S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
What is “Obiter Dictum”?
It is a remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge,
his decision upon a cause by the way, that is,
incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the
question before him, or upon a point not necessarily
involved in the determination of the cause, or
introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or
argument. It does not embody the resolution or
determination of the court, and is made without
argument, or full consideration of the point. It lacks
the force of an adjudication, being a mere expression
of an opinion with no binding force for purposes of res
judicata. (LBP vs Santos, 2016).
What is Pro Hac Vice Decision?
PHV means for this one particular occasion. PHVD is
a ruling expressly qualified as such cannot be relied
upon as a precedent to govern other cases (Tadeja
vs People, 2013 cited in HighPoint Development
Corp. vs Republic,2018)
Discuss the concept of Memorandum Decision?
- The law does not define the Memorandum Decision
and simply suggests that the court may adopt by
reference the findings of fact and the conclusions of
law stated in the decision, order or resolution on
appeal before it. No particular form is prescribed; the
conditions for its use are not indicated. In fact, B.P.
Blg. 129 does not even employ the term
“memorandum decision” in Section 40 or elsewhere
in the rest of the statute. This phrase appears to have
been introduced in this jurisdiction not by that law but
by Section 24 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines.
“The judgment or final resolution of a court in
appealed cases may adopt by reference the findings
of fact and conclusions of law contained in the
decision or final order appealed from.”
MD may be employed in simple litigations only, such
as ordinary collection cases, where the appeal is
obviously groundless and deserves no more than the
time needed to dismiss it.
MD can be welcomed indeed as an acceptable
method of dealing expeditiously with the case load of
the courts of justice, but expediency alone, no matter
how compelling, cannot excuse non-compliance with
the Constitution; or to put it more familiarly, the end
does not justify the means. It is plain that if Section 40
of B.P. Blg. 129 is unconstitutional, it must be struck
down (Francisco vs. Pemskul, 1989)
Explain the substantial distinctions between
“jurisdiction over the subject matter” from
“exercise of jurisdiction”
Trial court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over a particular
case’s subject matter is different from incidents
Page 2 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
pertaining to the exercise of its jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
conferred by law, whereas a court’s exercise of
jurisdiction, unless provided by the law itself, is
governed by the Rules of Court or by the order issued
from time to time by the Court. In the matter of
whether the RTC resolves an issue in the exercise of
its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a
special court is only a matter of procedure and has
nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Jurisdiction
It is conferred by law and not by the consent or waiver
upon a court. As such, if a court lacks jurisdiction over
an action, it cannot decide the case on the merits and
must dismiss it. (CE Casecnan Water and Energy
Company, Inc. v. Province of Nueva Ecija,G.R. No.
196278, June 17, 2015)
Jurisdiction of Courts
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Under Act 496 (Land Registration Act), as codified by
PD 1529 (Property Registration Decree), jurisdiction
over an application for land registration is vested on
the CFI (now, RTC) of the province or city where the
land is situated. (Lozada vs. Bracewell, G.R. No.
179155, April 2, 2014)
The CTA's appellate jurisdiction over decisions,
orders, or resolutions of the RTCs becomes operative
only when the RTC has ruled on a local tax case.
Thus, before the case can be raised on appeal to the
CTA, the action before the RTC must be a tax case,
or one which primarily involves a tax issue. (Ignacio
vs. Office of the City Treasurer of Quezon City,
G.R. No. 221620, September 11, 2017)
The RTC may properly take cognizance of reversion
suits which do not call for an annulment of judgment
of the RTC acting as a Land Registration Court.
Actions for cancellation of title and reversion, like the
present case, belong to the class of cases that
"involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein" and where the assessed value of
the property exceeds P20,000.00, fall under the
jurisdiction of the RTC. (Republic vs. Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Manila, G.R. Nos. 192975
& 192994, November 12, 2012)
The CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over tax
collection cases originally decided by the RTC. An
appeal by way of a petition for review to the CTA
within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of the
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
RTC’s Order as required by Sec. 11 of RA 1125, as
amended by Sec. 9 of RA 928243, is the proper
remedy, not an appeal via notice of appeal to the CA.
(Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Corp. vs. Bureau of
Customs, G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015)
2008 & 2009 BAR QUESTION
Q: Angelina sued Armando before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila to recover
the ownership and possession of two parcels
of land; one situated in Pampanga, and the
other in Bulacan.
(a) May the action prosper? Explain.
A: No, the action may not prosper, because
under R.A. No. 7691, exclusive original
jurisdiction in civil actions which involve title to,
or possession of real property or any interest
therein is determined on the basis of the
assessed value of the land involved, whether it
should be P20,000 in the rest of the
Philippines, outside of the Manila with the
courts of the first level or with the Regional Trial
Court. The assessed value of the parcel of land
in Pampanga is different from the assessed
value of the land in Bulacan. What is involved
is not merely a matter of venue, which is
waivable, but of a matter of jurisdiction.
However, the action may prosper if jurisdiction
is not in issue, because venue can be waived.
(b) Will your answer be the same if the action
was for foreclosure of the mortgage over the
two parcels of land? Why or why not?
A: NO, the answer would not be the same. The
foreclosure action should be brought in the
proper court of the province where the land or
any part thereof is situated, either in
Pampanga or in Bulacan. Only one foreclosure
action need be filed unless each parcel of land
is covered by distinct mortgage contract.
In foreclosure suit, the cause of action is for the
violation of the terms and conditions of the
mortgage contract; hence, one foreclosure suit
per mortgage contract violated is necessary.
Barangay Conciliation
Barangay conciliation process is not a jurisdictional
requirement, such that its noncompliance cannot
affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise
acquired over the subject matter or over the person of
the defendant. The grounds for dismissal under Rule
16, Sec. 1 must be invoked by the party-litigant at the
earliest opportunity, otherwise, such grounds are
Page 3 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
deemed waived. (Lansangan vs. Caisip, G.R. No.
212987, August 6, 2018)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: Mariano, through his attorney-infact,
Marcos filed with the RTC of Baguio City a
complaint for annulment of sale against Henry.
Marcos and Henry both reside in Asin Road,
Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao
City. Henry filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of prematurity for
failure to comply with the mandatory barangay
conciliation. Resolve the motion with reasons.
(3%)
A: The motion to dismiss should be denied
because the parties in interest, Mariano and
Henry, do not reside in the same
city/municipality, or is the property subject of
the controversy situated therein. The required
conciliation/mediation before the proper
Barangay as mandated by the Local
Government Code governs only when the
parties to the dispute reside in the same city or
municipality, and if involving real property, as
in this case, the property must be situated also
in the same city or municipality.
Jurisdiction over the Parties
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Court finds that although it may be true that
jurisdiction was not initially acquired over the person
of the defendant, whose death was never brought to
the attention of the RTC until after it rendered
judgment, the defect in the lack of jurisdiction over his
person was effectively cured by the voluntary
appearance of his successor-in-interest/compulsory
heir who sought affirmative relief through the filing of
a petition. (Onstott vs. Upper Tagpos
Neighborhood Association, Inc., G.R. No. 221047,
September 14, 2016)
Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
It is well-settled that courts will not determine
questions that have become moot and academic
because there is no longer any justiciable controversy
to speak of. The judgment will not serve any useful
purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in
the nature of things, it cannot be enforced.
(Philippine Savings Bank vs. Senate
Impeachment Court, G.R. No. 200238
(Resolution), November 20, 2012)
A case or issue is considered moot and academic
when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication
of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of
no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no
actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be
entitled to, and which would be negated by the
dismissal of the petition. (Sahar International
Trading, Inc. vs. Warner Lambert Co., G.R. No.
194872, June 9, 2014)
Depending on the nature of the principal action or
remedy sought, an intra-corporate controversy may
involve a subject matter which is either capable or
incapable of pecuniary estimation. If the action is
primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim
is considered capable of pecuniary estimation.
However, where the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money, such is
cognizable exclusively by the RTC. (Dee vs. Harvest
All Investment Limited, G.R. Nos. 224834 &
224871, March 15, 2017)
Small Claims
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The proscription on appeals in small claims cases,
similar to other proceedings where appeal is not an
available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved
party from filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. A petition for certiorari, unlike
an appeal, is not an original action designed to correct
only errors of jurisdiction and not of judgment.
Considering that small claims cases are exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the first level courts, certiorari
petitions assailing its dispositions should be filed
before their corresponding Regional Trial Courts.
(A.L. Ang Network, Inc. vs. Mondejar, G.R. No.
200804, January 22, 2014)
Original Concurrent Jurisdiction
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The various branches of the regional trial courts of a
province or city, having as they do the same or equal
authority and exercising as they do concurrent and
coordinate jurisdiction, should not, cannot, and are
not permitted to interfere with their respective cases,
much less with their orders or judgments. (Tan vs.
Cinco, 793 SCRA 610, G.R. No. 213054 June 15,
2016)
Jurisdiction; Counterclaim
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
A subsequent finding that the counterclaim is
permissive and failure to pay docket fees on such will
not automatically lead to the dismissal of the case.
Rather, the docket fees would serve as a judgment
lien on the monetary awards. (Sy-Vargas vs. Estate
of Ogsos, G.R. No. 221062, October 5, 2016)
Page 4 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: Fe filed a suit for collection of P387,000
against Ramon in the RTC of Davao City.
Aside from alleging payment as a defense,
Ramon in his answer set up counterclaims for
P100,000 as damages and 30,000 as
attorney’s fees as a result of the baseless filing
of the complaint, as well as for P250,000 as the
balance of the purchase price of the 30 units of
air conditioners he sold to Fe.
(a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over
Ramon’s counterclaim, and if so, does he have
to pay docket fees therefor?
A: Yes, applying the totality rule which sums
up the total amount of claims of the parties, the
RTC has jurisdiction over the counter claims.
Unlike in the case of compulsory
counterclaims, a defendant who raises a
permissive counterclaim must first pay docket
fees before the court can validly acquire
jurisdiction. One compelling test of
compulsoriness is the logical relation between
the claim alleged in the complaint and the
counterclaim (Bayer Phil, Inc. vs. C.A., G.R.
