New Era University

College of Law
New Era, Quezon City
Midterm Examinations in CIVIL PROCEDURE
16 December 2020, 10-12 a.m.
ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN LEILANIE BERNADETTE C. CABRAS

INSTRUCTIONS. Read the questions carefully. Answer the questions sequentially and in a concise and
grammatically correct manner. Write legibly using black ballpen or sign pen. Answer the questions
consecutively, starting at a new page in the test booklet for each one. Do not write at the back of the
page(s), observe margins and avoid erasures.

1. Liza filed with the Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija a complaint for specific
performance against Enrique. For lack of a certification against forum shopping, the judge
dismissed the complaint. Liza's lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto an
amended complaint with the certification against forum shopping. If you were the judge, how
will you resolve the motion? (10 points)

2. Serena filed with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, a complaint for sum of money
amounting to P1 Million against Justin. The complaint alleges, among others, that Justin
borrowed from her the said amount as evidenced by a promissory note signed by Justin. Justin
was served with summons which was received by Ashley, his personal assistant. .However, Justin
failed to file an answer to the complaint within the reglementary period, prompting Serena to file
a motion to declare him in default and to allow her to present evidence ex parte. Five days
thereafter, Justin filed his verified answer to the complaint, denying under oath the genuineness
and due execution of the promissory note; and contending that he has fully paid his loan with
interest at 12% per annum. If you were the judge, will you grant Serena's motion to declare
Justin in default? Why or why not? (10 points.)

3. While walking her dog Lassie in a gated subdivision in Quezon City where she lives, Naty P. Lok
stepped on a piece of galvanized iron covering a manhole which was left behind by CCC, a
construction company based in Makati City. As the makeshift cover was not securely held in
place and there were no signs, Naty fell into the manhole. Naty suffered contusions, bruises and
scratches that were treated at a nearby clinic and an anti-tetanus shot for a foot wound due to her
stepping on the galvanized iron, but did not require any hospitalization. She, however, also
claimed that she lost self-esteem, suffered embarrassment and ridicule, and had bouts of anxiety
and bad dreams about the accident, wherein she dreamt that she was falling into a never-ending
dark and dreary manhole.

In addition, Lassie’s hind legs were fractured when she fell into the manhole along with Naty
and one of the dog’s legs had to be amputated due to the severity of the fracture. She wants
vindication for her experience, and for the expenses incurred when she had to go to the clinic and
to bring Lassie to the veterinarian.

A. What action or actions may Naty pursue, against whom, where (court and venue), and
under what legal basis? (30 points)

B. Based on your answer/s in A, draft a complaint for Naty P. Lok against your chosen
defendant, following the prescribed form under the Rules of Court, as amended.. For
information not supplied in the facts but may be needed for you to complete the complaint,
you can supply your own facts/data. (50 points)

Answers:

1. If I were the Judge, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Liza’s lawyer attaching thereto an
amended complaint with the aforementioned Certification against forum shopping should be
dismissed.
 The reason for such dismissal is that as provided by the revised rules of court under Rule 7 and
Jurisprudence, Failure to comply with the requirements of a Certification against forum
shopping is not curable by mere amendments or any kinds of pleadings. There is also not even
“substantial compliance “instituted by the lawyer of Liza and thus such as provided there is a
total lack of compliance because of such neglectful action.

By reason of the foregoing, The Motion for Reconsideration should be dismissed.

2. Granted that the summons was already received by Justin’s Assistant, and that there is already
proper notice and service to Justin regarding the Complaint of Serena. The Motion to declare
Justin in Default should be granted.

As provided on the facts, Justin “ALREADY” failed to file an answer within the reglementary
period and after the reglementary period he needed another five days to file his verified answer,
enough time was already given to Justin to file his answer within the reglementary period and
failure to comply within such time period to file an answer, his verified answer should not be
accepted and the Motion to declare him in default should be granted. The court has a duty as
provided by the rules of Court to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of all cases
and if one person should be allowed to file any answer even after the reglementary period then
that would be counterproductive to what this rules are construed and was created for.

Also, the court also has a duty to uphold the rules provided by the Rules of Court unless there is
substantial compliance from the parties, such filing of an answer FIVE days after the
reglementary period is a blatant disregard of the rules and should not be given credit. As
provided by Rule 9 of the rules of court, if a party fails to answer within the time allowed, the
court upon motion and proof of failure, shall declare the party who failed to answer in default.

