,
Page 52 of 198
motion to Defendant‟s their lottery for your actions.

dismiss prosper? objections and winnings, they (7%)
Explain defenses should purchased a
be pleaded in his parcel of land in SUGGESTED
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ANSWER: Answer not in a Tagaytay City for
motion. P100,000.00. In a As counsel for
NO. the present recent trip to their spouses Juan, I
Rule of (b) As judge, will
Tagaytay
will file a special
Procedure you grant the
property, they
civil action for
governing writ of
were surprised to
Forcible Entry.
expropriation possession
see hastily
The Rules of
(Rule 67), as prayed for by
assembled
Court provide
amended by the DPWH? Explain
shelters of light
that a person
1997 Rules of materials
SUGGESTED
Civil Procedure, ANSWER: occupied by
requires the several families of
defendant to file NO. the
informal settlers
an Answer, expropriation
who were not
which must be here is
there when they
filed on or governed by
last visited the
before the time Rep. Act No.
property three (3)
stated in the 8974 which
months ago.
summons. requires
100% payment has no right to To rid the
of the zonal take the spouses’ Tagaytay
value of the possession of the property of these
property as property under informal settlers,
determined by expropriation. briefly discuss the
the BIR, to be legal remedy you,
the amount as their counsel,
deposited. would use; the

Forcible Entry; steps you would
Before such Remedies (2013)
deposit is made, take; the court
the national where you would

No.V. The spouses
government file your remedy if
Juan reside in
thru the DPWH the need arises;
Quezon City. With
and the reason/s
Page 53 of 198
deprived of the to restore jurisdiction over

possession of , through In Abad vs. them: first, that
any land or summary Farrales, G.R. No. the plaintiff had
building by proceedings, 178635, April prior physical
force, the physical 11, 2011, the possession of the
intimidation, possession of Supreme Court property; and,
threat, strategy, any land or held that two second, that the
or stealth may building to one allegations are defendant
at anytime who has been indispensable in deprived him of
within 1 year illegally actions for such possession
after such deprived of forcible entry to by means of
withholding of such enable first level force,
possession possession, courts to acquire
bring an action without intimidation, Katarungang

in the proper prejudice to threats, strategy, Pambarangay
Municipal Trial the settlement or stealth. Law, I will secure
Court where of parties‟ a certificate to
the property is opposing However, before file action and
located. This claims of instituting the file the complaint
action which is juridical said action, I will for ejectment
summary in possession in first endeavour before the MTC of
nature seeks to an appropriate to amicably Tagaytay City
recover the proceedings settle the where the
possession of (Heirs of controversy with property is
the property Agapatio T. the informal located since
from the Olarte and settlers before ejectment suit is
defendant Angela A. the appropriate a real action
which was Olarte et. al. vs. Lupon or regardless of the
illegally Office of the Barangay value of the
withheld by the President of Chairman. If property to be
latter (Section the Philippines there is no recovered or
1, Rule 70, et al., G.R. No. agreement claim for unpaid
Rules of 177995, June reached after rentals (BP 129
Court). 15, 2011, mediation and and RULE 4,
Villarama, Jr., conciliation Section 1 of the
An ejectment J.). under the Revised Rules on
case is designed
Page 54 of 198
Civil Procedure). Foreclosure; ANSWER: denied (UST v.
Certification A certification Suria, 294 SCRA

In the against forum 382 [1998]).
Against Non
aforementioned shopping is
Forum Shopping
complaint, I will required only in On the other
(2007)
allege that initiatory hand, if the
Spouses Juan had No.X. (a) RC pleadings. In counterclaim
prior physical filed a this case, the raised by the
possession and counterclaim defendant
that the complaint Bank‟s Answer
pleaded in the
dispossession for was not
defendant‟s
was due to force, annulment of the predicated on
Answer appears
intimidation and foreclosure sale the plaintiff‟s
to have arisen
stealth. The against Bank V. claim or cause of
from the
complaint will In its answer, action, it is
plaintiff‟s
likewise show Bank V set up a considered a
complaint or
that the action counterclaim permissive
compulsory in
was commenced for counterclaim. In
nature and thus,
within a period actual which case, tit
may not be
of one (10 year damages would partake
regarded as an
from unlawful and an initiatory
initiatory
deprivation of litigation pleading which
pleading. The
possession, and expenses. RC requires a
absence thereof
that the Spouses filed a motion to certification
in the Bank‟s
Juan is entitled to dismiss the against
Answer is not a
restitution of counterclaim on
fatal defect.
the ground that forum
possession Therefore, the
together with Bank V’s Answer
motion to shopping.
damage costs. with
dismiss on the Correspondingly
Counterclaim
ground raised , the motion to
was not
lacks merit and dismiss
accompanied by
should be
a certification
based on lack of should be
against forum
the required granted.
shopping. Rule.
certificate against
(5%)
forum shopping
SUGGESTED
Page 55 of 198
appellate court R.A. No. 7691, (METC) of Pasay

Jurisdiction; correct? Explain. however, vested City against
Unlawful
(3%) jurisdiction over Marcelino
Detainer (2010)
specified accion pleading two
SUGGESTED
No.III. Anabel publiciana with causes of action.
ANSWER:
filed a complaint courts of the first The first was a
against B for Yes, the Court of level demand for the
unlawful detainer Appeals is (Metropolitan recovery of
before the correct in Trial Courts, physical
Municipal Trial remanding the Municipal Trial possession of a
Court (MTC) of case to the RTC Courts, and parcel of land
Candaba, for the latter to Municipal Circuit situated in Pasay
Pampanga. After try the same on Trial Courts) in City with an
the issues had the merits. The cases where the assessed value of
been joined, the RTC, having assessed value of 40,000; the
MTC dismissed jurisdiction over the real property second was a
the complaint for the subject involved does claim for
lack of matter of the not exceed damages of
jurisdiction after case appealed P20,000.00 500,000 for
noting that the from MTC should outside Metro Marcelino’s
action was one try the case on Manila, or in unlawful
for accion the merits as if Metro Manila, retention of the
publiciana. the case was where such property.
originally filed value does not Marcelino filed a
Anabel appealed
with it, and not exceed motion to dismiss
the dismissal to
just to affirm the P50,000.00. on the ground
the RTC which
dismissal of the that the total
affirmed it and
case. amount involved,
accordingly
Jurisdiction; which is 540,000,
dismissed her Unlawful Detainer is beyond the
appeal. She (2008)
jurisdiction of the
elevates the case
No.IV. Filomeno MeTC. Is
to the Court of
brought an action Marcelino
Appeals, which
in the correct?
remands the case
Metropolitan
to the RTC. Is the SUGGESTED
Trial Court
ANSWER:
Page 56 of 198
forcible entry performance of an dismissal of the

No, and unlawful act which the law case based on
Metropolitan or detainer specifically enjoins improper venue
Municipal trial regardless of as a duty resulting is not a
Courts have the amount of from an office", 8 ministerial duty.
exclusive the claim for files a Petition for Mandamus does
jurisdiction damages (Sec. Mandamus against not lie to comple
over a 33 [2], B.P. the judge. Will the performance
complaint for 129). Mandamus lie? of a
Reasons. (3%) discretionary
Also, Sec. 3, Rule P40,000, but the
70 gives claim for duty. (Nilo
SUGGESTED
jurisdiction to damages is ANSWER: Paloma vs.
the said courts P500,000. Danilo Mora,
irrespective of No, mandamus G.R. No. 157783,
the amount of will not lie. The September 23,
damages. This is proper remedy 2005).

Mandamus (2012)
the same is a petition for
provision in the No.X.B. A files a prohibition.
Revised Rules of Complaint against (Serana vs. Partition; Non-
8 for recovery of Sandiganbayan, joinder (2009)
Summary
Procedure that title and G.R. No. 162059,
No.XV.A.
governs all possession of land January 22,
Florencio sued
ejectment cases situated in Makati 2008). The
Guillermo for
(Sec. 1[A][1], with the RTC of
partition of a
Revised Rule on Pasig. B files a
property they
Summary Motion to Dismiss
owned in
Procedure). The for improper
common.
Rule, however, venue. The RTC
Guillermo filed a
refers to the Pasig Judge denies
motion to dismiss
recovery of a B's Motion to
the complaint
reasonable Dismiss, which
because Florencio
amount of obviously was
failed to implead
damages. In this incorrect. Alleging
Herando and
case, the that the RTC Judge
Inocencio, the
property is "unlawfully
other co-owners
worth only neglected the
of the property.
Page 57 of 198
As Judge, will fact been shown

you grant the Detainer; to be the real
motion to issue, the court
Unlawful;
Preliminary
dimiss? Explain. should dismiss
Detainer; Prior
Conference
(3%) the case for lack
Possession (2008)
(2007)
of jurisdiction.
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: No. VIII.(a) X files
If it would
an unlawful
NO, because the appear that Y‟s
detainer case
non-joinder of occupancy of the
against Y before
parties is not a subject property
the appropriate
ground for was one of
Metropolitan Trial
dismissal of agricultural
Court. In his
action (Rule 3, tenancy, which is
answer, Y avers as
Sec. 11). The governed by
a special and
motion to agrarian laws,
affirmative
dismiss should the court should
defense that he is
be denied. dismiss the case
a tenant of X’s
because it has no
deceased father in
jurisdiction over
whose name the
Unlawful agricultural
property remains
tenancy cases.
registered. What Answer was
Defendant‟s
should the court filed, since the
allegation that
do? Explain case is governed
he is a “tenant”
briefly. (5%) by summary
of plaintiff‟s
procedure under
deceased father
SUGGESTED Rule 70, Rules of
ANSWER: suggests that the
Court, where a
case is one of
Reply is not
The court landlord- tenant
allowed. The
should hold a relation and
court should
preliminary therefore, not
receive evidence
conference not within the
to determine the
later than thirty jurisdiction of
allegations of
(30) days after ordinary courts.
tenancy. If
the defendant‟s
tenancy had in
Page 58 of 198
No.XVII. Ben sold defendant need Absence vs.

a parcel of land not have been Declaration of
to Del with right in prior Special Proceedings (Rules
to repurchase possession of
72-109)
within one(1) the property.
Presumptive
year. Ben This is upon the
Absentee; Death (2009)
remained in theory that the
Declaration of
possession of the vendee steps
No.V. Frank and While in
property. When into the shoes of
Gina were Singapore, Gina
Ben failed to the vendor and
married on June met and fell in love
repurchase the succeeds to his
12, 1987 in with Willie.
same, title was rights and
Manila. Barely a
consolidated in interests. In On July 4, 2007,
year after the
favor of Del. contemplation Gina filed a
wedding, Frank
Despite demand, of law, the petition with the
exhibited a violent
Ben refused to vendee‟s RTC of manila to
temperament,
vacate the land, possession is declare Frank
forcing Gina, for
constraining Del that of the presumptively
reasons of
to file a vendor‟s dead, so that she
personal safety, to
complaint for (Maninang vs. could marry Willie.
live with her
unlawful C.A., G.R. No. The RTC granted
parents. A year
detainer. In his 121719, 16 Gina’s petition. The
thereafter, Gina
defense, Ben September office of the
found
averred that the 1999; Dy Sun Solicitor General
employment as a
case should be vs. (OSG) filed a notice
domestic helper in
dismissed Brillantes, 93 of Appeal with the
Singapore, where
because Del had Phil. 175 RTC, stating that it
she worked for
never been in [1953]); was appealing the
ten consecutive
possession of (Pharma decision of the
years. All the time
the property. Is Industries, Inc., Court of Appeals on
she was abroad,
Ben correct? vs. Pajarillaga, questions of fact
Gina had
G.R. No. L- and law.
SUGGESTED absolutely no
ANSWER: 53788, 17
communications (a) Is a
October 1980).
No, for unlawful with Frank, nor petition for
detainer, the did she hear any declaration of
news about him. Presumptive
Page 59 of 198
Death a special Said petition for because it is so presumed dead.

proceeding? Declaration of classified in the
Rules of Court (b) As the RTC
Presumptive
SUGGESTED (Rule 107, Rules judge who
ANSWER: Death under
of Court), as granted Gina’s
Article 41 of the
differentiated petition, will you
No. the petition Family Code is a
from an give due course to
for Declaration summary
ordinary action the OSG’s notice
of Presumptive proceeding,
which is of appeal?
Death provided authorized for
in Art. 41 of the purposes only adversarial. It is
SUGGESTED
“Family Code” is of remarriage of a mere ANSWER:
not the special the present application or
proceeding spouse, to avoid proceeding to NO. Appeal is
governing incurring the establish the not a proper
absentees under crime of status of a party remedy since
Rule 107 of the bigamy. or a particular the decision is
Rules of Court Nonetheless, it fact, to viz: that immediately
whose rules of is in the nature a person has final and
procedure will of a special been unheard of executor upon
not be followed proceeding, for a long time notice to the
(Republic vs. being an and under such parties under
C.A., 458 SCRA application to circumstance Art. 247 of the
[2005]). establish a that he may be Family
status or a Code(Republic vs remedy should be

particular fact Bermudez- by certiorari
in court. Lorino, 449 SCRA under Rule 65 of
57 [2005]). The the Rules of Court.
ALTERNATIVE OSG may assail
ANSWER:
RTC‟s grant of the
A petition for petition only on Cancellation or

the premise of Correction;
declaration of
Notice (2007)
presumptive grave abuse of
death may be discretion No.VII. (a) B files a
considered a amounting to lack petition for
special or excess of cancellation of the
proceeding, jurisdiction. The birth certificate of

Page 60 of 198
her daughter R on notified of the R‟s petition for the requirements

the ground of the petition and annulment of of fair play and
falsified material hence, the judgment before due process
entries therein decision was the Court of (Ceruila v.
made by B’s issued in violation Appeals should Delantar, 477
husband as the of due process. B be granted. SCRA 134
informant. The opposed saying Although there [2005]).
RTC sets the case that the was publication
for hearing and publication of the of the court ALTERNATIVE
directs the court order was ANSWER:
order acting the
publication of the sufficient petition to
order for hearing compliance with The petition for
cancel the birth
and directs the due process. Rule. annulment of
certificate,
publication of the (5%) judgment should
reasonable
order once a not be granted.
notice still has to
week for three SUGGESTED While R is an
be served on R
ANSWER: indispensable
consecutive as she has an
weeks in a party, it has
interest affected
newspaper of been held that
by the
general the failure to
cancellation.
circulation. service notice on
(Sec. 3 and 4,
Summons was indispensable
Rule 108, Rules
service on the parties is cured
of Court) She is
Civil Registrar but by the
an indispensable
there was no publication made
party (Republic
appearance because the
v. Benemerito,
during the action is one in
425 SCRA 488
hearing. The RTC rem (Alba v.
[2004]), and
granted the Court of Appeals,
notice has to be
petition. R filed a 465 SCRA 495
served on her,
petition for [2005]; Barco v.
not for the
annulment of Court of Appeals,
purpose of
judgment before 420 SCRA 39
vesting the
the Court of [2005]).
court with
Appeals, saying jurisdiction, but
that she was not to comply with
Page 61 of 198
for declaration of equal to double

Habeas Corpus nullity of
Habeas Corpus; the amount of the
(2007)
marriage before Bail (2008) check involved.
No.IV. Husband the RTC of Pasig She prayed that
No.XIX. After Alma
H files a petition City. Wife W files her sentence be
had started
a petition for similarly modified
serving her
habeas corpus be determined in and that she be
sentence for
before the RTC of the petition for immediately
violation of BP 22,
Pasay City, declaration of released from
she filed a petition
praying for nullity of their detention. In the
for a writ of
custody over marriage which alternative, she
habeas corpus,
their minor child. is already prayed that
citing Vaca vs CA
H files a motion to pending in the pending
where the
dismiss the wife’s RTC of Pasig City. determination on
sentence of
petition on the In other words, whether the Vaca
imprisonment of a
ground of the the petition filed ruling applies to
party found guilty
pendency of the in Pasig City, her, she be
of violation of BP
other case. Rule. praying for allowed to post
22 was reduced to
custody of the bail pursuant to
a fine
SUGGESTED minor child is Rule 102, Sec. 14,
ANSWER:
unnecessary and which provides
violates only the that if a person is
The motion to
cardinal rules of lawfully
dismiss the
procedure imprisoned or
petition for
against restrained on a
habeas corpus
multiplicity of charge of having
should be
suits. Hence, the committed an
granted to avoid
latter suit may offense not
multiplicity of
be abated by a punishable by
suits. The
motion to death, he may be
question of who
dismiss on the admitted to bail in
between the
ground of litis the discretion of
spouses should
pendentia (Yu v. the court.
have custody of
Yu, 484 SCRA accordingly, the
their minor
485 [2006]). trial court allowed
child could also
Alma to post bail
Page 62 of 198
and then ordered lawfully already started appellate

her release. In imprisoned or serving her jurisdiction (R.A.
your opinion, is restrained for sentence. She 7975, as
the order of the an offense not cannot, amended by R.A
trial court correct punishable by therefore, apply 8249), not in the
– death, she may for bail (Peo. vs. exercise of
be recommitted Fitzgerald, G.R. “original”
(a) Under Rule
102? to No. 149723, 27 jurisdiction.
imprisonment October 2006).
SUGGESTED or admitted to
ANSWER:
bail in the Letters of
No, Alma, who discretion of the Habeas Administration;
is already court or judge Interested
convicted by (Sec. 14, Rule Corpus;
Person (2008)
final judgment, 102; Celeste vs.
Jurisdiction; No.XVIII.
cannot be People, 31 SCRA
Sandiganbayan Domencio and Gen
entitled to bail 391; Vicente vs.
(2009) lived without
under Sec. 14, Judge
benefit of
Rule 102. The Majaducon, A.M. No.XI.C. In the
marriage for 20
provision No. RTJ-02- exercise of its
years, during
presupposes 1698, 23 June original
that she had 2005; San Pedro jurisdiction, the
not been vs. Peo, Sandiganbayan
convicted as G.R. No. 133297, may grant
15 August
yet. It provides petitions for the
2002).
that if she is issuance of a writ
(b) Under the clearly prohibits of habeas corpus.
Rules of
the grant of bail
criminal SUGGESTED
procedure? after conviction ANSWER:
by final
SUGGESTED FALSE. The
ANSWER: judgment and
after the convict Sandiganbayan
Under the Rules has started to may grant
of Criminal serve sentence. petitions for
Procedure, Rule In the present Habeas corpus
114, Sec. 24 case, Alma had only in aid of its
Page 63 of 198
which time they claim co- conduct towards

purchased ownership of her. instituted
properties the properties
together. After left by him Duqueza soon intestate
Domencio died under their instituted an proceedings.
without a will, property action for Both
Gen filed a regime of a probate of actions
petition for union without Czarina’s will. were
letters of marriage under Marco, on the consolidated
administration. conditions other hand, before the RTC of
Domencio’s
provided in the Pasig. On
siblings
Family Code motion of Marco, testacy over
the same on the 9Arts. 147- 148, Duqueza’s intestacy, hence,
ground that Gen Family Code; petition was the probate of
has no legal San Luis vs. San ordered dismissed the will cannot be
personality. Luis, on the ground that dispensed with.
Decide. G.R. No. 133743, the will is void for (See Sec. 5, Rule
February 6,
depriving him of 75) Thus, unless
SUGGESTED 2007).
ANSWER: his legitime. Argue the will – which
for Duqueza. shows the
A petition for (5%) obvious intent to
Probate of Will
letters of disinherit Marco
(2010)
administration SUGGESTED – is probated, the
ANSWER:
may be filed by No.XIV. Czarina right of a person
any “interested died single. She to dispose of his
The petition for
person” (Sec. 2, left all her property may be
probate of
Rule 79, Rules properties by rendered
Czarina‟s will, as
of Court). Gen will to her friend nugatory (See
filed by Duquesa
would be Duqueza. In the Seanio vs. Reyes,
should not be
considered an will, Czarina G.R. Nos. 140371-
dismissed on
interested stated that she 72, Nov. 27,
mere motion of
person if she did not recognize 2006). Besides,
Marco who
was not Marco as an the authority of
instituted
married to adopted son the probate court
intestate
Domenico, because of his is generally
proceedings. The
because she can disrespectful limited only to a
law favors
Page 64 of 198
determination Extrajudicial testament, Facts (2012)

of the extrinsic Settlement insofar as they
validity of the are not contrary No.X.C. What are
Agreement
will. In this case, to law, public the jurisdictional
among
Marco morals and facts that must
themselves?
questioned the public policy. be alleged in a
Explain briefly.
intrinsic validity Extrajudicial petition for
(5%)
of the will. settlement of an probate of a will?
estate of a How do you bring

SUGGESTED
ANSWER: deceased is before the court
allowed only these

Probate of Will
(2007) The heirs of H when the jurisdictional
cannot validly deceased left no facts? (3%)
No.VIII. (b) The
agree to resort last will and
heirs of H agree SUGGESTED
to extrajudicial testament and
among ANSWER:
settlement of all debts, if any,
themselves that
his estate and are paid (Rule The
they will honor
do away with 74, Sec. 1, Rules jurisdictional
the division of H’s
the probate of of Court). facts in a
estate as
H‟s last will and petition for
indicated in her
testament. probate are: (1)
Last Will and
Probate of the that a person
Testament. To Probate of Will;
will is died
avoid the expense Jurisdictional
mandatory
of going to court leaving a will;
(Guevarra v.
in a Petition for (2) in case of a territorial
Guevarra, 74
Probate of the resident, that he jurisdiction.
Phil. 479
Will, can they resided within
[1943]). The
instead execute the territorial The
policy of the law
an jurisdiction of jurisdictional
is to respect the
the court; and facts shall be
will of the
(3) in the case of contained in a
testator as
a non-resident, petition for
manifested in
that he left an allowance of will.
the other
estate within
dispositions in
such
his last will and
Probate of Will;
Page 65 of 198
Application of No, the shall be, as far that Winston

Modes of administrator is as practicable, would receive the
Discovery not correct. applicable in equivalent of
(2008) Modes of special US$1,000 per
discovery apply proceedings. month for the
No.XIII. An
also to special next 15 years.
heir/oppositor in
proceedings. Sec.
a probate
2, Rule 72 states Wanting to
proceeding filed a Probate of Will:
that in the receive the
motion to remove Will Outside of
absence of principal amount
the administrator the Philippines
special of the annuity,
on the grounds of (2010)
provisions, the Winston files for
neglect of duties
rules provided No.XV. Pedrillo, a the probate of
as administrator
for in ordinary Fil-Am Pedrillo’s will in
and absence from
actions permanent the Makati RTC.
the country. On
resident of Los As prayed for, the
his part the
Angeles, court names
heir/oppositor
California at the Winston as
served written
time of his death, administrator of
interrogatories to
bequeathed to the estate.
the administrator
Winston a sum of
preparatory to
money to Winston now files
presenting the
purchase an in the Makati RTC
latter as a
annuity. a motion to
witness. The
compel XYZ to
administrator
Upon Pedrillo’s account for all
objected, insisting
demise, his will sums in its
that the modes of
was duly possession
discovery apply
probated in Los forming part of
only to ordinary
Angeles and the Pedrillo’s estate.
civil actions, not
specified sum in Rule on the
special
the will was in motion. (5%)
proceedings. Rule
fact used to
on the matter. SUGGESTED
purchase an
ANSWER:
SUGGESTED annuity with XYZ
ANSWER: of Hong Kong so The motion
Page 66 of 198
should be over XYZ of The allegation incompetency of

denied. Makati hongkong. The that there was a the person for
RTC has no letters of genuine effort to whom letters
jurisdiction administration settle the estate are prayed
granted to leaving a P1 amicably before therein; and (2)
Winston only billion estate. He the filing of the the contestant‟s
covers all was survived by petition is not own right to the
Pedrillo‟s estate his wife Dayanara required by the administration.
in the and their five Rules. Besides, a (Sec. 4, Rule 9).
Philippines. children. petition for
(Rule 77, Sec. 4) issuance of
This cannot Dayanara filed a letters of

petition for the administration Settlement of
cover the Estate (2009)
annuities in issuance of letters may be
Hongkong. of administration. contested on

No.XVIII. Pinoy
Charlene, one of either of two
died without a
At the outset, the children, filed grounds : (1) the
will. His wife,
Makati RTC an opposition to Rosie and three
should not have the petition, children executed
taken alleging that there a deed of
cognizance of was neither an extrajudicial
the petition filed allegation nor settlement of his
by Winston, genuine effort to estate. The deed
because the will settle the estate was properly
does not cover amicably before published and
any property of the filing of the registered with
Pedrillo located petition. Rule on the Office of the
here in the the opposition. Register of Deeds.
Philippines. (5%) Three years
thereafter, Suzy
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: appeared,
Settlement of claiming to be the

Estate (2010) The opposition illegitimate child
should be of Pinoy. She
No.XVI. Sal Mineo
overruled for sought to annul
died intestate,
lack of merit. the settlement
Page 67 of 198
alleging that she the Three deprive heirs of

was deprived of Children Correct? their lawful
her rightful Explain. participation in
share in the the decedent‟s
estate. estate. She can
file the action
therefor within
SUGGESTED four (4) years
ANSWER:
after the
Rosie and the settlement was
NO, the
Three Children registered.
contention is
contended that
not correct.
(1) the
Suzy can file a
publication of
complaint
theCriminal deedProcedure (Rules to
annul the
constituted 110-127)
extrajudicial
constructive
settlement and
notice to the
she can recover
whole world,
what is due her
and should
as such heir if
therefore bind
her status as an
Suzy; and
illegitimate
(2) Suzy’s action
had already child of the
prescribed. deceased has
been
Are Rosie and
established. The
publication of same was notice

the settlement after the fact of
does not execution. The
constitute requirement of
constructive publication is
notice to the intended for the
heirs who had protection of
no knowledge or creditors and
did not take part was never
in it because the intended to
Page 68 of 198
by the offended from behind by a damage in excess

SUGGESTED Ford Expedition of Php500,000.
ANSWER: party or a peace
officer directly SUV driven by
Horace who was (A) As counsel
Yes, the bank with the proper
observed using for Gary, describe
may directly file court on the
his cellular phone the process you
the complaint basis of the
at the time of the need to
with the proper affidavit of the
collision. Both undertake
court. In the offended party
vehicles - more starting from the
absence or or arresting
than 5 years old – point of the
unavailability of officer or person
no longer carried incident if Gary
an inquest (Section 6, Rule
insurance other would proceed
prosecutor, the 112 of the
than the criminally against
complaint may Revised Rules of
compulsory third Horace, and
be filed Criminal
party liability identify the court
Procedure).
insurance. Gary with jurisdiction
suffered physical over the case.
injuries while his (3%)

Actions; Nissan Patrol
Commencement SUGGESTED
sustained ANSWER:
of an Action;
A) As counsel for the mishap
Criminal, Civil
Gary, I will first unless Horace
(2013)
have him admits his fault
medically in writing, and
No.III. While in
examined in request Gary to
his Nissan Patrol
order to secure a car
and hurrying
ascertain the damage estimate
home to Quezon
gravity and from a car repair
City from his
extent of the shop. Third, I will
work in Makati,
injuries ask him to
Gary figured in a
sustained from execute his
vehicular mishap
the accident. Sinumpaang
along that
Second, I will Salaysay.
portion of EDSA
secure an Thereafter, I will
within the City of
accurate police use his
Mandaluyong. He
report relative to Sinumpaang
was bumped
Page 69 of 198
Salaysay or briefly this type of action shall without filing

prepare a action: its legal proceed the criminal
Complaint- basis; the independently case.
affidavit and file different of the criminal
the same in the approaches in prosecution and (c) File the
Office of the City pursuing this type shall require criminal case
Prosecutor of of action; the only a without need of
Mandaluyong evidence you preponderance reserving the
City (Sections 1 would need; and of evidence. independent
and 15 Rule 110, types of defenses Section 3 of civil action.
Rules of you could expect. Rule 111 allows
Criminal (5%) Aside from the
the filing of an
Procedure). testimony of
independent
SUGGESTED Gary, the pieces
ANSWER: civil action by
This being a case of evidence that
the offended
of simple would be
An independent party based on
negligence and required in an
civil action is an Article 33 and
the penalty for independent civil
action which is 2176 of the
the offense does action are the
entirely distinct New Civil Code.
not exceed six medical report
and separate
months The different and certificate
from the
imprisonment, approaches that regarding the
criminal action.
the court with the plaintiff can injuries
Such civil
original and pursue in this sustained by
exclusive type of action Gary, hospital
jurisdiction is are as follows: and medical bills
the including receipt
Metropolitan (a) File the of payments
Trial Court of independent made police
Mandaluyong civil action and report and proof
City. prosecute the of the extent of
criminal case damage
(B) If Gary separately. sustained by his
chooses to file an car and the
independent civil (b) File the Affidavit of
action for independent witnesses who
damages, explain civil action
Page 70 of 198
saw Horace exhilarating

using his I will also Actions; session with his
cellular phone present proof of Commencement girlfriend, Dario
at the time the employment of of an Action; died. Within 180
incident Gary such as Party (2013) days from Dario’s
happened. payslip in order
death, Yvonne
to prove No.II. Yvonne, a
gives birth in
that he was defenses that young and lonely
Manila to a baby
gainfully may be raised OFW, had an
boy. Irate
employed at the against this intimate
relatives of Dario
time of the action are relationship
contemplate
mishap, and as fortuitous event, abroad with a
criminally
a result of the force majeure or friend, Percy.
charging Yvonne
injuries he acts of God. The Although Yvonne
for adultery and
suffered, he was defendant can comes home to
they hire your
not able to earn also invoke Manila every six
law firm to
his usual income contributory months, her
handle the case.
thereof. I will negligence as foreign posting
also present the partial defense. still left her (A) Is the
attending Doctor Moreover, the husband Dario contemplated
of Gary to defendant can lonely so that he criminal action a
corroborate and raise the usual also engaged in viable option to
authenticate the defenses that his own bring? (3%)
contents of the the: (a) plaintiff extramarital
activities. In one SUGGESTED
medical report will be entitled
ANSWER:
and abstract to double particularly
thereof. The compensation or No. Section 5 of

evidence recovery, and (b) Rule 110
required to hold defendant will provides that
defendant be constrained the crimes of
Horace liable is to litigate twice adultery and
only and therefore concubinage
preponderance suffer the cost of shall not be
of evidence. litigation twice. prosecuted
except upon
The types of
complaint filed
Page 71 of 198
by the offended the Incidentally, the

spouse. Since contemplated Since Dario is heirs can also
the offended criminal action already dead submit the baby
spouse is is not viable as when the baby boy for DNA
already dead, the same was was, his heirs testing (A.M. No.
then the committed have the right to 6- 11-5-SC, Rules
criminal action outside of the impugn the on DNA
for Adultery as Philippine filiation of the Evidence) or
contemplated courts. child. even blood-test
by offended in order to
(B) Is a civil Consequently,
party‟s determine
action to impugn the heirs may
relatives is no paternity and
the paternity of impugn the
longer viable. filiation.
the baby boy filiation either
Moreover, it feasible, and if so, by a direct action
appears that in what to impugn such
the adulterous proceeding may filiation or raise
acts of Yvonne such issue be the same in a
were determined? (5%) special
committed proceeding for
abroad. Hence, SUGGESTED settlement of the

ANSWER:
estate of the
Yes, under bringing his
decedent. In the
Article 171 of action:
said proceeding,
the Familyy
the Probate
Code, the heirs b) If he should
court has the
of the husband die after the
power to
may imougn the filing of the
determine
filiation of the complaint,
questions as to
child in the without having
who are the
following cases: desisted
heirs of the
therefrom; or
decedent (Reyes
a) If the
c) If the child vs. Ysip, et. al.,
husband should
was born after 97 Phil. 11,
die before the
the death of the Jimenez vs. IAC,
expiration of the
husband. 184 SCRA 367).
period fixed for
Page 72 of 198
In Jao vs. Court possibly be that not only flow out principles of
of Appeals, G.R. of the alleged of declaration natural justice
No. L- 49162, father. in the statute and the supposed
July 28, 1987, but is based on virtue of the
the Supreme ALTERNATIVE the broad mother. It is
ANSWER:
Court held that grounded on the be presumed
blood grouping No, there is no policy to protect where personal
tests are showing in the the innocent access is not
conclusive as to
problem of any offspring from disposed, unless
non-paternity,
ground that the odium of such presumption
although
would serve as illegitimacy. The is rebutted by
inconclusive as
a basis for an presumption of evidence to the
to paternity.
action to legitimacy contrary.
The fact that
impugn proceeds from
the blood type Hence, a child
paternity of the the sexual union
of the child is a born to a
baby boy. in marriage,
possible husband and wife
particularly
product of the In Concepcion during a valid
during the
mother and vs. Almonte, marriage is
period of
alleged father G.R. No. 123450, presumed
conception.
does not August 31, 2005 legitimate. Thus,
conclusively citing Cabatania To overthrow this the child‟s
prove that the vs. Court of presumption on legitimacy may
child is born by Appeals, the the basis of be impugned
such parents; Supreme Court Article 166 (1) only under the
but, if the blood held that the (b) of the Family strict standards
type of the law requires Code, it must be provided by law
child is not the that every shown beyond (Herrera vs. Alba,
possible blood reasonable reasonable doubt G.R. No. 148220,
type when the presumption be that there was June 15, 2005).
blood of the made in favour no access that
mother and the of legitimacy. could have [Note: The
Family Code is
alleged father enabled the
not covered by
are cross The husband to father the 2013 bar
matched, then presumption of the child. Sexual Examination
the child cannot legitimacy does Syllabus for
Intercourse is to
Remedial Law].
Page 73 of 198
injured V who filed a complaint No, V is not
was crossing the for Damages guilty of forum
street. Lawyer L, against X and Y shopping

Actions;
who witnessed before the because the case
Complaint;
the incident, Regional Trial in Sta. Maria,
Forum Shopping
offered his legal Court of Bulacan, is a
(2010)
services to V. Pangasinan in criminal action
Urdaneta where filed in the name
No.IV. X was
V, who suffered he resides. In his of the People of
driving the dump
physical injuries "Certification the Philippines,
truck of Y along
including a Against Forum where civil
Cattleya Street in
fractured wrist Shopping," V liability arising
Sta. Maria,
bone, underwent made no mention from the crime
Bulacan. Due to
surgery to screw of the pendency is deemed also
his negligence, X
a metal plate to of the criminal instituted
hit and
his wrist bone. case in Sta. Maria. therewith;
whereas the
On complaint of (a) Is V guilty of case filed in
forum
V, a criminal case Urdaneta,
shopping? (2%)
for Reckless Pangasinan, is a
Imprudence SUGGESTED civil action for
Resulting in ANSWER:
quasi-
Serious Physical
Injuries was filed delict in the or litis
against X before name of V and pendencia, do not
the Municipal against both X obtain here.
Trial Court and Y for all
(MTC) of Sta. damages caused Moreover,
Maria. Atty. L, the by X and Y to V, substantive law
private which may be (Art. 33, Civil
prosecutor, did beyond the Code) and Sec. 3,
not reserve the jurisdiction of Rule 111,
filing of a MTC. Hence, the Revised Rules of
separate civil tests of forum Criminal
action. shopping, which Procedure,
is res adjudicate expressly

V subsequently authorize the
Page 74 of 198
filing such SUGGESTED the civil case to them is correct?

action for ANSWER: await the decision Explain. (2%)
damages in the criminal
entirely No, X may not case. Which of SUGGESTED
move for ANSWER:
separate and
distinct from the dismissal of the
No, the motion to dismissal of the
criminal action. civil action for
dismiss base on complaint for
damages on the
alleged litis failure of V to
(b) Instead of contention that Y
pendencia is implead Y as an
filing an Answer, is an
without merit indispensable
X and Y move to indispensable
because there is party? (2%)
dismiss the party who
no identity of
complaint for should be
parties and
damages on the impleaded. Y is
subject matter in
ground of litis not an
the two cases.
pendentia. Is the indispensable
Besides, Art. 33
motion party but only
of the Civil Code
meritorious? necessary party.
and Rule 111,
Explain. (2%) Besides,
Sec. 3 of the
nonjoinder and
Rules of Criminal
SUGGESTED misjoinder of
ANSWER: Procedure
parties is not a
authorize the
ground for
separate civil
dismissal of
action for
actions (Rule 3,
damages arising
Sec. 11, Rules of
from physical
Court).
injuries to
(d) X moved for proceed
the suspension of independently.
the proceedings in
(c) Suppose only X
the criminal case
was named as
to await the
defendant in the
decision in the
complaint for
civil case. For his
damages, may he
part, Y moved for
move for the
the suspension of
Page 75 of 198
Neither of them authorized. Actions; Hold (a) What is the