No. 109269, 15 September 2000). Ramon
does not have to pay docket fees for his
compulsory counterclaims. Ramon is liable for
docket fees only on his permissive
counterclaim for the balance of the purchase
price of 30 units of air conditioners in the sum
of P250,000, as it neither arises out of nor is it
connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting Fe’s claim. (Sec. 19 [8] and 33 [1],
B.P. 129; AO 04-94, implementing R.A. 7691,
approved March 25, 1994, the jurisdictional;
amount for MTC Davao being P300,000 at this
time; (Alday vs. FGU Insurance
Corporation, G.R. No. 138822, 23 January
2001)
(b) Suppose Ramon’s counterclaim for the
unpaid balance is P310,000, what will happen
to his counterclaims if the court dismisses the
complaint after holding a preliminary hearing
on Ramon’s affirmative defenses?
A: The dismissal of the complaint shall be
without prejudice to the prosecution in the
same or separate action of a counterclaim
pleaded in the answer (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Pinga
vs. Heirs of German Santiago, G.R. No.
170354, June 30, 2006).
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
(c) Under the same premise as paragraph (b)
above, suppose that instead of alleging
payment as a defense in his answer, Ramon
filed a motion to dismiss on that ground, at the
same time setting up his counterclaims, and
the court grants his motion. What will happen
to his counterclaims?
A: His counterclaims can continue to be
prosecuted or may be pursued separately at
his option (Sec. 6, Rule 16).
Jurisdiction: Intra-corporate Disputes
By virtue of item 5.2 of Sec. 5 of the Securities
Regulation Code (R.A. 8799), jurisdiction over cases
enumerated in Sec. 5 of P.D. 902-A, was transferred
from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the
“Courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court.” The word “or” in item 5.2 was
intentionally used by the legislature to particularize
the fact that the phrase “courts of general jurisdiction”
is equivalent to the phrase, “the appropriate Regional
Trial Court.”
Effect on jurisdiction when an intra-corporate
case is erroneously assigned by raffle to a regular
branch of the Regional Trial Court
The erroneous raffling of the case to a regular branch
was only a matter of procedure. Having filed the intra-
corporate case with the Office of the Clerk of Court of
the RTC Muntinlupa City, which is also the official
station of the special commercial court, the court had
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter or the
nature of the action upon the filing of the complaint.
In such a scenario, the proper course of action was
not for the commercial case to be dismissed but to
refer the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing
as a commercial case and assigning the same to the
designated special commercial court. Docket fees
already paid shall be duly credited, and any excess,
refunded. (Gonzales v. GJH Land Inc., G.R No.
202664, November 10, 2015)
Jurisdiction: Habeas Corpus in relation to the
custody of a minor
Sec. 13. Creation of Regional Trial Courts. – There
are hereby created thirteen Regional Trial Courts,
one for each of the following judicial regions:
The National Capital Judicial Region, consisting of
the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan and
Mandaluyong, and the municipalities of Navotas,
Malabon, San Juan, Makati, Pasig, Pateros, Taguig,
Marikina, Parañaque, Las Piñas, Muntinlupa, and
Valenzuela.
Page 5 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
In view of the afore-quoted provision, it is indubitable
that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus before a family court in any of the
cities enumerated is proper as long as the writ is
sought to be enforced within the National Capital
Judicial Region, as here.
In the case at bar, respondent filed the petition before
the family court of Caloocan City. Since Caloocan City
and Quezon City both belong to the same judicial
region, the writ issued by the RTC-Caloocan can still
be implemented in Quezon City. Whether petitioner
resides in the former or the latter is immaterial in view
of the above rule. (Tujanmilitante vs. Cada-
deapera, G.R. no. 210636, July 28, 2014)
Under the Totality Rule, where there are several
claims or causes of actions between the same or
different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
claims in all the causes of actions, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arouse out of the same
or different transactions. (Sec. 331 [1], B.P. 129, as
amended)
Docket Fees
It is hornbook law that courts acquire jurisdiction over
a case only upon payment of the prescribed docket
fee. (Monsato v. Lim, G.R. No. 178911, September
17, 2014) The payment of the full amount of docket
fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory
and jurisdictional. Failure to pay the appellate court
the docket fee within the prescribed period warrants
only discretionary, as opposed to automatic,
dismissal of the appeal. (Julian v. DBP, G.R. No.
174193, December 7, 2011)
Under the Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-
interference, “no court can interfere by injunction
with the judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the
relief sought by injunction. The rationale for the rule is
founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that
acquires jurisdiction over the case and renders
judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to
the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its
execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in
furtherance of justice, the conduct of ministerial
officers acting in connection with this judgment.”
(United Alloy Philippines Corporation v. United
Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257,
November 23, 2015)
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Under the doctrine of judicial stability or non-
interference in the regular orders or judgments of a
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
coequal court, the various trial courts of a province or
city, having the same equal authority, should not,
cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their
respective cases, much less with their orders or
judgments. (Del Rosario vs. Ocampo-Ferrer, G.R.
No. 215348 June 20, 2016)
Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction
It means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot
be ousted by subsequent happenings or events,
although of a character which would have prevented
jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance. The
court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains
that jurisdiction until it finally disposes of the case.
(Bantua v. Mercader, 350 SCRA 86)
Doctrine of Ancillary Jurisdiction
This power refers to the authority of an office or
tribunal to do all things necessary for the
administration of justice within the scope of its
jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgment
and mandate. (University of the Immaculate
Concepcion v. Office of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment, G.R Nos. 178085-178086,
September 14, 2015)
The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies requires that before a party is allowed to
seek the intervention of the court, he should have
availed himself of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him. (Catipon, Jr. v.
Japson,G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015)
The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction does not
allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve
a controversy, the jurisdiction over which was initially
lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. (Heirs of Simeon Latayan v. Tan, G.R.
No. 201652, December 2, 2015)
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently
residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of
Lipa City a Complaint for Rescission of
Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a
resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas,
Batangas. The subject property, located in
Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed
value of P19, 700.00. Appended to the
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. Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the following grounds:
Page 6 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
a. The court cannot acquire jurisdiction
over the person of Amorsolo because he is
not a resident of the Philippines;
A: The first ground raised lacks merit because
jurisdiction over the person of a plaintiff is
acquired by the court upon the filing of
plaintiff’s complaint therewith. Residency or
citizenship is not a requirement for filing a
complaint, because plaintiff thereby submits to
the jurisdiction of the court.
b. The RTC does not have jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the action involving
real property with an assessed value of
P19,700.00; exclusive and original
jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court
where the defendant resides;
A: The second ground raised is also without
merit because the subject of the litigation,
Rescission of Contract, is incapable of
pecuniary estimation the exclusive original
jurisdiction to which is vested by law in the
Regional Trial Courts. The nature of the action
renders the assessed value of the land
involved irrelevant.
c. The verification and certification of non-
forum shopping are fatally defective
because there is no accompanying
certification issued by the Philippine
Consulate in New York, authenticating that
Mr. Brown is duly authorized to notarize the
document. .
A: The third ground raised questioning the
validity of the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping for lack of certification
from the Philippine Consulate in New York,
authenticating that Mr. Brown is duly
authorized to notarize the document, is
likewise without merit. The required
certification alluded to, pertains to official acts,
or records of official bodies, tribunals, and
public officers, whether of the Philippines or of
a foreign country: the requirement in Sec. 24,
Rule 132 refers only to paragraph (a) of Sec.
29 which does not cover notarial documents. It
is enough that the notary public who notarized
the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping is clothed with authority to administer
oath in the State or foreign country.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
What is important in determining whether forum
shopping exists is the vexation caused to the courts
and the parties litigants by a party who asks different
courts to rule on the same or related causes and/or
grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the
process creating the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by different courts upon the
same issues. (Grace Park International
Corporation and Woodlink Realty Corporation vs.
Eastwest Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 210606,
July 27, 2016)
Under reasonable or justifiable circumstance – as in
this case where the plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a common cause of
action or defense – the rule requiring all such plaintiffs
or petitioners to sign the certification against forum
shopping may be relaxed. (Fernandez vs. Villegas,
G.R. No. 200131, August 20, 2014)
Rule 3. Parties to Civil Actions
Real Party-in-Interest
A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit.
When an action is defended by a representative, that
representative is not-and neither does he become-a
real party in interest. The person represented is
deemed the real party in interest. The representative
remains to be a third party to the action. (The
Municipality of Tangkal v. Balindong, G.R No.
193340, January 11, 2017)
Misjoinder of Parties; Non-joinder of Parties
Neither the misjoinder nor the non-joinder of parties
is a ground for the dismissal of an action. A co-owner
may bring an action for ejectment, forcible entry and
detainer, or any kind of action for the recovery of
possession of properties co-owned without joining all
the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit
is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all. (Heirs
of Babai Guiambangan v. Municipality of
Kalamansig, Sultan G.R. No. 204899, July 27,
2016)
Indigent Litigant; Exempt from payment of Docket
and other lawful fees
A party may be authorized to litigate his action claim
or defense, as an indigent, if the court upon an ex
parte application and hearing is satisfied is one who
has no money, or property sufficient and available for
food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his
family (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
Page 7 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
Requisites, Indigent Party:
(a) Gross income and that of their immediate
family do not exceed an amount double the
monthly minimum wage of an employee; and
(b) Who do not own real property with a FAIR
MARKET VALUE AS STATED IN THE
CURRENT TAX DECLARTION of more
than three Hundred Thousand Pesos (3,000)
(Sec 19, Rule 141).
Nonetheless, even if one or both of the requirements
are not present, a litigant may still be considered as
an indigent litigant if: the court, upon an ex parte
application and hearing is satisfied that the party is
one who has no money or property sufficient or
available for food, shelter and basic necessities for
himself and his family. (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
VENUE
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The exclusive venue stipulation does not apply to a
complaint directly assailing the validity of contracts,
such as forgery, for this would be an implicit
recognition of their validity. (Briones vs. CA, G.R.