Given the provided reasoning, Serena’s motion to declare Justin in default should be granted
and upon notice, Justin although having a right to a notice to subsequent proceedings cannot
take part in the trial and rendering his verified answer, which was submitted very late, as a mere
scrap of paper.

3.
A.

As provided in the foregoing facts, Naty and her dog , Lassie, has been affected negatively by the
accident by reason of the negligence of CCC, the construction Company, By reason of the
accident Naty thereafter was hospitalized and her dog was Amputated, she also suffered mental
problems because of the accident. Herein, clearly The construction company is clearly liable for
the events that happened to Lassie and Naty, they cannot escape liability and responsibility to
observe the works and effects of their corporation to private citizens.

In the same manner as for a natural person, CCC, Being a Juridical Person, is civilly liable to Naty
and the negative effects that has happened to her and her dog , Lassie, as such they are indeed
liable for Damages and for them to indemnify Naty all that she would need for her hospital bills,
the negative effect of it towards her own person in which she wouldn’t be able to work for
several months, , the attorney’s fees for this action instituted and other payments that she
would need.

She may then file a Personal action with Damages against CCC, CCC being the person – in –
interest and Naty Also, CCC also having Juridical Identity since such is a corporation authorized
to run here in the Philippines.

Herein the Person in Interest is Both Naty and CCC , a Juridical Person / entity which is
authorized by law. Naty being the Plaintiff and CCC being the defendant.
 Service and notice towards the action herein against CCC may be made on any of it’s agents,
president, partners and other officers.

The Action should be filed in the court depending on the amount of damages and
indemnification needed by Naty and the Venue should be commenced and tried on the court
having jurisdiction where either the Plaintiff, herein Naty, or where the Defendant, herein CCC is
located or resides or depending on the situation or stipulation of parties when there is a
exclusive venue provided and consented by the parties.

B.

Draft Complaint:

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Branch 104

Quezon City

Naty P. Lok , Plaintiff, Civil Case no. 1234

-Versus- For: Damages Based on
CCC Makati , Defendants Quasi – Delict

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff herein through counsel, and unto this honorable court, respectfully
Manifests:

1. That Plaintiff is , Naty P. Lok, single and of legal age and a resident at 25 taurus street carmel s
subdivision Tandang sora Quezon City.
2. That Defendant here in is CCC, a construction company based in Makati City.
3. That Defendant, is the corporation who is obligated to secure the manhole near the residence of
plaintiff.
4. That the makeshift cover was not securely held in place and there were no signs of it not being in
place.
5. That because of the unsecured manhole, Naty P. Lok, suffered contusions, bruises and scratches
that were treated at a nearby clinic and an anti-tetanus shot for a foot wound due to her stepping
on the galvanized iron.
6. That the accident was recorded through a cctv camera providing therein the time when Naty P.
Lok fell in the Manhole with her dog, Lassie.
7. That Naty P. lok, lost her self-esteem her suffered embarrassment and ridicule, and had bouts of
anxiety and bad dreams about the accident.
8. That Naty P. Lok suffered both Mental and physical Damages because of the accident that
happened on the Negligence of CCC.
9. That because of the accident, Lassie, Naty P. Lok’s Dog also suffered physical injuries and an
amputation of the leg.
10. That Naty P. Lok be indemnified and vindicated for her experience, total expenses incurred for
all the medical bills and work days that she wasn’t able to go to because of the mental and
physical damages suffered by her through the negligence of CCC.
11. That CCC be liable for Damages and all fees that will be paid for by Naty P. Lok for her
Vindication and indemnification.

Prayer
 Wherefore, based on the foregoing events, it is prayed of this Hionorable Court that Judgment
be rendered in Favor of Naty P. Lok for the mental and physical damages she has suffered and for
Defendant to pay all bills of Plaintiff including her attorney’s fees and other relief and remedies as
provided in the foregoing that is prayed for.

Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping

I , Naty P. Lok, single and of legal age and a resident of Tandang Sora Quezon City after being sworn in
according to law depose and state that:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-mentioned case and I have read all the content and facts stated in
the complaint and is true and correct based on my personal Knowledge.

2. That all the receipt and records of the hospital bills, recording of the video when I fell on the
manhole as provided by a cctv cameras are all in my possession.

3. That to the best of my knowledge no such action or proceeding is pending on any other court or
tribunal here in the Philippines.
4. That if I were to learn that any other similar action has been filed or is pending that I will
undertake to report such facts within Five ( 5) days to this honorable Court.

Naty P. Lok

Complainant