Departure Order
is correct. Both proper procedure
(2010)
substantive law (e) Atty. L offered to prevent Dina
(Art. 33 of the in the criminal from leaving the
No. XVIII. While
Civil Code) and case his affidavit Philippines? (2%)
window-shopping
procedural law respecting what
at the mall on
(Rule 111, Sec. he witnessed SUGGESTED
August 4, 2008, ANSWER:
3, Rules of during the
Dante lost his
Criminal incident. X’s
organizer
Procedure) lawyer wanted to
including his
provide for the cross-examine
credit card and
two actions to Atty. L who,
billing statement.
proceed however, objected
Two days later,
independently on the ground of
upon reporting
of each other, lawyer-client
the matter to the
therefore, no privilege. Rule on
credit card
suspension of the objection.
company, he
action is (2%)
learned that a
SUGGESTED from the fact one-way airplane
ANSWER: ticket was
that it is in
respect of what purchased online
The objection
the counsel using his credit
should be
witnessed card for a flight to
overruled.
during the Milan in mid-
Lawyer-client
incident and not August 2008.
privilege is not
to the Upon extensive
involved here.
communication inquiry with the
The subject on
made by the airline company,
which the
client to him or Dante discovered
counsel would
the advice he that the plane
be examined has
gave thereon in ticket was under
been made
his professional the name of one
public in the
capacity. Dina Meril. Dante
affidavit he
approaches you
offered and
for legal advice.
thus, no longer
privileged, aside
Page 76 of 198
I would advise: printout of: 1) phone call log to

(b) Suppose an the online show that he
(1) The filing of Information is ticket purchase already alerted
an appropriate filed against Dina using his credit the credit
criminal action on August 12, card; 2) the
cognizable by 2008 and she is
card company of SUGGESTED
the RTC against immediately ANSWER:
his loss; and 3)
Dina and the arrested. What
his credit card
filing in said pieces of No, the arresting
billing statement
criminal action electronic officer may not
bearing the
a Motion for the evidence will take the arrested
online ticket
issuance of a Dante have to suspect from
transaction.
Hold Departure secure in order to Pasay City to
Order; prove the Caloocan City. The
fraudulent online arresting officer is
(2) thereafter, a transaction? Arrest; required to
written request (2%) Warrantless deliver the person
with the Arrests & arrested without
Commissioner SUGGESTED Searches (2007) a warrant to the
ANSWER:
of the Bureau of
nearest police
Immigration No.VI. (a) On his
He will have to station or jail
for a Watch List way home, a
present (a) his (Rule 112, Sec. 5,
Order pending member of the
report to the 2000 Rules of
the issuance of Caloocan City
bank that he lost Criminal
the Hold police force
his credit card Procedure). To be
Departure witnesses a bus
(b) that the sure, the nearest
Order should robbery in Pasay
ticket was police station or
be filed; City and effects
purchased after jail is in Pasay
the arrest of the
the report of the City where the
(3) then, the suspect. Can he
lost and (c) the arrest was made,
airline bring the suspect
purchase of one- and not in
company to Caloocan City
way ticket. Caloocan City.
should be for booking since
Dante should
requested to that is where his
bring an original (b) In the course of
cancel the station is? Explain
(or an serving a search
ticket issued to briefly. (5%)
equivalent copy) warrant, the police
Dina.
Page 77 of 198
find an quashed, is the search. not otherwise

unlicensed police required allowed by law
firearm. Can the to return the to possess the
police take the Even if the same would be
firearm? Explain
firearm even if it warrant was tantamount to
briefly. (5%)
is not covered by subsequently abetting a
the search quashed, the violation of the
SUGGESTED
warrant? If the ANSWER: police are not law.
warrant is mandated to
subsequently Yes, the police return the

may take with “unlicensed
him the firearm.” The Bail; Application
(2012)
“unlicensed” quashal of the
firearm search warrant No.I.B. A was
although not did not affect charged with a
covered by the the validity of
non-bailable
search warrant. the seizure of
offense. At the
Possession of an the “unlicensed
time when the
“unlicensed firearm.”
warrant of arrest
firearm” is a Moreover,
was issued, he
criminal offense returning the
was confined in
and the police firearm to a
the
officer may person who is
seize an article hospital and could petition? Why or
which is the not obtain a valid why not? (5%)
“subject of an clearance to leave
offense.” Thus the hospital. He SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
us especially so filed a petition for
considering that bail saying therein No, the court may
the “unlicensed that he be not entertain his
firearm” considered as petition as he has
appears to be in having placed not yet been
“plain view” of himself under the placed under
the police jurisdiction of the arrest. A must be
officer when the court. May the “literally” placed
conducted the court entertain his under the
Page 78 of 198
custody of the hospital. No.XI.A. The

law before his (Paderanga vs. accused in a FALSE. The
petition for bail Court of Appeals, criminal case has accused in
could be G.R. No. No. the right to avail criminal case
entertained by 115407, August of the various only has the
the court 28, 1995). modes of right to avail of
(Miranda vs. discovery. conditional
Tuliao, G.R. No. examination of
158763, March SUGGESTED
his witness
Discovery; ANSWER:
31, 2006). before a judge,
Production and
TRUE. The or, if not
ALTERNATIVE Inspection
accused has the practicable, a
ANSWER: (2009)
right to move member of a Bar
Yes, a person is for the in good standing
deemed to be production or so designated by
under the inspection of the judge in the
custody of the material order, or if the
law either when evidence in the order be made
he has been possession of by a court of
arrested or has the prosecution. superior
surrendered It authorizes jurisdiction,
himself to the the defense to before an
jurisdiction of inspect, copy or inferior court to
the court. the photograph any be designated
accused who is evidence of the therein. (sec.12
confined in a prosecution in &13, Rule 119).
hospital may be its possession
after obtaining Modes of
deemed to be in
permission discovery under
the custody of
from the court civil actions
the law if he
(Rule 116, Sec. does not apply
clearly
10; Webb vs. De to criminal
communicates
Leon, 247 SCRA proceedings
his submission
652 [1995]). because the
to the court
latter is
while he is
ALTERNATIVE primarily
confined in the ANSWER:
Page 79 of 198
governed by PROCEDURE information on the authorized or

(Vda. de
the REVISED ground that the deputized to
Manguerravs
RULES OF Risos officer who filed prosecute
CRIMINAL – 563 SCRA 499). had no authority to Samuel. Under
Information; accused moved do so. Resolve the R.A. No. 6770,
Motion to Quash
for reinvestigation motion to quash
(2009) also known as
of the charge, with reasons. the Ombudsman
No.IV. Pedrito and which the court
Act of 1989, the
Tomas, Mayor granted. After SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Special
and Treasurer, reinvestigation,
Prosecutor has
respectively, of the Office of the
The motion to the power and
the Municipality Special
quash filed by authority, under
of San Miguel, Prosecutor filed
Samuel should be the supervision
Leyte, are charged an amended
granted. There is and control of
before the information duly
no showing that the Ombudsman,
Sandiganbayanfor singed and
the special to conduct
violation of approved by the
prosecutor was preliminary
Section 3(e), RA Special
duly investigation and
no. 3019 (Anti- Prosecutor,
prosecute
Graft and Corrupt alleging the same
criminal cases
Practices Act). delictual facts, but
before the
The information with an additional
Sandiganbayan
alleges, among allegation that the
and perform
others, that the accused gave
such other duties
two conspired in unwarranted
assigned to him
the purchase of benefits to SB
by the
several units of enterprises
Ombudsman
computer owned by Samuel.
(Calingin vs.
through personal Samuel was also
Desierto, 529
canvass instead of indicted under the
SCRA 720
a public bidding, amended
[2007]).
causing undue information.
injury to the Absent a clear
Before Samuel was
municipality. delegation of
arraigned, he
authority from
Before moved to quash
the Ombudsman
arraignment, the the amended
Page 80 of 198
to the Special supervision and the case. The to quash will not
Prosecutor to control and amendment be granted. The
file the upon authority made is only a lack of
information, of the matter of form preliminary
the latter would Ombudsman which only investigation is
have no (Perez vs. particularized not a ground for
authority to file Sandiganbayan, the violation of a motion to
the same. The 503 SCRA 252 the same quash under the
Special [2006]). provision of Rep. Rules of Criminal
Prosecutor Act 3019, as
ALTERNATIVE Procedure.
cannot be amended.
ANSWER:
considered an
Preliminary
alter ego of the
The motion to investigation is
Ombudsman as
quash should be only a statutory
Information;
the doctrine of Motion to Quash
denied for lack right and can be
qualified (2009)
of merit. The waived. The
political agency
case is already accused should
does not apply No.XVI.B. A
filed in court instead file a
to the office of criminal
which must motion for
the information is
have been done reinvestigation
Ombudsman. In filed in court
with the within five (5)
fact, the powers charging Anselmo
approval of the days after he
of the office of with homicide.
Ombudsman, learns of the
the Special Anselmo files a
and thus the filing in Court of
Prosecutor motion to quash
Special the case against
under the law information on
Prosecutor‟s him (Sec. 6, Rule
may be the ground that no
office of the 112, as
exercised only preliminary
Ombudsman amended).
under the investigation was
conducted. Will
takes over. As it Prosecutor
the motion be
is the court which is
granted? Why or
which ordered handling the
why not?
the case in court, has
reinvestigation, the authority to SUGGESTED
the Office of the act and when ANSWER:
Special warranted, refile

NO, the motion
Page 81 of 198
malefactor was police station or arrest, the

later charged jail in Makati person arrested
Jurisdiction; with the separate City where the without a
Complex Crimes crimes of bus actually was warrant shall be
(2013)
robbery and when the forthwith
No.VIII. On his illegal possession felonies took delivered to the
way to the PNP of firearm. place. In cases of nearest police
Academy in warrantless
A) Where should
Silang, Cavite on station or jail directly by the
Police Inspector
board a public and shall be investigating
Masigasig bring
transport bus as proceeded prosecutor with
the felon for
a passenger, against in the appropriate
criminal
Police Inspector accordance with court without a
processing? To
Masigasig of the section 7 of Rule preliminary
Silang, Cavite
Valenzuela 11 (Section 113, investigation?
where he is
Police witnessed Rules of Criminal (4%)
bound; to Makati
an on-going Procedure).
where the bus
armed robbery Consequently, SUGGESTED
actually was ANSWER:
while the bus the criminal case
when the felonies
was traversing for robbery and
took place; or Yes. Since the
Makati. His illegal
back to offender was
alertness and possession of
Valenzuela arrested in
training enabled firearms can be
where he is flagrante delicto
him to foil the filed in Regional
stationed? Which without a
robbery and to Trial Court of
court has warrant of arrest,
subdue the Makati City or on
jurisdiction over an inquest
malefactor. He any of the places
the criminal proceeding
disarmed the of departure or
cases? (3%) should be
felon and while arrival of the conducted and
frisking him, bus.
SUGGESTED thereafter a case
discovered ANSWER:
may be filed in
another handgun (B) May the
court even
tucked in his Police Inspector charges of
without the
waist. He seized Masigasig should robbery and
requisite
both handguns bring the felon illegal possession
preliminary
and the to the nearest of firearm be filed
investigation.
Page 82 of 198
Jurisdiction; the persons of voluntarily

Under Section 6, the movants. Did submitted
Reinvestigation;
Rule 112, Rules the RTC rule themselves to
Arrest (2008)
of Criminal correctly? the jurisdiction
Procedure, No.X. Jose, of the court.
when a person is SUGGESTED
Alberto and ANSWER: However, the
lawfully Romeo were RTC correctly
arrested charged with The RTC was denied the
without a murder. Upon not entirely motion for
warrant filing the correct in reinvestigation.
involving an information, the stating that it Before an
offense which RTC judge issued had no accused ca move
requires a warrants for jurisdiction for
preliminary their arrest. over the reinvestigation
investigation, Learning of the persons of the and the recall of
the complaint or issuance of the accused. By his warrant of
information may warrants, the filing motions arrest, he must
be filed by a three accused and seeking first surrender
prosecutor jointly filed a affirmative his person to the
without a need motion for reliefs from the court (Miranda,
of such reinvestigation court, the et al. vs. Tuliao,
investigation and for the recall accused G.R. No. 158763,
provided an of the warrants 31 March 2006).
inquest has been of arrest. On the Res Judicata in double jeopardy,
conducted in date set for Prison Grey
as “res judicata”
accordance with (2010)
hearing of their is the doctrine of
existing rules. motion, none of
No.XVII. What is civil law
accused showed (Trinidad vs.
"res judicata in
up in court for Office of the
prison grey"? (2%)
fear of being Ombudsman,
arrested. The SUGGESTED G.R. No. 166038,
RTC judge denied ANSWER: December 4,
2007).
their motion
“Res judicata in
because the RTC
prison grey” is Described as “res
did not acquire
the criminal judicata in prison
jurisdiction over
concept of grey,” the right
Page 83 of 198
against double authorized the the marijuana because the

jeopardy seizure of leaves as marijuana
prohibits the “undetermined evidence for the leaves were
prosecution of a quantity of violation of wrapped in
person for a shabu.” During the Section 11 of the newsprint and
crime of which service of the Comprehensive there was no
he has been search warrant, Dangerous Drugs evidence as to
previously the raiding team Act of 2002 since whether the
acquitted or also recovered a they were not marijuana
convicted. The kilo of dried covered by the leaves were
purpose is to set marijuana leaves search warrant. discovered and
the effects of the wrapped in The State seized before or
first prosecution newsprint. The justified the after the seizure
forever at rest, accused moved to seizure of the of the shabu. If
assuring the suppress marijuana leaves they were
accused that he under the “plain discovered after
shall not view” doctrine. the seizure of
thereafter be There was no the shabu, then
subjected to the indication of the marijuana
danger and whether the could not have
anxiety of a marijuana leaves been seized in
second charge were discovered palin view (CF.
against him for and seized before Peo vs. Mua, G.R.
the same offense or after the No. 96177, 27
(Joel B. Caes vs. seizure of the January 1997).
Intermediate shabu. If you are In any case, the
Appellate Court, the judge, how marijuana
November 6, would you rule should be
1989). on the motion to confiscated as a
suppress? prohibited
article.
SUGGESTED
Search & ANSWER:
Seizure; Plain
View (2008)
The “plain view”
Search & Seizure;
doctrine cannot
No.IX. The search Warrantless
be invoked
warrant Search (2010)
Page 84 of 198
midnight, he saw rule or the “stop the search and

No.VII. As Cicero an "owner-type and frisk” rule. seizure of the
was walking jeepney" And because the shabu and the
down a dark approaching him. mere possession, concealed knife
alley one Sensing that the with animus, of may be
occupants of the dangerous drug regarded as
vehicle were up to (the shabu) is a incident to a
The arrest and
no good, he violation of the lawful arrest.
body-search was
darted into a law (R.A. 9165),
legal. Cicero
corner and ran. the suspect is in ALTERNATIVE
appears to be
ANSWER:
The occupants of a continuing
alone „walking
the vehicle − state of
down the dark No, the arrest
elements from committing a
alley” and at and the body-
the Western crime while he is
midnight. There search were not
Police District − illegally
appears probable legal. In this
gave chase and possessing the
cause for the case, Cicero did
apprehended dangerous drug,
policemen to not run because
him. thus making the
check him, the occupants of
arrest
especially when the vehicle
The police tantamount to an
he darted into a identified
apprehended arrest in
corner themselves as
Cicero, frisked flagrante: so the
(presumably also police officers.
him and found a arrest is legal
dark) and run He darted into
sachet of 0.09 and
under such the corner and
gram of shabu correspondingly,
circumstance. ran upon the
tucked in his
belief that the
waist and a Swiss Although the
occupants of the
knife in his secret arrest came after
vehicle were up
pocket, and the body- search
to no good.
detained him where Cicero
thereafter. Is the was found with Cicero‟s act of
arrest and body- shabu and a running does
search legal? Swiss knife, the not show any
(3%) body-search is reasonable
legal under the ground to
SUGGESTED
“Terry search” believe that a
ANSWER:
Page 85 of 198
crime has been ALTERNATIVE (c) Describe the

ANSWER:
committed or is procedure that
Search Warrant;
about to be should be taken by
Application; PDEA Director
committed for the judge on the
Venue (2012) Shabunot may file
the police application. (2%)
an application for
officers to No.VI. A PDEA
search warrant
apprehend him SUGGESTED
asset/informant
before the ANSWER:
and conduct tipped the PDEA
Executive Judge
body search. Director
and Vice
Hence, the Shabunot that a
Executive Judges
arrest was shabu laboratory
of the Regional
illegal as it does was operating in
Trial Courts of
not fall under a house at Sta.
Manila or Quezon
any of the Cruz, Laguna,
Cities. (A.M. No.
circumstances rented by two (2)
99-10- 09-SC,
for a valid Chinese
January 25,
warrantless nationals, Ho Pia
2000).
arrest provided and Sio Pao.
in Sec. 5 of Rule PDEA Director (b) What
113 of the Shabunot wants documents should
Rules of to apply for a he prepare in his
Criminal search warrant, application for
Procedure. but he is worried search warrant?
that if he (2%)
applies for a
SUGGESTED
search warrant in PDEA Director ANSWER:
any Laguna court, Shabunot may file
their plan might an application for He should
leak out. search warrant in prepare a petition
any court within for issuance of a
(a) Where can he
the judicial region search warrant
file an application
where the crime and attach
for search
was committed. therein sworn
warrant? (2%)
(Rule 126, statements and
Sec.2[b]). affidavits.
SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
Page 86 of 198
The judge which the TO ANY OFFICER

PEACE
must, before application is
Greetings: (2) door
issuing the based or that
apartment with
warrant, there is
It appearing an iron gate
examine probable cause
to the located at
personally in to believe that
satisfaction Jupiter St., Sta.
the form of they exist, he
of the Cruz, Laguna,
searching shall issue the
undersigned undetermined
questions warrant, which
after amount of
and answers, must be
examining "shabu" and
in writing substantially in
under oath drug
and under the form
PDEA manufacturing
oath, the prescribed by
Director implements
complainant the Rules.
shabunot and
and the (Rule 126,
that there is paraphernalia
witnesses he Sec.6, Rules of
probable which should
may produce Court).
cause to be seized and
on facts
believe that brought to the
personally Suppose the
violations of undersigned,
known to judge issues the
Section 18
them and search warrant
and 16 of You are hereby
attach to the worded in this
R.A. 9165 commanded to
record their way:
have been make an
sworn
committed immediate
PEOPLE OF THE
statements,
and that search, at any
PHILIPPINES
together
there are time in the day
Plaintiff
with the
good and or night, of the
affidavits
sufficient premises above
submitted.
reasons to described and
(Rule 126, -versus-
believe that forthwith seize
Sec.5, Rules
Ho Pia and and take
of Court). if
Sio Pao have possession of
the judge is Ho Pia and Sio Pao,
in their the
satisfied of Accused.
possession abovementione
the existence
or control, d personal
of facts upon x----------------------------------------
in a two property, and
Page 87 of 198
bring said (d) Cite/enumer Rules on ordered to be

property to ate the defects, Criminal searched
the if any, of the Procedure), (Alvares vs. CFI
undersigned search warrant. or that of Tayabas, 64
to be dealt (3%) portion of Phil. 33). There
with as the the twenty- is no showing
law directs. SUGGESTED four hours that the
ANSWER:
in which a exception
Witness my man‟s applies.
(1) The
hand this person and
search warrant
1st day of countenanc (e) Suppose the
failed to
March, e are search warrant
particularly
2012. distinguisha was served on
describe the
ble (17 C.J. March 15, 2012
( place to be
1134). By and the search
s searched and
way of yielded the
i the things to
exception, a described
g be seized
search contraband and
n (Rule 126,
warrant a case was filed
e Sec.4, Rules of
may be against the
d Court).
made at accused in RTC,
)
night when Sta. Cruz,
(2) The search
it is Laguna and you
J warrant
positively are the lawyer
u commanded
asserted in of Sio Pao and
d the immediate
the affidavit Ho Pia, what
g search, at any
that the will you do?
e time in the
property is (3%)
day or night.
The general on the
X SUGGESTED
rule is that a person or in
Y ANSWER:
search the place
Z
If I were the the search
warrant must
lawyer of Sio Pao warrant for
be served in
and Ho Pia, I having been
the day time
would file a served beyond its
(Rule 126,
Motion to Quash period of validity.
Sec.8, Revised
Page 88 of 198
(Rule 126, Sec. because it is defender at the attorney

14, Rules of contraband or local Regional assigned to
Court). A search illegal per se. Trial Court and defend a person
warrant shall be (PDEA vs. to handle cases charged with a
valid only for Brodett, G.R. No. involving crime knows
ten (10) days 196390, indigents. that the latter is
from its date. September 28, preventively
Thereafter, it 2011). The (A) In one detained, either
shall be void. possession of an criminal action for because he is
(Rule 126, unlicensed qualified theft charged with a
Sec.10, Revised armalite found where you are the bailable crime
Rules of Court). in plain view is defense attorney, but has no
mala prohibita. you learned that means to post
(f) Suppose an The same should the woman bail, or, is
unlicensed be kept in accused has been charged with a
armalite was custodial legis. in detention for non-bailable
found in plain six months, yet crime, or, is
view by the she has not been serving a term
searchers and to a courtroom
Trial; Remedies of imprisonment
the warrant was (2013) nor seen a judge. in any penal
ordered quashed,
institution, it
should the court No.IV. At the What remedy
shall be his duty
order the return Public Attorney's would you
to do the
of the same to the Office station in undertake to
following:
Chinese Taguig where you address the
nationals? are assigned, your situation and (a) Shall
work requires you what forum promptly
Explain your to act as public
would you use to undertake to
answer. (3%)
invoke this obtain the
SUGGESTED relief? (3%) presence of the
ANSWER:
prisoner for trial
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: or cause a notice
No, the court
to be served on
should not order
Section 7, Rule the person
the return of the
119 provides, if having custody of
unlicensed
the public the prisoner
armalite
Page 89 of 198
requiring such receipt of that detention, the to a speedy

person to so notice, the arraignment shall disposition of
advise the custodian of the be held within cases (Section
prisoner of his prisoner shall thirty 16, Article III,
right to demand promptly advise (30) days from 1987
trial. the prisoner of the date the Constitution).
the charge and court acquires
(b) Upon of jurisdiction over ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER:
his right to raffled and its the person of the
demand trial. If records accused. (Section

A Petition for
at any time transmitted to 1 (g), Rule 116). Mandamus is also
feasible.
thereafter the the judge to
Since the accused
prisoner whom the case In People vs.
has not been
informs his was raffled Lumanlaw, G.R.
brought for
custodian that within the three No. 164953,
arraignment
he demands (3) days from the February 13,
within the limit
such trial, the filing of the 2006, the
required in the
latter shall information or Supreme Court
aforementioned
cause notice to complaint. The held that “a writ
Rule, the
that effect to be accused shall be of mandamus
Information may
sent promptly to arraigned within may be issued to
be dismissed
the public ten control the
upon motion of
attorney. (10) days from exercise of
the accused
the date of the discretion when,
invoking his right
X raffle. The pre-
x to speedy trial in the
x trial conference performance of
(Section 9, Rule
of his case shall duty, there is
119( or
Moreover, be held within undue delay that
Section 1 (e), ten (10) days can be
Rule 116 after the characterized as
provides, when arraignment. a grave abuse of
the accused is
discretion
under On the other
resulting in
preventive hand, if the
manifest
detention, his accused is not
injustice. Due to
case shall be under preventive
the
Page 90 of 198
unwarranted the ground of perpetua I will file a

delays in the the violation of pursuant to motion to
conduct of the his right to Memorandum dismiss the
arraignment of speedy trial.” Order No. 117]. information in
petitioner, he the court where
has indeed the Ergo, a writ of (B) In another the case is
right to mandamus is case, also for pending on the
demand – available to the qualified theft, the ground of denial
through a writ accused to detained young of the accused
of mandamus – compel the domestic helper right to speedy
expeditious dismissal of the has been brought trial (Section 9,
action from all case. to court five times Rule 119; Tan vs.
official tasked in the last six People, G.R. No.
ALTERNATIVE months, but the
with the ANSWER: 173637, April
administration prosecution has 21, 2009, Third
of justice. Thus, The yet to commence Division, Chico-
he may not only appropriate the presentation Nazario, J.). this
demand that remedy of the of its evidence. remedy can be
his detained You find that the invoked, at any
arraignment be accused is to reason for this is time, before trial
held but, apply for bail the continued and if granted
ultimately, that since qualified absence of the will result to an
the information theft is bailable, employer- acquittal. Since
against him be and she is complainant who
dismissed on is working
overseas.
entitled to bail aggregate value
before of the property
What remedy is
conviction in the stolen is
appropriate and
Regional Trial P500,000 and
before which
Court (Section 4, the above she will
forum would you
Rule 114 of the not be entitled to
invoke this relief?
Rules of bail as a matter of
(3%)
Criminal right, because the
Procedure). penalty for the SUGGESTED
offense is ANSWER:
[Note: unless the reclusion
Page 91 of 198
the accused has ANSWER: defense evidence

been brought to Should you now or consider some
Court five times I will move for proceed other remedy?
and in each the dismissal of posthaste to the Explain the
instance it was the case for presentation of
postponed, it is failure to
remedial steps you evidence. In the
clear that her prosecute. The propose to alternative, I may
right to a grant of the undertake. (3%) immediately file
Speedy Trial motion will be
a demurrer to
has been with prejudice SUGGESTED evidence without
unless the court ANSWER:
violated. leave of court
says otherwise.
No. I will not (Section 23, Rule
Moreover, I The Motion will
proceed with the 119, Rules of
may request be filed with the
presentation of Criminal
the court to Court where the
defense Procedure).
issue Subpoena action is
evidence. I will
Duces Tecum pending. In People vs. De
first file a motion
and Ad Guzman, G.R. No.
C) Still in another for leave to file
Testificandum 186498, March
case, this time for demurrer to
to the witness, 26, 2010, the
illegal possession evidence within
so in case he Supreme Court
of dangerous five (5) days
disobeys same, held that in a
drugs, the from the time
he may be cited prosecution for
prosecution has the prosecution
in contempt. violation of the
rested but you has rested its
Dangerous Drugs
saw from the case. If the
I may also file a
Act, the existence
records that the Motion is
motion to order
of the dangerous
illegal substance granted, I will
the witness
drugs is a
allegedly file a demurrer
employer-
condition sine
involved has not to evidence
complainant to
qua non for
been identified within a non-
post bail to
conviction. The
by any of the extendible
secure his
dangerous drug
prosecution period of ten
appearance in
is the very corpus
witnesses nor (10) days from
court. (Section
delicti of the
has it been the notice on the
14, Rule 119).
crime.
subject of any ground of
ALTERNATIVE stipulation. insufficiency of
Similarly, in
Page 92 of 198
People vs. Sitco, judgment of remedy to

G.R. No. 178202, secure ALTERNATIVE
conviction ANSWER:
May 14, 2010, beyond provisional
the High Court reasonable liberty of the Under R.A. 9344
held that in doubt. 14-year old boy. or otherwise
prosecutions Under the known as the
involving (D) In one other Rules, bail is a Juvenile Justice
narcotics and case, an indigent matter of right and Welfare Act
other illegal mother seeks before or even of 2006 as
substances, the assistance for her after conviction amended by R.A.
substance itself 14-year old son before the 10630, a child in
constitutes part who has been Metropolitan conflict with the
of the corpus arrested and Trial Court law has the right
delicti of the detained for which has to bail and
offense and the malicious jurisdiction recognizance or
fact of its mischief. over the crime to be
existence is vital of malicious transferred to a
to sustain a Would an mischief. youth detention
application for (Section 4, Rule home/youth
bail be the 114 of the Rules rehabilitation
appropriate of Criminal center. Thus:
remedy or is there Procedure).
another remedy
Where a child is conflict with the
available? Justify
detained, the law on bail; or
your chosen
court shall
remedy and (c) the transfer of
order:
outline the the minor to a
appropriate steps (a) the release youth detention
to take. (3%) of the minor on home/youth
recognizance to rehabilitation
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: his/her parents center. The court
and other shall not order
Yes. An suitable person; the detention of a
application for child in a jail
bail is an (b) the release of pending trial or
appropriate the child in hearing of his
Page 93 of 198
case. The writ of criminally to the child‟s

habeas corpus responsible, the nearest relative SUGGESTED
shall extend to child may not be ANSWER:
(Section 20,
all cases of detained to republic Act
illegal answer for the A reverse trial is
9344).
confinement or alleged offense. one where the
detention by The arresting Following the defendant or the
which any authority has the hierarchy of accused present
person is duty to courts, the evidence ahead
deprived of his immediately Petition must be of the plaintiff
liberty, or by release the child filed in the or prosecution
which the to the custody of Regional trial and the latter is
rightful custody his parents or Court having to present
of any person is guardians or in jurisdiction evidence by way
withheld from their absence over the place of rebuttal to the
the person where the child former‟s
entitled thereto is being evidence. This
(IN THE detained. kind of trial may
MATTER OF THE take place in a
PETITION OF [Note: R.A. 9344 civil case when
HABEAS is not covered the defendant‟s
CORPUS OF by the 2013 Bar Answer pleads
EUFEMIA E. RODRIGUEZ, Examination new matters by
EDGARDO E. VELUZ Syllabus for way of
VILLANUEVA Remedial law]. affirmative
and TERESITA defense, to
R. PABELLO, defeat or evade
G.R. No. liability for
Trial; Reverse
169482, Trial (2007) plaintiff‟s claim
January 29, which is not
2008, CORONA, No.V. (b) What is denied but
J.). reverse trial and controverted.
when may it be
Since minors
resorted to?
fifteen (15)
Explain briefly. In a criminal
years of age and
(5%) case, a reverse
under are not
trial may take
Page 94 of 198
place when the accused made trial. Both Yes, L can file a
known to the motions were petition for
trial court, on No.IX. L was denied by the mandamus to
arraignment, charged with RTC. Can L file a enforce his
that he adduce illegal possession petition for constitutional
affirmative of shabu before mandamus. right to a speedy
defense of a the RTC. Although Reason briefly. trial which was
justifying or bail was allowable capriciously
exempting under his SUGGESTED denied to him.
ANSWER:
circumstances indictment, he
and thus could not afford to There is
impliedly post bail, and so absolutely no
admitting the he remained in justification for
act imputed to detention at the postponing an
him. The trial City Jail. For arraignment of
court may then various reasons the accused
require the ranging from the nineteen (19)
accused to promotion of the times and over a
present Presiding Judge, period of two
evidence first, to the absence of (2) years. The
proving the the trial numerous,
requisites of the prosecutor, and to unreasonable
justifying or the lack of notice postponements
exempting to the City Jail of the
circumstance he Warden, the arraignment
is invoking, and arraignment of L demonstrate an
the prosecution was postpones abusive exercise
to present nineteen times of discretion
rebuttal over a period of (Lumanlaw v.
evidence two years. Twice Peralta, 482
controverting during that SCRA 396
the same. period, L’s counsel [2006]).
filed motions to Arraignment of
dismiss, invoking an accused
the right of the would not take
Trial; Speedy
accused to speedy thirty minutes of
Trial (2007)
Page 95 of 198
the precious imprisonment. judgment in (c) Accused

time of the L, in the given absentia" (2%). failed to appear
court, as case, was on the scheduled
against the merely invoking SUGGESTED date of
ANSWER:
preventive his promulgation of
imprisonment constitutional The requisites of judgment despite
and right when a a valid trial in due notice;
deprivation of motion to absentia are: (1)
liberty of the dismiss the case (d) Such
accused‟s
accused just was twice filed judgment be
arraignment; (2)
because he by his counsel. recorded in the
his due
does not have The RTC is criminal docket;
notification of the
the means to virtually trial; (3) his
post bail enjoined by the unjustifiable
although the fundamental failure to appear
crime charged law to respect during trial
is bailable. such right; (Bernardo vs.
hence a duty. People, G.R. No.
The right to a Having refused 166980, April 4,
speedy trial is or neglected to 2007).
guaranteed by discharge the
the duty enjoined The requisites for
Constitution to by law whereas a valid
every citizen there is no promulgation of
accused of a appeal nor any judgment are:
crime, more so plain, speedy,
when is under and adequate (a) A valid notice
preventive remedy of promulgation
of judgment;
in the ordinary Absentia (2010)
course of law,
(b) Said notice
the remedy of No. XIX. (1)
was duly
mandamus may Enumerate the
furnished to the
be availed of. requisites of a
accused
"trial in absentia "
personally or
(2%) and a
thru counsel;
"promulgation of
Trial; Trial in
Page 96 of 198
(e) Copy of said not criminal but the woman when arrested within
judgment had only civil in she was still five
been duly nature; and alive, Carlito was
served upon
hours after the evidence of guilt?
the accused or (3) Where the
discovery of the (4%)
his counsel. civil liability is
cadaver and
not derived SUGGESTED
brought to the ANSWER:
(2) Name two from or based
police station. The
instances where on the criminal
crime laboratory The declaration of
the trial court act of which the
determined that the accused
can hold the accused is
the woman had expressly
accused civilly acquitted
been raped. While acknowledging
liable even if he (Remedios Nota
in police custody, his guilt, in the
is acquitted. Sapiera vs.
Carlito broke down presence of
(2%) Court of
in the presence of assisting counsel,
Appeals, may be given in
SUGGESTED an assisting
September 14, evidence against
ANSWER: counsel orally
1999). him and any
confessed to the
The instances investigator that person, otherwise
where the civil he had raped and competent to
liability is not Evidence killed the woman, testify as a
extinguished (Rules 128- detailing the acts witness, who
despite the 134) he had performed heard the
acquittal of the up to his dumping confession is
accused where: Admissibility; competent to
Admission of of the body near
Guilt (2008) the creek. He was testify as to the
(1) The
genuinely substance o what
acquittal is No. XVI. The
remorseful. During he heard and
based on mutilated
the trial, the state understood it.
reasonable cadaver of a
presented the What is crucial
doubt; woman was
investigator to here is that the
discovered near
testify on the oral accused was
(2) Where the a creek. Due to
confession of informed of his
court expressly witnesses
Carlito. Is the oral right to an
declares that attesting that he
confession attorney and that
the liability of was the last
admissible in what he says may
the accused is person seen with
Page 97 of 198
be used in Admissibility; is in respect of No.IX. In a

evidence against Death of any matter of prosecution for
him. As the Adverse Party fact occurring rape, the defense
custodial (2007) before the death relied on
confession was of said deceased Deoxyribonucleic
given in the No.II. (a) The (Sec. 23, Rule Acid (DNA)
presence of an surviving parties 130, Rules of evidence showing
assisting counsel, rule bars Maria Court, Razon v. that the semen
Carlito is deemed from testifying Intermediate found in the
fully aware of the for the claimant Appellate Court, private part of the
consequences of as to what the 207 SCRA 234 victim was not
his statements deceased Jose [1992]). It is identical with
(People v. had said to her, Pedro who filed that of the
Silvano, GR No. in a claim filed the claim accused’s. As
144886, 29 April by Pedro against against the private
2002). the estate of Jose. estate of Jose. prosecutor, how
(3%) will you dispute
the veracity and
SUGGESTED accuracy of the
Admissibility;
ANSWER:
DNA Evidence results of the DNA
(2010)
evidence? (3%)
False. The said
rule bars only SUGGESTED flaw/error in
parties- plaintiff ANSWER:
obtaining the
and their biological sample
As a private
assignors, or
prosecutor, I
persons obtained; the
shall try to
prosecuting a
discredit the testing
claim against
results of the methodology
the estate of a
DNA test by employed; the
deceased; it
questioning and scientific
does not cover
possibly standard
Maria who is a
impugning the observed; the
mere witness.
integrity of the forensic DNA
Furthermore,
DNA profile by laboratory which
the
showing a conducted the
disqualification
Page 98 of 198
test; and the other things, the and the evidence?