No. 204444, January 14, 2015)
PLEADINGS
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
It cannot be presumed that an affiant is personally
known to the notary public; the jurat must contain a
statement to that effect. (William Go Que
Construction vs. CA, G.R. No. 191699, April 19,
2016)
Failure to state cause of action refers to the
insufficiency of the allegation in the pleading, while
lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of
the factual basis for the action. Insufficiency of factual
basis is not a ground for a motion to dismiss but rather
it is a ground which becomes available only after the
questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of
stipulations, admissions, or evidence presented by
the plaintiff. The procedural recourse to raise such
ground is a demurrer to evidence taken only after the
plaintiff’s presentation of evidence. (Zuñiga-Santos
vs. Santosgran, G.R. No. 197380, Oct. 8, 2014)
The elementary test for failure to state a cause of
action is whether the complainant alleges facts which,
if true would justify the relief demanded. While the
court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon
payment of the prescribed docket fees, its
nonpayment at the time of the filing of the complaint
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
does not automatically cause the dismissal of the
complaint provided that the fees are paid within a
reasonable period. (Unicapital, Inc. vs. Consing,
Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277, 175285 & 192073,
September 11, 2013)
In contesting a document, a mere statement that they
“specifically deny” the pertinent allegations of the
Complaint “for being self-serving and pure
conclusions intended to suit plaintiff’s purposes” does
not constitute an effective specific denial as
contemplated by law. A denial is not specific simply
because it is so qualified by the defendant. (Go Tong
Electrical Supply Co., Inc. vs. BPI Family Savings
Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 187487, June 29, 2015)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: Within the period for filing a responsive
pleading, the defendant filed a motion for bill of
particulars that he set for hearing on a certain
date. However, the defendant was surprised to
find on the date set for hearing that the trial
court had already denied the motion on the day
of its filing, stating that the allegations of the
complaint were sufficiently made.
(a) Did the judge gravely abuse his discretion
in acting on the motion without waiting for the
hearing set for the motion?
A: There is no need to set the motion for
hearing. The duty of the clerk of court is to
bring the motion immediately to the attention of
the judge, who may act on it at once (Sec. 2,
Rule 12).
(b) If the judge grants the motion and orders
the plaintiff to file and serve the bill of
particulars, can the trial judge dismiss the case
if the plaintiff does not comply with the order?
A: Yes, the judge may dismiss the case for
failure of the plaintiff to comply with its order
(Sec. 3, Rule 17) or order the striking out of the
pleading and may issue any other order at its
discretion (Sec. 4, Rule 12).
Negative Pregnant
If an allegation is not specifically denied or the denial
is a negative pregnant, the allegation is deemed
admitted.” “Where a fact is alleged with some
qualifying or modifying language, and the denial is
conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and only the
qualification or modification is denied, while the fact
itself is admitted. “A denial in the form of a negative
pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it cannot be
Page 8 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
ascertained whether it is the fact or only the
qualification that is intended to be denied.”
“Profession of ignorance about a fact which is
patently and necessarily within the pleader’s
knowledge, or means of knowing as ineffectual, is no
denial at all.” (Venzon v. Rural Bank of Buenavista
(Agusan Del Norte), G.R. No. 178031, August 28,
2013)
Rule 9. Effect of Failure to Plead
If the defending party fails to answer within the time
allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the
claiming party with notice to the defending party, and
proof of such failure, declare the defending party in
default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court. (Sec.3, Rule 9)
A party declared in default may at any time after
notice thereof and before judgment file a motion
under oath to set aside the order of default upon
proper showing that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and
that he has a meritorious defense. (Sec. 3(b), Rule 9).
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a
motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived except the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, that there is another action pending
between the same parties for the same cause, or that
the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute
of limitations. (Edron Construction Corp. vs.
Provincial Government of Surigao Del Sur, G.R.
No. 220211, June 5, 2017)
Inexcusable delay caused by a party filing an
amended complaint is not a ground to deny a motion
to file an amended complaint if not due to fault
attributable to him or if it is impelled by bad faith.
(Spouses Tatlonghari vs. Bangko Kabayan-Ibaan
Rural Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 219783, August 3, 2016)
Petitioners challenge the CA Decision for applying
Section 3 of Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, rather than
Section 1 of Rule 133 of the same Rules. In essence,
petitioners argue that the quantum of evidence for
judgments flowing from a default order under Section
3 of Rule 9 is not the same as that provided for in
Section 1 of Rule 133. Between the two rules, there
is no incompatibility that would preclude the
application of either one of them. To begin with,
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
Section 3 of Rule 9 governs the procedure which the
trial court is directed to take when a defendant fails to
file an answer. According to this provision, the court
“shall proceed to render judgment granting the
claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant,”
subject to the court’s discretion on whether to require
the presentation of evidence ex parte. The same
provision also sets down guidelines on the nature and
extent of the relief that may be granted. In particular,
the court’s judgment “shall not exceed the amount or
be different in kind from that prayed for nor award
unliquidated damages.” (Gajudo vs. Traders Royal
Bank, 485 SCRA 108, G.R. No. 151098 March 21,
2006)
Rule 13. Filing and Service of Pleadings,
Judgments and Other Papers
Indeed, filing or service of a copy thereof to petitioners
by courier service cannot be trivialized. Service and
filing of pleadings by courier service is a mode not
provided in the Rules. This is not to mention that PDB
sent a copy of its omnibus motion to an address or
area which was not covered by LBC courier service
at the time. Realizing its mistake, PDB re-filed and
resent the omnibus motion by registered mail, which
is the proper mode of service under the
circumstances. By then, however, the 15-day period
had expired. Using private courier, the date which the
pleading or paper reach the court is the date of filing
as against the registered mail which the date of
posting is considered the date of filing. (Palileo v.
Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193650,
October 8, 2014)
Registered mail
If a pleading is filed by registered mail, the date of the
mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. It
does not matter when the court actually receives the
mailed pleading. (Republic v. Sps. Salvador, G.R.
No. 205428, June 7, 2017)
Bare denial of receipt of a mail cannot prevail over the
certification of the postmaster, whose official duty is
to send notices of registered mail. (Duarte v. Duran,
G.R. No. 173038, September 14, 2011)
Notices
The best evidence to prove that notice was sent
would be a certification from the postmaster who
should certify not only that the notice was issued or
sent but also as to how, when and to whom the
delivery and receipt was made. (Heirs of Bihag v.
Heirs of Bathan, G.R. No. 181949, April 23, 2014)
A Notice of Lis Pendens is an announcement to the
whole world that a particular real property is in
Page 9 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
litigation, serving as a warning that one who acquires
an interest over said property does so at his own risk,
or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over
the said property.” The effect of the annotation of lis
pendens on future transactions over the subject
property is discussed by an authority on land titles
and registration: Once a notice of lis pendens has
been duly registered, any cancellation or issuance of
the title of the land involved as well as any
subsequent transaction affecting the same, would
have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation. In
other words, upon the termination of the litigation
there can be no risk of losing the property or any part
thereof as a result of any conveyance of the land or
any encumbrance that may be made thereon
posterior to the filing of the notice of lis pendens.
(Dela Merced v. GSIS, G.R. No. 167140, November
23, 2011)
Rule 14. Summons
If there is no valid service of summons, the court can
still acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant by virtue of the latter’s voluntary
appearance. (Sy v. Fairland, G.R. Nos. 182915 &
189658)
Service of Summons NOT Required in Habeas
Corpus petition
To begin with, is not required in a habeas corpus
petition, be it under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court or
A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. As held in Saulo v. Cruz, a
writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhat
comparable to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in
that, by service of said writ, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.
(Tujanmilitante vs.Cada-deapera, G.R. no. 210636,
July 28, 2014)
Rule 16. Motion to Dismiss
Except for cases falling under paragraphs (f), (h),
or (i), the dismissal of an action based on the above
enumerated grounds is without prejudice and does
not preclude the refiling of the same action. And,
under Sec. 1(g) of Rule 41, an order dismissing an
action without prejudice is not appealable. The proper
remedy therefrom is a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65. But, if the reason for the
dismissal is based on paragraphs (f), (h), or (i) (i.e.,
res judicata, prescription, extinguishment of the claim
or demand, and unenforceability under the Statute of
Frauds) the dismissal, under Sec. 5, of Rule 16, is
with prejudice and the remedy of the aggrieved party
is to appeal the order granting the motion to dismiss.
Here, the dismissal of UniAlloy’s Complaint was
without prejudice. The September 13, 2001 Order of
the RTC dismissing UniAlloy’s Complaint was based
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
on the grounds of improper venue, forum shopping
and for being a harassment suit, which do not fall
under paragraphs (f), (h), or (i) of Sec. 1, Rule 16.
Stated differently, none of the grounds for the
dismissal of UniAlloy’s Complaint is included in Sec.
5 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Hence, since the
dismissal of its Complaint was without prejudice, the
remedy then available to UniAlloy was a Rule 65
petition. (United Alloy Philippines Corporation v.
United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257,
November 23, 2015)
Motion to Dismiss; Interlocutory Orders
It is elementary that an order denying a motion to
dismiss is merely interlocutory and, therefore, not
appealable. (Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Lin,
G.R. No. 207277, January 16, 2010)
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Where the plaintiff moves for the dismissal of the
complaint to which a counterclaim has been
interposed, the dismissal shall be limited to the
complaint. Should the defendant desire to prosecute
his counterclaim, he is required to manifest his
preference within 15 days from notice of the plaintiff's
motion to dismiss. (Blay vs. Baña, G.R. No. 232189,
March 7, 2018)
The application of Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of
Court is not warranted in this case since respondents’
counsel acted negligently in failing to attend the
scheduled hearing dates and even notify respondents
of the same. Relief is accorded to the client who
suffered by reason of the lawyer’s palpable mistake
or negligence and where the interest of justice so
requires. (Yap-Co vs. Spouses Uy, G.R. No.
209295, February 11, 2015)
The trial court has the discretion on whether to grant
or deny a motion to postpone and/or reschedule the
pre-trial conference in accordance with the
circumstances obtaining in the case. This must be so
as it is the trial court which is able to witness firsthand
the events as they unfold during the trial of a case.
Postponements, while permissible, must not be
countenanced except for clearly meritorious grounds
and in light of the attendant circumstances.