qualification, following data: qualification of Explain. (3%)
training and how the samples the analyst who
experience of were collected, SUGGESTED
conducted tests. ANSWER:
the forensic how they were
laboratory handled, No, the package
personnel who of shabu
Admissibility;
the
conducted the extracted from
Evidence from
DNA testing. the body of
possibility of Invasive and
contamination of Lorenzo is not
Involuntary
the samples, admissible in
Procedures
Admissibility; whether the evidence
(2010)
DNA Evidence because it was
(2009) proper
No. XIII. obtained
standards and
No.I.[a] The Policemen through surgery
procedures were
Vallejo standard brought Lorenzo which connotes
followed in
refers to to the Philippine forcible invasion
conducting the
jurisprudential General Hospital into the body of
tests
norms considered (PGH) and Lorenzo without
by the court in requested one of his consent and
assessing the its surgeons to absent due
probative value of immediately process. The act
DNA evidence. perform surgery of the policemen
on him to retrieve and the PGH
SUGGESTED a packet of 10
ANSWER: surgeon
grams of shabu involved, violate
TRUE. In People which they the fundamental
vs. Vallejo, 382 alleged to have rights of
SCRA 192 swallowed Lorenzo, the
(2002), it was Lorenzo. suspect.
held that in
Suppose the PGH ALTERNATIVE
assessing the
agreed to, and ANSWER:
probative value
did perform the
of DNA evidence,
surgery is the
courts should
package of shabu
consider among
admissible in
Page 99 of 198
Yes, it is admissible in evidence because No, Under Sec. 27, Rule 130 of the Rules
the constitutional right against self- of Court, it is the offer of compromise by
incriminating evidence exists. the accused that may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of
In the past, Supreme Court has already
guilt. The testimony of Artemon would
declared many invasive and involuntary
cover the offer of Ramil and not an offer
procedures (i.e examination of women‟s
of the accused himself. (Peo v. Viernes,
genitalia, expulsion of morphine from
GR Nos. 136733-35, 13 December 2001)
one‟s mouth, DNA testing) as
constitutionally sound. (B) During the pretrial ,Bembol personally
offered to settle the case for P1 Million to
the private prosecutor, who immediately
Admissibility; Offer to Settle; Implied put the offer on record in the presence of
Admission of Guilt (2008) the trial judge. Is Bembol’soffer a judicial
admission of his guilt. (3%)
No.VIII. Bembol was charged with rape.
Bembol’s father, Ramil, approached SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Artemon, the victim’s father, during the
Yes, Bembol‟s offer is an admission of
preliminary investigation and offered P1
guilt (Sec. 33 Rule 130). If it was
Million to Artemon to settle the case.
repeated by the private prosecutor in
Artemon refused the offer.
the presence of judge at the pretrial the
(A) During trial, the prosecution presented extrajudicial confession becomes
Artemon to testify on Ramil’s offer and transposed into a judicial confession.
thereby establish and implied admission of There is no need of assistance of
guilt. Is Ramil’s offer to settle admissible in counsel. (Peo v. Buntag, GR No. 123070,
evidence? (3%) 14 April 2004).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the offer to settle by the father of Best Evidence Rule; Electronic Evidence
the accused, is admissible in evidence as (2009)
an implied admission of guilt. (Peo v.
No.XI. [d] An electronic evidence is the
Salvador, GR No. 136870-72, 28 January
equivalent of an original document under
2003)
the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: readable by sight or other means, shown to
reflect the data accurately.
Page 85 of 198
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2010 Nachura J.). The failure to

establish,
TRUE. This statement is embodied in
Sec. 1, Rule 4 of A.m. No. 01-7-01-SC, re:
Rules on Electronic Evidence.
Chain of Custody (2012)
No.II.A. (a) Discuss the "chain of custody"

principle with respect to evidence seized
under R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In prosecutions involving narcotics

and other illegal substances, the
substance itself constitutes part of the
corpus delicti of the offense and the
fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. The chain of custody
requirement is essential to ensure that
doubts regarding the identity of the
evidence are removed through the
monitoring and tracking of the
movements of the seized drugs from
the accused, to the police, to the
forensic chemist, and finally to the
court. (People vs. Sitco, G.R. No.
178202, May 14, 2010, Velasco, Jr.
J.).
Ergo, the existence of the dangerous
drug is a condition sine qua non for
conviction. (People vs. De Guzman Y
Danzil, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
Page 86 of 198
through convincing proof, that the as there is Act. As defense
integrity of the seized items has been justifiable counsel, you
adequately preserved through an ground therefor, object. The trial
unbroken chain of custody is enough to and as long as court asks you on
engender reasonable doubt on the guilt the integrity and what ground/s.
of an accused (People vs. De Guzman Y the evidentiary Respond. (3%)
Danzil). Nonetheless, non-compliance value

ofthe SUGGESTED
with the procedure shall not render ANSWER:
void and invalid the seizure and confiscated/seiz
custody of the drugs when: (1) such ed items are The objection is
non-compliance is attended by properly on the ground
justifiable grounds; and preserved by the that the fact
(2) the integrity and the evidentiary apprehending sought to be
value of the seized items are properly officer/team. elicited by the
preserved by the apprehending team. (People vs. prosecution is
There must be proof that these two (2) Mantalaba, G.R. irrelevant and
requirements were met before such No. 186227, July immaterial to the
non- compliance may be said to fall 20, 2011). offense under
within the scope of then proviso. prosecution and
(People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, trial. Moreover,
October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273). Character the Rules do not
Evidence; Bad allow the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Reputation prosecution to
(2010) adduce evidence
Crucial in proving chain of custody is
of bad moral
the marking of the seized drugs or other No.XII. In a
character of the
related items immediately after they are prosecution for
accused
seized from the accused. Marking after murder, the
pertinent to the
seizure is the starting point in the prosecutor asks
offense charged,
custodial link, thus, it is vital that the accused Darwin if
except on
seized contraband are immediately he had been
rebuttal and only
marked because succeeding handlers of previously
if it involves a
the specimens will use the markings as arrested for
prior conviction
reference. Thus, non-compliance by the violation of the
by final judgment
apprehending/buy-bust team with Anti- Graft and
(Rule 130, Sec.
Sec.21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal as long Corrupt Practices
51, Rules of
Page 87 of 198
Court). No.I.D. Under the admission of by saying
doctrine of something "Objection
adoptive stated or Sustained". Can
Doctrine of admission, a implied by the Counsel 8 ask for

Adoptive other person. a reconsideration
Admission (2009) third party’s
statement of the ruling?
becomes the Why? (5%)
admission of the Hearsay Evidence;

Objection (2012) SUGGESTED
party embracing ANSWER:
or espousing it.
No.VII. (a)
Yes, Counsel B
Counsel A
SUGGESTED may ask the
ANSWER: objected to a
Judge to specify
question posed
TRUE. The effect the ground‟s
by opposing
or consequence relied upon for
Counsel B on the
of the sustaining the
grounds that it
admission will objection and
was hearsay and
bind also the thereafter move
it assumed a fact
party who its
not yet
adopted or reconsideration
established. The
espoused the thereof. (Rule
judge banged his
same, as applied 132, Sec.38,
gavel and ruled
in Estrada vs. Rules of Court).
Desierto, 356 effect that a
SCRA 108 witness can

Hearsay Rule testify only to
[2001]\. An
(2007)
adoptive those facts which
admission is a No.III. (a) What is he knows of his

the hearsay rule? own knowledge
party‟s reaction (5%)
to a statement or derived from
or action by his own

SUGGESTED
another person ANSWER: perceptions,
when it is except as
reasonable to The hearsay rule otherwise
treat the party‟s is a rule of provided in the
reaction as an evidence to the rules of court

Page 88 of 198
(Rule 130, Sec. exceptions to (2) The facts nurse, that it was
36 Rules of the hearsay rule; involved are Alberto who shot
Court). admissible in Betty. Betty died
evidence for while undergoing
(b) In relation to reasons of emergency
the hearsay rule, necessity and surgery. At the
what do the trustworthiness trial of the
following rules of ; and parricide charges
evidence have in filed against
common? (5%) Alberto, the
(1) The rule on (3) The witness
prosecutor
statements that is testifying on
sought to present
are part of the res facts which are
Domingo as
gestae. not of his own
witness, to testify
(2) The rule on knowledge or
on what Carla
dying derived from
declarations. told him. The
his own
(3) The rule on defense counsel
admissions perception.
objected on the
against
interest. ground that
Domingo’s
Hearsay; testimony is
SUGGESTED
Inapplicable
ANSWER: inadmissible for
(2009)
being hearsay.
The rules on the No.XIII. [b]
Rule on the
evidence Blinded by
objection with
specified in the extreme jealousy,
reasons. (3%)
question asked, Alberto shot his
have in common wife, Betty, in the SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
the following: presence of his
sister, Carla. Objection
(1) The Carla brought overruled. The
evidence Betty to the disclosure
although hospital. Outside received by
hearsay, are the operating Domingo and
allowed by the room, Carla told Carla may be
Rules as Domingo, a male regarded as
Page 89 of 198
independently statement may witness to the of the property in

relevant be received not incident. the face of F’s
statement as evidence of evidence. Was the
which is not the truth of court correct?
covered by the what was stated Offer of Evidence; Explain briefly.
hearsay rule; but only as to Failure to Offer
(5%)
(2007)
hence the tenor
admissible. The thereof and the No.VII. (b) G files a SUGGESTED
complaint for ANSWER:
occurrence made not to a
when it was police recovery of
possession and No, the trial
said, investigator of
damages against court is not
independently the occurrence
F. In the course of correct in ruling
of whether it but to a nurse
the trial, G marked in favor of F. Tax
was true or whose concern is
his evidence but Declaration are
false. (People v. only to attend to
his counsel failed not by
Cloud, 333 Phil. the patient.
to file a formal themselves
30 [1996]; Hence, the
offer of evidence. evidence of
People v. disclosure does
F then presented ownership;
Malibiran, et al., not qualify as
in evidence tax hence, they are
G.R. No. 178301, independently
declarations in the not sufficient
April 24, 2009). relevant
name of his father evidence to
statement and
ALTERNATIVE to establish that warrant a
ANSWER: therefore,
his father is a co- judgment that
hearsay. The
Objection owner of the F‟s father is a
nurse is
sustained. The property. The co-owner of the
competent to
disclosure made court ruled in property.
testify only on
by Carla has no the condition of favor of F, saying
other probative that G failed to Plaintiff‟s
Betty when
value except to prove sole failure to make a
rushed to the
identify who ownership formal offer of
Hospital but not
shot Betty. Its his evidence
as to who caused
tenor is may mean a
the injury. The
irrelevant to the failure to prove
prosecution
incident, and the allegations
should call on
the same was in his complaint.
Carla as the best
Page 90 of 198
However, it Offer of
does not Evidence; Fruit
necessarily of a Poisonous
result in a Tree (2010)
judgment
No. VIII.
awarding co-
Dominique was
ownership to
accused of
the defendant.
committing a
violation of the
While the court
human Security
may not
Act. He was
consider
detained
evidence which
is not offered,
the failure to
make a formal
offer of
evidence is a
technical lapse
in procedure
that may not be
allowed to
defeat
substantive
justice. In the
interest of
justice, the
court can
require G to
offer his
evidence and
specify the
purpose
thereof.
Page 91 of 198
incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and

subjected to water torture. He later Offer of Evidence; Fruit of a Poisonous
allegedly confessed his guilt via an affidavit. Tree (2009)
After trial, he was acquitted on the ground No.VI. Arrested in a buy-bust operation,
that his confession was obtained through Edmond was brought to the police station
torture, hence, inadmissible as evidence. where he was informed of his constitutional
rights. During the investigation, Edmond
In a subsequent criminal case for torture
refused to give any statement. However, the
against those who deprived him of sleep
arresting officer asked Edmond to
and subjected him to water torture.
acknowledge in writing that six (6) sachets
Dominique was asked to testify and to,
of “shabu” were confiscated from him.
among other things, identify his above said
Edmond consented and also signed a
affidavit of confession. As he was about to
receipt for the amount of P3,000, allegedly
identify the affidavit, the defense counsel
representing the “purchase price of the
objected on the ground that the affidavit is
shabu.” At the trial, the arresting officer
a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the
testified and identified the documents
objection be sustained? Explain. (3%)
executed and signed by Edmond. Edmond’s
SUGGESTED ANSWER: lawyer did not object to the testimony. After

the presentation of the testimonial
No, the objection may not be sustained
evidence, the prosecutor made a formal
on the ground stated, because the affiant
offer of evidence which included the
was only to identify the affidavit which
documents signed by Edmond.
is not yet being offered in evidence.
Edmond’s lawyer object to the admissibility
The doctrine of the poisonous tree can
of the document for being the fruit of the
only be invoked by Domingo as his
poisoned tree. Resolve the objection with
defense in the crime of Violation of
reasons. (3%)
Human Security Act filed against him
but not by the accused torture case filed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
by him.
The objection to the admissibility of the
In the instant case, the presentation of
documents which the arresting officer
the affidavit cannot be objected to by
asked Edmond to sign without the
the defense counsel on the ground that
benefit of counsel, is well-taken. Said
is a fruit of the poisonous tree because
documents having been signed by the
the same is used in Domingo‟s favor.
accused while under custodial
Page 90 of 198
investigation, inside when the husband also

imply an house collapsed. running away
Privilege
“admission” Communication from the scene.
(2013) As she was
without the Dr. Carlos,
benefit of running away
No.IX. For over a Walter’s
counsel, that the from the burning
year, Nenita had psychiatrist who
shabu came house, Nenita was
been estranged lived near the
from him and surprised to see
from her husband burned house and
that the her
Walter because of whom Walter
P3,000,00 was medically
the latter’s
received by him consulted after
suspicion that she
pursuant to the the fire, also saw
was having an
illegal selling of Walter in the
affair with
the drugs. Thus, vicinity some
Vladimir, a
it was obtained minutes before
barangay
by the arresting the fire.
kagawad who
officer in clear Coincidentally, Fr.
lived in nearby
violation of Sec. Platino, the
Mandaluyong.
12 (3), Art. III of parish priest who
Nenita lived in the
the 1987 regularly hears
meantime with
Constitution, Walter’s
her sister in
particularly the confession and
Makati. One day,
right to be who heard it after
the house of
assisted by the fire, also
Nenita’s sister
counsel during encountered him
inexplicably
custodial not too far away
burned almost to
investigation. from the burned
the ground.
Nenita and her house.
Moreover, the
objection to the sister were caught
Walter was
admissibility of inside the house
charged with
the evidence but Nenita
arson and at his
was timely survived as she
trial, the
made, i.e., when fled in time, while
prosecution
the same is her sister tried to
moved to
formally offered. save belongings
introduce the
and was caught
Page 91 of 198
testimonies of their marriage, for her to fall Knowing fully

Nenita, the neither the within the well that his wife
doctor and the husband nor the exception. was there, and in
priest-confessor, wife may testify fact with the
who all saw for or against ALTERNATIVE alleged intent of
ANSWER:
Walter at the the other injuring the
vicinity of the without the Yes. Nenita may latter, is an act
fire at about the consent of the be allowed to totally alien to
time of the fire. affected spouse, testify against the harmony and
except in a civil Walter. It is well confidences of
(A) May the case by one marital relation
settled that the
testimony of against the which the
marital
Nenita be allowed other, or in a disqualification
disqualification
over the criminal case primarily seeks
rule does not
objection of for a crime to protect. The
apply when the
Walter? (3%) committed by criminal act
marital and
one against the domestic complained of
SUGGESTED
other or the relations had the effect of
ANSWER:
latter‟s direct between spouses directly and
No. Nenita may descendants or are strained. vitally impairing
not be allowed ascendants the conjugal
to testify (Section 22, In Alvarez vs. relation. It
against Walter. Rule 130, Rules Ramirez, G.R. No. underscored the
Under the on Evidence). 143439, October fact that the
Marital The foregoing 14, 2005, the marital and
Disqualification exceptions Supreme Court domestic
Rule, during cannot apply citing People vs. relations
since Castaneda, 271 between her and
SCRA 504, held the accused-
it only extends descendants. that the act of husband have
to a criminal Clearly, Nenita is private become so
case of one not the offended respondent in strained that
spouse against party and her setting fire to the there is no more
the other or the sister is not her house of his harmony, peace
latter‟s direct direct ascendant sister-in-law or tranquillity to
ascendants or or descendant Susan Ramirez, be preserved.
Page 92 of 198
Hence, the existent. In such communication capacity. The

identity is non- a situation, the contemplated testimony of Dr.
security and under Sec. 24 Carlos is limited
confidences of (c) Rule 130 of only to what he
private life the Rules on perceived at the
which the law Evidence vicinity of the
aims to protect involves only fire and at the
are nothing but persons time of the fire.
ideals which authorized to
through their practice
absence, merely medicine,
leave a void in surgery or
the unhappy obstetrics. It
home. Thus, does not include
there is no a Psychiatrist.
reason to apply Moreover, the
the Marital privileged
Disqualification communication
Rule. applies only in

civil cases and
(B) May the not in a criminal
testimony of Dr. case for arson.
Carlos, Walter’s
psychiatrist, be Besides, the
allowed over subject of the
Walter’s testimony of Dr.
objection? (3%) Carlos was not

in connection
SUGGESTED with the advice
ANSWER: or treatment
given by him to
Yes. The
Walter, or any
testimony of
information he
Walter‟s
acquired in
psychiatrist
attending to
may be allowed.
Walter in a
The privileged
professional
Page 93 of 198
(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the Investigation, which found that Edgardo
priest-confessor, be allowed over Walter’s had visited his lawyer twice, the first time
objection? (3%) on August 14, 2008 and the second on
August 16, 2008; and that both visits
SUGGESTED ANSWER: concerned the swindling of Petronilo.
During the trial of Edgardo, the RTC issued
Yes. The Priest can testify over the
a subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s
objection of Walter. The disqualification
lawyer for him to testify on the
requires that the same were made
conversations during their first and second
pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in
meetings. May the subpoena be quashed on
the course of discipline of the sect or
the ground of privileged communication?
denomination to which they belong and
Explain fully. (4%)
must be confidential and penitential in
character, e.g., under the seal of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
confession (Sec. 24 (d) Rule 130, Rules
Yes, the mantle of privileged
on Evidence).
communication based on lawyer-client
Here, the testimony of Fr. Platino was relationship protects the communication
not previously subject of a confession of between a lawyer and his client against
Walter or an advice given by him to any adverse party as in this case. The
Walter in his professional character. The subpoena requiring the lawyer to testify
Testimony was merely limited to what can be quashed on the ground of
Fr. Platino perceived “at the vicinity of privileged communication (See Regala v.
the fire and at about the time of the Sandiganbayan, GR No. 105938, 20
fire.” Hence, Fr. Platino may be allowed September 1996). Sec. 24 (b) Rule 130
to testify. provides that an attorney cannot,

without the consent of his client be
examined in any communication made
to him by his client to him, or his advice
Privilege Communication; Lawyer- given thereon, including his secretary,
Client (2008) stenographer, clerk concerning any fact
the knowledge of which has been
No.XIV. On August 15, 2008, Edgardo
acquired in such capacity. However,
committed estafa against Petronilo in the
where the subject matter of the
amount of P3 Million. Petronilo brought his
communication involves the commission
complaint to the National Bureau of
of the crime, in which the lawyer himself
is a participant or conspirator,
Page 93 of 198
then the same is against potential the contention Yes, the lawyer-
not covered by claims and to sue tenable? Explain client privilege
the privilege. the company (4%) covers any
Moreover, if the owning the other communication
SUGGESTED
substance of the vessel for damages ANSWER: made by the
communication to tug. Ely obtained client to the
can be signed statements lawyer, or the
established by from the survivors. lawyer‟s advice
independent He also given thereon in
evidence, the interviewed other the course of, or
lawyer maybe persons, in some with a view to
compelled to instance making professional
testify. memoranda. The employment.
heirs of the five (5) The documents
victims filed an and information
Privilege action for damages sought were
Communication against SPS. gathered and
; Lawyer-Client Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared
(2008) sent written pursuant to the
interrogatories to engagement of
No.XX. A tugboat
Ely, asking Ely as a lawyer
owned by Speedy
whether for the company
Port Service, Inc.
statements f (Air Philippines
(SPS) sank in
witnesses were Corporation v.
Manila Bay while
obtained; if written Pennswell, Inc.,
helping tow
copies were to be GR No. 172835,
another vessel,
furnished; if oral, 13
drowning five
the exact provision December
(5) crews in the
were to be set forth 2007). Sec. 5,
resulting
in detail. Ely Rule 25 of the
shipwreck. At the
refused to comply, Rules of Court
maritime board
arguing that the provides that
inquiry, the four
documents and interrogatories
(4) survivors
information asked may relate to
testified. SPS
are privileged any matter that
engaged Atty. Ely
communication. Is can be required
to defend it
Page 94 of 198
into under Sec. circumstance of (C) If Mabini’s the text message

2, Rule 23 o evident objection in on the ground
depositions and premeditation, question B was that it is hearsay?
discovery the prosecution overruled, can he (2%)
refers to introduced on object to the
SUGGESTED
privileged December 11, presentation of ANSWER:
confidential 2009 a text
communication message, which The objection prosection
s under Sec. 24, Mabini’s should be thereupon
Rule 130. estranged wife sustained on the announced that it
Gregoria had sent ground of the would be
to Emilio on the marital presenting
eve of his death, disqualification Emilio’s wife

Privilege
reading: “Honey, rule (Rule 130, Graciana to
Communication; pa2tayin u ni Sec. 22), not on identify Emilio’s
Mabini. Mtgal n the ground of the cellphone bearing

Marital Privilege
nyang plano i2. “marital Gregoria’s text
(2010)
Mg ingat u bka privilege” message. Mabini
No. I. On March ma tsugi k.” communication objected again.
12, 2008, Mabini rule (Rule 130, Rule on the

(A) A subpoena Sec. 24). The objection. (2%)
was charged
ad testificandum marriage
with Murder for
was served on SUGGESTED
fatally stabbing between Mabini ANSWER:
Gregoria for her and Gregoria is
Emilio. To prove
to be presented still subsisting The objection
the qualifying
for the and the situation should be
purpose of SUGGESTED at bar does not overruled. The

ANSWER: testimony of
identifying her come under the
cellphone and the exceptions to the Graciana is not
tex message. disqualification covered by the
Mabini objected by reason of said marital
to her marriage. disqualification
presentation on rule because she

(B) Suppose is not the wife of
the ground of
Mabini’s objection Mabini. Besides,
marital privilege.
in question A was Graciana will
Resolve.
sustained. The identify only the
Page 95 of 198
cellphone as gawa ni2.” Is this cause and

No, Gregoria‟s
that of her message circumstance of
text message in
husband Emilio, admissible as a his death. The
Emilio‟s
not the dying decisive factor
cellphone is not
messages declaration? that the message
covered by the
therein which to Explain. (3%) was made and
hearsay rule
her are hearsay. sent under
because it is
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: consciousness of
regarded in the
an impending
rules of
Yes, the text death, is
evidence as
message is evidently
independently
admissible as a attendant from
relevant
dying the victim‟s
statement: the
declaration statement: “D na
text message is
since the same me makahinga”
not to prove the
came fdrom the and the fact that
truth of the fact
victim who he died shortly
alleged therein
“shortly” after he sent the
but only as to
expired and it is text message.
the
in respect of the
circumstances
of whether or However, Evidence applies
not cellphone only to civil
premeditation messages are actions, quasi-
exists. regarded as judicial

electronic proceedings and
(C) Suppose that evidence, and i a administrative
shortly before recent case (Ang proceeding, not
expired, Emilio vs. Court of to criminal
was able to send Appeals et al., GR actions.
a text message to NO. 182835,
his wife Graciana ALTERNANTIVE
April 20, 2010), ANSWER:
reading the
“Nasaksak ako. D Supreme Court No, the text
na me ruled that the message is not
makahinga. Si Rules on admissible as a
Mabini ang may Electronic dying declaration
Page 96 of 198
because it lacks Court A.M. No. the direct conformity with

indication that 03-1-09-SC and/or cross- Section 35, Rule
the victim was requires that a examination for 132.
under witness has to be justifiable
consciousness of fully examined in ALTERNATIVE
reasons. On the ANSWER:
an impending one (1) day only. last hearing day
death. The This rule shall be allotted for each FALSE. This rule
statement “D na strictly adhered party, he is is not absolute:
me makahinga” to subject to the required to it will still allow
is still court‟s make his formal the trial judge
unequivocal in discretion offer of the discretion
the text message during trial on evidence after whether to
sent that does whether or not the extend the
not imply to extend presentation of direct and/or
consciousness of his last witness cross
forth-coming and the examination for
death. opposing party justifiable
is required to reasons or not.
immediately The exercise of
interpose his this discretion

Witness;
Examination of objection may still result
Witness (2009) in wrangling as
thereto.
Thereafter, the to the proper
No.1.[b] The One-
judge shall exercise of the
Day Examination
make the ruling trial court‟s
of witness Rule
on the offer of discretion,
abbreviates court
evidence in which can delay
proceedings by
open court. the proceedings.
having a witness
fully examined in
Summary Procedure
only one day
However, the
during trial.
judge has the
SUGGESTED discretion to
ANSWER:
allow the offer
Prohibited
TRUE. Par. 5(i) of evidence in Pleadings (2010)
of Supreme writing in
Page 97 of 198
No. X. Marinella personally is sufficient that Alternative

is a junior officer witnessed the there be an Dispute
of the Armed malversation of allegation of real Resolution;
Forces of the funds given by threat against Court Diversion;
Philippines who US petitioner‟s life, Stages (2012)
claims to have liberty, and/or
authorities in failure to allege security (Gen. A. No.VIII.B. Discuss
that his client Razon, Jr. vs. the three (3)

connection Tagitis, G.R. No. Stages of Court
issued any order
to kill or harm 182498, Dec. 03, Diversion in
with the Balikatan
Marinella. Rule on 2009). connection with
exercises.
Atty. Daro’s Alternative
motion. Explain. Dispute

Marinella alleges
(3%) Resolution. (5%)
that as a result of
her exposé , there
SUGGESTED SUGGESTED
are operatives ANSWER: ANSWER:
within the
military who are The motion to The three stages
out to kill her. She dismiss must be of diversion are
files a petition for denied on the Court- Annexed
the issuance of a ground that it is Mediation (CAM),
writ of amparo a prohibited Judicial Dispute
against, among pleading under Resolution, and
others, the Chief Section 11 (a) of Appeals Court
of Staff but the Rule on the Mediation (ACM).
without alleging Writ of Amparo. During CAM, the
that the latter Moreover, said judge refers the
ordered that she Rule does not parties to the
be killed. require the Philippine
petition therefor Mediation Center

Atty. Daro, to allege a (PMC) for the
counsel for the complete detail mediation of
Chief of Staff, of the actual or their dispute by
moves for the threatened trained and
dismissal of the violation of the accredited
Petition for victim‟s rights. It mediators. If
Page 98 of 198
CAM fails, the 09-6-8- 1, and Rule 20,

JDR is SC; A.M. No. 09-6-8- Azenith promptly
undertaken by SC, reports the matter

Precautionary to her superior
the JDR judge, Rules of
Principle Joshua, who
acting as a Procedure for
(2012) thereupon
mediator- Environment
conciliator-early Cases). conducts an
No.II.B. What do
neutral internal
you understand
evaluator. The investigation to
about the
third case is verify the said
"precautionary Habeas Data
during appeal, threat.
principle" under (2010)
where covered
the Rules of Claiming that the
cases are No.XX. Azenith,
Procedure for threat is real,
referred to ACM. the cashier of
Environmental Temptation, Inc.
Temptation
Cases? (5%) opts to transfer
Investments, Inc.
Azenith to its
SUGGESTED (Temptation, Inc.)
A.M. No. Palawan Office, a
ANSWER: with principal
move she resists in
offices in Cebu
view of the
City, is equally
Precautionary company’s refusal
hated and loved
principles states to disclose the
Miscellaneo by her co-
that when results of its
us human activities
employees
investigation.
because she
may lead to
extends cash
threats of
advances or
serious and
"vales " to her
irreversible
colleagues whom
damage to the threat. In its
she likes. One
environment essence, the
morning, Azenith
that is precautionary
discovers an
scientifically principle calls
anonymous letter
plausible but for the exercise
inserted under the
uncertain, of caution in the
door of her office
actions shall be face of risk and
threatening to kill
taken to avoid uncertainty (Sec.
her.
or diminish that 4 [f], Rule 1, Part
Page 99 of 198
Decrying the writ of habeas persons whose

move as a virtual data must be A writ of habeas right to privacy
deprivation of dismissed as data is a remedy in life, liberty, or
her employment, there is no available to any security is
Azenith files a showing that her violated or allegedly
petition for the right to privacy threatened with committed when
issuance of a in life, liberty, or violation by he was still the
writ of habeas security is unlawful act or Mayor of a town in
data before the violated or omission of a Rizal. After
Regional Trial threatened by an public official or arraignment, the
Court (RTC) to unlawful act or employee, or of a prosecution
enjoin omission. private individual moved that X be
Temptation, Inc. Neither was the or entity engaged preventively
from company shown in the gathering, suspended. X
transferring her to be engaged in collecting, or opposed the
on the ground the gathering, storing of data motion arguing
that the collecting nor or information that he was now
company’s storing of data regarding the occupying a
refusal to or information person, family, position different
provide her with regarding the home and from that which
a copy of the person, family, correspondence the Information
investigation home and of the aggrieved charged him and
results correspondence party. therefore, there is
compromises of the aggrieved no more
her right to life, party (Sec. 1, possibility that he
liberty and Rule on the Writ can intimidate
R.A. 3019; Pre-
privacy. of Habeas Data). witnesses and
Suspension
Hearing (2012) hamper the
Resolve the
petition. Explain. prosecution.
(5%) Habeas Data No.IX.A. X, an Decide. Suppose X
(2009)
undersecretary of files a Motion to
SUGGESTED
No.XIX.C. What is DENR, was Quash challenging
ANSWER:
the writ of habeas charged before the the validity of the
data?
Azenith‟s Sandiganbayan Information and
petition for the SUGGESTED for malversation the Sandiganbayan
ANSWER: of public funds
issuance of a denies the same,
Page 100 of 198
will there still be Section 13 of RA (1) a mayor, whose

a need to conduct No. 3019, an who was suspension is
a pre- suspension incumbent charged with predicated on
hearing? Explain. public officer acts committed his acts
(5%) against whom as a supposedly
any criminal government committed while

SUGGESTED auditor of the still a member of
ANSWER: prosecution
under a valid Commission on the Sangguniang
information for Audit (Bayot vs. Bayan (Libanan

There is no
graft-related Sandiganbayan, vs.
necessity for the
crime such as G.R. No. L- Sandiganbayan,
court to conduct
malversation is 61776 to L- G.R. No. 112386,
pre-suspension
pending in 61861, March June 14,
hearing. Under
court, shall be 23, 1994). Thus,
suspended from 1984); (2) a the DENR
office. The word public officer, undersecretary
“office”, from who was can be
which the already preventively
public officer occupying the suspended even
charged shall be office of though he was a
preventively governor and mayor, when
suspended, not the position he
could apply to of municipal

allegedly
any office, mayor that he
which he might held previously

committed
currently be when charged
malversation.
holding and not with having
necessarily the violated Anti-
particular office Graft Law
under which he (Deloso vs.
was charged. Sandiganbayan,
The preventive G.R. No. 86899,
suspension of May 15,
the following 1989); (3) a
public officers Vice-
was sustained: Governor,
Page 101 of 198
Settled is the rule that where the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

accused files a motion to quash the
information or challenges the validity The argument that X should not be
thereof, a show cause order of the trial suspended as he now holds an office
court would no longer be necessary. different from that charged in the
What is indispensable is that the trial information is unavailing. Under Section
court duly hear the parties at a hearing 13(e) of RA 3019, a public officer may be
held for determining the validity of the charged before the Sandiganbayan for
information, and thereafter hand down “causing undue injury to any party,
its ruling, issuing the corresponding including the Government, or giving any
order of suspension should it uphold the private party any unwarranted benefits,
validity of the information (Luciano vs. advantage or preference in the
Mariano, G.R. No. L-32950, July 30, discharge of his official, administrative
1971). Since a pre-suspension hearing is or judicial functions through manifest
basically a due process requirement, partiality, evident bad faith or gross
when an accused public official is given inexcusable negligence.” The Supreme
an adequate opportunity to be heard on Court has held that Section 13 of RA
his possible defenses against the 3019 is so clear and explicit that there is
mandatory suspension under RA No. hardly room for any extended court
3019, then an accused would have no rationalization of the law. Preventive
reason to complain that no actual suspension is mandatory regardless of
hearing was conducted (Miguel vs. The the respondent‟s change in position.
Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

172035, July 4, 2012). In the facts
given, the DENR Undersecretary was R.A. 3019; Remedies (2013)
already given opportunity to question
the validity of the Information for No.VII. You are the defense counsel of
malversation by filing a motion to quash, Angela Bituin who has been charged under
and yet, the Sandiganbayan sustained its RA 3019 ( Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
validity. There is no necessity for the Act ) before the Sandiganbayan. While
court to conduct pre-suspension hearing Angela has posted bail, she has yet to be
to determine for the second time the arraigned. Angela revealed to you that she
validity of the information for purpose has not been investigated for any offense
of preventively suspending the accused. and that it was only when police officers
showed up at her residence with a warrant
of arrest that she learned of the

Page 100 of 198
pending case case is pending the accused from investigation of

against her. She with an challenging the the charge
wonders why she additional validity of his against him,
has been charged prayer to arrest or legality provided that he
before the suspend the of the warrant raises them
Sandiganbayan arraignment. issued therefor, before entering
when she is not in Under Section 6 or from assailing his plea. The
government of Rule 112 of the regularity or court shall
service. the Rules of questioning the resolve the
Court, after the absence of a matter as early
(A) What "before- filing of the preliminary as practicable
trial" remedy complaint or but not later
would you invoke information in than the start of
in Angela’s behalf court without a the trial of the
to address the fact preliminary case.
that she had not investigation,
been investigated the accused may ALTERNATIVE
at all, and how within five days ANSWER:
would you avail of from the time he
this remedy? I will file a
learns of its
(4%) Motion to Quash
filing ask for
on the ground
preliminary
SUGGESTED that the
ANSWER: investigation
Sandiganbayan
with the same
has no
I will file a right to adduce
jurisdiction over
Motion for the evidence in his
the person of the
conduct of defense.
accused (Section
preliminary
Moreover, 3, Rule 117 of
investigation
Section 26, Rule the Rules of
or
114 of the Rules Criminal
reinvestigation
on Criminal Procedure).
and the quashal
or recall of the Procedure
The
warrant of provides that an
Sandiganbayan
arrest in the application for
has exclusive
Court where the or admission to
original
bail shall not bar
Page 101 of 198
jurisdiction over In Bondoc vs. evidence without

violations of Sandiganbayan, I will file a Motion the need of
R.A. 3019 (Anti- G.R. No. 71163- for Leave to file a presenting
graft and 65, November 9, Demurrer to defense evidence.
Corrupt 1990, the Evidence within It may be done
Practices law) Supreme Court five (5) days through the
where one or held that before from the time the court‟s initiative
more of the the prosecution has or upon motion of
accused are Sandiganbayan rested its case. If the accused and
officials may lawfully try the motion is after the
occupying the a private granted, I will file prosecution
enumerated individual a demurrer to rested its case.
positions in the under PD 1606, evidence within
government the following a non-extendible
whether in a requisites must period of Ten Small Claims
permanent, be established: (2013)
(10) days from
acting, or (a) he must be notice. However,
No.X. As a new
interim charged with a if the motion for
lawyer, Attorney
incapacity, at public leave to file
Novato limited his
the time of the officer/employe demurrer to
practice to small
commission of e; and (b) he evidence is
claims cases,
the offense must be tried denied, I can
(Sec. 4, R.A. jointly. Since adduce evidence
8249). the for the accused
aforementioned during the trial to
requisites are prosecution meet squarely the
not present, the evidence without reasons for its
Sandiganbayan the need of denial (Section
has no presenting defense 23, Rule 119,
jurisdiction. Rules of Criminal

evidence; when
Procedure). This
and how can you
(B) What "during- remedy would
avail of this
trial" remedy can allow the early
remedy? (4%)
you use to allow evaluation of the
an early SUGGESTED sufficiency of
ANSWER: prosecution‟s
evaluation of the
Page 102 of 198
legal counseling cases? (3%) tribunal or court

and the may this be Atty. Novata may
notarization of SUGGESTED pursued? (4%) file a petition for
ANSWER:
documents. He Certiorari under
put up a solo SUGGESTED
Atty. Novata Rule 65 of the
ANSWER:
practice law may provide Rules of
office and was legal assistance Court before the SUGGESTED
assisted by his to his clients by ANSWER:
RTC since a
wife who served giving decision in small
as his counselling and claims cases is
secretary/helper guidance in the final and
. He used a preparation and unappealable
makeshift hut in accomplishmen (Sec. 23, A.M. No.
a vacant lot near t of the 8-8-7 SC, Rules of
the local courts necessary Procedure for
and a local documents and Small Claims
transport Affidavits to Cases). The
regulatory initiate or petition for
agency. With this defend a small certiorari should
practice and claims action be filed before
location, he did including the the RTC
not have big- compilation and conformably to
time clients but notarization of the Principle of
enjoyed heavy the judicial
patronage aforementioned Hierarchy.
assisting walk-in documents, if
clients. necessary.
(A) What role can Writ of Amparo;