(Paranaque Kings Enterprises, Inc. vs. Santos,
G.R. No. 194638, July 2, 2014)
In an ordinary civil action, a motion to dismiss must
generally be filed "within the time for but before filing
the answer to the complaint" and on the grounds
enumerated in Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
The rule is, however, different with respect to
intracorporate-controversies. Under Sec. 8, Rule 1 of
Page 10 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-corporate
Controversies, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited
pleading. (Aldersgate College, Inc. vs. Gauuan,
G.R. No. 192951, November 14, 2012)
A valid compromise agreement may render a pending
case moot and academic. However, the parties may
opt to put therein clauses, conditions, and the like that
would prevent a pending case from becoming moot
and academic. A compromise agreement is a
contract by nature, and as such, the parties are free
to insert clauses to modify its legal effects, so long as
such modifications are not contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy.
(Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Pelagio,
G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015)
Rule 33. Demurrer to Evidence
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is
presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an
objection by one of the parties in an action, to the
effect that the evidence which his adversary produced
is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to
make out a case or sustain the issue. The evidence
contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which
pertains to the merits of the case. Being considered a
motion to dismiss, thus, a demurrer to evidence must
clearly be filed before the court renders its judgment.
(Gonzales vs. Bugaay, G.R. No. 173008, February
22, 2012)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: After the prosecution had rested and made
its formal offer of evidence, with the court
admitting all of the prosecution evidence, the
accused filed a demurer to evidence with leave
of court. The prosecution was allowed to
comment thereon. Thereafter, the court
granted the demurer, finding that the accused
could not have committed the offense charged.
If the prosecution files a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the court
order granting the demurer was not in accord
with law and jurisprudence, will the motion
prosper?
A: NO, the motion will not prosper. With the
granting of the demurrer, the case shall be
dismissed and the legal effect is the acquittal
of the accused. A judgment of acquittal is
immediately executor and no appeal can be
made therefrom. Otherwise the Constitutional
protection against double jeopardy would be
violated.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
Rules 34 & 35. Judgment on the Pleadings v.
Summary Judgments
Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an
answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits all
the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading.
Summary judgment, on the other hand, will be
granted if the pleadings, supporting affidavits,
depositions, and admissions on file, show that except
as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Adolfo
v. Adolfo, G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015)
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q: Modesto sued Ernesto for a sum of money,
claiming that the latter owed him P1M,
evidenced by a promissory note, quoted and
attached to the complaint. In his answer with
counterclaim, Ernesto alleged that Modesto
coerced him into signing the promissory note,
but that it is Modesto who really owes him
P1.5M. Modesto filed an answer to Ernesto’s
counterclaim admitting that he owed Ernesto,
but only in the amount of P0.5M. At the pre-
trial, Modesto marked and identified Ernesto’s
promissory note. He also marked and
identified receipts covering payments he made
to Ernesto, to the extent of P0.5M, which
Ernesto did not dispute.
After pre-trial, Modesto filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, while Ernesto filed
a motion for summary judgment on his
counterclaim. Resolve the two motions with
reasons.
A: Modesto’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings should be denied. While it is true that
under the actionable document rule, Ernesto’s
failure to deny under oath the promissory note
in his answer amounted to an implied
admission of its genuineness and due
execution, his allegation in his answer that he
was coerced into signing the promissory note
tendered an issue which should be tried. The
issue of coercion is not inconsistent with the
due execution and genuineness of the
instrument. Thus, Ernesto‟s failure to deny the
genuineness of the promissory note cannot be
considered a waiver to raise the issue that he
was coerced in signing the same. Said claim of
coercion may also be proved as an exception
to the Parol Evidence Rule. On the other hand,
Ernesto‟s motion for summary judgment may
be granted. Modesto‟s answer to Ernesto‟s
Page 11 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
counterclaim– that he owed the latter a sum
less than what was claimed – amounted to an
admission of a material fact and if the amount
thereof could summarily be proved by
affidavits, deposition, etc., without the need of
going to trial, then no genuine issue of fact
exists.
J. Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
If there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an
issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither
one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where
the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or
contested, proceedings for a summary judgment
cannot take the place of a trial. (Sps. Soller vs. Heirs
of Ulayao, G.R. No. 175552, July 18, 2012)
Rule 37. New Trial or Reconsiderations
The requisites for newly discovered evidence are:
1) the evidence was discovered after trial;
2) such evidence could not have been
discovered and produced at the trial with
reasonable diligence; and
3) it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching, and is of such
weight that, if admitted, will probably change
the judgment. (Diega v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015)
Motion for Extension of Time; Prohibited
The Court has pronounced strict adherence to the
rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Judge
Japson, 142 SCRA 208, that “no motion for extension
of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration
may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the
Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of
Appeals)”.
Rule 38. Relief
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q: Having obtained favorable judgment in his
suit for a sum of money against Patricio,
Orencio sought the issuance of a writ of
execution. When the writ was issued, the
sheriff levied upon a parcel of land that Patricio
owns, and a date was set for the execution
sale.
(a) How may Patricio prevent the sale of the
property on execution?
A: Patricio may file a Petition for Relief with
preliminary injunction (Rule 38), posting a
bond equivalent to the value of the property
levied upon; or assail the levy as invalid if
ground exists. Patricio may also simply pay the
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
amount required by the writ and the costs
incurred therewith.
(b) If Orencio is the purchaser of the property
at the execution sale, how much does he have
to pay?
A: Orencio, the judgment creditor should pay
only the excess amount of the bid over the
amount of the judgment.
(c) If the property is sold to a third party at the
execution sale, what can Patricio do to recover
the property?
A: Patricio can exercise his right of legal
redemption within 1 year from date of
registration of the certificate of sale by paying
the amount of the purchase price with interests
of 1% monthly, plus assessment and taxes
paid by the purchaser, with interest thereon, at
the same rate.
Judgment
The principle of immutability of judgment, or the
rule that once a judgment has become final and
executory, the same can no longer be altered or
modified and the court’s duty is only to order its
execution, is not absolute.
One of the exceptions on the application of the
principle of immutability of judgment is when there is
a supervening event occurring after the judgment
becomes final and executory, which renders the
decision unenforceable. (Dutch Movers, Inc. et. al.
v. Lequin et. al., G.R. No. 210032, April 25, 2017)
Action for Revival of Judgment
A party aggrieved by a decision of a court in an action
for revival of judgment may appeal the decision, but
only insofar as the merits of the action for revival is
concerned.
An action for revival of judgment is a new and
independent action. It is different and distinct from the
original judgment sought to be revived or enforced.
(Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. v. Miranda, G.R.
No. 179638, July 8, 2013)
Annulment of Judgment
Under Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the only
grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud
and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a
ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party
or over the subject matter of the claim. In case of
absence, or lack, of jurisdiction, a court should not
Page 12 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
take cognizance of the case. Thus, the prevailing rule
is that where there is want of jurisdiction over a
subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and
void. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment,
by which no rights are divested, from which no right
can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any
one, and under which all acts performed and all
claims flowing out are void. It is not a decision in
contemplation of law and, hence, it can never become
executory. It also follows that such a void judgment
cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of
res judicata. (Sebastian vs. Spouses Cruz, G.R. No.
220940, March 20, 2017)
2007 BAR QUESTION
Q: A files a case against B. While awaiting
decision on the case, A goes to the United
States to work. Upon her return to the
Philippines, seven years later, A discovers that
a decision was rendered by the court in here
favor a few months after she had left. Can A
file a motion for execution of the judgment?
Reason briefly. (5%)
A: On the assumption that the judgment had
been final and executory for more than five (5)
years as of A‟s return to the Philippines seven
(7) years later, a motion for execution of the
judgment is no longer availing because the
execution of judgment by mere motion is
allowed by the Rules only within five (5) years
from entry of judgment; thereafter, and within
ten (10) years from entry of judgment, an
action to enforce the judgment is required.
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: Half-brothers Roscoe and Salvio inherited
from their father a vast tract of unregistered
land. Roscoe succeeded in gaining possession
of the parcel of land in its entirety and
transferring the tax declaration thereon in his
name. Roscoe sold the northern half to Bono,
Salvio’s cousin. Upon learning of the sale,
Salvio asked Roscoe to convey the southern
half to him. Roscoe refused as he even sold
onethird of the southern half along the West to
Carlo. Thereupon, Salvio filed an action for
reconveyance of the southern half against
Roscoe only. Carlo was not impleaded. After
filing his answer, Roscoe sold the middle third
of the southern half to Nina. Salvio did not
amend the complaint to implead Nina.
After trial, the court rendered judgment
ordering Roscoe to reconvey the entire
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
southern half to Salvio. The judgment became
final and executory. A writ of execution having
been issued, the sheriff required Roscoe,
Carlo and Nina to vacate the southern half and
yield possession thereof to Salvio as the
prevailing party. Carlo and Nina refused,
contending that they are not bound by the
judgment as they are not parties to the case. Is
the contention tenable? Explain fully. (4%)
A: As a general rule, no stranger should be
bound to a judgment where he is not included
as a party. The rule on transfer of interest
pending litigation is found in Sec. 19, Rule 3,
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The action may
continue unless the court, upon motion directs
a person to be substituted in the action or
joined with the original party. Carlo is not
bound by the judgment. He became a co-
owner before the case was filed (Matuguina
Integrated Wood Products, Inc. vs. C.A., G.R.
No. 98310, 24 October 1996; Polaris vs. Plan,
69 SCRA 93; See also Asset Privatization
Trust vs. C.A., G.R. No. 121171, 29 December
1998).
However, Nina is a privy or a successor in
interest and is bound by the judgment even if
she is not a party to the case (Sec. 19, Rule 3).
A judgment is conclusive between the parties
and their successors-in-interest by title
subsequent to the case (Sec. 47, Rule 39)
APPEALS
A board resolution authorizing the representative to
initiate the appeal is not required for the purpose of
filing a notice of appeal. This is because a notice of
appeal is not a pleading, initiatory or otherwise, that,
when required by the law or the rules, must contain,
among others, a verification and certification against
forum shopping to be signed by the party or his/her
representative, and, in the case of a representative,
proof of his/her authority to file the action, i.e., power
of attorney or secretary’s certificate with copy of the
board resolution. (United Interior Manggahan
Homeowners Association vs. De Luna, 845 SCRA
213, G.R. No. 216788 November 20, 2017)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Jurisprudence dictates that the appellee’s role in the
appeal process is confined only to the task of refuting
the assigned errors interposed by the appellant.