(B) What legal
Habeas Corpus
Attorney Novato remedy, if any, (2009)
play in small may Attorney
claims cases No.XIX.B. What is
Novato pursue
when lawyers are the writ of
for a client who
not allowed to amparo? How is it
loses in a small
appear as distinguished
claims case and
counsel in these from the writ of
before which
habeas corpus?
Page 103 of 198
days from the from the notice y

date of notice of of the judgment
the adverse appealed from. a
judgment. v
- a
The period for E
n i
appeal for
d l
habeas corpus
- a
shall be 48hours
b
A l
e
w
r t
i o
t
a
o n
f y
a p
m e
p r
a s
r o
o n
i w
s h
o
a s
e
r
e r
m i
e g
d h
Page 104 of 198
t v
i
t o
o l
a
l t
i e
f d
e
, o
r
l
i t
b h
e r
r e
t a
y t
, e
n
a e
n d
d
w
s i
e t
c h
u
r v
i i
t o
y l
a
i t
s i
o
Page 105 of 198
W
h r
e e
r m
e e
a d
s y
a a
v
w a
r i
i l
t a
b
o l
f e
h t
a o
b
e a
a n
s y
c i
o n
r d
p i
u v
s i
d
i u
s a
l
a
Page 106 of 198
w r
h i
o g
h
i t
s f
u
d l
e
p c
r u
i s
v t
e o
d d
y
o
f o
f
l
i a
b n
e y
r
t p
y e
r
o s
r o
n
w
h i
o s
s
e w
i
Page 107 of 198
t e
h t
h e
e n
l t
d i
, o
n
b .
y
A
u
w
n
r
l
i
a
t
w
f
o
u
f
l
a
c
m
o
p
n
a
f
r
i
o
n
e
m
m
a
e
y
n
t
b
e
o
r
a
p
d
p
Page 108 of 198
e e
a
l 4
e 5
d
r
t a
o i
s
t i
h n
e g
S q
u u
p e
r s
e t
m i
e o
n
C s
o
u o
r f
t
f
u a
n c
d t
e
r o
r
R
u l
l a
Page 109 of 198
w w
i
o t
r h
i
b n
o
t 5
h
. w
o
T r
h k
e i
n
a g
p
p
e
a
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
d
e
Page 110 of 198
MULTIPLE CHOICE presentation of proof of the
defendant‟s failure to answer.
QUESTIONS (MCQ)
(E) The above choices are all
2013 Remedial Law Exam inaccurate.
MCQ (October 27, 2013)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
2013 Bar Examination Questionnaire for

(D) , Under Section 3 of Rule 9, if the
Remedial Law
defending party fails to answer within
the time allowed, the court shall, upon
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
motion of the claiming party with notice
I. In a complaint filed by the plaintiff, what to the defending party, and proof of such
is the effect of the defendant’s failure to file failure, declare the defending party in
an answer within the reglementary period? default (Narciso vs. Garcia, G.R. No.
(1%) 196877, November 21, 2012, Abad J.).
(A) The court is allowed to render (E) , D may not be the correct answer
judgment motu proprio in favor of because the Rule provides that if the
the plaintiff. defending party fails to answer within

the time allowed therefor, the court
(B) The court motu proprio may shall, upon motion of the claiming party
declare the defendant in default, but with notice to the defending party, and
only after due notice to the proof of such failure, declare the
defendant. defending party in default. Notably, the
Rule uses the word “shall and not may.”
(C) The court may declare the
defendant in default but only upon II. Which of the following is admissible?
motion of the plaintiff and with (1%)
notice to the defendant.
(A) The affidavit of an affiant stating
(D) The court may declare the that he witnessed the execution of a
defendant in default but only deed of sale but the affiant was not
upon motion of the plaintiff, with presented as a witness in the trial.
notice to the defendant, and upon
(B) The extra judicial admission co-conspirator after the conspiracy

made by a conspirator against his has ended.
(h) “Electronic document” refers
(C) The testimony of a party‟s
to information or the representation of
witness regarding email
information, data, figures, symbols or
messagesthe witness received
other modes of written expression,
from the opposing party.
described or however represented, by
which a right is established or an
(D) The testimony of a police
obligation extinguished, or by which a
officer that he had been told by
fact may be proved and affirmed, which
his informants that there were
is received, recorded, transmitted,
sachets of shabu in the pocket of
stored, processed, retrieved or produced
the defendant.
electronically. It includes digitally
(E) None of the above. signed documents and any printout or

output, readable by sight or other
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: means, which accurately reflects the
electronic data message or electronic
(C), (D), or (E) document. For purposes of these Rules,
the term “electronic document” may be
(C), The E-mail messages are considered
used interchangeably with “electronic
electronic data message or electronic
data message” (Section 1, (g), (h) Rule 2,
document under the Rules on Electronic
AM No. 01-7-01-SC, Rules on Electronic
Evidence and therefore admissible as
Evidence).
evidence.
In MCC Industrial Sales Corporation vs.

The terms “electronic data message” and
Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No.
“electronic document” are defined in the
170633, the Supreme Court held that
Rules on Electronic Evidence. Thus:
R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000,
(g) “Electronic data message”
considers an electronic data message or
refers to information generated, sent,
an electronic document as functional
received or stored by electronic, optical
equivalent of a written document for
or similar means.
evidentiary purposes. The Rules on
Electronic Evidence regards an
electronic document as admissible in
evidence if it complies with the rules on
admissibility prescribed by the Rules
of
Court and related laws, and is existence of such a fact. The witness
authenticated in the manner prescribed who testifies thereto is competent
by the said Rules. An electronic because he heard the same, as this is a
document is also the equivalent of an matter of fact derived from his own
original document under the Best perception, and the purpose is to prove
Evidence Rule, if it is a printout or either that the statement was made or
output readable by sight or other means, the tenor thereof (People vs. Malibiran,
shown to reflect the data accurately. G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009,
Austri- Martinez, J.).
(D) , If the testimony is being offered
for the purpose of establishing that (E) , The problem does not clearly
such statements were made, then the provide the purposes for which the
testimony is admissible as evidence under (C) and (D) are being
independent relevant statement. offered.
The Doctrine on independent relevant Moreover, all of the choices above

statement holds that conversations cannot be admitted to prove the truth of
communicated to a witness by a third the contents thereof for the reason that
person may be admitted as proof, the evidence is not competent. For letter
regardless of their truth or falsity, that (A), the affiant is not presented, and
they were actually made (Republic vs. hence hearsay. Letter (B), the admission
Heirs of Alejaga Sr., G.R. No. 146030, was made after the termination of the
December 3, 2002). conspiracy and extrajudicial, hence
there is no application of the Res Inter
The doctrine of independently relevant
Alios Acta rule. Letter (C) is also not
statements is an exception to hearsay
allowed as under the Electronic
rule. It refers to the fact that such
Evidence Rule, the output readable by
statements were made is relevant, and
sight is the best evidence to prove the
the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial.
contents thereof. Letter (D) is hearsay
The hearsay rule does not apply: hence,
since the affiant does not have personal
the statements are admissible as
knowledge.
evidence. Evidence as to the making of
such statement is not secondary but III. Leave of court is required to amend a
primary, for the statement itself may complaint or information before
constitute a fact in issue or be arraignment if the amendment .
circumstantially relevant as to the (1%)
(A) upgrades the nature of the (B) has limited jurisdiction over
offense from a lower to a higher ejectment actions
offense and excludes any of the
accused (C) does not have any jurisdiction
over ejectment actions
(B) upgrades the nature of the
offense from a lower to a higher (D) does not have original, but has
offense and adds another accused concurrent, jurisdiction over
ejectment actions
(C) downgrades the nature of the
offense from a higher to a lower (E) has only residual jurisdiction
offense or excludes any accused over ejectment actions
(D) downgrades the nature of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:

offense from a higher to a lower
offense and adds another accused (C), Under Section 4 of A.M. No. 8-8-7-
SC, Rules of Procedure of Small Claims,
(E) All the above choices are Small claims court shall have
inaccurate. jurisdiction over all actions which are:
(a) purely civil in nature where the claim
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is
solely for payment or reimbursement of
(C), Under Section 14 of Rule 110 of the
sum of money, and (b) the civil aspect of
Rules of Criminal Procedure, any
criminal actions, either filed before the
amendment before plea, which
institution of the criminal action, or
downgrades the nature of the offense
reserved upon the filing of the criminal
charged in or excludes any accused from
action in court, pursuant to Rule 111 of
the complaint or information, can be
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
made only upon motion by the
It does not include ejectment actions.
prosecutor, with notice to the offended
Moreover, the action allowed under the
party and with the leave of court.
Rules on Small claims refers only to
money under a lease contract. It does
IV. A Small Claims Court . (1%)
not necessarily refer to an ejectment
(A) has jurisdiction over ejectment suit.
actions
At any rate, Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg 129, as amended by

Section 3 of R.A> 7691, as well as (E) In none of the given situations
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, above.
clearly provides that forcible entry and
unlawful detainer cases fall within the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
exclusive jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal (A), Under Section 51, Rule 130 of the
Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Rules of Court, the accused may prove
Trial Courts (Estel vs. Recaredo Diego, his good moral character which is
Sr. And Recaredo Diego, Jr., G.R. No. pertinent to the moral trait involved in
174082, January 16, 2012, Peralta, J.). the offense charged. (Section 51 (a) (1)
Rule 130, Rules on Evidence).
V. Character evidence is admissible
. (1%) VI. When the court renders judgment in a
judicial foreclosure proceeding, when is the
(A) in criminal cases – the accused mortgaged property sold at public auction
may prove his good moral to satisfy the judgment? (1%)
character if pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense (A) After the decision has become
charged final and executory.
(B) in criminal cases – the (B) At any time after the failure of
prosecution may prove the bad the defendant to pay the judgment
moral character of the accused to amount.
prove his criminal predisposition

(C) After the failure of the
(C) in criminal cases under certain defendant to pay the judgment
situations, but not to prove the bad amount within the period fixed in
moral character of the offended the decision, which shall not be
party less than ninety (90) nor more

than one hundred twenty (120)
(D) when it is evidence of the good days from entry of judgment.
character of a witness even prior to
his impeachment as witness (D) The mortgaged property is never
sold at public auction.
(E) The mortgaged property may be

sold but not in any of the situations SUGGESTED ANSWER:
outlined above.
(C), Under Section 2 of Rule 68, if upon (B) the client has read the pleading,
the trial in such action the court shall that to the best of the client’s
find the facts set forth in the complaint knowledge, information and belief,
to be true, it shall ascertain the amount there are good grounds to support
due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage it, and that it is not interposed for
debt or obligation, including interest delay
and other charges as approved by the
court, and costs, and shall render (C) the counsel has read the
judgment for the sum so found due and pleading, that to the best of the
order that the same be paid to the court client’s knowledge, information and
or to the judgment oblige within a belief, there are good grounds to
period of not less than ninety (90) days support it, and that it is not
nor more than one hundred twenty interposed for delay
(120) days from the entry of judgment,
and that in default of such payment the (D) the counsel has read the
property shall be sold at public auction pleading, that based on his personal
to satisfy the judgment. information, there are good grounds

to support it, and that it is not
VII. The signature of counsel in the interposed for delay
pleading constitutes a certification that
. (1%) (E) The above choices are not
totally accurate.
(A) both client and counsel have
read the pleading, that to the best of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
their knowledge, information and

(E), Section 3 of Rule 7 provides that the
belief there are good grounds to
signature of counsel constitutes a
support it, and that it is not
certificate by him that he has read the
interposed for delay
pleadings; that to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief there
is good ground to support it; and that it
is not interposed for delay.
VIII. Which among the following is a

requisite before an accused may be
discharged to become a state witness? (1%)
(A) The testimony of the accused sought to be discharged can be

substantially corroborated on all (a) There is absolute necessity for the
points. testimony of the accused whose
discharge is required;
(B) The accused does not appear to
be guilty. (b) There is no other direct evidence
available for the proper prosecution of
(C) There is absolute necessity for
the offense committed, except the
the testimony of the accused
testimony of said accused;
whose discharge is requested.
(c) The testimony of said accused can be

(D) The accused has not at any time
substantially corroborated in its
been convicted of any offense.
material points;
(E) None of the above.

(d) Said accused does not appear to be
the most guilty; and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(e) Said accused has not at any time

(C), Under Section 17 of Rule 119 of the
been convicted of any offense involving
Rules of Criminal Procedure, when two
moral turpitude.
or more persons are jointly charged with
the commission of any offense, upon
Evidence adduced in support of the
motion of the prosecution before resting
discharge shall automatically form part
its case, the court may direct one or
of the trial. If the court denies the
more of the accused to be discharged
motion for discharge of the accused as
with their consent so that they may be
state witness, his sworn statement shall
witnesses for the state when after
be inadmissible in evidence (People vs.
requiring the prosecution to present
Feliciano Anabe Y Capillan, G.R> No.
evidence and the sworn statement of
179033, September 6, 2010, Carpio-
each proposed state witness at a hearing
Morales, J.).
in support of the discharge, the court is
satisfied that: IX. Which of the following distinguishes a
motion to quash from a demurrer to
evidence? (1%)
(A) A motion to quash a complaint or (B) A motion to quash may be fi led

information is fi led before the with or without leave of court, at the
prosecution rests its case. discretion of the accused.
(C) When a motion to quash is Section 5 of Rule 117 also provides that
granted, a dismissal of the case if the motion to quash is sustained, the
will not necessarily follow. court may order that another complaint
or information be filed except as
(D) The grounds for a motion to
provided in section 6 of this rule. If the
quash are also grounds for a
order is made, the accused, if in custody,
demurrer to evidence.
shall not be discharged unless admitted
to bail. If no order is made nor if having
(E) The above choices are all wrong.
been made, no new information is filed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: within the time specified in the order or

within such further time as the court
(C), Under Section 4 of Rule 117, if the may allow for good cause, the accused, if
motion to quash is based on an alleged in custody, shall be discharged unless he
defect of the complaint or information is also in custody for another charge.
which can be cured by amendment, the
court shall order that an amendment be X. Which among the following is not subject
made. If it is based on the ground that to mediation for judicial dispute resolution?
the facts charged do not constitute an (1%)
offense, the prosecution shall be given
(A) The civil aspect of B.P. Blg. 22
by the court an opportunity to correct
cases.
the defect by amendment. The motion
shall be granted if the prosecution fails
(B) The civil aspect of theft penalized
to make the amendment, or the
under Article 308 of the Revised
complaint or information still suffers
Penal Code.
from the same defect despite the
amendment. (C) The civil aspect of robbery.
(D) Cases cognizable by the Lupong

Tagapamayapa under the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(C), Under A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC-Philja, subject to JDR, to wit:
all of the above, except for Robbery is
This pilot-test shall apply to the following
cases: undergo Court-Annexed Mediation
(CAM) and be subject of Judicial Dispute
(1) All civil cases, settlement of estates,
Resolution (JDR) proceedings. Hence,
and cases covered by the Rule on
the civil aspect of robbery is not subject
Summary Procedure, except those which
to mediation or Judicial Dispute
by law may not be compromised;
Resolution (JDR).
(2) Cases cognizable by the Lupong

XI. What is the effect of the pendency of a
Tagapamayapa and those cases that may
special civil action under Rule65 of the
be referred to it by the judge under
Rules of Court on the principal case before
Section 408. Chapter VII of the R.A No.
the lower court? (1%)
7160, otherwise known as the 1991
Local Government Code: (A) It always interrupts the course of
the principal case.
(3) The civil aspect of BP 22 cases;
(B) It interrupts the course of the

(4) The civil aspect of quasi-offenses
principal case only if the higher
under Titl 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
court issues a temporary
and
restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction against
(5) The civil aspect of Estafa, Libel, Theft
the lower court.
Moreover, robbery is considered a grave

(C) The lower court judge is given
felony punishable by imprisonment of
the discretion to continue with the
more than six-years (Article 294, Par. 5,
principal case.
Revised Penal Code).
(D) The lower court judge will

Under A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA dated
continue with the principal case if
January 11, 2001, only the civil aspect
he believes that the special civil
of less grave felonies punishable by
action was meant to delay
correctional penalties not exceeding six
proceedings.
years imprisonment are required to
(E) Due respect to the higher court

demands that the lower court judge
temporarily suspend the principal
case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(D) where there are substantially
(B), Under Section 7 of Rule 65, the overlooked facts and
court in which the petition is filed may circumstances that, if properly
issue orders expediting the proceedings, considered, might affect the
and it may also grant a temporary result of the case
preliminary injunction for the (E) None of the above.
preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings. The petition SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall not interrupt the course of the

(D), In Miranda vs. People, G.R. No.
principal case unless a temporary
176298, January 25, 2012, the Supreme
Court explained that absent any showing
preliminary injunction has been issued
that the lower courts overlooked
against the public respondent from
substantial facts and circumstances,
further proceeding in the case (A.M. No.
which if considered, would change the
07-7-12-SC, December 12, 2007;
result of the case, the Court should give
Churchille B. Mari & People of the
deference to the trial court‟s
Phils. Vs. Hon. Rolando A. Gonzales &
appreciation of the facts and of the
PO1 Rudyard Paloma, G.R. No. 187728,
credibility of witness.
September 12, 2011, Peralta, J.).
XIII. Contempt charges made before

XII. Findings of fact are generally not
persons, entities, bodies and agencies
disturbed by the appellate court except in
exercising quasi-judicial functions against
cases . (1%)
the parties charged, shall be filed with the
(A) where the issue is the credibility Regional Trial Court of the place where the
of the witness . (1%)
(B) where the judge who heard the (A) person, entity or agency
case is not the same judge who exercising quasi-judicial function is
penned the decision located
(C) where the judge heard several (B) person who committed the
witnesses who gave conflicting contemptuous act resides
testimonies
(C) act of contempt was and only after obtaining express

committed
leave from the ruling court.
(D) party initiating the contempt (C) A party is not allowed to fi le a

proceeding resides
second motion for reconsideration of
a final judgment or final order.
(E) charging entity or agency elects
to initiate the action
(D) A party is allowed as a matter of
right to fi le a second motion for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
reconsideration of a judgment or
final order.
(C), Under Section 12 of Rule 71, unless
otherwise provided by law, this Rule
shall apply to contempt committed
against persons, entities, bodies or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
agencies exercising quasi-judicial
functions, or shall have suppletory effect (B), A second motion for reconsideration
to such rules as they may have adopted is allowed but only when there are
pursuant to authority granted to them extraordinary persuasive reasons and
by law to punish for contempt. The only after an express leave shall have
Regional Trial Court of the place wherein been obtained (Suarez vs. Judge Dilag,
the contempt has been committed shall A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014, August 16, 2011;
have jurisdiction over such charges as League of Cities vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
may be filed therefor. 176951, June 28, 2011).
XIV. When may a party fi le a second XV. In an original action for certiorari,
motion for reconsideration of a final prohibition, mandamus, or quo warranto ,
judgment or final order? (1%) when does the Court of Appeals acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the
(A) At anytime within 15 days from
respondent? (1%)
notice of denial of the first motion
for reconsideration. (A) Upon the service on the
respondent of the petition for
(B) Only in the presence of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or
extraordinarily persuasive reasons
quo warranto, and his voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the (B) Upon service on the respondent

Court of Appeals. of the summons from the Court of
Appeals.
on a property located in the
(C) Upon the service on the
Philippines
respondent of the order or
resolution of the Court of Appeals (B) when the action against the non-
indicating its initial action on the resident defendant affects the
petition. personal status of the plaintiff and
the defendant is temporarily outside
(D) By respondent‟s voluntary
the Philippines
submission to the jurisdiction of
the Court of Appeals. (C) when the action is against a non-
resident defendant who is formerly
(E) Under any of the above modes.
a Philippine resident and the action
affects the personal status of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
plaintiff
(C) and (D), Under Section 4, Rule 46 of
(D) when the action against the non-
the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the
resident defendant relates to
court shall acquire jurisdiction over the
property within the Philippines in
person of the respondent by the service
which the defendant has a claim or
on him of its order or resolution
lien
indicating its initial action on the
petition or by his voluntary submission
(E) All of the above.
to such jurisdiction. (n)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XVI. Extra-territorial service of summons is
proper in the following instances, except There is no correct answer. Under
. (1%)
Section 15 of Rule 14 of the Rules of
Court, extraterritorial service of
(A) when the non-resident defendant
summons is applicable, when the
is to be excluded from any interest
defendant does not reside and is not
found in the Philippines, and the action
affects the personal status of the
plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of
which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has
or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in

excluding the defendant from any because Section 14, Rule 14 refers to a
interest therein, or the property of the resident defendant who is only
defendant has been in the Philippines. temporarily outside the Philippines.
In Spouses Domingo M. Belen vs. Hon. XVII. When is attachment improper in

Pablo R. Chavez, G.R. No.175334, march criminal cases? (1%)
26, 2008, the Supreme Court held that if
the resident defendant is temporarily (A) When the accused is about to
out of the country, any of the following abscond from the Philippines.
modes of service may be resorted to: (1)
Substituted service set forth in Section (B) When the criminal action is
8; (2) personal service outside the based on a claim for money or
country, with leave of court; (3) service property embezzled or fraudulently
by publication, also with leave of court; misapplied or converted to the use
or (4) any other manner the court may of the accused who is a broker, in
deem sufficient. the course of his employment as

such.
Hence, extra-territorial service of
summons is applicable to all choices (C) When the accused is about to
given above. conceal, remove, or dispose of his

property.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(D) When the accused resides
(B), Under Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules outside the jurisdiction of the
of Civil Procedure, when any action is trial court.
commenced against a defendant who
ordinarily resides within the Philippines, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
but who is temporarily out of it, service

(D) , Under Section 2 of Rule 127,
may, by leave of court, be also effected out
when the civil action is properly
of Philippines, as under the preceding
instituted in the criminal action as
section (Section 15, Rule 14). Clearly, a non-
provided in Rule 111, the offended
resident
party may have the property of the
defendant cannot be considered
accused attached as security for the
temporarily outside the Philip[pines
satisfaction of any judgment that may
be recovered from the accused in the
following cases:
(a) When the accused is about to abscond (B) No, her right against self-
from the Philippines; incrimination is waived as soon as
she became a witness.
(b) When the criminal action is based on
a claim for money or property embezzled (C) No, this privilege may be invoked
or fraudulently misapplied or converted only by an ordinary witness and not
to the use of the accused who is a public by the accused when she opts to
officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, take the witness stand.
factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the
course of his employment as such, or by (D) The objection was improper
any other person in a fiduciary capacity, under all of A, B, and C.
or for a wilful violation of duty;
(E) The objection was proper as
(c) When the accused has concealed, the right to self-incrimination is a
removed, or disposed of his property, or fundamental right that affects
is about to do so; and liberty and is not waived simply
because the accused is on the
(d) When the accused resides outside the witness stand.
Philippines.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XVIII. Maria was accused of libel. While
Maria was on the witness stand, the (E), Section 17, Article III of the 1987
prosecution asked her to write her name Constitution provides that no person
and to sign on a piece of paper, apparently shall be compelled to be a witness
to prove that she authored the libelous against himself. The essence of the right
material. Maria objected as writing and against self-incrimination is testimonial
signing her name would violate her right compulsion, that is, the giving of
against self-incrimination. Was Maria’s evidence against himself through a
objection proper? (1%) testimonial act (People vs. Casinillo, 213
SCRA 777 [1992]).
(A) No, she can be cross examined
just like any other witness and her In Beltran vs. Samson, G.R. No. 32025,
sample signature may be taken to September 23, 1929, the Supreme Court
verify her alleged authorship of the held thst for the purposes of the
libelous statements. constitutional privilege there similarity
between on who is compelled to produce
a document and one who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for
in both cases, the witness is required to Gonzales, G.R. No. L-25966, December
furnish evidence against himself. In this 28, 1979, De Castro, J.).
case, the purpose of the fiscal, who
requested the handwriting of the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
witness, was to compare and determine
whether the accused wrote the (B), The right against self-incrimination
documents believed to be falsified. Thus, may be waived expressly or impliedly.
the right against self-incrimination may Thus, when Maria took the witness
be invoked by a witness who was stand, she is deemed to have waived her
compelled to furnish his handwriting for right against self-incrimination.
comparison.
XIX. Danny filed a complaint for damages
In Gonzales vs. Secretary of Labor, the against Peter. In the course of the trial,
Supreme Court held that the privilege Peter introduced evidence on a matter not
against self-incrimination must be raised in the pleadings. Danny promptly
invoked at the proper time, and the objected on the ground that the evidence
proper time to invoke it is when a relates to a matter not in issue. How should
question calling for an incriminating the court rule on the objection? (1%)
answer is propounded. This has to be so,

(A) The court must sustain the
because before a question is asked there
objection.
would be no way of telling whether the
information to be elicited from the
(B) The court must overrule the
witness is self-incriminating or not. As
objection.
stated in Jones on Evidence (Vol. 6, pp.
4926-4927), a person who has been (C) The court, in its discretion,
summoned to testify “cannot decline to may allow amendment of the
appear, nor can he decline to be sworn pleading if doing so would serve
as a witness” and “no claim of privilege the ends of substantial justice.
can be made until a question calling for
a criminating answer is asked; at that (D) The court, in its discretion, may
time, and generally speaking, at that order that the allegation in the
time only, the claim of privilege may pleadings which do not conform to
properly be imposed‟ (Bagadiong vs. the evidence presented be stricken
out.
(E) The matter is subject to the

complete discretion of the court. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On the other hand, the Court also
(C), (B), or (A), Under Section 5 of Rule overrule the objection and allow an
10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, when amendment of the pleading if doing so
issues not raised by the pleadings are would serve the ends of justice.
tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties they shall be XX. The Labor Arbiter, ruling on a purely
treated in all respects as if they had been legal question, ordered a worker’s
raised in the pleadings. Such amendment reinstatement and this ruling was affirmed
of the pleadings as may be necessary to on appeal by the NLRC whose decision,
cause them to conform to the evidence under the Labor Code, is final. The
and to raise these issues may be made company’s recourse under the
upon motion of any party at any time, circumstances is to . (1%)
even after judgment; but failure to
amend does not effect the result of the (A) file a motion for reconsideration
trial of these issues. If evidence is and if denied, file a petition for
objected to at the trial on the ground review with the Court of Appeals on
that it is not within the issues made by the pure legal question the case
the pleadings, the court may allow the presents.
pleadings to be amended and shall do so

(B) file a motion for reconsideration
with liberality if the presentation of the
and if denied, appeal to the
merits of the action and the ends of
Secretary of Labor since a labor
substantial justice will be served
policy issue is involved.
thereby. The court may grant a
continuance to enable the amendment to
(C) file a motion for
be made.
reconsideration and if denied, file
a petition for certiorari with the
The Court may sustain the objection
Court of Appeals on the ground of
because the evidence introduced by
grave abuse of discretion by the
Danny is immaterial, being a matter
NLRC.
which was not raised as an issue in the
pleading.
(D) file a motion for reconsideration
and if denied, file a petition for
review on certiorari with the
Supreme Court since a pure
question of law is involved.
(E) directly file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
since a motion for reconsideration a condition sine qua non for the filing of
would serve no purpose when a am petition for certiorari. The rule is,
pure question of law is involved. however, circumscribed by well-defined
exceptions, such as (a) where the order is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a patent nullity, as where the court a
quo had no jurisdiction; (b) where the
(C), In Nemia Castro vs. Rosalyn and
questions raised in the certiorari
Jamir Guevarra, G.R. No. 192737, April
proceeding have been duly raised and
25, 2012, the Supreme Court held that a
passed upon in the lower court; (c) where
motion for reconsideration is a condition
there is an urgent necessity for the
precedent for the filing of a petition for
resolution of the question and any
certiorari. Its purpose is to grant an
further delay would prejudice the
opportunity for the court to correct any
interests of the Government or of the
actual or perceived error attributed to it
petitioner or the subject matter of the
by the re-examination of the legal and
action is perishable; (d) where, under the
factual circumstances of the case.
circumstances, a motion for
In Saint Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, reconsideration would be useless; (e)
G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, where petitioner was deprived of due
the Supreme Court ruled that the process and there is extreme urgency for
petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief
against decisions of final order of the from an order of arrest is urgent and the
NLRC should be initially filed in the granting of such relief by the trial court
Court of Appeals in strict observance of is improbable; (g) where the proceedings
the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts in the lower court are a nullity for lack
as the appropriate forum for the relief of due process; (h) where the proceedings
desired. were ex parte, or in which the petitioner

had o opportunity to object; and (i)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: where the issue raised is one purely of
law or where public interest is involved.
(E) , In Beatriz Siok Ping Tang vs.

Subic bay Distribution, G.R> No.
162575, December 15, 2010, the
Supreme Court held that a motion for
reconsideration is
2012 Remedial Law Exam 2. Under the Rules on the Writ of
Amparo, interim relief orders may
MCQ (October 28, 2012)
be issued by the Court except:
a. production order;
1. In settlement proceedings, appeal
b. witness protection order;
may be taken from an:
c. hold departure order;
a. order appointing a special
d. temporary protection order.
administrator;
b. order appointing an
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
administrator;
c. order of an administrator to (c) , Under the Rules on the Writ of
recover property of the Amparo, upon filing of the petition or at
estate; any time before final judgment, the
d. order to include or exclude court, justice or judge may grant any of
property from the estate. the following interim relief orders; (a)
Temporary Protection Order; (b)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Inspection Order; (c) Production Order;
and (c) Witness Protection Order. It does
(b) an order appointing a regular
not include Hold Departure Order. (Sec.
administrator is appealable (See Sy
12 (a) (b) (c) (d), A.M. No.07-9-12-SC)
Hong Eng vs. Sy Liac Suy, 8 Phil., 594).
An order of a CFI appointing an
3. A narrative testimony is usually
administrator of a deceased person‟s
objected to but the court may allow
estate has been held to be a final
such testimony if:
determination of the rights of the
a. it would expedite trial and
parties thereunder, and is appealable.
give the court a clearer
(Intestate Estate of Luis Morales et. Al.
understanding of the
Vs. SIcat, L-5236, May 5, 1953). On the
matters related;
other hadn, an order appointing a
b. the witness is of advanced
special administrator is interlocutory
age;
in nature and a mere incident in the
c. the testimony relates to
judicial proceedings, hence not
family genealogy;
appealable. (Rule 109, Sec. 1, Rules of
d. the witness volunteers
Court) (Samson vs. Samson, 102 Phil.
information not sought by
735; Tan vs. Gedorio, Jr. G.R. No.
the examiner.
166520, March 14, 2008).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d. an uncle or aunt over 21
(a) , There is no legal principle which years old.
prevents a witness from giving his
testimony in a narrative form if he is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
requested to do so by counsel. A witness
(c) , In default of parents or
may be allowed to testify by narration if
a court- appointed guardian, the court may
it would be the best way of getting at
appoint a guardian of the person or
what he knew or could state concerning
property, or both of a minor, observing
the matter at issue. It would expedite
as far as practicable, the following order
the trial and would perhaps furnish the
of preference: (a) the surviving
court a clearer understanding of matters
grandparent. In case several
related as they occurred. (People vs.
grandparents survive, the court shall
Calixto, G.R. No. 92355, January 24,
select any of them taking into account
1991).
all relevant considerations; (b) the oldest
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: brother or sister of the minor over twenty-
one years of age, unless unfit or
(b) , The Rules allow persons of disqualified; (c) the actual custodian of
tender age to testify in a narrative the minor over twenty-one years of age,
form because they cannot cope with unless unfit or disqualified; and (d) any
the technicalities of examination of other person, who in the sound
witnesses. The same rule should be discretion of the court, would serve the
applied to witnesses of advance age. best interests of the minor. (SEC. 6, A.M.
No. 03-02-05-SC 2003-05-01, Rule on
Guardianship of Minors).
4. In default of parents, the court may

5. In real actions, the docket and filing
appoint a guardian for a minor
fees are based on:
giving first preference to:
a. fair market value of the
a. an older brother or sister
property.
who is over 18 years old.
b. assessed value of the
b. the actual custodian over 21
property.
years old.
c. BIR zonal value of the
c. a paternal grandparent
property.
d. fair market value of the damages claimed.

property and amount of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: summons and a copy of the
complaint However, X's motion did
(c), Under Section 7, Rule 141 of the
not contain a notice of hearing. The
Rules of Court, in cases involving
court may therefore:
property, the fair market value of the
a. require the clerk of court to
real property in litigation stated in the
calendar the motion.
current tax declaration or current zonal
b. motu proprio dismiss the
valuation of the bureau of internal
motion for not complying
revenue, whichever is higher, or if there
with Rule 15.
is none, the stated value of the property
c. allow the parties the
in litigation or the value of the personal
opportunity to be heard.
property in litigation as alleged by the
d. return the motion to X's
claimant shall be basis of the docket and
counsel for amendment.
filing fees. ( As amended by A.M. 04-2-
04-SC, August 16, 2004). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (b) , A motion for bill of particulars

which does not contain a notice of
(b), In Siapno vs. Manalo, G.R. No.
hearing is considered pro forma. As
132260, August 30, 2005, the Court
such, the motion is a useless piece of
disregarded the title/denomination of
paper without force and effect which
the plaintiff Manalo‟s amended petition
must not be taken cognizance by the
as one for Mandamus with Revocation of
Court. (Preysler, Jr. Vs. Manila
Title and Damages; and adjudged the
Southcoast Development Corporation,
same to be a real action, the filing fees
G.R. No. 171872, June 28, 2010).
for which should have been computed
based on the assessed value of the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
subject property or, if there was none,
the estimated value thereof. (c) , Under Section 2, Rule 12 of the
Rules of Court, upon filing of a Motion
6. X filed a motion for Bill for Bill of particulars, the Clerk of
of Particulars, after being served Court must immediately bring it to the
with attention of the court which may either
deny or grant it outright, or allow the
parties the opportunity to be heard.
7. A wants to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data against the AFP in
connection with threats to his life 1-16-SC, The Rule on the Writ of
allegedly made by AFP intelligence Habeas Data, January 22, 2008).
officers. A needs copies of AFP
highly classified intelligence reports 8. W was arrested in the act of
collected by Sgt. Santos who is from committing a crime on October 1,
AFP. A can file his petition with: 2011. After an inquest hearing, an
a. RTC where AFP is located; information was filed against W and
b. RTC where Sgt. Santos his lawyer learned of the same on
resides; October 5, 2011. W wants to file a
c. Supreme Court; motion for preliminary investigation
d. Court of Appeals. and therefore he has only up to
to file the same.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a. October 20, 2011;
b. October 10, 2011;
(d) , In accordance with the principle
c. November 15, 2011;
of judicial hierarchy of the courts, A
d. October 16, 2011.
should file with the Court of Appeals.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(b) , When a person is lawfully