Since the appellee is not the party who instituted the
appeal and accordingly has not complied with the
procedure prescribed therefor, he merely assumes a
defensive stance and his interest solely relegated to
Page 13 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
the affirmance of the judgment appealed from.
Keeping in mind that the right to appeal is
essentially statutory in character, it is highly
erroneous for the appellee to either assign any error
or seek any affirmative relief or modification of the
lower court’s judgment without interposing its own
appeal. (Corazon S. Cruz vs. Manila International
Airport Authority, G.R. No. 184732, September 9,
2013)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q. After receiving the adverse decision
rendered against his client, the defendant,
Atty. Sikat duly filed a notice of appeal. For his
part, the plaintiff timely filed a motion for partial
new trial to seek an increase in the monetary
damages awarded. The RTC instead rendered
an amended decision further reducing the
monetary awards. Is it necessary for Atty. Sikat
to file a second notice of appeal after receiving
the amended decision?
A. Yes, it is necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a
second notice of appeal after receiving the
amended decision. In Magdalena Estate vs.
Caluag (11 SCRA 333 [1964]), the Court ruled
that a party must re-take an appeal within
fifteen [15) days from receipt of the amended
ruling or decision, which stands in place of the
old decision. It is in effect, a new decision.
Failure to perfect an appeal; effect
The appellate jurisdiction did not attach with the filing
of J. Bautista’s Motion for Extension. Notably, the
pleading filed was a mere motion for extension and
not a petition for review, and there was no payment of
the required docket fees. Thus, the CA did not acquire
appellate jurisdiction for two (2) reasons: one, it was
merely a Motion for Extension and not a proper
Petition for Review, and two, there was no payment
of the required docket fees. (Bautista vs. Doniego,
Jr., 797 SCRA 724, G.R. No. 218665 July 20, 2016.)
The failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and
within the period fixed by law renders the decision
sought to be appealed final, with the result that no
court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review the
decision. (Rivelisa Realty, Inc vs. First Sta. Clara
Builders Corp., G.R. No. 189618 )
Board resolution not required for filing an appeal
A board resolution authorizing the representative to
initiate the appeal is not required for the purpose of
filing a notice of appeal. This is because a notice of
appeal is not a pleading, initiatory or otherwise, that,
when required by the law or the rules, must contain,
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
among others, a verification and certification against
forum shopping to be signed by the party or his/her
representative, and, in the case of a representative,
proof of his/her authority to file the action, i.e., power
of attorney or secretary’s certificate with copy of the
board resolution. (United Interior Manggahan
Homeowners Association vs. De Luna, 845 SCRA
213, G.R. No. 216788 November 20, 2017 United
Interior Manggahan Homeowners Association vs. De
Luna, 845 SCRA 213, G.R. No. 216788 November
20, 2017. (United Interior Manggahan
Homeowners Association vs. De Luna, G.R. No.
216788, November 20, 2017)
Payment of docket fees; perfection of appeal
The requirement of paying the full amount of the
appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is
not a mere technicality of law or procedure. The
payment of docket fees within the prescribed period
is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without
such payment, the appeal is not perfected. The
appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the action and the Decision sought
to be appealed from becomes final and executory.
(Spouses Edmond Lee and Helen Huang vs. Land
Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 218867,
February 17, 2016)
Motion for extension of time: Appellate
Jurisdiction
Mere filing of a Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Petition for Review will not attach the appellate
jurisdiction. Payment of corresponding docket and
other lawful fees is necessary. (Bautista vs.
Doniego, G.R. No. 218665, July 20, 2016)
Questions of fact; questions of law
The test for determining whether the supposed error
was one of “law” or “fact” is whether the reviewing
court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating
the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law;
otherwise, it is one of fact. (Bases Conversion
Development Authority vs. Reyes, G.R. No.
194247, June 19, 2013)
There is a "question of law" when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts, and which does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand,
there is a "question of fact" when the doubt or
controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as
to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion
drawn there from is correct, is a question of law.
Page 14 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
(Alangdeo vs. Yaranon, G.R. No. 206423, July 1,
2015)
Rule 41. Order of dismissal; final order;
interlocutory order
An order of dismissal, whether correct or not, is a
final order. It is not interlocutory because the
proceedings are terminated; it leaves nothing more to
be done by the lower court. A final order is
appealable, in accordance with the final judgment rule
enunciated in Sec. 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
The doctrine of immutability of judgments bars courts
from modifying decisions that had already attained
finality, even if the purpose of the modification is to
correct errors of fact or law, subject to certain
exceptions. (Rolando S. Abadilla, Jr. vs. Spouses
Bonifacio P. Obrero and Bernabela N. Obrero et
al., G.R. No. 210855, December 09, 2015)
Rule 42. Petition for Review from the Regional
Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals
Under Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure (1997 Rules), a petition for review shall be
accompanied by, among others, copies of the
pleadings and other material portions of the record as
would support the allegations of the petition. Sec. 3 of
the same rule states that failure of the petitioner to
comply with any of the requirements regarding the
contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal thereof. In Galvez v. Court of Appeals,
695 SCRA 10 (2013), this Court held that there are
three guideposts in determining the necessity of
attaching pleadings and portions of the record to
petitions under Rules 42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules, to
wit:
First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are
required to be attached to the petition. Only those
which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it.
Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent
to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown
that the contents thereof can also be found in another
document already attached to the petition.
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part
of the case record may still be given due course or
reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that
petitioner later submitted the documents required, or
that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the
case be decided on the merits. (Maravilla v. Rios,
G.R. No. 196875, August 19, 2015)
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q. Distinguish the two modes of appeal
from the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court to the Court of Appeals.
A. In cases decided by the Regional Trial
Courts in the exercise of their original
jurisdiction, appeals to the Court of Appeals
shall be ordinary appeal by filing written notice
of appeal indicating the parties to the appeal;
specifying the judgment/final order or part
thereof appealed from; specifying the court to
which the appeal is being taken; and stating
the material dates showing the timeliness of
the appeal. The notice of appeal shall be filed
with the RTC which rendered the judgment
appealed from and copy thereof shall be
served upon the adverse party within 15 days
from notice of judgment or final order appealed
from. But if the case admits of multiple appeals
or is a special proceeding, a record on appeal
is required aside from the written notice of
appeal to perfect the appeal, in which case the
period for appeal and notice upon the adverse
party is not only 15 days but 30 days from
notice of judgment or final order appealed
from. The full amount of the appellate court
docket fee and other lawful fees required must
also be paid within the period for taking an
appeal, to the clerk of the court which rendered
the judgment or final order appealed from
(Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 41, Rules of Court). The
periods of 15 or 30 days above-stated are non-
extendible.
In cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, appeal
to the Court of Appeals shall be by filing a
verified petition for review with the Court of
Appeals and furnishing the RTC and the
adverse party with copy thereof, within 15 days
from notice of judgment or final order appealed
from. Within the same period for appeal, the
docket fee and other lawful fees required with
the deposit for cost should be paid. The 15-
day period may be extended for 15 days and
another 15 days for compelling reasons.
. 1)
Rule 45. Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme
Court
At the outset, it is evident that the resolution of the
instant case requires the scrutiny of factual issues
which are, however, outside the scope of the present
petition filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
However, the Court held in Asian Terminals, Inc. v.
Philam Insurance Co., Inc., 702 SCRA 88 (2013),
Page 15 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
that: But while it is not our duty to review, examine
and evaluate or weigh all over again the probative
value of the evidence presented, the Court may
nonetheless resolve questions of fact when the case
falls under any of the following exceptions:
1. when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
2. when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible;
3. when there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
5. when the findings of fact are conflicting;
6. when in making its findings the Court of Appeals
went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee;
7. when the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court;
8. when the findings are conclusions without citation
of specific evidence on which they are based;
9. when the facts set forth in the petition as well as
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; and
10. when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by the evidence on record. (Marina Port
Services Inc v. American Home Assurance
Corporation, G.R. No. 201822, August 12,
2015)
Appeals: Petition for Review on Certiorari
The remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision, final
order, or resolution of the CA is to file a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, which is a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. And as a rule, if the
remedy of an appeal is available, an action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which
is an original or independent action based on grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, will not prosper because it is not a
substitute for a lost appeal. There are exceptions to
the rule that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is
not a substitute to a lost appeal, to wit:
when public welfare and the advancement
of public policy dictate;
2) when the broader interest of justice so
requires;
3) when the writs issued are null and void;
4) when the questioned order amounts to an
oppressive exercise of judicial authority;
5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules
may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
injustice not commensurate with his failure
to comply with the prescribed procedure;
6) when the judgment or order is attended by
grave abuse of discretion; or
7) in other meritorious cases. (Bureau of
Internal Revenue v Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 197590, November 24, 2014)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q. Compare the certiorari jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under the Constitution with
that under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure?
A. The certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under the Constitution is the mode by
which the Court exercises its expanded
jurisdiction, allowing it to take corrective action
through the exercise of its judicial power.
Constitutional certiorari jurisdiction applies
even if the decision was not rendered by a
judicial or quasi-judicial body, hence, it is
broader than the writ of certiorari under Rule
65, which is limited to cases involving a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the government and there
is no other claim speedy remedy available to a
party in the ordinary course of law.
Rule 47. Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders
and Resolutions
It must be stressed that the remedy of annulment of
judgment is only available under certain exceptional
circumstances as this is adverse to the concept of
immutability of final judgments. Hence, it is allowed
only on two grounds, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. (Mangubat v. Morga-Seva G.R. No.
202611, November 23, 2015)
Rule 60. Replevin
In a complaint for replevin, the plaintiff need not be
the owner so long as he is able to specify his right to
the possession of the property and his legal basis
therefor.
Rule 60 allows a plaintiff, in an action for the recovery
of possession of personal property, to apply for a writ
of replevin if it can be shown that he is ‘the owner of
the property claimed or is entitled to the possession
thereof.’ The plaintiff need not be the owner so long
as he is able to specify his right to the possession of
the property and his legal basis therefor. (Siy v.