(b) , The petition may be filed with
arrested without a warrant involving an
the Regional Trial Court where the
offense which requires a
petitioner or respondent resides, or that
preliminary investigation, he may ask a
which has jurisdiction over the place
preliminary investigation with the same
where the data or information is
right to adduce evidence in his defense
gathered, collected or stored, at the
within five (5) days from the time he
option of the petitioner.
learns of the filing of the complaint or
information in court. (Rule 112, Sec. 7,
(c) , The petition may also be filed
Rules of Court).
with the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when
9. Preliminary Prohibitive Injunction
the action concerns public data files of
will not lie:
government offices. (Sec.3, A.M. No. 08-
a. to enjoin repeated trespass
on land.
b. in petitions for certiorari and
mandamus.
c. to restrain implementation on motion of the plaintiff, render
of national government judgment as may be warranted by the
infrastructure project. facts alleged in the complaint and
d. to restrain voting of disputed limited to what is prayed for therein.
shares of stock. (Sec.6, Revised Rules of Summary
Procedure). There is no declaration of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
default under the Rules on Summary
Procedure.
(c) , No court in the Philippines shall
have jurisdiction to issue any
(c) , A collection case not exceeding
restraining order, preliminary
P100,000.00 is governed by the Law on
injunction, or preliminary mandatory
Small Claims which does not vest the
injunction in any case, dispute, or
Court the power and authority to declare
controversy involving an
a defendant in default.
infrastructure project, and natural
resource development projects and 11. The validity of a search warrant is
public utilities operated by the days:
Government (Section 1, P.D. 1818). a. 15;
b. 30;
10. A defendant who fails to file a timely
c. 60;
Answer or responsive pleading will
d. 120.
not be declared in default in:
a. probate proceedings where SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the estate is valued at P 1
00,000; NO CORRECT ANSWER. The Committee
b. forcible entry cases; recommends that the examinee be given
c. collection case not a full credit for any answer to the
exceeding P 100,000; question.
d. violation of rental law.
Validity of a Search Warrant.- A search
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
(b) , Under the Rules on Summary (Rule 126, Sec. 10, Rules of Court).
Procedure, if the defendant fails to file
an Answer to the complaint within a 12. An accused may move for the
period of Ten (10) days from receipt suspension of his arraignment if:
thereof, the court may motu propio, or
a. a motion for reconsideration reviewing office. (Rule 116, Sec. 11,
is pending before the Rules of Court).
investigating prosecutor.
b. accused is bonded and his 13. P failed to appear at the
bondsman failed to notify promulgation of judgment without
him of his scheduled justifiable cause. The judgment
arraignment. convicted P for slight physical
c. a prejudicial question injuries. Judgment may therefore be
exists. promulgated in the following
d. there is no available public manner:
attorney. a. By the reading of the
judgment in the presence of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: only the judge.
b. By the clerk of court in the
(c) , Under Section 11, Rule 16 of the
presence of P's counsel.
Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon
c. By the clerk of court in the
motion of the proper party, the
presence of a representative
arraignment shall be suspended in the
of P.
following cases: (a) The accused appears
d. By entering the judgment
to be suffering from an unsound mental
into the criminal docket of
condition which effectively renders him
the court.
unable to fully understand the charge
against him and to plead intelligently SUGGESTED ANSWER:
thereto. In such case, the court shall
order his mental examination and, if (d) , If P fails to appear at the
necessary, his confinement for such promulgation of judgment without
purpose; (b) There exists a prejudicial justifiable cause, the promulgation shall
question; and (c) A petition for review of be made by recording the judgment in
the resolution of the prosecutor is the criminal docket and serving him a
pending at either the Department of copy thereof at his last known address or
Justice, or the Office of the President; thru his counsel. (Rule 120, Sec. 6, Rules
provided that the period of suspension of Court).
shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted
from the filing of the petition with the 14. Being declared in default does not
constitute a waiver of all rights.
However, the following right is considered waived:

a. be cited and called to testify Rule 9, Rules of Court). When a
as a witness defendant is declared in default, he does
b. file a motion for new trial not waive any of the above-mentioned
c. participate in deposition rights.
taking of witnesses of
adverse party A defendant may still be cited and called
d. file a petition for certiorari to testify as a witness since he will
participate in the trial, not as a party
SUGGESTED ANSWER: but merely as a witness. In fact, it is not
a right but rather an obligation of a
(b), A party declared in default cannot
defendant cited and called to testify as a
take part in the trial but is nonetheless
witness to so appear in court. He may
entitled to notices of subsequent
also participate in the deposition taking
proceedings. Thus, a party declared in
of witnesses of the adverse party
default is deemed to have waived his
because the same is at the instance of
right to file a motion for new trial since
the said adverse party and may not yet
he had no right to an old trial on the
be considered as part of the trial. The
first place.
defendant cannot also be said to have
waived his right to file a motion for new
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
trial since this is a remedy available
NO CORRECT ANSWER. The Committee before finality of a judgment declaring a
may recommend that the examinee be party in default (BD Long Span Builders
given full credit for any answer because vs. R.S. Ampeloquio Realty
the question is very tricky. Development, Inc., G.R. No.169919,

September 11, 2009). Moreover, a
A party declared in default is not petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is
deemed to have waived any of the above- not considered waived because it is still
mentioned rights. an available remedy, if the declaration of
default was tainted with grave abuse of
A party declared in default loses his discretion.
standing in Court. He cannot take part
in the trial but he is entitled to notices In Martinez vs. Republic, G.R. No.
of subsequent proceedings. (Section 160895, October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA
3(a), 134, the Supreme Court has clearly
discussed the remedies of a party
declared in default in light of the 1964 and 1997 Rules of Court and a number of
jurisprudence applying and interpreting 15. At arraignment, X pleads not guilty
said rules. Citing Lina vs. Court of to a Robbery charge. At the pretrial,
Appeals, No. L-63397, April 9, 1985, 135 he changes his mind and agrees to a
SCRA 637, the High Court enumerated plea bargaining, with the conformity
the following remedies, to wit: (a) The of the prosecution and offended
defendant in default may, at any time party, which downgraded the
after discovery thereof and before offense to theft. The Court should
judgment, file a motion, under oath, to therefore:
set aside the order of default on the a. render judgment based on
ground that his failure to answer was the change of plea.
due to fraud, accident, mistake, or b. allow the withdrawal of
excusable neglect, and that he has the earlier plea and
meritorious defenses; (Sec.3, Rule 18, arraign X for theft and
Rules of Court); (b) If the judgment has render judgment.
already been rendered when the c. receive evidence on the
defendant discovered the default, but civil liability and render
before the same has become final and judgment.
executor, he may file a motion for new d. require the prosecution to
trial under Section 1(a) of Rule 37, Rules amend the information.
of Court; (c) If the defendant discovered
the default after the judgment has SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
become final and executor, he may file a
petition for relief under Section 2 of (b) and (c), The Court should allow the
Rule 38, Rules of Court; and (d) He may withdrawal of the earlier plea and
also appeal from the judgment rendered arraign X for theft and render judgment
against him as contrary to the evidence without need of an amendment of
or to the law, even if no petition to set complaint or information. (Rule 116,
aside the order of default has been Sec. 2, Rules of Court). Be that as it may,
presented by him. (Rule 41, Sec.2, Rules the Court has to receive evidence on the
of Court) (Rebecca T. Arquero vs. Court civil liability which is impliedly
of Appeals, G.R. No. 168053, Sept. 21, instituted with the criminal action
2011, Peralta, J.). before it renders a judgment against X.

(Rule 111, Sec.1, Rules of Court).
16. A criminal case should be instituted

and tried in the place where the
offense or any of the essential (b), Bail is the security given for the
elements took place, except in: release of a person in the custody of the
a. Estafa cases; law (Rule 114, Sec. 1, Rules of Court).
b. Complex crimes; The Rules use of word, “custody” to
c. Cases cognizable by the signify that bail is only available for
Sandiganbayan; someone who is under the custody of the
d. Court martial cases. law. Hence, X should first surrender
before he could be allowed to post bail.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
18. The Energy Regulatory Commission

(c) , Territorial jurisdiction is
(ERC) promulgates a decision
immaterial in cases falling
increasing electricity rates by 3%.
under the Sandiganbayan‟s
KMU appeals the decision by way of
jurisdiction. All public officials who
petition for review. The appeal will
committed an offense which is
therefore:
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan shall
a. stay the execution of ERC
be tried before it regardless of the
decision.
place of commission of the offense. In
b. shall not stay the ERC
addition, the court martial is not a
decision unless the Court of
criminal court.
Appeals directs otherwise.
c. stay the execution of the
17. X was charged for murder and was
ERC decision conditioned on
issued a warrant of arrest. X
KMU posting a bond.
remains at large but wants to post
d. shall not stay the ERC
bail. X's option is to:
decision.
a. file a motion to recall
warrant of arrest;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. surrender and file a bail
petition; (b) , KMU‟s appeal of the decision of
c. file a motion for the Energy Regulations Commission
reinvestigation; shall not stay the decision increasing
d. file a petition for review with the electricity rates by 3%, unless the
the OOJ.
Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise
upon such terms as it may deem just.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Rule 43, Sec. 12, Rules of Court).
19. RTC decides an appeal from the MTC involving a simple collection
case. The decision consists of only Section 24. Memorandum decisions –
one page because it adopted by The judgment or final resolution of a
direct reference the findings of fact court in appealed cases may adopt by
and conclusions of law set forth in reference the findings of fact and
the MTC decision. Which statement conclusions of law contained in the
is most accurate? decision or final order appealed from.
a. The RTC decision is valid (Francisco vs. Perm Skul, G.R. No.
because it was issued by a 81006, May 12, 1989.)
court of competent
jurisdiction. 20. The filing of a complaint with the
b. The RTC decision is valid Punong Barangay involving cases
because it expedited the covered by the Katarungang
resolution of the appeal. Pambarangay Rules shall:
c. The RTC decision is valid a. not interrupt any
because it is a prescriptive period.
memorandum decision b. interrupt the prescriptive
recognized by law. period for 90 days.
d. The RTC decision is valid c. interrupt the prescriptive
because it is practical and period for 60 days.
convenient to the judge and d. interrupt the prescriptive
the parties. period not exceeding 60
days.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) , A Memorandum decision can be
welcomed as an acceptable method of (d) , The filing of a complaint
dealing expeditiously with the case with the Punong Barangay involving
load of the courts of justice. The phrase cases covered by the
Memorandum Decision appears to Katarungang Pambarangay Rules shall
have been introduced in this interrupt the prescriptive periods for
jurisdiction not by that law but by offenses and cause of action under existing
Section 24 of the Interim Rules and laws for a period not exceeding Sixty (60)
Guidelines of BP Blg. 129, reading as days from the filing of the complaint with
follows: the Punong barangay. (Sec.410, Local
Government Code).
21. In a declaratory relief action, the d. The Court of Appeals or the

court may refuse to exercise its COMELEC both having
power to declare rights and construe concurrent jurisdiction
instruments in what instance/s?
a. When a decision would not SUGGESTED ANSWER:
terminate the controversy

(c), Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of
which gave rise to the
Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-
action.
SC (Amendments to Rules 41, 45, 58,
b. In an action to consolidate
and 65 of the Rules of Court) provides
ownership under Art. 1607
that in election cases involving an act or
of the Civil Code.
omission of a municipal or a regional
c. To establish legitimate
trial court, the petition shall be filed
filiation and determine
exclusively with the Commission on
hereditary rights.
Elections, in aid of its appellate
d. (a) and (c) above
jurisdiction. (Galang vs. Hon. Geronimo,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: G.R. No. 192793, February 22, 2011).
(a), The court, may motu propio or upon 23. A charge for indirect contempt
motion, refuse to exercise the power to committed against an RTC judge
declare rights and to construe may be commenced through:
instruments in any case where a a. A written charge requiring
decision would not terminate the respondent to show cause
uncertainty or controversy which gave filed with the Court of
rise to the action, or in any case where Appeals.
the declaration or construction is not b. An order of the RTC Judge
necessary and proper under the requiring respondent to
circumstances (Rule 63, Sec.5, Rules of show cause in the same
Court). RTC.
c. Verified petition filed with
22. In election cases involving an act or another branch of the RTC.
omission of an MTC or RTC, a d. Verified petition filed with a
certiorari petition shall be filed court of higher or equal rank
with: with the RTC.
a. The Court of Appeals
b. The Supreme Court SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b), The proceedings for
c. The COMELEC
Page 131 of 198
indirect of Court). SUGGESTED Rules of Court).

contempt may be ANSWER:
The Notice shall
initiated motu 24. The statute
of "non- state the time
propio by the (b) , After the
claims" for the filing of
court against requires Court has
claims against
which the granted letters
the estate,
contempt was testamentary or
which shall not
committed by an administration,
be more than
order or any it shall
twelve (12) nor
other formal immediately
less than six (6)
charge requiring issue a notice
months after the
the respondent requiring all
date of the first
to show cause persons having
publication of
why he should money claims
the notice. (Rule
not be punished against the
86, Sec.2, Rules
for contempt. It decedent to file
of Court).
may also be them in the
commenced by a office of the

25. A judicial
verified petition clerk of court. compromis
e has the
with supporting (Rule 86, Sec.1,
effect
particulars and that: of and is
certified true
immediat
copies of ely
documents or a. clai b. money
papers involved ms claims
therein, and agai be filed
upon full nst with the
compliance with the clerk of
the requirements estat court
for filing e be within
initiatory publi the time
pleadings for shed prescri
civil actions in by bed by
the court the the
concerned (Rule credi rules.
71, Sec.4, Rules tors. c. claims
Page 132 of 198
of an of the execut ta;

exec estate, ory
d. Sta
and is
utor an heir re
not
de
or unduly appeal
cis
able.
adm deprive is.
a. E
inist d of s
t SUGGESTED
rato particip ANSWER:
o
r ation in p
agai the p (c) , A
e
nst estate l compromise
the may ; agreement that
estat compel b. C has been made
o
e be the re- n and duly
filed settlem c approved by
l
with ent of u the court
the the s attains the
i
spec estate. v effect and
ial e authority of res
n
adm e judicata,
inist s although no
s
rato execution may
r. o be issued
f
d. with unless the
in j agreement
u
two receives the
d
(2) g approval of the
m
year court where
e
s n the litigation is
t
after pending and
;
settl compliance
c. R
eme e with the terms
s
nt of agreement is
and J decreed.”
u
distr (Ranola vs.
d
ibuti i Ranola, G.R.
c
on No. 185095,
a
Page 133 of 198
July 31,
2009).
Page 134 of 198
26. When a party or counsel willfully or d. foreclosure by a bank.

deliberately commits forum
shopping, the initiatory pleading SUGGESTED ANSWER:
may:
(b) , Equity of redemption exists in
a. be cured by amendment of
case of judicial foreclosure of a
the complaint.
mortgage. This is simply the right of the
b. upon motion, be dismissed
defendant mortgagor to extinguish the
with prejudice.
mortgage and retain ownership of the
c. be summarily dismissed
property by paying the secured debt
with prejudice as it may
within a period of not less than ninety
constitute direct
(90) days nor more than one hundred
contempt.
twenty (120) days from the entry of
d. be stricken from the record.
judgment, in accordance with Rule 68, or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: even after the foreclosure sale but prior

to its confirmation. (Spouses Rosales vs.
(c), If the acts of the party or his counsel Spouses Alfonso, G.R. No. 137792,
clearly constitute wilful and deliberate August 12, 2003).
forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with 28. X and Y, both residents of Bgy. II,
prejudice and shall constitute direct Sampaloc, Manila entered into
contempt, as well as a cause for a P 100,000 loan agreement.
administrative sanctions (Rule 7, Sec.5, Because Y defaulted, X sued Y for
Rules of Court). collection and the complainant

prayed for issuance of preliminary
27. Equity of Redemption is the right of attachment. Y moved to dismiss the
the mortgagor to redeem the complaint because there was no
mortgaged property after default in Barangay conciliation. The court
the performance of the conditions of should therefore:
the mortgage, before the sale or the a. dismiss X's complaint for
confirmation of sale in a(n): prematurity.
a. extrajudicial foreclosure b. dismiss X's complaint for
of mortgage. lack of cause of action.
b. judicial foreclosure of c. deny Y's motion because it
mortgage. is exempt from Barangay
c. execution sale. conciliation.
Page 133 of 198
d. de adjudication property and it was Y

ny unless there has support who shot
Y's been a pendent lite. and held
mo confrontation of (Sec.6, P.D. him up. In
tio the parties 1508,
n before the Katarungang
bec Lupon Pambarangay
aus Chairman or the Law). Since X‟s
e Pangkat and no complaint
of conciliation or against Y
the settlement has involves
am been reached as collection of
ou certified by the sum of money
nt Lupon Secretary with prayer for
of or the Pangkat issuance of
the Secretary, preliminary
loa attested by the attachment,
n. Lupon or there is no need
Pangkat for prior
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Chairman, or barangay
unless the conciliation, and
(c) , As a Settlement has therefore the
general rule, no been Court should
complaint, repudiated. deny Y‟s Motion
petition, action However, the to Dismiss.
or proceeding parties may go
involving any directly to court 29. X was shot
matter within in actions by Y in the
the authority of coupled with course of a
the Lupon shall provisional robbery.
be filed or remedies such as On the
instituted in preliminary brink of
court or any injunction, death, X
other attachment, told W, a
government delivery of barangay
office for personal tanod, that
Page 134 of 198
the trial d. to declaration is crime of

pro
for offered in a case robbery.
ve
robbery the in which the
"cor
with subject of
pus
homicide, deli inquiry involves
cti".
X's the declarant‟s
declarati death. (People
SUGGESTED
on can be ANSWER: vs. Jay Mandy
admitted Maglian, G.R. No.
only as a (b) , a dying 189834, March
dying declaration is 30, 2011,
declarati admissible as Velasco, Jr., J.).
on: evidence if the Clearly, the
a. to following dying
pro circumstances declaration can
ve
rob are present: (a) only be offered
ber it concerns the in a case in
y.
cause and the which the
b. to
pro surrounding subject of
ve circumstances of inquiry involves
ho
mic the declarant‟s the declarant‟s
ide. death; (b) it is death, and
c. to made when necessarily the
pr death appears to same can only be
ov be imminent and admitted to
e
the declarant is prove the cause
ro
under a and the
bb
consciousness of surrounding
er
impending circumstances of
y
death; (c) the such death. Be
an
declarant would that as it may,
d
have been the dying
ho
competent to declaration may
m
testify had he or be offered as
ici
she survived; part of the res
de
and (d) the dying gestae in the
.
Page 135 of 198
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: repealed
(c) , The former rule was that dying

declaration was inadmissible only in
criminal prosecutions for homicide,
murder or parricide wherein the
declarant victim (People vs. Lara, 54
Phil. 96). As amended, the Rule now
provides for such admissibility in any
case as long as the requisites concur.
(Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
Vol.II, 2008 Edition, Page 781).
30. Which of the following is not a

Special Proceeding?
a. Absentees;
b. Escheat;
c. Change of First Name;
d. Constitution of Family
Home;
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(c) , Under R.A. 9048, as amended by

R.A. 10172, the correction of First
Name can now be done administratively
before the Local Civil Registrar where
the record sought to be corrected is
kept or the nearest Philippine
Consulate. Hence, it is no longer
considered a special proceeding since
the provisions of Rules
103 and 108 do not apply anymore in
the change of First name of a person.
(d) , the rules on Constitution of the

Family Home have already been
Page 135 of 198
by Articles 152-162 of the Family Code.

Under Article 153 of the Family Code, a
family home is deemed constituted on a
house and lot from the time it is
occupied as a family residence.
Consequently, there is no need to
constitute a family home either
judicially or extrajudicially. Hence, it is
no longer considered a special
proceeding.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
All the above-mentioned actions are

considered Special Proceedings because
they are remedies which seek to
establish a status, right or a particular
fact. (Rule 1, Sec. 2(c), Rules of Court).
31. Atty. X fails to serve personally a

copy of his motion to Atty. Y
because the office and residence of
Atty. Y and the latter's client
changed and no forwarding
addresses were given. Atty. X's
remedy is to:
a. Serve by registered mail;
b. Serve by publication;
c. Deliver copy of the motion
to the clerk of court with
proof of failure to serve;
d. Certify in the motion that
personal service and
through mail was
impossible.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 136 of 198
(c) , Since the office and place of the truth of the facts asserted
residence of the Atty. X and the latter‟s

clinet changed and no forwarding
address were given, Atty. X can deliver
a copy of the motion by way of
substituted service, to the clerk of
court with proof of failure to serve the
motion, both by way of personal
service or service by mail. (Rule 13,
Sec. 8, Rules of Court).
32. When caught, X readily admitted to

the Forestry Ranger that he cut the
trees. Such a statement may be
admitted and is not necessarily
hearsay because:
a. it is a judicial admission of
guilt.
b. it shows the statement was
true.
c. it will form part of the
circumstantial evidence to
convict.
d. it proves that such a
statement was made.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(d) , The statement of X may be

admitted under the concept of
independently relevant statement, or
statements which are on the very facts
in issue or those which are
circumstantial evidence thereof. It is
offered in evidence only to prove the
tenor thereof, or the fact that such a
statement was made, and not to prove
Page 136 of 198
therein. Hence, the hearsay rule does no Procedure).
not apply. (People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA n- Accordingly, the

app court may issue
649).
ear warrant of arrest
33. A complaint may be dismissed by anc for non-
the plaintiff by filing a notice of e in appearance of the
dismissal: cou accused whenever
a. At anytime after service of rt required in a
the answer. wh criminal case for
b. At anytime before a ene infraction of a city
motion of summary ver ordinance.
judgment is filed. req
c. At the pre-trial. uir 35. Under the
d. Before the complaint is ed. Katarungan
amended. Pambarang
SUGGESTED ay rules,
ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the
(d), The criminal execution

(b), A complaint may be dismissed by of an
case for violation
the plaintiff by filing a notice of amicable
of a city
dismissal at any time before service of settlement
ordinance is
the answer or of a motion for summary or
governed by the
judgment. Upon such notice being filed, arbitration
Revised Rules on
the court shall issue an order award is
Summary
confirming the dismissal. (Rule 17, started by
Procedure. Under
Sec.1, Rules of Court). filing a
the said Rule, the
court shall not motion for
34. In a criminal case for violation of a
order the arrest execution
city ordinance, the court may issue
of the accused with the
a warrant of arrest:
except for failure Punong
a. for failure of the accused to
to appear Barangay,
submit his counter-affidavit.
whenever who may
b. after finding probable cause
required. (Section issue a
against the accused.
16, 1991 Revised notice of
c. for failure of the accused to
Rules on execution
post bail.
Summary in the name
d. for of the
Page 137 of 198
Tag (c), The Punong judgment

Lupon apa Barangay shall debtor
gsu issue a notice of dies after
Tagapama ndo execution in the entry of
yapa. . name of the judgment,
Execution
Lupong Taga- execution
itself, SUGGESTED
pamayapa and of a
ANSWER:
however,
that if the money
will be
execution be for judgment
done by:
the payment of may be
a. a
money, the party done by:
cou
rt- obliged is a. pr
app
allowed a period es
oin
ted of five (5) days en
she
to make a tin
riff.
voluntary g
b. any
Bar payment, failing the
ang
which, the ju
ay
Kag Punong dg
aw
Barangay shall me
ad.
take possession nt
c. Pu
no of sufficient as
ng a
Bar personal
ang property cla
ay. im
located in the
d. an for
barangay.
y pa
(Sections 5 and
me ym
6, Article VII,
mb ent
Implementing
er ag
Rules and
of ain
Regulations of
the st
the Katarungang
Pa the
Pambarangay
ng est
Rule).
kat ate
ng 36. If the in
Page 138 of 198
a ial th of
sp ad e the
ec mi de de
ia nis bt bto
l tra or' r
pr tor s an
oc of su d
ee th cc sec
di e es ure
n est so a
g. at r wri
b. fil e in t of
in of int exe
g th er cut
a e est ion
cl de . .
ai bt d. m
m or. ov SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
fo c. fili e
r ng for (a), If death
th a su occurs after
e cla bs judgment has
m im tit already been
on for uti
entered, the
ey th on
final judgment
ju e of
shall be
dg m th
enforced as
m on e
money claim
en ey he
against
t ju irs
wi dg the estate of the same. (Paredes
th m deceased vs. Moya, 61
th en defendant SCRA 526, 1970).
e t without the
sp wi necessity of 37. The
ec th proving the Director of
Page 139 of 198
the BFAR a. file ad sion

launches a min of
an Mot istr proc
intensified ion ativ eedi
campaign to e ngs
against Qu re beca
illegal ash me use
fishpen bas die of a
operators ed s. pre-
situated in on c. file judi
Laguna de lac a cial
Bay. The k of Mo que
illegal juri tio stio
fishpen sdi n n.
operators ctio to
file a Dis SUGGESTED

n
ANSWER:
Section 3 mis
ove
(e), R.A. s
r (c), The Director
3019 bec
the of the BFAR may
(causing aus
per file an answer
undue e
son interposing as a
injury or the
. defense that the
co
benefit) b. file case is a Strategic
mp
case a Lawsuit Against
lai
against Mot Public
nt
the BFAR ion Participation
is a
Director to (SLAPP) and
SL
before the Qua attach
AP
Sandiganb sh supporting
P
ayan. The for documents,
sui
Director's non affidavits, papers
t.
best - and other
d. mo
remedy exh evidence; and, by
ve
before aus
way of
for
Sandiganb tio
sus
ayan is: nof
pen
Page 140 of 198
counterclaim, A.M. No. 09-6-8- s or claim based on

Pen
pray for SC, Rules of the following
den
damages, Procedurefor cia; grounds, namely:
attorney‟s fees Environmental d. Lac res judicata,
k of
and costs of Cases). prescription,
juri
suit. The sdic claim or demand
38. A tion
Director who is is paid, waived,
.
seeking the complaint abandoned or
dismissal of the may be otherwise
SUGGESTED
case must refiled if ANSWERS: extinguished,
prove by dismissed and the claim
on which (c) and (d), An
substantial on which the
of the order granting a
evidence that action is founded
following motion to
his acts for the is unenforceable
grounds? dismiss shall bar
enforcement of under the statute
a. un the refilling of
environmental of frauds. (Rule
en the same action
law are 16,
legitimate for
Sec.5, (f), (h), der
action for the ce
and (i), Rules of of
protection, ab
Court). The acti
preservation le
Rules do not ons
and include litis avoi
un
rehabilitation pendentia and ds
de
of the lack of mul
r
government. jurisdiction. tipli
St
The party filing city
at
the action 39. The of
ut
assailed as a following suit
e
SLAPP shall are s.
of
prove by accurate b. join
Fr
preponderance statements der
au
of evidence that on joinder of
ds;
the action is not of causes acti
b. Res
a SLAPP and is a Judi of action, ons
cat
valid claim. except: ma
a;
(Rule 6, Sec. 2, a. join y
c. Liti
Page 141 of 198
inc of governed by a. it
lu mo special rules. was
serv
de ney (Roman Catholic ed
clai Archbishop of on a
sp Sun
ms San Fernando day.
eci in a Pampanga vs. b. the
al join Fernando leg
der Soriano Jr., et al., al
civ
of G.R. No. 153829, res
il
cau August 17, 2011, ear
act
ses VIllarama, Jr.,
ion ch
of J.).
s. er
act
c. joi is
1on 40. W, a legal
nd no
, is researcher
er t a
the in the RTC
of "pr
"tot of Makati,
cau op
alit served
ses er
y summons
of co
rul on an
act urt
e". amended
ion off
complaint
is ice
SUGGESTED on Z at the
per ANSWER: r".
latter's
mi c. (a)
house on a and
ssi (b), The rule on
Sunday. (b)
ve. joinder of abov
The e
actions under
d. the
service is d. th
Section 5, Rule 2
tes
invalid er
of the 1997
t of
because: e
Rules of Civil
jur
Procedure, as is
isd
amended, no
icti
requires that the ne
on
joinder shall ot ed
in
include special to
cas
civil actions ser
e
Page 142 of 198
ve authorized to is for trial.

su serve the entered, a. 15;
m summons to the the b. 10;
m defendants. The accused c. 30;
o question is shall have d. None
of the
ns about validity days to
above.
o and not prepare
n superfluity. SUGGESTED except:
ANSWER:
a a. Mot
n (d), Where the ion
(a), After a plea
a defendants to
of not guilty is
m have already Set
entered, the
e appeared Cas
accused shall
n before the trial e
have at least
d court by virtue for
fifteen
e of a summons Pre-
(15) days to
d on the original tria
prepare for trial.
co complaint, the l;
The trial shall
m amended b. Moti
commence on
pl complaint may
within (30) days to
ai be served upon take
from receipt of depo
nt them without
the pre-trial sitio
. need of another n;
order. (Rule 119,
summons, even c. Moti
Sec. 1, Rules of on
SUGGESTED if new causes of
ANSWERS: Court). to
action are corr
alleged. (Vlason ect
(b), The Rules 42. The TSN;
Enterprises
do not allow a following d. Moti
Corporation vs. on
legal motions
Court of to
researcher to require a post
Appeals, G.R. pon
serve summons notice of
Nos. 121662-64, e
on amended hearing hear
July 6, 1999). ing.
complaint. He is served on
not the proper the
41. After a SUGGESTED
court officer opposite ANSWER:
plea of
who is duly party,
not guilty
Page 143 of 198
(a), After the last pro acc ne

pleading has sec use w
been served and uti d tria
filed, it shall be on ma l
the duty of the for y bas
plaintiff to the file ed
promptly move sa a onl
ex parte that the me mot y
case be set for offe ion on
pre-trial. (Rule nse for ne
18, Sec.1, Rules if wly
of Court). the dis
cri cov
43. Which of min ere
the al d
following acti evi
statement on de
s is or nce
incorrect? liab .
a. A ility c. A
Mo has de
tio bee mu
n n rre
to exti r to
Qu ngu evi
ash ish de
wh ed. nce
ich b. In ma
is the y
gra Cou be
nte rt file
d is of d
a Ap wit
bar pea ho
to ls, ut
the the lea
Page 144 of 198
ve Appeals, the o aft

of accused may file m er
co a motion for iss 20
ur new trial based ue da
t only on newly . ys
in discovered b. W fro
a evidence. (Rule rit m
cri 53, Sec. 1, Rules of iss
mi of Court). A Ex ue.
na demurrer to ec d. Su
l evidence may uti bp
ca be filed without on oe
se. leave of court in na
d. No criminal case. ex ex
ne pir pir
(Rule 119, Sec.
of
the 23, Rules of es es
ab aft aft
Court).
ove
. er er
44. Which of 10 30
the da
SUGGESTED da
following is
ANSWER:
true? ys ys
a. Su fro fro
(d), A Motion to
m m m
Quash which is
m iss iss
granted is a bar
on ue. ue.
to the
s c. Se
prosecution for
ar SUGGESTED
the same ANSWER:
ex ch
offense if the
pi W
criminal action NO CORRECT
re ar
or liability has ANSWER. The
s ra
been Committee
nt
extinguished. aft recommends that
ex
(Rule 117, Sec.6 er the examinee be
pir
in relation to da given
es
Section3). In ys
full credit for any answer to
the Court of fr
Page 145 of 198
the question. usl cue ous

y a stat
ALTERNATIVE ejec pro em
ANSWER:
ted per ent
(c) , fro ty s.
According to m. in
b. A cus SUGGESTED
the Committee, ANSWER:
this it the most per tod
logical answer son ia (d) , A person

because search ref legi guilty of
warrant expires use s. misbehavior in
10 days after its s to d. She the presence of or
issuance. atte wri so near a court as
nd tes to obstruct or
45. A person a an interrupt the
may be hea d proceedings
charged rin sub before the same,
with direct g mit including
contempt s a disrespect toward
of court afte ple the court,
when: r adi offensive
a. A ng personalities
bei
per toward others, or
ng con
son refusal to be
su tai
re- sworn or to
mm nin
ent answer as a
one g
ers witness, or to
d der
a subscribe an
the oga
pro affidavit or
ret tor
per deposition when
o. y,
ty lawfully required
c. He off
he to do so, may be
atte ens
wa summarily
mp ive
s
ts or
pre
to ma
vio
res lici
Page 146 of 198
adjudged in useful purpose ; streaming audio,

contempt by and on the streaming video,
such court. contrary SUGGESTED and other
ANSWER:
(Rule 71, Sec. 1, constitutes electronic forms
Rules of Court). direct contempt (c), An of
In Surigao or contempt in “epheme communications
Mineral facie curiae. ral , the evidence of
Reservation which is not
Board vs. 46. Under the electronic recorded or
Cloribel, 31 Rules of communication retained
SCRA 1, the Electronic ” refers to (Sec.1(k), Rule
Supreme Court Evidence, telephone 2). A facsimile
held that "ephemer conversations, transmission is
disrespectful, al text messages, not considered
abusive and electronic chatroom as an electronic
abrasive conversati sessions, evidence
on" refers
under the transmission.
language, to the
Electronic Accordingly, a
following,
offensive Commerce Act. facsimile
except:
personalities, In MCC transmission
a. text
unfounded mes Industrial Sales cannot be
accusations or sag Corporation vs. considered as
es;
intemperate Ssangyong electronic
b. tele
words tending pho Corporation, the evidence. It is not
to obstruct, ne Supreme Court the functional
con
embarrass or vers concluded that equivalent of an
influence the atio the terms original under
ns;
court in “electronic data the Best Evidence
c. fax
administering ed message” and Rule and is not
justice or to doc “electronic admissible as
um
bring it into ent; document,: as electronic
disrepute have d. onli defined under evidence. (Torres
no place in a ne the Electronic vs. PAGCOR, G.R.
chat
pleading. Their roo Commerce Act of No. 193531,
employment m 2000, do not December 14,
sess
serves no ions include facsimile 2011).
Page 147 of 198
ly ce must be proved
47. A private sig that by evidence that
electronic ned a it had been
document' by met digitally signed
s the hod by the person
authenticit per or purported to
y may be son pro have signed the
received in wh ces same. (Rule 5,
evidence o s Sec. 2(a), Rules
when it is pur was on Evidence).
proved by: por utili
a. evi ted zed 48. Atty. A
de ly to drafts a
nce sig veri pleading
tha ned fy for his
t it the the client 8
wa sa sam wherein B
s me. e. admits
ele
c. evi certain
ctr SUGGESTED
den facts
oni ANSWER:
ce prejudicial
call
tha to his case.
(b), Before any
y
t it The
private
not
con pleading
electronic
ari
tain was never
document is
ze
s filed but
offered as
d.
ele was
authentic is
b. evi ctr signed by
received in
de oni
evidence, its Atty. A.
nc c
authenticity Opposing
e dat counsel
tha a got hold of
t it me the
wa ssa pleading
s ges. and
dig d. evi presents
ital den
Page 148 of 198
the same e e te
in court. un no me
Which fil t nts
statemen ed ad are
t is the do mi not
most cu ssi ad
accurate? m ble mi
a. T en be ssi
he t ca ble
pr is us bec
ej no e aus
u t th e
di co e the
ci ns cli se
al id en we
st er t re
at ed di not
e a d ma
m pl no de
en ea t by
ts di sig the
ar ng n clie
e . th nt
n b. Th e in
ot e pl op
ad pr ea en
m ej di co
is ud ng. urt
si ici c. Th .
bl al e d. Th
e sta pr e
be te ej pre
ca m ud jud
us en ici ici
e ts al al
th ar sta sta
Page 149 of 198
te ng
m s.
en
ts SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
ar
e (a), Pleadings
no are defined as
t written
ad statements of
m the respective
is claims and
si defenses of the
bl parties
e submitted to
be the court for
ca appropriate
us judgment. (Rule
e 6,
th
es
e
w
er
e
m
ad
e
ou
tsi
de
th
e
pr
oc
ee
di
Page 150 of 198
Sec.1, Rules of Court). Filing is the act of (c), A “child witness” is any person who
presenting the pleading or other paper at the time of giving testimony is below
to the clerk of court. (Rule 13, Sec.2, the age of eighteen (18) years. (Sec.4,
Rules of Court). Since Atty. A and his Rules on Examination of a Child
client B did not file the pleading, and it Witness).
was merely the opposing counsel which
presented the same in court, it should 50. In which of the following is
not be considered to have been filed at Interpleader improper?
all, and shall not prejudice Atty. A and a. in an action where
his client B. After all, no person may be defendants' respective
prejudiced by the acts of unauthorized claims are separate and
strangers. distinct from each other.

b. in an action by a bank where
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the purchaser of a cashier's
check claims it was lost and
(d), The Committee considers this as an another person has
alternative answer for a more liberal presented it for payment.
view. c. in an action by a lessee who
does not know where to pay
49. Under the Rules on Examination of
rentals due to conflicting
a child witness, a child witness is
claims on the property.
one:
d. in an action by a sheriff
a. who is 18 years of age or
against claimants who have
below at the time of
conflicting claims to a
testifying.
property seized by the sheriff
b. who is below 18 years of age
in foreclosure of a chattel
at the time of the
mortgage.
incident/crime to be testified
on. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c. who is below 18 years of
age at the time of the (a) , Under the Rules, whenever
giving of testimony. conflicting claims upon the same
d. who is 18 years of age in subject matter are or may be made
child abuse cases. against a person who claims no
interest whatever in the subject
SUGGESTED ANSWER: matter, or an interest which in whole
or in part is not disputed
Page 143 of 198
by the pla and CNP industries,

test
claimants, he ced ame Inc., G.R. No.
may bring an on nts. 160972, March
action against iss 9, 2010).
the conflicting ue. SUGGESTED Evidently, parol
ANSWER:
claimants to b. wri evidence only
compel them to tte (b) , The parol applies to
interplead and n evidence rule, written
litigate their embodied in agreements or
agr
several claims Section 9, Rule contractual
ee
among 130 of the Rules documents.
me
themselves. of Court holds
nts
(Rule 62, Sec.1, that when the
Rules of Court). terms of an
con
Undoubtedly, if agreement have
tra
the defendants‟ been reduced
ctu
respective into writing, it is
al
claims are considered as
doc
separate and containing all
um
distinct from the terms
ent
each other, an agreed upon
s.
action for and there can
c. jud
interpleader is be, between the
gm
not proper. parties and
ent
their
51. The Parole on
Evidence successors-in-
a
Rule interest, no
applies to: co
evidence of such
a. su mp
terms other
bse ro
than the
qu mis
contents of the
ent e
written
agr
agreement.
agr ee
(Leighton
ee me
Contractors
me nt.
Phils. Inc., vs.
nts d. will
Page 144 of 198
ALTERNATIVE tiv . ANSWER:

ANSWER:
e c. th
of e (d), Under the
(d), Parol
th Ba “chain of
Evidence Rule
e ra custody”
applies because
o ng principle, the
the term
w ay apprehending
“Agreement”
ne Ch team having
includes wills.
r air initial custody
(Rule 130, Sec.
of m and control of
9(e), Rules of
th an the drugs shall,
Court).
e an immediately
ho da after seizure and

52. PDEA
us Ba confiscation,
agents
e. ra physically
conducte
b. th ng inventory and
d a
e ay photograph the
search on
Di Ta same in the
a house
re no presence of the
abandon
cto accused or the
ed by its d.
r person/s from
owners d. an
of y whom such
in
th el items were
Quezon
e ec confiscated
City. The
PD te and/or seized or
search, in
EA d his/her
order to
an Q representative
be valid,
da ue or counsel, a
must be
me zo representative
made in
m n from media and
the
be Ci the DOJ, and any
presence
r ty elected public
of:
of off official who
a. an
th ici shall be
y
e al. required to sign
re
me the copies of the
la SUGGESTED
dia inventory and
Page 145 of 198
be given a copy
thereof. (Sec.
21(1), RA
9165).
Page 146 of 198
53. A judge of an MTC can hear and d. written admission of the

decide petitions for habeas corpus party served.
or applications for bail where:
a. the Supreme Court SUGGESTED ANSWER:
authorizes the MTC.

(d), Proof of service of summons shall be
b. the judge is the Executive
made in writing by the server and shall
Judge of the MTC.
be sworn to when made by a person
c. the judge of the RTC where
other than a sheriff or his deputy. (Rule
the case is raffled has
14, Sec. 18, Rules of Court). If the
retired, was dismissed or
service has been made by publication, it
had died.
may be proved by the affidavit of the
d. in the absence of all the
printer to which a copy of the
RTC Judges in the
publication shall be attached, and
province or city.
directed to the defendant by registered
SUGGESTED ANSWER: mail to his last known address. (Rule 14,

Sec. 19, Rules of Court).
(d), In the absence of all the Regional
Trial Judges in a province or city, any 55. As a mode of discovery, the best way
Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal to obtain an admission from any
Trial Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial party regarding the genuineness of
Judge may hear and decide petitions for any material and relevant document
a writ of habeas corpus or applications is through a:
for bail in criminal cases in the province a. motion for production of
or city where the absent Regional Trial documents.
Judges sit. (Section 35, Batas Pambansa b. written interrogatories.
Blg. 129). c. request for admission

under Rule 26.
54. Proof of service of summons shall be d. request for subpoena duces
through the following, except : tecum.
a. written return of the sheriff;
b. affidavit of the person SUGGESTED ANSWER:
serving summons;
(c), At any time after issues have been
c. affidavit of the printer of the
joined, a party may file and serve upon
publication;
any other party a written request for the
admission by the latter of the

Page 145 of 198
genuineness of (Limos vs. s whi

any material Spouses Odones, jud ch
and relevant G.R. No. 186979, gm alre
document August 11, ent ady
described in and 2010). or a hav
exhibited with jud e
the request or of 56. A gm bee
the truth of any judgment ent n
material and "non pro whi don
relevant matter tunc" is ch e,
of fact set forth one which: is but
in the request. a. dis diff whi
(Rule 26, Sec.1, mis icul ch
Rules of Court). ses t to do
A request for a co not
admission is not cas mpl app
intended to e y ear
merely wit wit in
reproduce or hou h. the
reiterate the t c. on rec
pre
allegations of e ord
judi
the evidentiary int s.
ce
matters of fact en d. is a
to me
described in the de
mor
it
request, whose d and
bei um
purpose is to to
deci
ng
establish said ent sion.
re-
party‟s cause of er
file SUGGESTED
action or int
d. ANSWER:
defense. Unless o
b. clar
it serves that the (c), A nunc pro
ifie
purpose, it is rec tunc entry in
s
pointless, ord practice is an
an
useless, and a the
entry made now
am
mere act
of something
big
redundancy. s
which
uou
Page 146 of 198
was actually a. ca ris exclusive original

previously se di jurisdiction over
done, to have s cti petitions for the
effect as the inv on issuance of the
court, but to olv . writs of
supply an ing c. as a mandamus,
pro
omission in the pu prohibition,
visi
record of action bli onal certiorari,
c rem
really had, but habeas corpus,
edy.
omitted off injunctions, and
d. ca
through ice other ancillary
ses
inadvertence or rs writs and
inv
mistake. wi processes in aid
olv
(Wilmerding vs. th of its appellate
ing
Corbin Banking sal jurisdiction and
"ill
Co., 28 South., ar over petitions of
go
640, 641; 126 y similar nature,
tte
Ala., 268). gr including quo
n
(Perkins vs. ad warranto, arising
we
Haywood, 31 N. e or that may arise
alt
27
E., 670, 672 h". in cases filed or
or
cited in which may be
hig SUGGESTED
Aliviado vs. filed under
he ANSWER:
Proctor and Executive Order
r.
Gamble, G.R. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
b. on (b), The
No. 160506, 14-A, issued in
ly Sandiganbayan
June 6, 2011). 1986: Provided,
in shall have
that the
57. The ai
jurisdiction over 1606).
Sandigan d
these petitions
bayan of
shall not be 58. The
can its
exclusive of the judgment
entertain ap
Supreme Court. in a
a quo pe
(Sec. 4, R.A. criminal
warranto lla
8249, Act case may
te
petition be
ju amending P.D.
only in:
Page 147 of 198
promulgat urt the Justices of a

ed by the whi cou division, rather
following, ch rt than a single
except by: ren in judge, are
a. a der whi naturally
Sa ed ch expected to
nd jud it exert keener
iga gm wa judiciousness
nb ent. s and to apply
ay c. an ren broader
an Exe der circumspection
jus cuti ed. in trying and
tic ve deciding cases.
SUGGESTED
e Jud (Edgar Payumo
ANSWER:
in ge et al. Vs. Hon.
cas of a (a), The Sandiganbayan
es Cit Sandiganbayan et al., G.R. No.
inv y is a special court 151911, July
olv Cou of the same 25, 2011,
ing rt if level as the Mendoza, J.).
an the Court of Appeals Thus, a
ti- acc (CA), and
gr use
possessing all
aft d is
the inherent
la det
powers of a
ws ain
court of justice,
. ed
with functions
b. a in
of a trial court.
ano
Cle It is a collegial
the
rk court. x x x The
r
of members of the
city
Co graft court act
.
urt on the basis of
d. any
of consensus or
jud
the majority rule.
ge
co The three
of
Page 148 of 198
Sandiganbayan be promulgated ca
Justice alone by the executive se. am
may not judge of the b. a en
promulgate Regional Trial de d a
judgment in a Court having m co
criminal case jurisdiction ur mp
involving anti- over the place rer lai
graft laws. of confinement to nt.
or detention evi d. thir
On the other de d
upon request of
part
hand, a the court which nc y
judgment in the e com
rendered the
plai
regular court is judgment. (Rule in nt.
promulgated by 120, Sec. 6, a
reading it in the Rules of Court). cri SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
presence of the mi
accused and 59. Leave of nal
(d), A third
any judge of the court is ca
party complaint
court in which always se.
is a claim that a
it was necessary c. m
defending party
rendered. in: oti
may, with leave
When the judge a. a on
of court, file
is absent or de to
against a person
outside the m
not a party to
province or ur
city, the re the action, called party complaint,
judgment may r the third party leave of court is
be promulgated to defendant, for always
by the clerk of evi contribution, necessary.
court. if the de indemnity,

subrogation or 60. Correctly
accused is nc
any other relief, complete
confined or e
in respect of his the
detained in in
opponent‟s sentence: A
another a
claim. (Rule 6, lone
province or civ
Sec. 11, Rules of witness ---
city, the il
Court). in a third a. is
judgment may
Page 149 of 198
SUGGESTED lly c. acc

ANSWER:
cre wai us
dib ved ed
(c), The
le his
testimony of a
rig file
onl lone prosecution
ht s an
y if witness, as long
to ap
cor as it is credible
app pli
rob and positive, can
eal. cat
ora prove the guilt of
b. acc io
ted the accused
use n
. beyond
d for
b. is reasonable
was pr
nev doubt. (People
er trie ob
cre vs. Layson, G.R.
d ati
dibl No. 105689,
e. in on.
February 23,
c. ma abs d. rec
1994). Thus, a
y enti lus
lone witness may
be a ion
be believed even
bel and
if not fail per
iev
corroborated. ed pet
ed
to ua is
ev
61. A im
en app
judgment po
if ear
of
at sed
not
conviction
the an
cor
in a
pro d
ro
criminal
mul the
bo
case
gati acc
rat
becomes
ed. on. use
final
d. is d
when:
alw fail
ays a. acc
cre s
use
dibl to
e. d
ap
ora
pe
Page 150 of 198
al. may de motion to

either r dismiss, the
SUGGESTED dismiss a court may
ANSWER:
the case m dismiss the
(c), A judgment or deny en action or claim,
of conviction in the same d deny the
a criminal case or: m motion, or
becomes final a. de en
when the fer t
accused after re of
the lapse of the sol th
period for uti e
perfecting an on pl
appeal, or when be ea
the sentence ca di
has been us ng
partially or e c. co
th nd
totally satisfied
e uc
or served, or
gr t a
when the
ou pr
accused has
nd eli
waived in
rel mi
writing his
ie na
right to appeal,
d ry
or has applied
up he
for probation
on ari
(Rule 120, Sec.
1s ng
7, Rules of
no d. Non
Court). e of
t the
62. After a in abo
ve.
hearing du
on a bit SUGGESTED
Motion to ab ANSWER:
Dismiss, le.
b. or (b) , After the
the court
hearing of a
Page 151 of 198
order the amendment of the pleading. Division, a vote of three Members shall
The court shall not defer the resolution be required to elevate to a second
of the motion for the reason that the motion for reconsideration to the
ground relied upon is not indubitable. Court En Banc. (Aliviado vs. Proctor
(Rule 16, Sec.3, Rules of Court). and Gamble Phils., Inc., et al, G.R. No.
160506, June 6, 2011, Del Castillo, J.).
63. Under Rule 52, a Second Motion for
Reconsideration is a prohibited 64. The mortgage contract between X,
pleading. However,· where may such who resides in Manila, and Y, who
Motion be allowed? resides in Naga, covering land in
a. the Sandiganbayan; Quezon provides that any suit
b. the Office of the President; arising from the agreement may be
c. the Supreme Court; filed "nowhere else but in a Makati
d. None of the above. court". Y must thus sue only in:
a. Makati;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b. Makati and/or Naga;
c. Quezon and/or Makati;
(c) , Under Rule 52, a second
d. Naga.
Motion for Reconsideration is a
prohibited pleading. However, the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Supreme Court en banc may entertain
the same in the higher interest of justice (a) , The rules on venue of actions are
upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its merely procedural in character and
actual membership. There is can be a subject of stipulation. Where
reconsideration “in the highest interest the parties have validly agreed in
of justice” when the assailed decision is writing before the filing of the action
not only legally erroneous but is on the exclusive venue of the action,
likewise patently unjust and potentially the suit cannot be filed anywhere other
capable of causing than the stipulated venue. (Rule 4, Sec.
unwarranted and irremediable injury or 4, Rules of Court). Since the stipulation
damage to the parties. A second motion between X and Y in the mortgage
for reconsideration can only be contract is mandatory and restrictive
entertained before the ruling sought to in character, the venue of the action is
be reconsidered becomes final by only in Makati City.
operation of law or by the Court‟s
declaration. (Sec.3, Rule 15, Internal ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Rules of the Supreme Court). In the

Page 149 of 198
None of the above. The venue of the d. the opposing counsel offered
action should only be Quezon City, the to stipulate on the testimony
place where the real property is located. given.
The rules on venue do not apply to SUGGESTED ANSWER:

actions involving a mortgage. In Ochoa
vs. Chinabank, G.R. No. 192877, March (b) , While it is true that Atty. A failed
23, 2011, the Supreme Court held that to offer the questioned testimony
the exclusive venue of Makati City, as when he called the witness on the
stipulated by the parties and sanctioned stand, the opposing counsel waived this
by Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of procedural error by failing to object at
Court, cannot be made to apply to the the appropriate time i.e., when the
Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure ground for objection became
filed by respondent bank because the reasonably apparent the moment the
provisions of Rule 4 pertain to venue of witness was called to testify without
actions, which an extrajudicial any prior offer having been made by
foreclosure is not. There is no reason to the proponent. (Catuira vs. Court of
depart from the doctrinal Appeals, G.R. No. 105813, September
pronouncement of the Supreme Court. 12, 1994).
65. Immediately after the witness had 66. A private document may be
been sworn in to testify, without any considered as evidence when it is
formal offer of his testimony, Atty. A sequentially:
started asking questions on direct a. marked, identified,
examination to the witness. The authenticated.
court may still consider his b. identified, marked and
testimony if: offered in evidence.
a. the formal offer is done after c. marked, identified,
the direct testimony. authenticated and offered
b. the opposing counsel did in evidence.
not object. d. marked, authenticated and
c. the witness is an expert offered in evidence.
witness.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) ,
Befor
Page 150 of 198
e cannot issu
issue a ed
privat temporary by
e restraining the
docu order in AM
ment the LC
is following und
offere cases·, er
d except: the
a. bid anti
as
din mo
g ney
authe
an laun
ntic
d deri
is aw ng
ard law.
receiv ing c. agai
ed of a nst
pro
in infr
ject
evidence, its due court shall not of astr
execution and consider any the uctu
authenticity evidence which nat re
must be proved. has not been ion proj
(Rule 132, Sec. formally offered. al ects
20). The private (Rule 132, Sec. gov like
document must 34). In addition, ern the
be marked the private me SLE
during the pre- document must nt. X
marking of also be admitted b. aga exte
exhibits. It must by the court in inst nsio
be identified order to be any n.
and considered as free d. agai
authenticated by evidence. ze nst
a witness, and ord the
thereafter 67. The Court DA
er
offered, as the of Appeals
Page 151 of 198
R national Law. (Sec.55, pe

in government. On R.A. No. 6657). ndi
the the contrary, ng
im 68. Choose bef
there are laws
ple the most ore
which expressly
me accurate diff
prohibit the
nta phrase to ere
Court of
tio complete nt
Appeals from
n the bra
issuing a
of statement nc
temporary
the : hes
restraining
CA Mandamu of
order against
RL s will lie the
any of the
La --- co
following: (i)
w. a. to urt
freeze order
co .
issued by the
SUGGESTED m b. to
ANSWER: AMLC under the
pe co
anti-money
l a m
(a) , There is laundering law,
ju pel
no law which except the
dg a
prohibits the Supreme Court.
e ju
Court of Appeals (R.A. 10167,
to dg
from issuing a Sec.10); (ii)
co e
temporary infrastructure
ns to
restraining order projects like the
oli re
on the bidding SLEX extension
da du
and awarding of because only
te ce
a project of the the Supreme
tri his
Court can issue
al de
the same.
of cis
(Sec.10, R.A. No.
tw io
10167 and R.A.
o n
No. 8975); and
ca in
(iii) DAR in the
se wr
implementation
s iti
of the CARL
Page 152 of 198
n rat (b) , The 1987 that “No

g. or. Constitution no decision shall
c. to d. to less commands be
di co rendered by any vs. People,
re m court without G.R. No. 182555,
ct pe expressing September 7,
a l a therein clearly 2010, Villarama,
pr ju and distinctly Jr., J.).
ob dg the facts and the Evidently,
at e law on which it is mandamus will
e to based.” (Art. VIII, lie to compel a
co gr Sec. 14, 1987 judge to perform
ur an Constitution). his ministerial
t t Relative thereto, duty to reduce
to or the Rules of his decision in
ap de Court also writing.
po ny require a
in an judgment or final 69. A judgment
ta ap order to be in by default
pa pli writing, can be
rti cat personally and issued
cu io directly despite an
la n prepared by the Answer
r for judge stating being filed
pe pr clearly and in:
rs eli distinctly the a. ann
ulm
on mi facts and the law ent
as na on which it is of
mar
re ry based, signed by riag
gu inj him, and filed e.
la un with the clerk of b. legal
sepa
r cti court. (Rule 36, ratio
ad on. Sec.1, Rules of n.
m Court). (Lenido c. cas
in SUGGESTED es
Lumanog and
ANSWER:
ist Augusto Santos wh
Page 153 of 198
er null proper notice, or filed by a

e a ity fails to serve defendant, a
pa of answers to judgment by
rty mar interrogatories default can still
wil riag submitted under be issued where
lfu e. Rule a party wilfully
lly 25 after proper fails to appear
fail SUGGESTED
ANSWER: service of such before the
s interrogatories, officer who is to
to (c) , If a party the court on take his
ap or an officer or motion and deposition.
pe managing agent notice, may
ar of a party strike out all or In Arellano vs.
bef wilfully fails to any part of any Court of First
or appear before pleading of the Instance of
e the officer who party, or Sorsogon,
the is to take his dismiss the Branch I, 65
off deposition, after action or SCRA 46, the
ice being served proceeding or Supreme Court
r with a any part sustained the
wh thereof, or order of
o enter a dismissal for
is judgment by failure of
to default against respondent to
tak the party, and in serve any
e its discretion, answer to
his order him to petitioner
de pay reasonable Arellano‟s
po expenses Interrogatories.
siti incurred by the The dismissal
on. other, including was based on
d. dec attorney‟s fees. Section 5 of Rule
lar (Rule 29, Sec.5, 29 which
ati Rules of Court). provides that if a
on hence, even if party fails to
of an Answer was serve answers to
Page 154 of 198
interrogatories judgment by to a ing

submitted default even less fro
under Rule 25, without prior er m
after proper order to serve offe inju
service of such answer. nse ry is
interrogatories, is not
the Court on 70. Which of ina evid
motion and the dmi enc
notice may following ssib e or
dismiss the statement le pro
action or s is not in of of
render accurate? evi civil
a. A st den /cri
ple the ce min
a acc aga al
of use inst liabi
gui d the lity
lty wh acc for
lat o use the
er ma d. Inju
wit de c. An ry.
hd the offe d. In
ra ple r to civi
wn a. pay l
is b. An or cas
ad una pay es,
mi cce me an
ssi pte nt offe
ble d of r of
in offe me co
evi r of dic mp
de a al ro
nc ple exp mis
e a of ens e
ag guil es the
ain ty aris acc

Page 155 of 198
us compromise is a. A en
ed not an admission pe reg
is of any liability, rs ula
ad and is not on rly
mi admissible in int per
ssi evidence against en for
ble the offeror. (Rule ds me
as 130, Sec.27, th d.
an Rules of Court). e c. A
im or te
pli 71. Under the
di na
ed Rules on
na nt
ad Evidence,
ry ca
mi the
co nn
ssi following is
ns ot
on a conclusive
eq de
of presumpti
ue ny
gui on and
nc his
lt. therefore
es lan
cannot be
of dlo
SUGGESTED contradict
ANSWERS: his rd'
ed by
vo s
evidence.
(a), A plea of lu titl
guilty later nt e
withdrawn is ar du
not admissible y rin
in evidence act g
against the . the
accused who b. Off te
made the plea ici na
(Rule 130, Sec. al nc
27, Rules of du y
Court). ty pe
ha rio
(d), In civil cases, s d.
an offer of be d. A
Page 156 of 198
wri charged particularly of dangerous

ting
is for children from drugs on their
trul violation harmful effects
y
dat of Sec. 16 physical and charged with
ed. of R.A. mental well- violation of any
9165, The being and to of the offenses
SUGGESTED
Comprehe defend them under The
ANSWER:
nsive against acts or Comprehensive
(c) , The Dangerou omissions Dangerous Drugs
tenant is not s Drugs detrimental to Act of 2002 are
permitted to Law. The their well protected,
deny the title court development and that their
of his landlord which has and interests and
at the time of jurisdictio preservation. those of their
the n is: Pursuant to this family and the
commencemen a. the policy and the community are
MT
t of the C; mandate adequately
Relation of b. the Republic Act No. balanced. (A.M.
landlord and RTC 8369, also NO. 07-8-2-SC-2,
;
tenant between known as The SEC.2).
c. Spe
them (Rule cial Family Courts
131, Sec.2, Dru Act of 1997, the 73. A court can
gs
Rules of Cou Family Courts motu
Court). rt; are vested with proprio

d. Fa exclusive dismiss a
mil
72. Cesar, jurisdiction to case on the
y
age 16, a Cou hear and decide following
rt.
habitual cases against grounds,
offender, minors charged except :
SUGGESTED
was ANSWER: with drug- a. failu
caught in re to
related offenses pros
possessio (d) , The State (A.M. NO. 07-8-2- ecut
is mandated to e;
n of .001 SC-2, SEC.2). The
safeguard the b. lac
grams of objective is to
well-being of its k of
marijuan ensure that
citizenry, juri
a. He was rights of children
sdic
Page 157 of 198
tio or in his answer m. gm

n as affirmative b. 2 ent
ov defense. (Rule ye to
er 9, Sec.1, Rules of ar file
the Court). s a
pa fro clai
rti 74. A person m m.
es; entitled to da d. 2
c. litis the estate te yea
pen of
of a rs
den
tia; deceased ju fro
d. pre person dg m
scri m dat
escheated
pti
on. in favor of en e of
the State t reg
SUGGESTED has: to istr
ANSWER:
a. 5 fil ati
ye e a on
(b), A court
ar cla of
cannot motu
s im the
propio dismiss a
. jud
case on the fr
c. 5 gm
ground of lack of o
ye ent
jurisdiction over m
ars to
the parties da
fro file
because the te
m a
objection on the of
dat clai
said ground can ju
e m.
be waived by the dg
of
failure of the m
re SUGGESTED
defendant to en ANSWER:
gis
raise the same t
tra (a), A person
in his motion to to
tio entitled to the
dismiss fil
n estate of a
ea
of deceased person
cl
the escheated in
ai
jud
Page 158 of 198
favour of the same, or if sold, n of punishable with

State has a the municipality the imprisonment
period of five or city shall be NIP not exceeding six
(5) years from accountable to, AS (6) years
the date of such him for the La irrespective of
judgment proceeds, after w the amount of
within which to deducting (R. fine. (BP 129, Sec.
file a claim reasonable A. 32). Relative
thereto with charges for the 758 thereto, R.A.
the court. A care of the 6) 9175 or
claim not made estate. (Rule 91, c. viol otherwise known
atio
within said Sec. 4, Rules of n of as the Chain Saw
time shall be Court). the Act of 2002,
Mini
forever barred. ng penalizes any
If the claim is 75. The MTC, Law person who
acting as s
meritorious, found to be in
an d. viol
such person possession of a
atio
shall have Environm chain saw and
n of
possession of ental uses the same to
Ant
and title to the Court, has cut trees and
i-
original timber in forest
Poll
and ble land or
utio
exclusive un elsewhere except
n
jurisdictio der as authorized by
La
n over the the the Department
ws
following, Cha with
except: in SUGGESTED imprisonment of
a. cri Sa ANSWER: six (6) years and
mi w one (1) day to
(a), The
nal Act eight (8) years or
Metropolitan
(R. a fine of not less
off Trial Court
A. than Thirty
en (MTC) exercises
91 thousand pesos
ses exclusive
75) (P30,000.00) but
pu original
b. viol not more than
nis jurisdiction over
atio fifty thousand
ha all offenses
Page 159 of 198
pesos 76. A special co Re

(P50,000.00) or administr un co
both at the ator may t. nsi
discretion of the be c. re der
court. Clearly, appointed gu ati
the court which by a court la on
has jurisdiction when: r is
over violations a. th ad file
of the Chain Saw e mi d
Act is the ex ni wit
Regional Trial ec str h
Court, and not ut at res
the MTC, acting or or pe
as an ca ha ct
Environmental nn sa to
Court. ot cl a
po ai de
st m cisi
a ag on
bo ai dis
nd ns all
. t ow
b. th es ing
e tat pro
ex e bat
ec he e
ut re of
or pr a
fai es wil
ls en l.
to ts.
SUGGESTED
re d. a ANSWER:
nd M
er oti (c), If the
an on executor or
ac for administrator
Page 160 of 198
has a claim o fa
against estate m ult SUGGESTED
ANSWER:
he represents, Ju .
he shall give dg (c) , A declared in
notice thereof, me defendant default has the
in writing, to nt; declared in following
the court, and b. Peti default may remedies, to wit:
tion after judgment (1) he may, at any
the court shall
for
appoint a Cert but before time after
iora finality file a discovery of the
special
ri;
administrator Motion for default but before
c. M
(Rule 86, Sec. 8, Reconsideration judgment, file a
oti
Rules of Court). in order to give motion, under
on
the Court an oath, to set aside
for
77. A opportunity to the order of
Re
defendan rectify its default on the
co
t mistakes and ground that his
ns
declared set aside the failure to answer
id
in default previous was due to fraud,
er
may, judgment by accident, mistake
ati
after default before it or excusable
on
judgment attains finality. neglect, and that
;
but he has a
d. M
before ALTERNATIVE meritorious
oti ANSWER:
finality, defense; (2) if
on
file a: judgment has
to A defendant
a. Pe already been
Se declared in
tit rendered when he
t default may,
io discovered the
As after judgment
n default, but before
id but before
fo the same has
e finality, file a
r become final and
Or Motion for New
Re executor, he may
de Trial. It is well-
lie file a motion for
r settled that a
f new trial under
of defendant who
fr Section 1(a) of
De has been
Page 161 of 198
Rule 37; (3) if he aside the order ng ror

discovered the of default has se s of
default after the rv def
been presented
judgment has ed. ect
by him. (B.D.
become final and b. th in
long Span
executor, he may e the
Builders vs. R.S.
file a petition for Ampeloquio des
a
relief under Realty ign
m
Section 2 of Rule Development, ati
en
38; and (4) he Inc., G.R. No. on
d
may also appeal 169919, of
m
from the September 11, a
en
judgment 2009). par
tis
rendered against ty.
un
him as contrary 78. With d. th
su
to the evidence leave of e
bs
or to the law, court, a am
ta
even if no party may en
nti
petition to set amend his dm
al.
pleading en
c. th
if: t is
e
a. th to
a
er co
m
e nf
en
is or
d
ye m
m
t to
en
no th
t
re e
in
sp evi
vo
on de
lve
siv nc
s
e e.
cle
pl
ric
ea SUGGESTED
al ANSWER:
di
er
Page 162 of 198
(d) , When necessary to peti proper recourse

tion.
issues not cause them to in assailing the
raised by the conform to the quashal of the
SUGGESTED
pleadings are evidence and to ANSWER: search warrant.
tried with the raise these The Trial court‟s
express or issues may be (b), When a unwarranted
implied made upon motion to quash reversal of its
consent of the motion of any search warrant earlier finding of
parties, they party at any is denied, the probable cause
shall be time, even after best remedy is to constituted grave
treated in all judgment; but file a motion to abuse of
respects as if failure to suppress discretion.
they had been amend does evidence since Hence, the
raised in the not affect the they are Supreme Court
pleadings. result of the alternative and had allowed
Such trial of these not cumulative direct recourse
amendment of issues. (Rule remedies. to it or even to
the pleadings 10, Sec. 5, Rules (Regalado, the Court of
as may be of Court). Remedial law Appeals via a
Compendium, special civil
79. When a n
2004 Edition, action for
Motion to to
Tenth Edition, certiorari from a
Quash sup
page 662). trial court‟s
search pre
warrant is ss quashal of search
ALTERNATIVE warrant.
denied, evi ANSWER:
the best de
remedy is: nce (d), In Santos vs.
a. app . Pryce gases Inc.
eal G.R. No. 165122,
c. file
the
an November 23,
den
inju
ial 2007, the
ncti
ord
on Supreme Court
er.
suit.
b. file held that the
d. file
a a special civil
cert action for
mo
iora
tio ri certiorari is the
Page 163 of 198
80. A court su ev without the

may take
ed er introduction of
judicial
notice of: by yd evidence, of the
a. th th ay. existence and
e e d. th territorial
T Co e extent of states,
wi ng ar their political
tt re bit history, forms of
er ssi ral government and
ac on aw symbols of
co al ar nationality, the
un Co d law of nations,
t m iss the admiralty
of mi ue and maritime
Pr tte d courts of the
es e by world and their
id on Int seals, the
en La er political
t bo na constitution and
A r tio history of the
qu Re na Philippines, the
in lat l official acts of
o. io Co the legislative,
b. a ns. urt executive, and
C c. th of judicial
o e Ar departments of
m eff bit the Philippines,
m ect rat the laws of
itt s io nature, the
ee of n. measure of time,
R ta and the
ki SUGGESTED geographical
e
ANSWER:
p ng divisions. (Rule
or as 129, Sec. 1,
(b), A court
t pir Rules of Court).
shall take
is in
judicial notice,
Page 164 of 198
81. The case ent the case (d), All criminal

of R, who should be because he actions either
is under set not is only an commenced by
detention later alter ego complaint or
, was than: of the DOJ information
raffled to a. Mar Secretary shall be
ch
the RTC who prosecuted
4;
on March ordered under the
b. Mar
1. His ch him to direction and
16;
arraignm withdraw control of a
c. Ma accused's the public
rch
Petition Informatio
30; prosecutor.
for n. The case
d. Ma (Rule 110, Sec. 5,
rch Review, should Rules of Court).
11.
the therefore The trial
prosecutio be
SUGGESTED prosecutor
ANSWER: n filed a prosecuted assumes full
motion to by: discretion and
(d), The withdraw
control over a
arraignment of R the
case.
should be set not Informatio
Accordingly, the
later than March n before
same trial
11. Under the trial
prosecutor who
Section 1, Rule court. The
manifested his
116 of the Rules judge
inability should
of Court, the therein
prosecute the
accused shall be denied the
case.
arraigned within same. The
ten trial 83. A decision
(10) days from prosecutor or
the date of the
raffle. manifested resolution
before the of a
82. After the judge that division of
DOJ he can no the
Secretary longer Supreme
granted prosecute Court
Page 165 of 198
when or his (a), Cases or

concurred resolution ina matters heard by
in by of the bili a division shall
members Supreme ty be decided or
who Court. to resolved with the
actually a. thr pro concurrence of a
ee
took part sec majority of the
(3);
in the ute Members who
b. five(
deliberati S); the actually took part
on on the c. eigh cas in the
t
issues in a e. deliberations on
(8);
case and the issues in the
d. ten
voted (10) SUGGESTED case and voted
. ANSWER:
thereon, thereon, and in
is a no case without
SUGGESTED
decision ANSWER: the concurrence
a. a pai of at least three
DO
rin of such Members.
J
sta g When the
te
cou required number
pro
sec rt. is not obtained,
uto
d. the the case shall be
r.
sa decided en banc:
b. pri
vat me Provided, that no
e
tria doctrine or
pro
sec l principle of law
uto
pro laid down by the
r, if
any sec court in a
.
uto decision
c. tri
r rendered en
al
wh banc
pr
o
ose or in division banc. (Article
cut may be modified VIII, Sec. 4, 1987

ma
or or reversed Constitution).
nif
of except by the
est
court sitting en 84. A and B
the ed
Page 166 of 198
adopted e interest of the and

their ne child, shall not Pro
nephew. ph be subject to hibi
They filed ew. rescission by the tion;
an action b. dis adopter(s).
allo
for However, the
w
revocation the adopter(s) may
rev
of the disinherit the
oca
adoption tion adoptee for
.
on May 1, causes provided
c. ref
1998 on in Article 919 of
er
the ground the Civil Code.
the
that their (Sec.19, R.A.
pet
nephew 8552 Rules of
itio
neglected Domestic
n to
them. Adoption).
the
Based on
DS 85. Sandiganb
the Rules
WD ayan
of
. exercises
Domestic
d. gra concurrent
Adoption,
nt jurisdictio
the judge
the
must: n with the
peti
a. ad Supreme
tio
vis Court and
n
eA the Court
afte
an of Appeals
r
dB over:
hea
to a. Peti
rin
jus tion
g.
t s
dis for
SUGGESTED
in ANSWERS: Wri
he t of
(a) and (b), Cer
rit
Adoption being tior
th
in the best ari
Page 167 of 198
b. Pe an Court. (Sec.2, a. file

tit d R.A. 7975-An a
io Ha Act to pet
ns be Strengthen the iti
fo as on
r Co Functional
for
W rp Structural
Wr
rit us. Organization of
it
of the
of
H SUGGESTED Sandiganbayan,
Ha
ANSWER:
ab amending for
be
ea that purpose
(d), The as
s Presidential
Sandiganbayan Co
Co Decree No.
shall have rp
rp 1606, as
exclusive us
us amended).
original bef
;
jurisdiction or
86. C, a
c. Pet
over petitions e
itio convict,
ns for the issuance the
was able
for
of the writs of co
Qu to get
o mandamus, urt
favorable
Wa
prohibition, of
rra results of
nto certiorari, ori
; a post-
habeas corpus, gin
d. Pe convictio
injunction, and .
tit n DNA
other ancillary b. appl
io testing y for
writs and full
ns showing
processes in aid pard
fo that C on.
of its appellate
r could not c. file
jurisdiction:
W have a
Provided, that
rit committe Mo
the jurisdiction
of d the tio
over these
A crime. To n
petitions shall
m gain to
not be exclusive
pa freedom, an
of the Supreme
ro C may: nul
Page 168 of 198
ju on conviction DNA orders. (Sec.10,

dg th testing are Rule on DNA
m e favourable to Evidence).
en gr the convict. In
t ou case the court, 87. X filed a
of nd after due complaint
co of hearing, finds with the
nv fra the petition to RTC
ict ud be meritorious, through
io . it shall reverse ABC, a
n or modify the private
judgment of letter
d. file d. the
conviction and forwarding
a da
order the agency. The
Mo te
release of the date of
tio wh
convict, unless filing of the
n en
continued complaint
for th
detention is shall be:
ne e
justified for a a. the
w ca
lawful cause. A date
tria se
similar petition sta
l is
un may be filed mpe
off
der either in the d by
ici
Rul Court of Appeals ABC
all
e or the Supreme on
y
12 Court, or with the
raf
1. any member of env
fle
said courts, elop
d.
SUGGESTED which may e
ANSWER:
SUGGESTED conduct a cont
ANSWER: hearing thereon aini
or remand the ng
(a) , The writ of habeas
petition to the the
convict or the corpus in the
court of origin com
prosecution court of origin if
and issue the plai
may file a the results of
appropriate nt.
petition for a the post-
Page 169 of 198
b. th of pleadings to Hence, the date