Tomlin, G.R. No. 205998, April 24, 2017)
Page 16 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
Rule 65. Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional
remedy that is adjunct to the main case and is subject
to the latter’s outcome. It is not a cause of action itself.
It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary
measure availed of during the pendency of the action;
and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and
is dependent upon the result of the main action.
auxiliary remedy, the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction cannot be issued independently of the
principal action.
A mandatory injunction requires the performance of
a particular act. Hence, it is an extreme remedy, to be
granted only if the following requisites are attendant,
namely:
1. The applicant has a clear and unmistakable
right, that is, a right in esse;
2. There is a material and substantial invasion
of such right; and
3. There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent
irreparable injury to the applicant; and no
other ordinary, speedy, and adequate
remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury. (Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R.
No. 162230, August 12, 2014)
Provisional remedies also known as ancillary or
auxiliary remedies, are writs and processes
available during the pendency of the action which
may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and
protect certain rights and interests pending rendition,
and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final
judgment in the case. They are provisional because
they constitute temporary measures availed of during
the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary
because they are mere incidents in and are
dependent upon the result of the main action.” One of
the provisional remedies provided in the Rules of
Court is preliminary injunction, which may be resorted
to by a litigant at any stage of an action or proceeding
prior to the judgment or final order to compel a party
or a court, agency or a person to refrain from doing a
particular act or acts.
Dismissal of Actions; effect to the Ancillary
Action
One (1) of the inevitable consequences of the
dismissal of the main action is the dissolution of the
ancillary relief granted therein. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation v. United Coconut
Planters Bank, G.R. No. 179257, November 23,
2015)
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration should
precede recourse to certiorari in order to give the trial
court an opportunity to correct the error that it may
have committed. The said rule is not absolute and
may be dispensed with in instances:
1. where the filing of a motion for
reconsideration would serve no useful
purpose, such as when the motion for
reconsideration would raise the same point
stated in the motion or
2. where the error is patent for the order is void
or
3. where the relief is extremely urgent, as in
cases where execution had already been
ordered where the issue raised is one purely
of law. (PTA of St. Matthew Christian
Academy v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Co., G.R. No. 176518, March 2, 2010)
Certiorari
The pendency of a special civil action for certiorari
instituted in relation to a pending case does not stay
the proceedings therein in the absence of a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
Rule 65, Sec. 7 makes this clear: The court in which
the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the
proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for
the preservation of the rights of the parties pending
such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the
course of the principal case unless a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has
been issued against the public respondent from
further proceeding in the case. The public respondent
shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10)
days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a
higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon
its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to
proceed with the principal case may be a ground for
an administrative charge. (Silverio, Sr. v. Silverio,
Jr., G.R. No. 186589, July 18, 2014)
The purpose of Mandamus is to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty. A ministerial act is
one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to
the mandate of legal authority without regard to or the
exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done. (Edralin v. Philippine
Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 168523, March 9, 2011)
Grave Abuse of Discretion is the capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the
public officer concerned, equivalent to an excess or
Page 17 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.”
(King v. Robles, G.R. Nos. 197096-97, December
7, 2015)
Rule 70. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
The prior service and receipt of a demand letter is
unnecessary in a case for unlawful detainer if the
demand to vacate is premised on the expiration of the
lease, not on the nonpayment of rentals or non-
compliance with the terms and conditions of the
lease. (Cruz v. Spouses Christensen, G.R. No.
205539, October 4, 2017)
If the complaint does not allege facts showing
compliance with the prescribed one-year period to file
an action for unlawful detainer, then it cannot properly
qualify as such action over which the MTC can
exercise jurisdiction. Such allegations are
jurisdictional and crucial. It may then be an accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. (Estate of
Manantan v. Somera, G.R. No. 145867, April 7,
2009)
Rule in case of tacita reconduccion in relation to
unlawful detainer
Under Art. 1670 of NCC, if at the end of lease, the
lessee continues to enjoy the property leased for 15
days with consent of the lessor, and no notice to the
contrary has been given, it is understood that there is
an implied new lease.
When there is tacita reconduccion, the lessee cannot
be deemed as unlawfully withholding the property.
There is no unlawful detainer.
The existence of implied new lease or tacita
reconduccion based on the allegations in the
complaint will not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over
the ejectment case. The allegations pleaded in the
complaint and not the defenses set up in the answer
or pleadings filed by the defendant determines
jurisdiction of the court over ejectment cases. (Joven
Yuki, Jr. v. Wellington Co, G.R. No. 178527,
November 27, 2009, Del Castillo, J.)
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Rule 74. Summary Settlement of Estate
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
Party may validly transfer ownership over the specific
portion of the property assigned to him in the
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
extrajudicial settlement of estate even if the
settlement was not published. The title of the property
owned by a person who dies intestate passes at once
to his heirs. (Alfonso v. Andres, G.R. No. 166236,
July 29, 2010A)
Guardianship
“The powers given to her by the laws as the natural
guardian covers only matters of administration and
cannot include the power of disposition. She should
have first secured the permission of the court before
she alienated that portion of the property in question
belonging to her minor children.” In a number of
cases, where the guardians, mothers or
grandmothers, did not seek court approval of the sale
of properties of their wards, minor children, the Court
declared the sales void. (Hebron v. Loyola G.R. No.
168960, July 5, 2010)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Data must adequately show that there exists a nexus
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the
right to life, liberty or security on the other. Corollarily,
the allegations in the petition must be supported by
substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security
of the victim. (Dr. Joy Margate Lee vs. P/Supt. Neri
A. Ilagan, G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014)
The object of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is to inquire
into the legality of the detention and if the detention is
found to be illegal, to require the release of the
detainee. In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to
show that his further incarceration is no longer lawful
and that he is entitled to relief under a writ of habeas
corpus. (Tiu vs. Dizon, G.R. No. 211269, June 15,
2016)
Writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody of
minors
Habeas Corpus may be resorted to in cases where
the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto. In custody cases involving
minors, the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for
the purpose of determining the right of custody over a
child. The requisites are as follows:
(1) petitioner has the right of custody over the
minor;
(2) rightful custody of the minor is being withheld
from the petitioner; and
(3) it is to the best interest of the minor
concerned to be in the custody of petitioner.
(Masbate vs. Relucio, G.R. No. 235498,
July 30, 2018)
Page 18 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry
Rule 108 provides for the correction of substantial
changes in civil registry through an appropriate
adversary proceeding. It states that, “the civil registrar
and all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby shall be made parties to
the proceeding” This is mandatory. Thus, failure to
comply renders the entire proceeding null and void.
(Almojuela vs. Republic, G.R. No. 211724, August
24, 2016)
Rule 107. Absentees
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q: Frank and Gina were married on June 12,
1987 in Manila. Barely a year after the
wedding, Frank exhibited a violent
temperament, forcing Gina, for reasons of
personal safety, to live with her parents. A year
thereafter, Gina found employment as a
domestic helper in Singapore, where she
worked for ten consecutive years. All the time
she was abroad, Gina had absolutely no
communications with Frank, nor did she hear
any news about him. While in Singapore, Gina
met and fell in love with Willie. On July 4, 2007,
Gina filed a petition with the RTC of manila to
declare Frank presumptively dead, so that she
could marry Willie. The RTC granted Gina’s
petition. The office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) filed a notice of Appeal with the RTC,
stating that it was appealing the decision of the
Court of Appeals on questions of fact and law.
(a) Is a petition for declaration of Presumptive
Death a special proceeding?
(b) As the RTC judge who granted Gina’s
petition, will you give due course to the OSG’s
notice of appeal?
A: (a) A petition for declaration of presumptive
death may be considered a special
proceeding, because it is so classified in the
Rules of Court (Rule 107, Rules of Court), as
differentiated from an ordinary action which is
adversarial. It is a mere application or
proceeding to establish the status of a party or
a particular fact, to viz: that a person has been
unheard of for a long time and under such
circumstance that he may be presumed dead.
(b) NO. Appeal is not a proper remedy since
the decision is immediately final and executor
upon notice to the parties under Art. 247 of the
Family Code. (Republic vs Bermudez-Lorino,
449 SCRA 57 [2005]). The OSG may assail
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
RTC’s grant of the petition only on the premise
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. The remedy should be
by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Cancellation or Correction; Notice
2007 BAR QUESTION
Q: B files a petition for cancellation of the birth
certificate of her daughter R on the ground of
the falsified material entries therein made by
B’s husband as the informant. The RTC sets
the case for hearing directs the publication of
the order for hearing and directs the
publication of the order once a week for three
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation. Summons was service on the Civil
Registrar but there was no appearance during
the hearing. The RTC granted the petition. R
filed a petition for annulment of judgment
before the Court of Appeals, saying that she
was not notified of the petition and hence, the
decision was issued in violation of due
process. B opposed saying that the publication
of the court order was sufficient compliance
with due process. Rule. (5%)
A: R‟s petition for annulment of judgment
before the Court of Appeals should be granted.
Although there was publication of the court
order acting the petition to cancel the birth
certificate, reasonable notice still has to be
served on R as she has an interest affected by
the cancellation. (Sec. 3 and 4, Rule 108,
Rules of Court) She is an indispensable party
(Republic v. Benemerito, 425 SCRA 488
[2004]), and notice has to be served on her, not
for the purpose of vesting the court with
jurisdiction, but to comply with the
requirements of fair play and due process
(Ceruila v. Delantar, 477 SCRA 134 [2005]).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 110. Institution of Criminal Actions
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged
with murder. Upon filing of the information, the
RTC judge issued the warrants for their arrest.
Learning of the issuance of the warrants, the
three accused jointly filed a motion for
reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing
of their motion, none of the accused showed
up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC
Page 19 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
judge denied their motion because the RTC did
not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the
movants. Did the RTC rule correctly?
A: No, the court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused when they filed the
aforesaid motion and invoked the court’s
authority over the case, without raising the
issue of jurisdiction over their person. Their
filing the motion is tantamount to voluntary
submission to the court’s jurisdiction and
constitutes voluntary appearance (Miranda v.
Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006).