(b) , Under
e a private letter- of the actual
the Riles, the
da forwarding receipt by the
manner of
te agency is not to court is
filing of
of be considered considered as
pleadings,
re as the date of the date of
appearances,
cei filing in court, filing of the
motions,
pt but rather the complaint.
notices,
by date of actual
judgments and
th receipt by the 88. An
all other
e court, is objection
papers shall
Cle deemed to be to any
only be made
rk the date of interrogat
by presenting
of filing of the ories may
the original
Co pleading. be
copies thereof,
urt (Benguet presented
plainly
. Electric within_
indicated as
c. the Cooperative, days after
such,
dat Inc. vs. National service
personally to
e Labor thereof:
the clerk of
ind Relations a. 15;
court or bny
ica Commission, b. 10;
sending them
ted G.R. No. 89070, c. 5;
by registered
by May 18, 1992). d. 20.
mail. (Rule 13,
the SUGGESTED case of motion.
Sec.3).
ANSWER:
rec Upon filing of the
Nonetheless, if
eiv aforementioned
the complaint (b) ,
ing objections, the
was filed with Objections to
cle answer to such
the court any
rk written
through a interrogatories
of interrogatories
private letter- may be
AB shall be deferred
forwarding presented to the
C. until the
agency, the court within ten
objections are
established (10) days after
resolved, which
rule is that the service thereof,
shall be at as
date of delivery with notice as in
Page 170 of 198
early a time as is era en place of trial or

practicable. ted. the hearing, or is
(Rule 25, Sec.3, c. wh wit out of the
Rules of Court). en nes
Philippines,
the s is
unless it
89. The wit 89
appears that his
deposition nes yea
absence was
of a s is rs
procured by the
witness, out old
party offering
whether sid and
the deposition;
or not a e bed
(3) that the
party, may the -
witness is
be used Phi rid
unable to attend
for any lip den
or testify
purpose if pin .
because of age,
the Court es sickness,
finds the SUGGESTED
an ANSWER: infirmity, or
following d imprisonment;
abs (c) , The (4) that the
circumsta
enc deposition of a party offering
ncesare
e is witness, whether the deposition
attendant,
pro or not a party, has been unable
EXCEPT:
cur may be used by to procure the
a. wh
en ed any party for any attendance of
the by purpose if the
wit the witness by
nes the court finds: (1) subpoena; or (5)
s is par that the witness is
dea upon
d. ty dead; (2) that the application and
b. wh off witness resides at notice, that
en eri a distance more such
the ng than one hundred
wit de (100) kilometres exceptional
nes pos from the circumstances
s is itio exist to make it
inc n. desirable, in the
arc d. wh interest of
Page 171 of 198
justice and with th e in

due regard to e to the
the importance pl for rec
of presenting ea ce or
the testimony di m d.
of the witnesses ng aje d. do
orally in open s. ur cu
court, to allow b. evi e me
the deposition de aft nta
to be used. nc er ry
(Rule 23, Sec. 4 e be
in evi
(c), Rules of in
la de
Court). g
nd nce
m
90. One of re pr
ar
the gis ovi
ke
exemptio ng
tra d,
ns to the a
tio id
general for
n en
rule that eig
pr tifi
n
evidence oc ed
jud
not ee an
gm
formally di d
ent
offered ng de
.
shall not s. scr
be c. evi ib SUGGESTED
considere de ed ANSWER:
d is: nc (a) , Where an pleading, the
a. in e answer fails to court may, on
ju los tender an issue, motion of that
d t/ or otherwise party, direct
g de admits the judgment on
m str material such pleading.
e oy allegations of (Rule 34, Sec. 1,
nt ed the adverse Rules of Court).
o du party‟s Judgment on the
n
Page 172 of 198
pleadings is, (b) , The Rules for documents not

therefore, of Court shall naturalization formally offered
based not apply to in the basis of in evidence
exclusively election cases, during the trial.
upon the land The High Court
allegations registration, noted that the
appearing in the cadastral, procedure in
pleadings of the naturalization Sec.34 of Rule
parties and the and insolvency 132 providing
annexes, if any, proceedings, that the Court
without and other cases shall consider
consideration not herein no evidence
of any evidence provided for, which has not
aliunde. except by been formally
(Philippine analogy or in offered, does not
National Bank suppletory apply to
vs. Merelo B. character and naturalization
Aznar, et. al, whenever proceeding
G.R. No. practicable and conformably to
171805, May convenient Section 4, Rule 1
30, 2011, (Rule 1, Sec. 4, of the Rules of
Leonardo-De Rules of Court). Court. (Ong Chia
Castro, J.). The (Government vs. Republic,
court therefore Insurance 328 SCRA 9
may be allowed System (GSIS) (2001).
to render vs. Dinnah Applying the
judgment based Villaviza et. al., same principle,
merely on the G.R. No. 180291, we should not
pleadings July 27, 2010, also apply the
without need of Mendoza, J.). In said rule on
trial and formal one case, the evidence in land
offer of Supreme Court registration
evidence. sustained the proceedings.
Court of Appeals After all, in one
ALTERNATIVE when it denied
ANSWER: case, the
an application Supreme Court
Page 173 of 198
already made restrainin titi ain

it clear that the g the on cas
liberal latter wi e
construction from thi or
principle does trying a n6 th
not apply in crucial m e
land case. The on
registration Court of ths pe
cases because Appeals . titi
it is not should c. de on
governed by therefore: cid

wit
the Rules of a. de e
hi
Court. cid th
n 6
(Bienvenido e e
Castillo vs. th ma
Republic of the e in
Philippines, m ca
G.R. No., ai se
182980, June n or
22, 2011, ca th
Carpio, J.). se e
wi pe
91. In thi titi
Petition n on
for 60 wi
Certiorari da thi
, the ys.
n
Court of b. de
60
Appeals cid
da
issues a e
ys.
Writ of th
d. de
Prelimina e
ci
ry ce
de
Injunctio rti
th
n against or
e
the RTC ari
m
pe
Page 174 of 198
months from issue of the (a) , The uncompleted testimony of A

preliminary injunction. should be ordered stricken from the
record because A has not been cross-
SUGGESTED ANSWER: examined by the defense.
Consequently, it stands to reason that
(d), The trial court, the Court of Appeals,
the striking out of the A‟s testimony
the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax
altogether wiped out the required
appeals that issued a writ of preliminary
authentication for the prosecution‟s
injunction against a lower court, board,
exhibits. They become inadmissible
officer, or quasi-judicial agency shall
unless the court, in its discretion,
decide the main case or petition within
reopens the trial upon a valid ground
six (6) months from the issuance of the
and permits the rectification of the
writ. (Rule 58, Sec. 5, as amended by
mistakes. (Spouse Dela Cruz vs. Papa,
A>M. No. 07-7-12-SC).
G.R. No. 185899, December 8,
2010).
92. Witness A was examined on direct
examination by the prosecutor. The
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
defense counsel however employed
dilatory tactics and was able to (b) , The uncompleted testimony of A
secure numerous postponements of should be allowed to remain on the
A's cross examination. A suffered a record since it was due to the fault of
stroke and became incapacitated. the defense that they were not able to
His uncompleted testimony may exercise their right to cross-examine the
therefore be: witness. The defense should be penalized
a. ordered stricken from the for employing dilatory tactics which
record. resulted in the witness‟ eventual
b. allowed to remain in the incapacity to testify.
record.
c. held in abeyance until he 93. If the Supreme Court en bane is
recovers. equally divided in opinion covering
d. not be given any probative an original action, the case shall be:
weight. a. re-raffled to a division.
b. original action shall be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: dismissed.
c. The judgment appealed from
shall be official.
d. again deliberated upon.
Page 163 of 198
SUGGESTED ANSWER: proceeding. (Sura vs. Martin, 26, SCRA

286; Barrete vs. Amila, 230 SCRA 219;
(b) Where the Court en banc is equally Magallanes vs. Sarita, 18 SCRA 575;
divided in opinion, or the necessary Moslem vs. Soriano, 124 SCRA 190;
majority cannot be had, the case shall People vs. Pascual, 12326-CR, February
again be deliberated on, and if after such 14, 1974). A judgment ordering the
deliberation no decision is reached, the defendant to paint a mural for the
original action commenced in the court plaintiff is considered a special
shall be dismissed; in appealed cases, judgment.
the judgment or order appealed from
shall stand affirmed; and on all 95. At the promulgation of judgment, P,
incidental matters, the petition or who is bonded, failed to appear
motion shall be denied. (Rule 56, Sec. 7, without justifiable cause. In order
Rules of Court). for P not to lose his remedies under
the Rules, he must:
94. An example of a special judgment is a. within 15 days from receipt
one which orders: of a copy of the decision, file
a. the defendant to deliver and a Motion for
reconvey personal property Reconsideration.
to the plaintiff. b. within 15 days from the
b. defendant to execute a Deed promulgation, surrender
of Sale in favor of plaintiff. to the court and file a
c. defendant to paint a mural motion for leave to avail of
for the plaintiff. remedies.
d. Defendant to vacate the c. notify his bondsman within
leased premises. 15 days so that his bail will
not be confiscated.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d. file a petition for certiorari.
(c) , A special judgment is one which

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
requires the performance of any act
other than the payment of money, or the (b) , If the judgment is for conviction
sale or delivery of a real or personal and the failure of the accused to
property. A disobedience to such appear was without justifiable cause,
judgment is an indirect contempt, and he shall lose the remedies available in
the judgment is executed by contempt these rules against the judgment and
the court shall
Page 164 of 198
order his arrest. 167710, June 5, of the d. a

Within fifteen 2009, Peralta, dismissal bar
(15) days from J.). is: to a
promulgation a. not sub
of judgment, 96. X, the an seq
however, the designated adj uen
accused may executor of udi t
surrender and a will, files cati acti
file a motion for a petition on on
leave of court to for probate upo on
avail of these of the n the
remedies. He same. X the sam
shall state the and his me e
reasons for his counsel rits cau
absence at the failed to . se.
scheduled appear b. the

without SUGGESTED
promulgation will ANSWER:
and if he proves justifiable can
that his absence cause at no
was for a the lon
justifiable hearing on ger
cause, he shall the be
be allowed to presentati pro
avail of said on of bat
remedies evidence ed.
within fifteen and the c. it is
915) days from court a
notice. (Rule therefore
120, Sec. 6, dismissed, dis
Rules of Court) motu mis
(Pascua vs. proprio, sal
Court of his
petition wit
Appeals, 348
for failure h
SCRA 197;
to pre
People vs. De
prosecute. jud
Grano, G.R. No.
The effect ice.
Page 165 of 198
(c) , The when the order 00 olv

dismissal of a of dismissal 0 ing
case for failure expressly or a
to prosecute contains a les mo
has the effect qualification s, ney
of adjudication that the wi clai
on the merits, dismissal is th m
and is without pr of
necessarily prejudice. (See ay P
understood to Rule 17, Sec. 3, er 50,
be with Rules of Court; for 00
prejudice to Gomez vs. eje 0
the filing of Alcantara, G.R. ct aft
another action, No. 179556, m er
unless February 13, en one
otherwise 2009). t. (1)
provided in the b. enf yea
order of 97. The Rule or r
dismissal. on Small
ce fro
Stated Claims is
me m
differently, the applicable
nt dat
general rule is to:
of e of
that dismissal a. cla
a set
of a case for im
ba tle
failure to s
ra me
prosecute is to for
ng nt.
be regarded as un
ay c. act
an pa
am io
adjudication id
ica n
on the merits re
ble for
and with nt
da
prejudice to als set ma
the filing of of tle ge
another action, P me s
and the only 10 nt ari
exception is 0, inv sin
Page 166 of 198
g to 1 demands may be
fr col 00, for damages
o lec 000 arising from fault
m t . or negligence.
q on (Sec. 4, A.M. No.
ua a SUGGESTED 08-8-7-SC, The
ANSWER:
si- pr Rule of Procedure
de o (c), The Rule on for Small Claims
lic mi Small Claims shall Cases).
t ss be applied in all
a or 98. When
actions which
m y directed by
are: (a) purely
o no the judge, a
civil in nature
te clerk of
u where the claim
am court can
nt or relief prayed
ou receive
in for by the
nti evidence
g plaintiff is solely
ng addressed
to for payment or
by the
P to reimbursement
parties in:
1 P of sum of money,
a. case
0 10 and (b) the civil
whe
0, 5,0 aspect of
re
0 00 criminal actions,
the
0 wh either filed
judg
0. er before the
e is
d. ac e institution of the
on
tio pla criminal action,
leav
n int or reserved upon
e.
iff the filing of the
b. smal
ex criminal action in l
clai
pre rec court, pursuant to
ms
ssl ove Rule 111 of the proc
eedi
y rin Revised Rules of
ngs.
g Criminal
c. cas
ins onl Procedure. These
es
ists yP claims or
wh
Page 167 of 198
er personally pli (b) , A

e receive the ca certification
th tio against forum
evidence to be
e n shopping is not
adduced by the
pa required in an
parties.
rti fo application for
However, in
es r search warrant.
default or
ag The Rules of
exparte se
re Court, require
hearings, and in ar
e only initiatory
any case where ch
in pleading to be
the parties agree wa
wr accompanied
in writing, the rr
iti with a
court may an
ng. certificate of
delegate the t.
d. lan non-forum
reception of c. com
d shopping
evidence to its plai
nt- omitting any
clerk of court in-
reg
who is a member inte mention of
istr rve
of the bar. (Rule “applications”
ati ntio
30, Sec. 9, Rules n. as in Supreme
on
of Court). d. pe Court No. 04-94.
pr
titi Hence, the
oce
99. A on absence of such
edi
certificate for certification
ngs
against will not result
.
Forum- Wr in the dismissal
Shopping it of the
SUGGESTED
ANSWER: is not Ka application for
required lik search warrant.
in: as (Savage vs.
a. peti an. Judge
tion A.B. Taypin,
s for
SUGGESTED
pro G.R. No.
ANSWER:
bate
134217, May
of
will. 11, 2000).
b. ap
(c)
Page 168 of 198
, o
f
T
h t
e h
e
R
u c
l o
e u
s r
t
p
r w
o h
v e
i r
d e
e
t
t h
h e
a
t c
a
t s
h e
e
i
j s
u
d p
g e
e n
d
Page 169 of 198
i a shall have the

n viol right to be
g et informed of his
po right to remain
s wd silent and to have
h er competent and
a on independent
l acc counsel
l use preferably of his

d's own choice. If the
100. An up
han person cannot
accused's for
ds. afford the
custodial ide
d. at services of
rights, e.g., ntif
one counsel, he must
right to icat
- be provided with
counsel ion
on- one. These rights
and right pur
one cannot be waived
to remain pos
con except in writing
silent, is es.
fro and in the
available: c. at
nta presence of
a. at ultr
tio counsel. (Article
a-
pr n III, Sec. 12 (1),
viol
eli wit 1987
et
mi h
exa
Constitution).
na eye
min
These
ry wit
atio
guaranteed
inv nes
n to
rights are
est s.
det
available in all
iga er
SUGGESTED kinds of
tio
min ANSWER: investigation
n.
e
including a
b. at (a), Any person
pre
preliminary
pol under
sen
investigation. In
ice
ce investigation for
a preliminary
lin
of the commission
investigation, a
e-
ultr of an offense
public
Page 170 of 198
prosecutor Section 1). due process.” investigation is

determines (Metropolitan (Sales vs. a summary
whether a crime Bank and Trust Sandiganbayan, proceeding and
has been Company vs. G.R. No. 143802, merely
committed and Rogelio November 16, inquisitorial in
whether there is Reynaldo, et.al., 2001). Applying nature. Hence,
probable cause G.R. No. 164538, the foregoing the accused
that the accused August 9, 2010, constitutional cannot yet
is guilty thereof. Del Castillo, and procedural invoke the full
(Rules of Court, J.). The right precepts, there exercise of his
Rule 112, to have a is no doubt that rights including
preliminary the custodial the right to
investigation rights are counsel.
conducted available during Moreover, a
before being the preliminary preliminary
bound over to investigation. investigation is
trial for a not part of a

ALTERNATIVE trial and it is
criminal offense
ANSWER:
and hence only in a trial
formally at risk There are some where an
of incarceration authorities accused can
or some other however, who demand the full
penalty, is not a believe that the exercise of his
mere formal or custodial rights rights, such as
technical right: do not apply the right to
it is a confront and
during the cross-examine
substantive
right. To deny his accusers to
preliminary
the accused‟s
establish his investigation, a
claim to a innocence
full and
preliminary (Albana vs. Belo,
exhaustive
investigation G.R. No. 158734,
presentation of
would be to October 2, 2009,
the parties‟
deprive him of Leonardo-De
evidence is not
the full measure Castro, J.). In a
even required,
of his right to preliminary
but only such as
Page 171 of 198
may engender a violet interrogation incriminating

well-grounded examination to that leads itself statements.”
belief that an determine to elicit (People vs.
offense has been presence of Sunga, G.R. No.
committed and ultra-violet 126029, March
that the accused powder on his 27, 2003).
is probably hands is being Otherwise
guilty thereof. conducted. stated, a
(George Miller custodial
There is a
vs. Secretary investigation
custodial
Hernando B. begins wh
investigation
Perez, G.R. No. the investigation
when a person is
165412, May 30, starts to focus
taken under the
2011, Villarama, on a particular
custody of the
Jr.). Ergo, the suspect. Among
law or otherwise
custodial rights the rights
deprived of his
of the accused guaranteed to a
freedom of
are not available suspect is that
action in any
during the he must
significant way.
preliminary continuously
“Custodial
investigation. have a counsel
investigation is
assisting him
(c), At ultra- in the stage
from the very
violet “where the
start of that
examination to police
interrogation
determine investigation is
(Poeple vs.
presence of no longer a
Morial, et. al.,
ultra violet general inquiry
G.R. No. 129295,
powder on into an unsolved
April 15, 2001).
accused‟s hands. crime but has
Clearly, when an
begun to focus
The custodial accused is
on a particular
rights of an compelled to
suspect taken
accused are undergo ultra-
into custody by
already violet
the police who
available at the examination to
carry out a
time an ultra- determine the
process of
Page 172 of 198
presence of the
ultra- violet
powder on his
hands, it is no
longer a mere
general inquiry
but rather a
custodial
investigation
which focuses
on him as a
suspect in the
commission of
the crime.
Therefore, for
all intents and
purposes, he is
entitled to
exercise his
Constitutional
safeguard and
guaranteed
rights to
counsel and to
remain silent.
Page 173 of 198
2011 Remedial Law Exam (B) not exceeding 6 years or a fine

not exceeding P1,000.00.
MCQ (November 27, 2011)
(C) of more than 6 years or a fine in
(1) Anna filed a petition for appointment as excess of P1,000.00.
regular administratrix of her fathers' estate.
Her sister Sophia moved to dismiss the (D) of more than 6 years.
petition on the ground that the parties, as
members of the same family, have not (3) Angie was convicted of false testimony
exerted earnest effort toward a and served sentence. Five years later, she
compromise prior to the filing of the was convicted of homicide. On appeal, she
petition. Should the petition be dismissed? applied for bail. May the Court of Appeals
deny her application for bail on ground of
(A) Yes, since such earnest effort is habitual delinquency?
jurisdictional in all estate cases.
(A) Yes, the felonies are both
(B) No, since such earnest effort is punishable under the Revised Penal
not required in special Code.
proceedings.
(B) Yes, her twin convictions
(C) Yes, since such earnest effort is indicated her criminal inclinations.
required prior to the filing of the
case. (C) No, the felonies fall under
different titles in the Revised
(D) No, since such earnest effort Penal Code.
toward a compromise is not
required in summary proceedings. (D) No, the charges are both
bailable.
(2) A pending criminal case, dismissed
provisionally, shall be deemed permanently (4) Which of the following is NOT
dismissed if not revived after 2 years with CONSISTENT with the rules governing
respect to offenses punishable by expropriation proceedings?
imprisonment
(A) The court shall declare the
(A) of more than 12 years. defendant who fails to answer the

complaint in default and render
judgment against him.
Page 169 of 198
(B) The court shall refer the case to (6) Gary who lived in Taguig borrowed P1
the Board of Commissioners to million from Rey who lived in Makati under
determine the amount of just a contract of loan that fixed Makati as the
compensation. venue of any action arising from the
contract. Gary had already paid the loan
(C) The plaintiff shall make the but Rey kept on sending him letters of
required deposit and forthwith take demand for some balance. Where is the
immediate possession of the venue of the action for harassment that
property sought to be expropriated. Gary wants to file against Rey?
(D) The plaintiff may appropriate the (A) In Makati since the intent of the
property for public use after party is to make it the venue of any
judgment and payment of the action between them whether based
compensation fixed in it, despite on the contract or not.
defendant’s appeal.
(B) In Taguig or Makati at the
(5) Which of the following is a correct option of Gary since it is a
statement of the rule on amendment of the personal injury action.
information in a criminal proceeding?
(C) In Taguig since Rey received the
(A) An amendment that letters of demand there.
downgrades the offense requires
leave of court even before the (D) In Makati since it is the venue
accused pleads. fixed in their contract.
(B) Substantial amendments are (7) Which of the following is NOT within the
allowed with leave of court before power of a judicial receiver to perform?
the accused pleads.
(A) Bring an action in his name.
(C) Only formal amendments are
permissible before the accused (B) Compromise a claim.
pleads.
(C) Divide the residual money in his
(D) After the plea, a formal hands among the persons legally
amendment may be made without entitled to the same.
leave of court.
(D) Invest the funds

Page 170 of 198
in his in default bail is a (10) As a rule, the

hands is allowed. matter of judge shall
without right in receive the
court (9) The the
evidence
approval. Metropolitan Trial Metropoli
personally. In
Court convicted tan Trial
which of the
(8) Which of the Virgilio and Dina Court
following
following of concubinage. before
circumstances
precepts forms Pending appeal, and after
may the court
part of the rules they applied for conviction
delegate the
governing small bail, claiming they .
reception of
claims? are entitled to it
evidence to the
as a matter of
(A) Permi clerk of court?
right. Is their
ssive
claim correct? (A) When
countercl
a question
aim is not (A) No, bail
of fact
allowed. is not a
arises
matter of
(B) The upon a
right after
court shall motion.
conviction.
render its
(B) When
decision (B) Yes,
the trial of
within 3 bail is a
an issue of
days after matter of
fact
hearing. right in all
requires
cases not
(C) Joinde the
involving
r of examinati
moral
separate on of a
turpitude.
claims is long
not (C) No, bail account.
allowed. is
(C) In
dependent default
(D) Motio on the risk or ex-
n to parte
of flight. hearing
declare s.
defendant (D) Yes,
Page 171 of 198
receiver of the following is receipt

(D) Upo may be admissible in dated
n motion appointe evidence without December
of a party d after further proof of 20, 1985
on judgment due execution or signed by
reasonabl if the genuineness? the
e judgment promisee,
obligor (A) Baptism showing
grounds.
al
refuses certifica payment of
(11) Which of the to apply tes. a loan,
following is in his found
(B) Official
accord with the property among the
record of
applicable rules to satisfy well-kept
the
on receivership? the file of the
Philippine
judgment promissor.
(A) The Embassy
.
court in (13) Ramon
may (C) The Singapore witnessed the
appoint trial court certified commission of a
the cannot by the crime but he
plaintiff appoint a Vice- refuses to testify
as receiver Consul for fear of his life
receiver when the with despite a subpoena
of the case is on official being served on
property appeal. seal. him. Can the court
in punish him for
(D) The (C) Docum
litigation contempt?
filing of ents
over the
bond on acknowled (A) No,
defendan
appointm ged before since no
t’s
ent of a a Notary person can
objection.
receiver Public in be
is mainly Hong compelled
(B) A
optional. Kong. to be a
(12) Bearing in between private witness

(D) Unbl
mind the and public against
emished
distinction document, which another.
Page 172 of 198
(D) Yes, intervenor

(B) Yes, fails to put (A) Res
since judicata.
since up a bond
litigants
public for the
need help (B) Lack
interest protection
in of
in justice of the
presentin jurisdicti
requires other
g their on over
his parties.
cases. the
testimon
subject
y. (14) The right to (D) the
matter.
intervene is intervenor
not absolute.
(C) No, has a
In general, it (C) Une
since stake in
CANNOT be nforceabil
Ramon allowed where the ity under
has a valid property the
reason for (A) the
subject of Statutes of
not intervenor
the suit.
Fraud.
testifying. has a
common (15) Which of the (D) Prescrip
interest following grounds tion.
with any for dismissal
of the invoked by the (16) When may a
parties. court will NOT co-owner NOT
PRECLUDE the demand the

(B) it partition of the
plaintiff from
would thing owned in
refiling his action?
enlarge common?
the
(A) When (B) When
issues
the the
and
creditor of property
expand
one of the is
the scope
co-owners essentially
of the
has indivisible
remedies
attached .
.
the
property. (C) When
(C) the
related co-
Page 173 of 198
owners proprio suspend question (D) Yes, if

agreed to the criminal exists. it is
keep the action on ground convinced
property of prejudicial that due
within the question? process
family. and fair
(A) Yes, if
trial will
(D) Whe it may be
be better
n a co- clearly
served if
owner inferred
the
uses the that
criminal
property complaina
case is
as his nt will not
suspended
residence. object to
.
the
(17) The city suspensio (18) Which of the
prosecutor of n of the following
Manila filed, upon criminal conforms to the
Soledad’s case. applicable rule on
complaint, a
replevin?
criminal action (B) No, the
for estafa against accused (A) The
her sister, Wella, must file a applicant
before the RTC of motion to must file a
Manila for selling suspend bond
to Victor a land the action executed
that she based on to the
previously sold to prejudicia adverse
Soledad. At the l party in an
same time question. amount
Soledad filed a equal to
civil action to (C) Yes, if
the value
annul the second it finds of the
sale before the from the property
RTC of Quezon record that as
City. May the such determine
Manila RTC motu prejudicial d by the
Page 174 of 198
court. Rico, its bus damages to Gerry. against the

driver, for Did the court act defendant
(B) The injuries Gerry correctly? declared in
property suffered when default.
has been their bus ran off (A) No,
wrongful the road and hit since the (D) Yes,
ly him. Of the two court since, in
detained defendants, only should failing to
by the have tried answer,
XYZ Bus Co. filed
adverse the case Rico may
an answer,
party. against be deemed
alleging that its
bus ran off the both to have
(C) The
road because one defendant admitted
applicant
of its wheels got s upon the the
has a
caught in an bus allegations
continge
open manhole, in the
nt claim company‟s
causing the bus complaint.
answer.
over the
to swerve
property (20) Which of the
without the (B) No,
object of following has NO
driver’s fault. the court
the writ. PLACE in an
Someone had should
application for a
stolen the have
(D) The
replevin order? A
manhole cover dropped
plaintiff
statement
and the road Rico as
may apply
gave no warning defendant
for the (A) that the
of the danger it since the
writ at property is
posed. On Gerry’s moneyed
any time wrongfully
motion and over defendant
before detained by
the objection of is the bus
judgment. the adverse
XYZ Bus Co., the company.
party.
(19) Gerry sued court declared
Rico, the (C) Yes,
XYZ Bus Co. and (B) that the
the court
property
can, under
has not
bus driver, in judgment the rules,
been
default and ordering him to render
distrained
rendered pay P50,000 in judgment
Page 175 of 198
for a tax (D) that (C) to fails to appear on

assessmen the overcome promulgation of
t or placed applicant a judgment where
under owns or disputabl he is found guilty.
custodia has a e What is the
legis. right to presumpt consequence of
the ion, clear his absence?

(C) of the and
possessio
assessed convincin (A) Cou
n of the
value of g nsel may
property.
the appeal the
evidence.
property. judgment
(21) 008-997-
0001 In which of (D) to in the
the following rebut the absence of
instances is the presump the
quantum of tive accused.
evidence validity
of a (B) The
ERRONEOUSLY
notarial judgment
applied?
documen shall be
(A) in t, promulga
Writ of substanti ted in his
Amparo al absence
cases, evidence. and he
substanti loses his
al (22) The accused right of
evidence. jumps bail and appeal.
(C) The n of the

(B) to
promulgati court.
satisfy the
on of the
burden of (D) The
judgment
proof in judgme
shall be nt shall
civil cases, be void.
suspended
preponder
until he is
ance of (23) What should
brought to
evidence. the court sheriff do
the
if a third party
jurisdictio
Page 176 of 198
serves on him an in case he service of (B) Registe

affidavit of claim proceeds pleadings? red
mail
covering the with the receipt.
property he had execution. (A) Official
return
levied? of the (C) Writte
(C) Immed server. n
(A) Ask iately lift admission
the the levy
of the
judgment and release
party
obligee to the levied
served.
file a property.
court- (D) Affida
(D) Ask
approved vit of the
the third-
indemnity server
party
bond in with a
claimant to
favor of statement
support
the third- of the
his claim
party date, place
with an
claimant and
indemnity
or the manner of
bond in
sheriff service.
favor of
will
the (25) A sued B for
release
judgment ejectment.
the levied
obligee Pending trial, B
property.
and died, survived by
(B) Ask release the his son, C. No
the levied substitution of
judgment property if party defendant
obligee to such bond was made. Upon
file a is filed. finality of the
court- judgment against
(24) Which of
approved B, may the same
the following is
bond for be enforced
NOT REGARDED
the against C?
as a sufficient
sheriff’s
proof of personal (A) Yes,
protection
Page 177 of 198
becaus prejudice
e the
A.
case
surviv
ed (D) No,
B‟s because
death the action
and the did not
effect of survive
final B’s death.
judgmen
t in an (26) What is the
ejectmen proper remedy to
t case secure relief from
binds his the final
successo resolutions of the
rs in- Commission On
interest. Audit?
(B) No, (A) Petitio
because n for
C was review on
denied certiorari
due with the

process. Supreme
Court.
(C) Yes,
because
the
negligen
ce of B’s
counsel
in failing
to ask for
substitut
ion,
should
not
Page 178 of 198
(B) Special civil action of certiorari (A) Yes, his previous conviction
with the Court of Appeals. requires posting of bail for the
present charge.
(C) Special civil action of
certiorari with the Supreme (B) Yes, since he may be deemed to
Court. have violated the terms of his
pardon.
(D) Appeal to the Court of Appeals.
(C) No, because he is presumed
(27) Which of the following is a duty innocent until proven otherwise.
enjoined on the guardian and covered by
his bond? (D) No, one charged with the
violation of a city ordinance is
(A) Provide for the proper care, not required to post bail,
custody, and education of the notwithstanding a previous
ward. pardon.
(B) Ens service

ure the s to the
wise ward.
and
profita (D) Rai
ble se the
invest ward to
ment become
of the a
ward’s respons
ible
financi
membe
al
r of
resour
society.
ces.
(28) Berto was

(C) Co
charged with
llect
and convicted
compe
of violating a
nsation
city ordinance
for his
against
Page 176 of 198
littering in public arisin (30) In a case,

(29) Which of the
places punishable g the
following claims
by imprisonment from prosecutor
survive the death
of one month or a quasi- asked the
of the defendant
fine of P1,000.00. delict. medical
and need not be
But the city expert the
presented as a
mayor pardoned (D) Clai question,
claim against the ms
him. A year later, for "Assuming
estate?
he was charged fune that the
ral
with violating a exp assailant was
(A) Contin
city ordinance ens behind the
gent es.
against deceased
money
jaywalking which
claims
carried the same before he necessaril
arising
penalty. Need attacked y included
from
Berto post bail for him, would in the
contract.
such offense? you say that charge of
(B) Unen treachery homicide.
forced attended the
money killing?" Is (D) Yes,
judgment this since
against hypothetical superve
the question ning
decedent, permissible? event
with altered
(A) N the kind
death
o, of crime
occurring
sinc the
before
e it accused
levy on
asks committ
execution
for ed.
of the
his
property.
legal
(C) Claim opin
s for ion.
damages
(B) Yes, but
Page 177 of 198
conditiona injuries for convict (32) Arvin

lly, subject stabbing Terence. ed of was caught in
to He was tried and the flagrante
subsequen convicted as first delicto selling
t proof charged. A few offense drugs for
that the days later, . P200,000.00.
assailant Terence died due The police
was to severe infection (C) No
officers
indeed of his stab , there
confiscated
behind the wounds. Can the is
the drugs and
deceased prosecution file double
the money
at that another jeopar
and brought
time. information dy
them to the
against Ben for since
police station
(C) Yes, homicide? serious
where they
since physica
prepared the
hypothetic (A) Yes, l
inventory
al since injurie
duly signed
questions Terence’s s is
by police
may be death
officer Oscar
asked of shows
Moreno. They
an expert irregularity
were,
witness. in the filing
however,
of the
unable to take
(D) No, earlier
pictures of the
since the charge
items. Will
medical against
this deficiency
expert has him.
destroy the
no
chain of
personal (B) No,
custody rule
knowledge double
in the drug
of the fact. jeopardy is
case?
present
(31) The city since Ben
(A) No,
prosecutor had
a
charged Ben with already
breac
serious physical been
Page 178 of 198
h of the at all
chain of times to
custody preserve
rule in the
drug integrity
cases, if of the
satisfact confiscate
orily d items.
explaine
d, will (D) Yes,
not complianc
negate e with the
convictio chain of
n. custody
rule in
(B) No, a drug
breach of cases is
the chain the only
of way to
custody prove the
rule may accused’s
be offset guilt
by beyond
presentat reasonabl
ion in e doubt.
court of
the
drugs.
(C) Yes,
chain of
custody
in drug
cases
must be
strictly
observed
Page 179 of 198
(33) A sued B in the RTC of Quezon City, within the jurisdiction of

joining two causes of action: for partition of administrative tribunals.
real property and breach of contract with
damages. Both parties reside in Quezon (C) No court has the authority to
City but the real property is in Manila. May interfere by injunction with the
the case be dismissed for improper venue? judgment of another court of

coordinate jurisdiction.
(A) Yes, since causes of action
pertaining to different venues may (D) A higher court will not entertain
not be joined in one action. direct resort to it unless the redress

sought cannot be obtained from the
(B) No, since causes of action appropriate court.
pertaining to different venues
may be joined in the RTC if one of (35) Which of the following admissions
the causes of action falls within made by a party in the course of judicial
its jurisdiction. proceedings is a judicial admission?
(C) Yes, because special civil action (A) Admissions made in a pleading
may not be joined with an ordinary signed by the party and his counsel
civil action. intended to be filed.
(D) No, since plaintiff may (B) An admission made in a pleading
unqualifiedly join in one complaint in another case between the same
as many causes of action as he has parties.
against opposing party.

(C) Admission made by counsel in
(34) What is the doctrine of judicial stability open court.
or non interference?
(D) Admissions made in a complaint
(A) Once jurisdiction has attached to superseded by an amended
a court, it can not be deprived of it complaint.
by subsequent happenings or
(36) What defenses may be raised in a suit
events.
to enforce a foreign judgment?
(B) Courts will not hear and decide

(A) That the judgment is contrary to
cases involving issues that come
Philippine procedural rules.
(B) None, the

Page 178 of 198
judgment presented Ric and a (D) No,

being Pat, neighbors of conviction the
entitled to George and for bigamy. circumsta
full faith Teresa in Cebu ntial
and credit City, to prove, (C) No, the
evidence
as a first, that George circumsta
cannot
matter of and Teresa ntial
overcome
general cohabited there evidence
the lack of
comity and, second, that is not
direct
among they established a enough to
evidence
nations. reputation as support a
in any
husband and wife. conviction
criminal
(C) That Can Cindy prove for
case.
the the bigamy by bigamy.
foreign such evidence? (38) To prove
court
payment of a
erred in (A) Yes, the debt, Bong
the circumstan testified that he
appreciati tial
heard Ambo say,
on of the evidence is
as the latter was
evidence. enough to
handing over
support a
money to Tessie,
(D) That conviction
that it was in
extrinsic for
payment of debt.
fraud bigamy.
Is Bong’s
afflicted
testimony
the (B) No, at
admissible in
judgment least one
. evidence?
direct
evidence
(37) Cindy (A) Yes,
and two
charged her since what
circumstan
husband, George, Ambo said
tial
with bigamy for a and did is
evidence
prior subsisting an
are
marriage with independe
required
Teresa. Cindy ntly
to support
relevant
Page 179 of 198
statemen constitut to a will.

t. es a
verbal
(B) No, act.
since
what (39) Considering
Ambo the qualifications
said and required of a
did was would-be
not in witness, who
response among the
to a following is
startling INCOMPETENT
occurren to testify?
ce.
(A) A
(C) No, person
since under the
Bong’s influence
testimon of drugs
y of what when the
Ambo event he
said and is asked
did is to testify
hearsay. on took
place.
(D) Yes,
since
(B) A
Ambo‟
s person
statem
convicte
ent
d of
and
perjury
action,
who will
subject
testify as
of
an
Bong‟s
attesting
testimon
witness
y,
Page 180 of 198
(C) A deaf and dumb. (D) No, since it was not shown that
Arthur left the country with intent
(D) A mental retardate. to defraud Bren.
(40) Arthur, a resident foreigner sold his car (41) What is the movant’s remedy if the trial
to Bren. After being paid but before court incorrectly denies his motion to
delivering the car, Arthur replaced its dismiss and related motion for
original sound system with an inferior one. reconsideration?
Bren discovered the change, rejected the
car, and demanded the return of his (A) Answer the complaint.
money. Arthur did not comply. Meantime,
his company reassigned Arthur to (B) File an administrative action for
Singapore. Bren filed a civil action against gross ignorance of the law against
Arthur for contractual fraud and damages. the trial judge.
Upon his application, the court issued a

(C) File a special civil action of
writ of preliminary attachment on the
certiorari on ground of grave
grounds that (a) Arthur is a foreigner; (b)
abuse of discretion.
he departed from the Philippines; and (c) he
was guilty of fraud in contracting with
(D) Appeal the orders of denial.
Bren. Is the writ of preliminary attachment
proper? (42) During trial, plaintiff offered evidence
that appeared irrelevant at that time but he
(A) No, Arthur is a foreigner living
said he was eventually going to relate to the
abroad; he is outside the court’s
issue in the case by some future evidence.
jurisdiction.
The defendant objected. Should the trial
court reject the evidence in question on
(B) Yes, Arthur committed fraud
ground of irrelevance?
in changing the sound system and
its components before delivering
(A) No, it should reserve its ruling
the car bought from him.
until the relevance is shown.
(C) Yes the timing of his departure is

(B) Yes, since the plaintiff could
presumptive evidence of intent to
anyway subsequently present the
defraud.
evidence anew.
(C) Yes, irrelevant

since evidence is
Page 180 of 198
not (B) Yes, as arising from the (B) The

admissible evidence same set of facts? proceedin
. of his past g in an
propensity (A) When
Amparo
(D) No, it for the
petition is
should committin criminal
criminal
admit it g robbery. action is
in nature.
condition filed after
ally until (C) Yes, as the (C) No
its evidence Amparo separate
relevance of a petition, criminal
is shown. pattern of the latter action
criminal shall be may be
(43) Ben testified behavior dismissed. instituted
that Jaime, proving his after an
charged with guilt of the Amparo
robbery, has present petition is
committed bag- offense. filed.
snatching three
times on the same (D) No, (D) When
street in the last since the
six months. Can evidence criminal
the court admit of guilt of action is
this testimony as a past filed after
evidence against crime is the
Jaime? not Amparo
evidence petition,
(A) No, of guilt of the latter
since a present shall be
there is no crime. consolida
showing
ted with
that Ben (44) What is the
the first.
witnessed right correlation
the past between a criminal (45) Alex filed a
three action and a petition for writ
robberies. petition for Writ of of amparo against
Amparo both Melba relative to
Page 181 of 198
his daughter al
Toni's evidence.
involuntary
disappearance. (B) For
Alex said that Alex,
Melba was Toni's preponde
employer, who, rance of
days before Toni evidence;

for Melba,
disappeared,
substanti
threatened to get
al
rid of her at all
evidence.
costs. On the
other hand,
(C) For
Melba countered
Alex,
that she had
proof
nothing to do
beyond
with Toni's
reasonabl
disappearance
e doubt;
and that she
for Melba,
took steps to
ordinary
ascertain Toni's
diligence.
whereabouts.
What is the (D) For
quantum of both,
substa
evidence ntial
required to eviden
ce.
establish the
parties'
respective
claims?
(A) For
Alex,
probable
cause; for
Melba,
substanti
Page 182 of 198
(46) In which of the following situations is (A) He will give a 5-day notice to the
the declaration of a deceased person judgment obligor and, if the latter
against his interest NOT ADMISSIBLE does not comply, the sheriff will
against him or his successors and against have the improvements forcibly
third persons? demolished.
(A) Declaration of a joint debtor (B) He will report to the court the
while the debt subsisted. judgment obligor’s refusal to comply
and have the latter cited in
(B) Declaration of a joint owner in contempt of court.
the course of ownership.
(C) He will demolish the
(C) Declaration of a former co- improvements on special order of
partner after the partnership has the court, obtained at the
been dissolved. judgment obligee‟s motion.
(D) De sold him; 2.

claratio But Perla owes
n of an Dante P6,000
agent for the dent on
within his car that she
the borrowed."
scope How should
of his the court treat
authori the second
ty. statement?
(47) Defendan (A) A

cros
t Dante said in
s
his answer: clai
m
"1. Plaintiff
Perla claims
(B) A
that defendant com
Dante owes puls
ory
her P4,000 on coun
the mobile tercl
aim
phone that she
Page 182 of 198
(C) A third court.

party (D) He
complai will
nt (C) W
inform
hen
the court
(D) A the
permis of the
accuse
sive
judgment
counte d fails
rclaim obligor’s
to pay
noncompl
his
(48) How will the iance and
annua
court sheriff proceed
l
enforce the to
premi
demolition of demolish
um on
improvements? the
the
improve
bail
ments.
bond.
(49) When may

(D) W
the bail of the
hen
accused be
the
cancelled at the
accuse
instance of the
d
bondsman?
chang
es his
(A) When
the addre
accused
ss
jumps
bail. witho
ut
(B) When notice
the to the
bonds
bondsma
man.
n
surrende
rs the
accused
to the
Page 183 of 198
(50) Which of the following MISSTATES a (C) Yes, the right of the intervenor is
requisite for the issuance of a search merely in aid of the right of the
warrant? original party, which in this case
had ceased to exist.
(A) The warrant specifically
describes the place to be searched (D) No, since having been allowed
and the things to be seized. to intervene, the intervenor
became a party to the action,
(B) Presence of probable cause. entitled to have the issue it raised
tried and decided.
(C) The warrant issues in connection
with one specific offense. (52) The accused was convicted for estafa
thru falsification of public document filed
(D) Judge determines probable
by one of two offended parties. Can the
cause upon the affidavits of the
other offended party charge him again with
complainant and his witnesses.
the same crime?
(51) Ranger Motors filed a replevin suit

(A) Yes, since the wrong done the
against Bart to recover possession of a car
second offended party is a separate
that he mortgaged to it. Bart disputed the
crime.
claim. Meantime, the court allowed, with no
opposition from the parties, Midway Repair (B) No, since the offense refers to
Shop to intervene with its claim against the same series of act, prompted
Bart for unpaid repair bills. On subsequent by one criminal intent.
motion of Ranger Motors and Bart, the
court dismissed the complaint as well as (C) Yes, since the second offended
Midway Repair Shop’s intervention. Did the party is entitled to the vindication of
court act correctly? the wrong done him as well.
(A) No, since the dismissal of the (D) No, since the second offended
intervention bars the right of Bart to party is in estoppel, not having
file a separate action. joined the first criminal action.
(B) Yes, intervention is merely (53) Henry testified that a month after the
collateral to the principal action and robbery Asiong, one of the accused, told
not an independent proceeding. him that Carlos was one of those who
committed the crime with him. Is

Page 183 of 198
Henry’s granting (C) Yes,

testimony (54) Dorothy filed the since he
regarding what a petition for writ petition. filed it
Asiong told him of habeas corpus
within 15
admissible in against her (B) No,
days from
evidence against husband, Roy, to since he
receipt of
Carlos? get from him filed it
the denial
custody of their 5 more than
of his
(A) No, year old son, Jeff. 2 days
since it motion for
The court granted after
is reconsider
hearsa the petition and receipt of
y. ation.
required Roy to the order
turn over Jeff to denying
(B) No, (D) Yes,
his mother. Roy his
since since he
sought motion
Asiong filed it
reconsideration for
did not within 7
but the court reconside
make the days from
denied it. He filed ration.
statemen receipt of
a notice of appeal the denial
t during
five days from of his
the
receipt of the motion for
conspirac
order denying his reconsider
y.
motion for ation.
reconsideration.
(C) Yes,
Did he file a (55) Angel Kubeta
since it
timely notice of filed a petition to
constitute
s appeal? change his first
admission name "Angel."

(A) No, After the required
against a
since he publication but
co-
filed it before any
conspirato
more than
r. opposition could
2 days
be received, he
(D) Yes, after
filed a notice of
since it receipt of
dismissal. The
part of the the
court confirmed
res gestae. decision
Page 184 of 198
the dismissal (B) No, applies (58) Which of the

without since the and the following states a
prejudice. Five rule on two cases correct guideline
days later, he dismissal involve a in hearing
filed another of action change in applications for
petition, this upon the name. bail in capital
time to change plaintiff’s offenses?
his surname notice (56) A complaint
"Kubeta." Again, does not without the (A) The

Angel filed a apply to required hearing
notice of special "verification" for bail in
dismissal after proceedin capital
(A) shall
the publication. gs. be offenses
This time, treated is
(C) No, as
however, the unsign summary
court issued an since ed. ; the
order, change of
court
confirming the name
does not
dismissal of the does not
sit to try
case with involve
the
prejudice. Is the public
merits of
dismissal with interest
the case.
prejudice and the
rules (B) lac not filed
correct?
should be ks a and should
(A) Yes, liberally be
jurisdictio expunged.
since construed
nal
such .
requireme (57) The decisions
dismissal
(D) Yes, nt. of the Commission
with
since the on Elections or the
prejudice
(C) is a Commission on
is rule on
sham
mandato dismissal pleadin Audit may be
g. challenged by
ry. of action
upon the
(D) is (A) petition
plaintiff‟ s notice considered for review
Page 185 of 198
on on must claimed that

(B) The
certiorari have full Sigma forged the
prosecuti
filed with opportuni signatures of their
on’s
the ty to late parents to
conformit
Supreme prove the make it appear
y to the
Court guilt of that they sold the
accused’s
under Rule the land to her when
motion
45. accused. they did not, thus
for bail
prejudicing
is proof
(B) petitio (59) Apart from Betty’s legitime.
that its
n for the case for the Sigma moved to
evidence
review on settlement of her dismiss the action
of his
certiorari parents' estate, on the ground
guilt is
filed with Betty filed an that the dispute
not
the Court action against her should be resolved
strong.
of Appeals sister, Sigma, for in the estate
under Rule reconveyance of proceedings. Is
(C) The
42. title to a piece of Sigma correct?
accused,
land. Betty
as
(C) appea
applicant (A) Yes, ownership
l to the
for bail, questions of property
Supreme
carries of cannot be
Court
the collation resolved in
under
burden of should be the estate
Rule 54.
showing resolved proceeding
that the in the s.

(D) special
prosecuti estate
civil
proceedin (C) Yes, in
action of on’s
gs, not in the sense
certiorari evidence
a separate that Betty
under of his
civil case. needs to
Rule 65 guilt is
wait until
filed with not
(B) No, the estate
the strong.
since case has
Supreme
(D) The questions been
Court.
prosecuti of terminated.
Page 186 of 198
motion for al the

(D) No, (C) The
preliminary order
the filing trial court
investigation of the denying
of the shall
charge against him? the motion
separate allow the
for
action is plaintiff (A) Wait preliminar
proper; to present for y
but the evidence judgment investigati
estate exparte. and, on on.
proceedin appeal
g must be (D) The
from it, (62) Which of
suspende trial court
assign the following
d shall
such renders a
meantime. expunge
denial as complaint for
his answer error. unlawful detainer
(60) What is the from the
deficient?
consequence of record. (B) None
the unjustified since such (A) The
absence of the (61) What is the order is defendant
defendant at the remedy of the final and claims
pre-trial? accused if the trial executory that he
court erroneously . owns the
(A) The denies his subject
trial court (C) Ask property.
shall for
declare reconsid (B) The
him as in eration; plaintiff
default. if denied, has
file tolerated
(B) The
petition defendant’
trial court
for s
shall
certiorar possessio
immediate
i and n for 2
ly render
prohibiti years
judgment
on. before
against
demandin
him. (D) Appe g that he
Page 187 of 198
vacate it. the action person and for

against a cannot be unlawful
(C) The lessee found in detainer
plaintiff‟ who has the
s not paid Philippines (D) An
demand the . administrat
is for the stipulated or suing for
lessee to rents. (64) In which of damages
pay back the following arising
rentals (63) In a judicial cases is the from the
or foreclosure plaintiff the real death of
vacate. proceeding, party in interest? the

under which of decedent
(D) The the following (A) A
lessor instances is creditor of
institutes one of the
co-owners
the court NOT submits
of a parcel
ALLOWED to his claim
of land,
render deficiency in the
judgment for the suing for
estate
plaintiff? partition
proceedin
g.
(A) If the (B) An
mortgagee agent
(C) If the
is a acting in
mortgago
banking his own
r is a third
institution name
party who
. suing for
is not
the benefit
solidarily
(B) if of a
liable
upon the disclosed
with the
mortgagor principal
debtor.
’s death
during the (C) Assign
(D) If the
proceedin ee of the
mortgagor
g, the lessor in
is a non-
mortgagee an action
resident
Page 188 of 198
(65) The Omnibus motion to quash

defendant in an Motion. an information
action for sum of that charges two
money filed a (B) No, offenses?
motion to because
dismiss the affirmativ (A) He
complaint on the e defenses may be
ground of are barred convicted
improper venue. by the only of the
After hearing, earlier more

motion to serious
the court denied
dismiss. offense.
the motion. In
his answer, the
(C) Yes,
defendant
because
claimed
the
prescription of
defense of
action as
prescripti
affirmative
on of
defense, citing
action can
the date alleged
be raised
in the complaint
at anytime
when the cause
before the
of action
finality of
accrued. May the
judgment.
court, after
hearing, dismiss
(D) No,
the action on
because of
ground of
the rule
prescription?
on
Omnibus
(A) Yes,
Motion.
because
prescrip (66) What is the
tion is an
effect of the
exceptio
failure of the
n to the
accused to file a
rule on
Page 189 of 198
(B) He may in general be (A) Yes, an unregistered entity

convicted of both offenses. like MCM Theater may be served
with summons through its office
(C) The trial shall be void. manager.
(D) He may be convicted only of the (B) No, because MCM has no
lesser offense. juridical personality and cannot be
sued.
(67) Which of the following is a correct
application of the rules involved in (C) No, since the real parties in
consolidation of cases? interest, the owners of MCM
Theater, have not been served with
(A) Consolidation of cases pending
summons.
in different divisions of an appellate
court is not allowed. (D) Yes since MCM, as business
entity, is a de facto partnership with
(B) The court in which several
juridical personality.
cases are pending involving
common questions of law and (69) Fraud as a ground for new trial must
facts may hear initially the be extrinsic as distinguished from intrinsic.
principal case and suspend the Which of the following constitutes extrinsic
hearing in the other cases. fraud?
(C) Consolidation of cases pending (A) Collusive suppression by

in different branches or different plaintiff‟s counsel of a material
courts is not permissible. evidence vital to his cause of
action.
(D) The consolidation of cases is
done only for trial purposes and not (B) Use of perjured testimony at the
for appeal. trial.
(68) Summons was served on "MCM (C) The defendant’s fraudulent

Theater," a business entity with no juridical representation that caused damage
personality, through its office manager at to the plaintiff.
its place of business. Did the court acquire
jurisdiction over MCM Theater’s owners? (D) Use of falsified documents
during the trial.
(70) Upon review, the Secretary of

Page 188 of 198
Justice ordered n. (72) Which of the

the public (B) suspens following
prosecutor to file (C) No, ion of
proceed CANNOT be
a motion to since the
ings. disputably
withdraw the court has
presumed under
information for the power (C) contem
the rules of
after the pt of
estafa against court. evidence?
Sagun for lack of case is
probable cause. filed to (D) waive (A) That

The public itself r of the thing
prosecutor determin plaintiff‟s once
complied. Is the e right proved to
trial court bound probable exist
against
to grant the cause. continues
the
withdrawal? unpleade as long as
(D) Yes,
d is usual
(A) Yes, since the
necessary with
since the decision of
party. things of
prosecutio the
that
n of an Secretary
nature.
action is a of Justice
prerogativ in criminal (B) That the

matters is law has
e of the
been
public binding on obeyed.
prosecuto courts.
r. (C) That a
(71) Unexplained writing
is truly
(B) No, or unjustified dated.
since the non-joinder in the
complaina Complaint of a (D) That a
nt has necessary party young
already despite court person,
acquired a order results in absent
vested for 5
(A) the years, it
right in
dismiss
the al of the being
Complai unknown
informatio
nt.
Page 189 of 198
whether other posts a (A) in

he still adequate redelivery criminal
lives, is remedy in bond equal cases, the
consider the to the accused
ed dead ordinary value of may prove
for course of the his good
purpose law. property moral
s of seized. character
successi (C) The if
on. responde (C) When pertinent
nt the to the
(73) Which of neglects plaintiff moral
the following is to takes the trait
NOT REQUIRED perform a property involved
in a petition for clear duty and in the
mandamus? under a disposes of
offense
contract. it without
charged.
(A) The the
act to be (D) The sheriff’s (B) in
performe petitioner approval. criminal
d is not has a cases, the
discretio clear legal (D) When prosecutio
nary. right to a third n may
the act party prove the
(B) Ther demande claims the bad moral
e is no d. property character
taken yet of the
(74) When is the bond is
the accused to
defendant found
applicant prove his
entitled to the insufficie
does not criminal
return of the nt or
file a bond predisposit
property taken defective
in favor of ion.
under a writ of and is not
the sheriff.
replevin? replaced.
(C) in
(75) Character criminal
(A) When (B) When
evidence is
the the admissible cases, the
plaintiff‟s defendant bad moral
Page 190 of 198
character (D) when applies is pending

of the it is the rule in cases.
offended evidence force at
party may the time (77) A motion for
of the
not be the cause reconsideration of
good
proved. of action a decision is pro
character
accrued. forma when
of a
witness
(B) No, (A) it does
even
since new not
prior to
procedur specify
impeach
al rules the
ment.
cover defects in
only cases the

(76) X’s action for
where the judgment
sum of money
issues .
against Y
amounting to have
(B) it is a
P80,000.00 already
second
accrued before been
motion for
the effectivity of joined.
reconsider
the rule
(C) Yes, ation with
providing for
since an
shortened
procedura alternativ
procedure in
l rules e prayer
adjudicating
have for new
claims that do
retroactiv trial.
not exceed
e effect.
P100,000.00. X
filed his action
(D) Yes,
after the rule
since
took effect. Will
procedur
the new rule
al rules
apply to his case?
generally
apply
(A) No
prospecti
since
vely to
what
Page 191 of 198
(C) it reiterates the issues already

(A) Sandiganbayan only
passed upon but invites a second
look at the evidence and the
arguments.
(D) its arguments in support of the

alleged errors are grossly
erroneous.
(78) Which of the following correctly states

the rule on foreclosure of mortgages?
(A) The rule on foreclosure of real

estate mortgage is suppletorily
applicable to extrajudicial
foreclosures.
(B) In judicial foreclosure, an

order of confirmation is
necessary to vest all rights in the
purchaser.
(C) There is equity of redemption in

extra-judicial foreclosure.
(D) A right of redemption by the

judgment obligor exists in judicial
foreclosure.
(79) The information charges PNP Chief

Luis Santos, (Salary Grade 28), with "taking
advantage of his public position as PNP
Head by feloniously shooting JOSE ONA,
inflicting on the latter mortal wounds which
caused his death." Based solely on this
allegation, which court has jurisdiction over
the case?
Page 191 of 198
(B) Sandiganbayan or Regional motive. school building
Trial Court that appeared to

(B) Munic be owned by Rene.
(C) Sandiganbayan or Court Martial ipal Marie, however,
ordinances filed a third party
(D) Regional Trial Court only in the claim with the
municipali sheriff, despite
(80) Distinguish between conclusiveness ties where which, the latter
of judgment and bar by prior judgment. the MCTC
scheduled the
sits.
execution sale.
(A) Conclusiveness of judgment
Marie then filed a
bars another action based on the (C) Telecon
separate action
same cause; bar by prior judgment ferencing is
before the RTC of
precludes another action based on now a way
Malolos, Branch 2,
the same issue. of
which issued a
conducting
(B) Conclusiveness of judgment writ of preliminary
business
bars only the defendant from injunction
transaction
questioning it; bar by prior enjoining the
s.
judgment bars both plaintiff and sheriff from taking
defendant. possession and

(D) British
proceeding with
law on
(C) Conclusiveness of judgment the sale of the
successio
bars all matters directly levied property.
n
adjudged; bar by prior judgment Did Branch 2
personall
precludes all matters that might correctly act in
y known
have been adjudged. issuing the
to the
injunction?
presiding
(D) Conclusiveness of judgment
judge.
precludes the filing of an action to (A) Yes,
annul such judgment; bar by prior since the
(82) The RTC of
judgment allows the filing of such rules
Malolos, Branch 1,
an action. allow the
issued a writ of
filing of
execution against
(81) Which of the following matters is NOT the
Rene for P20
A PROPER SUBJECT of judicial notice? independe
million. The
(A) Person killed even nt suit to
sheriff levied on a
s have without check the
Page 192 of 198
sheriff‟s (C) No, upon the

wrongful (A) The
because former
act in
court’s trial, if
levying the
decision material
proper
on shall be and
remedy is
held in competen
to seek
a suspensio
relief t, shall
n until the remain in
third from the
defendant use.
same
party‟s could
court
property. show at (D) The
which
the court shall
rendered
(B) Yes, reopening vacate the
the
since of trial judgment
judgment.
Branch 2, that it has as well as
like to be the entire
(D) No,
Branch 1, abandone proceedin
since it
is part of d. gs had in
constitute
the RTC of the case.
s
Malolos. (B) The
interferen
court (84) Which of the
ce with
shall following is
the
maintain sufficient to
judgment
the part disallow a will on
of a co-
of its the ground of
equal
judgment mistake?
court
that is
with
unaffecte (A) An
concurren
d and error in
t
void the the
jurisdictio
rest. descriptio
n.
n of the
(C) The land
(83) What is the
evidence devised in
effect and
taken the will.
ramification of an
order allowing
new trial?
Page 193 of 198
n. (B) No,
(B) The not be distributed
inclusion prior to the since the
(D) The
for payment of all CSC
conformity
distributio charges to the Chairman
of the
n among estate. What will and
majority of
the heirs justify advance Commissi
the
of distribution as an oners
creditors
properties exception? have the
to such
not rank of
distributio
belonging (A) The Justices of
n.
to the estate has the Court
testator. sufficient of
(86) A party
residual Appeals.
aggrieved by an
(C) The assets
interlocutory order
testator and the (C) No,
of the Civil Service
intended distribute since the
Commission (CSC)
a es file CSC is a
filed a petition for
donation sufficient Constituti
certiorari and
bond. onal
intervivo prohibition with
Commissi
s but (B) The the Court of
on.
unwitting specific Appeals. May the
ly property Court of Appeals (D) Yes,

executed sought to take cognizance of since the
a will. be the petition? Court of
distributed Appeals
(D) An (A) Yes,
might has
error in provided it
suffer in jurisdicti
the name raises both
value. on over
of the questions
the
person (C) An of facts
petition
nominate agreement and law.
concurre
d as among the nt with
executor. heirs the
regarding Supreme
(85) As a rule,
such Court.
the estate shall
distributio
Page 194 of 198
allo made said identificati

(87) Which of wa
declaratio on of the
the nce
following of n he was accused.
is an
unaware
appealabl app
eal. that the (B) Yes,
e?
same was since it
(A) An (88) Which of contrary constitutes
order of the following is to his an
default NOT REQUIRED aforesaid independe
against of a declaration interest. ntly
the against interest relevant
defendan as an exception (89) To prove the statement.
t. to the hearsay identity of the
rule? assailant in a (C) No,
(B) The crime of homicide, since the
denial of a (A) The a police officer police had
motion to declarant testified that, the accused
dismiss had no Andy, who did not identified
based on motive to testify in court, without
improper falsify and pointed a finger at warning
venue. believed the accused in a him of his
such police lineup. Is rights.
(C) The
declaratio the police officer’s
dismissa (D) No,
n to be testimony
l of an since the
true. regarding Andy's
action testimony
identification of
with (B) The is hearsay.
the accused
prejudic declarant
admissible
e. is dead or (90) In which of
evidence?
unable to the following cases
(D) The is the testimony in
testify. (A) Yes,
dis
a case involving a
since it is
(C) The interest of deceased barred
based on
declaratio the by the
his
n relates declarant. Survivorship
personal
to a fact Disqualification
(D) At the knowledge
against Rule or Dead Man
the time he of Andy’s
Page 195 of 198
Statute? (A) Testi After hearing

(D) The Romy, the court
mony
testimony denied the motion
against
is offered for his discharge.
the heirs
to prove a How will denial
of the
claim less affect Romy?
deceased
than
defendan
what is (A) His
t who are
establishe testimony
substitut
d under a shall
ed for
written remain on
the
document record.
latter.
signed by
the (B) Romy
(B) The
decedent. will be
testimony
prosecute
of a mere
(91) The d along
witness
prosecution with Zoilo
who is
moved for the and
neither a
discharge of Amado.
party to
Romy as state
the case
witness in a (C) His
nor is in
robbery case it liability, if
privity
filed against any, will
with the
Zoilo, Amado, be
latter.
and him. Romy mitigated.
testified,
(C) The
(D) The
consistent with
testimony
court can
the sworn
of an
convict
statement that he
oppositor
him based
gave the
in a land
on his
prosecution.
registrati
testimony.
on case
(92) In persons, the court
filed by
proceedings for the in which the action
the
settlement of the is pending may
decedent’
estate of deceased properly
s heirs.
Page 196 of 198
the heirs from this exclusively

(A) pass that an contract of before the
upon estate sale, the proper
question asset was preferred Cebu City
of held in venue shall court.
ownership trust for be in the
of a real him by the proper (C) Venue
property deceased. courts of in case of
in the Makati. dispute
name of (D) rescin between
the d a (B) Should the
deceased contract of the real parties to
but lease owner this
claimed entered succeed in contract
by a into by the recovering shall
stranger. deceased his stolen solely be
before car from in the
(B) pass death on buyer X, proper
upon the ground the latter courts of
with the of shall have Quezon
consent recourse
contractua City.
of all the under this
l breach by
heirs the (D) Any
the lessee. contract to
issue of dispute
seller Y
ownershi (93) Which of the arising
p of following from this
estate stipulations in a contract of
asset, contract will sale may
contested supersede the be filed in
by an heir venue for actions Makati or
if no third that the rules of Quezon
person is civil procedure City.
affected. fix?
(94) Allan was
(C) rule (A) In case riding a
on a claim of litigation passenger
by one of arising jeepney driven by
Page 197 of 198
Ben that collided carriage. (A) It ry

with a car derives
driven by Cesar, (D) Sue from a provision
causing Allan both Ben specific of
injury. Not and and substanti
knowing who Cesar as mandato ve law.
was at fault, alternati
what is the best ve (B) Yes, with the
that Allan can defendan since surety
do? ts. surety company.

companies
(A) File a (95) A surety would fold (96) To prove that
tort company, which Susan stabbed her
up
action
against provided the bail otherwise. husband Elmer,
Cesar. bond for the Rico testified that
release of the (C) No, he heard Leon
(B) Await
accused, filed a since the running down the
a judicial
motion to surety street, shouting
finding
withdraw as company excitedly,
regarding
surety on the technically "Sinasaksak daw
who was
ground of the takes the ni Susan ang
at fault.
accused’s non- place of asawa niya! (I
payment of the the heard that Susan is
(C) Sue
renewal accused stabbing her
Ben for
premium. Can with husband!)" Is
breach of
the trial court respect to Leon's statement
contract
grant the court as narrated by
of
withdrawal? attendance Rico admissible?
.
(A) No,
(A) No, up to (D) Yes, since the
since the judgment. since the startling
surety‟s accused event had
undertaki has passed.
ng is not breached
annual (B) Yes, as
its
part of
but lasts agreement the res
Page 198 of 198
gestae. more time Letty’s denial

(B) The
to matters sufficient?
Supreme
(C) No, within
Court may
since the their (A) Yes,
disregard
excited exclusive since it
the
statemen jurisdictio constitute
doctrine
t is itself n. s specific
in cases of
hearsay. denial of
national
(98) Plaintiff the loan.
(D) Yes, interest
Manny said in his
as an and (B) Yes,
complaint: "3. On
independe matters of since it
March 1, 2001
ntly serious constitute
defendant Letty
relevant implicatio s positive
borrowed P1
statement. ns. denial of
million from
the
plaintiff Manny
(C) A
(97) Which of the existence
and made a
higher
following NOT of the
promise to pay
court will
TRUE regarding loan.
the loan within
not
the doctrine of
six months." In
entertain
judicial hierarchy?
her answer, Letty
direct
alleged:
recourse
"Defendant Letty
to it if
specifically
redress
denies the
can be
allegations in
obtained
paragraph 3 of
in the
the complaint
appropria
that she
te courts.
borrowed P1
(D) The million from
reason for plaintiff Manny
it is the on March 1, 2001
need for and made a
higher promise to pay
courts to the loan within
devote six months." Is

Page 199 of 198
(C) No, since it fails to set forth two causes of action and tried the third.
the matters defendant relied After the period to appeal from the
upon in support of her denial. summary judgment expired, the court
issued a writ of execution to enforce the
(D) No, since she fails to set out in same. Is the writ of execution proper?
par. 2 of her answer her special and
affirmative defenses. (A) No, being partial, the summary
judgment is interlocutory and any
(99) When may an information be filed in appeal from it still has to reckon
court without the preliminary investigation with the final judgment.
required in the particular case being first
conducted? (B) Yes since, assuming the
judgment was not appealable, the
(A) Following an inquest, in cases defendant should have questioned it
of those lawfully arrested without by special civil action of certiorari.
a warrant.
(C) No, since the rules do not allow a
(B) When the accused, while under partial summary judgment.
custodial investigation, informs the
arresting officers that he is waiving (D) No, since special reason is
his right to preliminary required for execution pending
investigation. rendition of a final decision in the
case.
(C) When the accused fails to
challenge the validity of the
warrantless arrest at his
arraignment.
(D) When the arresting officers take

the suspect before the judge who
issues a detention order against
him.
(100) In a civil action involving three

separate causes of action, the court
rendered summary judgment on the first
Page 197 of 198
References:
 Answers to Bar Examination

Questions by the UP LAW COMPLEX
(2007, 2009, 2010)
 PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW

SCHOOLS (2008)
 lawphil.net

Remedial Law: Questions and Suggested Answers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law: Questions and Suggested Answers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedial Law Q&As (2007-2013) hectorchristopher@yahoo.

Questions and Suggested Answers

PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATIONS 2007-2013

Salise, Hector Christopher “Jay-Arh” Jr. M.

(University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law)

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

The author was inspired by the work of Silliman University’s

Everyone is free to distribute and mass produce copies of this

The answers (views or opinions) presented in this reviewer are

Rights of the Accused; Miranda Rights (2010)..............................................................................10

Error of Jurisdiction vs. Error of Judgment (2012)......................................................................10

Jurisdiction; Over the Plaintiff, Subject Matter (2009)..............................................................10

Jurisdiction; RTC (2009).......................................................................................................................11

Jurisdiction; RTC; Counterclaim (2008)..........................................................................................12

Jurisdiction; RTC; MeTC (2010).........................................................................................................13

Katarungang Pambarangay; Parties (2009).........................................................................................14

Civil Procedure (Rules 1-56)

Actions; Cause of Action (2013)..........................................................................................................15

Actions; Specific Performance (2012)....................................................................................................16

Appeals; Abandonment of a Perfected Appeal (2009)......................................................................17

Appeals; Modes of Appeal (2012)............................................................................................................17

Appeals; Modes of Appeal (2009)............................................................................................................18

Appeals; Modes of Appeal; RTC, CA (2009)..........................................................................................19

Appeals; Second Notice of Appeal (2008).............................................................................................20

Demurrer to Evidence (2009).................................................................................................................... 21

Demurrer to Evidence; Civil Case vs. Criminal Case (2007).....................................................22

Discovery; Modes of Discovery; Refusal to Comply (2010).......................................................22

Discovery; Production and Inspection (2009)..............................................................................23

Forum Shopping; Certification (2009).............................................................................................23

Judgment; Enforcement; 5yr Period (2007)...................................................................................24

Judgment; Execution; Judgment Obligor‟s Death (2009)..........................................................24

Judgment; Execution; Stay (2009)....................................................................................................25

Judgment; Execution; Successors in Interest (2008)..................................................................26

Judgment; Foreign Judgments; Foreign Arbitral Award (2007).....................................................27

Judgment; Judgment on the Pleadings (2012).....................................................................................28

Judgment; Judgment on the Pleadings (2009).....................................................................................28

Petition for Relief (2007)............................................................................................................................ 30

Petition for Relief; Injunction (2009)......................................................................................................30

Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint (2009).................................................................................30

Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint (2008).................................................................................31

Pleadings; Counterclaim (2010)........................................................................................................33

Pleadings; Counterclaim (2007)........................................................................................................34

Pleadings; Motion (2007)............................................................................................................................ 34

Pleadings; Motions; Bill of Particulars (2008).....................................................................................34

Pleadings; Motions; Omnibus Motion Rule (2010).............................................................................36

Summons; By Publication (2008)......................................................................................................37

Summons; Served by Email (2009)...................................................................................................37

Summons; Valid Service (2013)................................................................................................................38

Trial; Court of Appeals as Trial Court (2008)......................................................................................40

Venue; Real Actions (2012)..................................................................................................................40

Venue; Real Actions (2008)..................................................................................................................41

Provisional Remedies (Rules 57-61)

Attachment; Bond (2008).....................................................................................................................42

Attachment; Garnishment (2008)......................................................................................................42

Attachment; Kinds of Attachment (2012)......................................................................................43

Attachment; Preliminary Attachment (2012).....................................................................................45

Injunction; Preliminary Injunction (2009)...........................................................................................45

Special Civil Actions (Rules 62-71)

Certiorari; Petition for Certiorari, Rule 65 (2012)........................................................................45

Certiorari; Petition for Certiorari; Contempt (2012)...................................................................46

Expropriation; Motion to Dismiss (2009)........................................................................................47

Forcible Entry; Remedies (2013)............................................................................................................. 48