Jurisdiction over Continuing Crimes
Some acts material and essential thereto and
requisite in their consummation occur in one
municipality or territory, while some occur in another.
In such cases, the court wherein any of the crime's
essential and material acts have been committed
maintains jurisdiction to try the case; it being
understood that the first court taking cognizance of
the same excludes the other. Thus, a person charged
with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly
tried in any municipality or territory where the offense
was in part committed.” (AAA v. BBB, G.R No.
212448, January 11, 2018)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The principle of delito continuado applies when
there is plurality of acts performed during a period of
time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of
criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or
more violations of the same penal provisions are
united in one and the same intent or resolution
leading to the perpetration of the same criminal
purpose or aim. Legal principles developed from the
Penal Code such as delito continuado may be applied
in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished
under special laws. (Noel Navaja, vs. Hon. Manuel
A. De Castro, G.R. No. 180969, September 11,
2017)
Where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees
assessed by the clerk of court and the amount paid
turns out to be deficient, the court still acquires
jurisdiction subject to the payment by the plaintiff of
the deficiency assessment. The reason is that to
penalize the party for the omission of the clerk of court
is not fair if the party has acted in good faith. (Isabel
G. Ramones vs. Spouses Guimoc, G.R. No.
226645, August 13, 2018)
Rule 111. Prosecution of Civil Action
According to Sec. 3, Rule 111, the independent civil
action may proceed in the following cases:
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
(a) Art. 32, Civil Code: violation of constitutional
rights and liberties by any public officer or
employee, or any private individual;
(b) Art. 33, Civil Code: defamation, fraud, and
physical injuries;
(c) Art. 34, Civil Code: member of a city or municipal
police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life
or property ;
(d) Art. 2176, Civil Code: quasi-delict.
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
The extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it the extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that
the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
(Rafael l. Coscolluela vs. Sanbiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 191411 & 191871, July 15, 2013)
Rule 112. Preliminary Investigation
Probable Cause
The determination of probable cause only requires
reasonable belief or probability that more likely than
not a crime has been committed by the accused.
(Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 197590, November 24, 2014)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Executive v. Judicial determination of probable
cause
The Ombudsman's finding of probable cause does
not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence of the
accused as it is not within its function to rule on such
issue. As to the Sandiganbayan’s judicial
determination of probable cause, a judge's
discretion to dismiss a case immediately after the
filing of the information is appropriate only when the
failure to establish probable cause can be clearly
inferred from the evidence presented and not when
its existence is simply doubtful. (Cambe vs. Office of
the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212014-15, 212427-28,
212694-95, 212794-95, 213477-78, 213532-33,
213536-37 & 218744-59)
The executive determination of probable cause
concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence
to support an Information being filed. The judicial
determination of probable cause, on the other hand,
determines whether a warrant of arrest should be
issued. (Jessica Lucila G. Reyes vs. The
Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 213163-78,
213540-41, 213542-43, 215880-94 & 213475-76.
March 15, 2016)
Probable cause can be established with hearsay
evidence as long as there is substantial basis for
Page 20 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is
admissible in determining probable cause in a
preliminary investigation because such investigation
is merely preliminary and does not finally adjudicate
rights and obligations of parties.
(Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation vs.
Casimiro, G.R. No. 206866, September 2, 2015)
Once the Information is filed with the court and the
judge proceeds with his primordial task of evaluating
the evidence on record, he may either: (a) issue a
warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause; (b)
immediately dismiss the case, if the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause; and
(c) order the prosecutor to submit additional
evidence, in case he doubts the existence of probable
cause. A judge's discretion to dismiss a case
immediately after the filing of the information in court
is appropriate only when the failure to establish
probable cause can be clearly inferred from the
evidence presented and not when its existence is
simply doubtful. (De Los Santos-Dio vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 178947 & 179079, June 26,
2013)
Right to Remain Silent; Custodial Investigation
The right to remain silent cannot be waived except in
writing and the presence of counsel; any admission
obtained in violation of this rule shall be inadmissible
in evidence. Sec. 12, Article III of the Constitution
explicitly provides, viz: Any person under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
Clearly, when appellant remained. (People v.
Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, November 25, 2013)
2007 BAR QUESTION
Q. (a) On his way home, a member of the
Caloocan City police force witnesses a bus
robbery in Pasay City and effects the arrest of
the suspect. Can he bring the suspect to
Caloocan City for booking since that is where
his station is? Explain briefly. (5%)
A. No, the arresting officer may not take the
arrested suspect from Pasay City to Caloocan
City. The arresting officer is required to deliver
the person arrested without a warrant to the
nearest police station or jail (Rule 112, Sec. 5,
2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure). To be sure,
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
the nearest police station or jail is in Pasay City
where the arrest was made, and not in
Caloocan City.
Q. (b) In the course of serving a search
warrant, the police find an unlicensed firearm.
Can the police take the firearm even if it is not
covered by the search warrant? If the warrant
is subsequently quashed, is the police required
to return the firearm? Explain briefly. (5%)
A. Yes, the police may take with him the
“unlicensed” firearm although not covered by
the search warrant. Possession of an
“unlicensed firearm” is a criminal offense and
the police officer may seize an article which is
the “subject of an offense.” Thus us especially
so considering that the “unlicensed firearm”
appears to be in “plain view” of the police
officer when the conducted the search.
Even if the warrant was subsequently
quashed, the police are not mandated to return
the “unlicensed firearm.” The quashal of the
search warrant did not affect the validity of the
seizure of the “unlicensed firearm.” Moreover,
returning the firearm to a person who is not
otherwise allowed by law to possess the same
would be tantamount to abetting a violation of
the law.
Rule 114. Bail
A grant of bail does not prevent the trial court from
making a final assessment of the evidence after full
trial of the merits, “such appreciation of evidence is at
best preliminary and should not prevent the trial judge
from making a final assessment of the evidence
before him after full trial. It is not an uncommon
occurrence that an accused person granted bail is
convicted in due course.” (People v. Brita, G.R. No.
191260, November 24, 2014)
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q. The accused in a criminal case has the
right to avail of the various modes of
discovery.
A. TRUE. The accused has the right to move
for the production or inspection of material
evidence in the possession of the prosecution.
It authorizes the defense to inspect, copy or
photograph any evidence of the prosecution in
its possession after obtaining permission from
the court (Rule 116, Sec. 10; Webb vs. De
Leon, 247 SCRA 652 [1995]).
Page 21 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
Rule 117. Motion to Quash
Any irregularity attending the arrest of an accused
should be timely raised in a motion to quash the
Information at any time before arraignment, failing in
which he is deemed to have waived his right to
question the regularity of his arrest. As the records
show, except during the inquest proceedings.
(People v. Cunanan, G.R. No. 198024, March 16,
2015)
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed
by an investigating prosecutor without the prior
written authority or approval of the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the
Ombudsman or his deputy. (Quisay vs. People, G.R.
No. 216920, January 13, 2016)
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q. A criminal information is filed in court
charging Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo
files a motion to quash information on the
ground that no preliminary investigation was
conducted. Will the motion be granted? Why or
why not?
A. NO, the motion to quash will not be granted.
The lack of preliminary investigation is not a
ground for a motion to quash under the Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Preliminary
investigation is only a statutory right and can
be waived. The accused should instead file a
motion for reinvestigation within five (5) days
after he learns of the filing in Court of the case
against him (Sec. 6, Rule 112, as amended).
2009 BAR QUESTION
Q. Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer,
respectively, of the Municipality of San Miguel,
Leyte, are charged before the Sandiganbayan
for violation of Sec. 3(e), RA no. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The
information alleges, among others, that the two
conspired in the purchase of several units of
computer through personal canvass instead of
a public bidding, causing undue injury to the
municipality. Before arraignment, the accused
moved for reinvestigation of the charge, which
the court granted. After reinvestigation, the
Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an
amended information duly singed and
approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging
the same delictual facts, but with an additional
allegation that the accused gave unwarranted
benefits to SB enterprises owned by Samuel.
Samuel was also indicted under the amended
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
information. Before Samuel was arraigned, he
moved to quash the amended information on
the ground that the officer who filed had no
authority to do so. Resolve the motion to quash
with reasons.
A. The motion to quash filed by Samuel should
be granted. There is no showing that the
special prosecutor was duly authorized or
deputized to prosecute Samuel. Under R.A.
No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act
of 1989, the Special Prosecutor has the power
and authority, under the supervision and
control of the Ombudsman, to conduct
preliminary investigation and prosecute
criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and
perform such other duties assigned to him by
the Ombudsman (Calingin vs. Desierto, 529
SCRA 720 [2007]). Absent a clear delegation
of authority from the Ombudsman to the
Special Prosecutor to file the information, the
latter would have no authority to file the same.
The Special Prosecutor cannot be considered
an alter ego of the Ombudsman as the doctrine
of qualified political agency does not apply to
the office of the Ombudsman. In fact, the
powers of the office of the Special Prosecutor
under the law may be exercised only under the
supervision and control and upon authority of
the Ombudsman (Perez vs. Sandiganbayan,
503 SCRA 252 [2006]).
Demurrer to the evidence is “an objection by one of
the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence
which his adversary produced is insufficient in point
of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or
sustain the issue when an accused files a demurrer
to evidence, the court must evaluate whether the
prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant
the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. To be sufficient, the evidence must prove:
1) the commission of the crime; and
2) the precise degree of participation therein by
the accused.
The grant of a demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal
and the dismissal order may not be appealed
because this would place the accused in double
jeopardy; Although the dismissal order based on
demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal, it is still
reviewable but only through certiorari under Rule 65.
For the writ to issue, the trial court must be shown to
have acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction such as where the
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its
Page 22 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
case or where the trial was a sham thus rendering the
assailed judgment void. The burden is on the
petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the trial court
blatantly abused its authority to a point so grave as to
deprive it of its very power to dispense justice.
(People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 174504,
March 21, 2011)
2007 BAR QUESTION
Q. L was charged with illegal possession of
shabu before the RTC. Although bail was
allowable under his indictment, he could not
afford to post bail, and so he remained in
detention at the City Jail. For various reasons
ranging from the promotion of the Presiding
Judge, to the absence of the trial prosecutor,
and to the lack of notice to the City Jail
Warden, the arraignment of L was postpones
nineteen times over a period of two years.
Twice during that period, L’s counsel filed
motions to dismiss, invoking the right of the
accused to speedy trial. Both motions were
denied by the RTC. Can L file a petition for
mandamus. Reason briefly.
A. Yes, L can file a petition for mandamus to
enforce his constitutional right to a speedy trial
which was capriciously denied to him. There is
absolutely no justification for postponing an
arraignment of the accused nineteen (19)
times and over a period of two (2) years. The
numerous, unreasonable postponements of
the arraignment demonstrate an abusive
exercise of discretion (Lumanlaw v. Peralta,
482 SCRA 396 [2006]). Arraignment of an
accused would not take thirty minutes of the
precious time of the court, as against the
preventive imprisonment and deprivation of
liberty of the accused just because he does not
have the means to post bail although the crime
charged is bailable. The right to a speedy trial
is guaranteed by the Constitution to every
citizen accused of a crime, more so when is
under preventive imprisonment. L, in the given
case, was merely invoking his constitutional
right when a motion to dismiss the case was
twice filed by his counsel. The RTC is virtually
enjoined by the fundamental law to respect
such right; hence a duty. Having refused or
neglected to discharge the duty enjoined by
law whereas there is no appeal nor any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, the remedy of mandamus may
be availed of.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
2007 BAR QUESTION
Q. What is reverse trial and when may it be
resorted to? Explain briefly. (5%)
A. A reverse trial is one where the defendant
or the accused present evidence ahead of the
plaintiff or prosecution and the latter is to
present evidence by way of rebuttal to the
former’s evidence. This kind of trial may take
place in a civil case when the defendant’s
Answer pleads new matters by way of
affirmative defense, to defeat or evade liability
for plaintiff’s claim which is not denied but
controverted.
In a criminal case, a reverse trial may take
place when the accused made known to the
trial court, on arraignment, that he adduce
affirmative defense of a justifying or exempting
circumstances and thus impliedly admitting the
act imputed to him. The trial court may then
require the accused to present evidence first,
proving the requisites of the justifying or
exempting circumstance he is invoking, and
the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence
controverting the same.
Mittimus
A document issued by the court after conviction of the
accused to enforce the final judgment by
commanding a jailer to hold the accused in
accordance with the terms of such judgment.
Rule 122. Appeal
The review on appeal of a decision in a criminal case
wherein the CA imposes a penalty other than death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is by petition
for review on certiorari raising only questions of law.
(Olarte v. People, G.R. No. 197731, July 6, 2015)
Rule 126. Search and Seizure
A search warrant is not a criminal action nor does it
represent a commencement of a criminal prosecution
even if it is entitled like a criminal action. It is not a
proceeding against a person but solely for the
discovery and to get possession of a personal
property. It is a special peculiar remedy, drastic in
nature, and made necessary because of public
necessity. It resembles in some respects with what is
commonly known as John Doe proceedings. (United
Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, 461 SCRA 574)
Search Warrants: Probable Cause;
As implied by the words themselves, "probable
cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or
even moral certainty.
Page 23 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably
prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge
after a full-blown trial. (Century Chinese Medicine
Co. Vs. People, 709 SCRA 177)
Personal examination by judge of the applicant
and witnesses
The required procedure involves the following:
a. The examination must be personally
conducted by the judge;
b. The examination must be in the form of
searching questions and answers;
c. The complainant and the witnesses shall be
examined on those facts personally known to
them;
d. The statements must be in writing and under
oath; and
e. The sworn statements of the complainant
and the witnesses, together with the affidavits
submitted, shall be attached to the record
(Sec 5, Rule 126)
Particularity of the place to be searched and the
things seized
The place to be searched must be particularly
described. The place is considered particularly
described if it to a definitely ascertainable place as to
exclude other places. (People vs. Velasco, 48, Phil
169)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q: The search warrant authorized the seizure
of "undetermined quantity of shabu." During
the service of the search warrant, the raiding
team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana
leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused
moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as
evidence for the violation of Sec. 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
since they were not covered by the search
warrant. The State justified the seizure of the
marijuana leaves under the "plain view"
doctrine. There was no indication of whether
the marijuana leaves were discovered and
seized before or after the seizure of the shabu.
If you are the judge, how would you rule on the
motion to suppress?
A: The motion to suppress filed by the accused
should be granted. The search warrant violates
the constitutional and statutory requirement
that it should particularly describe the person
or things to be seized (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987
Constitution; Sec. 2, Rule 126). The “plain
view” doctrine cannot be invoked because the
marijuana leaves were wrapped in newsprint.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
Besides the marijuana leaves are not the
subject of the search warrant.
Motion to quash the search warrant
The followings shall be the sufficient grounds for the
quashal of the search warrant:
a. When the search warrant is in the nature of a
general warrant without specific description
of the place to be searched and the things to
be seized (Sec. 2, Article III, 1987
Philippine Constitution);
b. Failure to conduct searching questions and
answer before the issuance of search
warrant by the issuing judge ( Peudon vs. CA
et al. G.R. No. 84873)
c. The search warrant was issued based not on
personal knowledge or information;
d. A search warrant for more than one offense
or a “scatter-shot warrant” (Sec. 4, Rule 126);
or
e. When the thing ordered seized are legally in
possession of a person.
Motion to suppress evidence
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding Sec. (Sec. 2) shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceedings (Sec. 3, Article III, 1987
Philippine Constitution).
Fruit of the poisonous tree
The warrant issued by the judge did not comply with
the requisites of the law, and therefore, void, or when
the search made without warrant is unjustifiable,
whether it is found or discovered afterwards, cannot
be used as evidence against the suspect. The items
or articles obtained are the “fruits of a poisoned
tree.”(People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1)
EVIDENCE
Rule 128. General Provisions
Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the law of these rules. (Sec. 3,
Rule 128)
Inadmissibility of evidence
A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
(Villamor v. People, G.R. No. 200396, March 22,
2017)
Miranda Rights; Exclusionary Rule
The infractions of the so-called Miranda rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or
admission made during custodial investigation.
Page 24 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
(People v. Bio, G.R. No. 195850, February 16,
2015)
Rule 129. What Need Not Be Proved
Judicial Admissions
An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in
the course of the proceedings in the same case does
not require proof. The admission may be contradicted
only by showing that it was made through:
1) palpable mistake or
2) that no such admission was made. (Sec. 4,
Rule 129)
A party may make judicial admissions in
(a) The pleadings,
(b) During trial, either by verbal or written
manifestations or stipulations, or
(c) In other stages of the judicial proceeding.
(Manzanilla v. Waterfields Industries
Corporation, G.R. No. 177484, July 18,
2014)
Judicial Notice: Foreign Law
A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer
having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has
the custody, if the office in which the record is kept is
in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.
(Spouses Zalamea vs Court of Appeals G.R. No.
104235)
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. (ATCI Overseas
Corporation vs Echin, G.R. No. 178551)
Rule 130. Rule of Admissibility
A legal question on the admissibility is within the
Court’s authority to review; A petition for review
should raise only questions of law; Exception
The issues involved herein are not entirely factual.
Petitioners assail the appellate court’s rejection of
their evidence (as to the contractual intent) as
inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule. The
question involving the admissibility of evidence is a
legal question that is within the Court’s authority to
review.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
The Court may resolve questions of fact when the
case falls under any of the following exceptions:
1. when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
2. when the interference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible;
3. when there is grave abuse of discretion;
4. when the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts;
5. when the findings of facts are conflicting;
6. when in making its findings the Court of Appeals
went beyond the issues of the case, or its
findings are contrary to the admissions of both
the appellant and the appellee;
7. when the findings are contrary to those of the
trial court;
8. when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;
9. when the facts set forth in the petition as well as
in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not
disputed by respondent; and
10. when the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted
by evidence on record.
(Marquez v. Espejo G.R. No. 168387, August
25, 2010)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q. On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed
estafa against Petronilo in the amount of P3
Million. Petronilo brought his complaint to the
National Bureau of Investigation, which found
that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the
first time on August 14, 2008 and the second
on August 16, 2008; and that both visits
concerned the swindling of Petronilo. During
the trial of Edgardo, the RTC issued a
subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s
lawyer for him to testify on the conversations
during their first and second meetings. May the
subpoena be quashed on the ground of
privileged communication? Explain fully. (4%)
A. Yes, the mantle of privileged
communication based on lawyer-client
relationship protects the communication
between a lawyer and his client against any
adverse party as in this case. The subpoena
requiring the lawyer to testify can be quashed
on the ground of privileged communication
(See Regala v. Sandiganbayan, GR No.
105938, 20 September 1996). Sec. 24 (b) Rule
130 provides that an attorney cannot, without
Page 25 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
the consent of his client be examined in any
communication made to him by his client to
him, or his advice given thereon, including his
secretary, stenographer, clerk concerning any
fact the knowledge of which has been acquired
in such capacity. However, where the subject
matter of the communication involves the
commission of the crime, in which the lawyer
himself is a participant or conspirator, then the
same is not covered by the privilege.
Moreover, if the substance of the
communication can be established by
independent evidence, the lawyer maybe
compelled to testify.
Chain of custody
Object evidence which are not readily identifiable,
were not made identifiable or cannot be made
identifiable is authenticated by establishing a Chain of
Custody.
The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to
ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved, so much so that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence
are removed. (People vs. Langcua G.R. No.
190343)
Documentary Evidence; Medical Certificate; Rape
The absence of a medical certificate is not fatal for the
prosecution in rape cases. In view of the intrinsic
nature of rape, the only evidence that can be offered
to prove the guilt of the offender is the testimony of
the offended party.
Case law has it that in view of the intrinsic nature of
rape, the only evidence that can be offered to prove
the guilt of the offender is the testimony of the
offended party. “Even absent a medical certificate,
her testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis
of conviction if such testimony is credible. Moreover,
the absence of external injuries does not negate rape.
In fact, even the [presence] of spermatozoa is not an
essential element of rape.” (People v. Lagangga,
G.R. No. 207633, December 9, 2015)
Best Evidence Rule; Parol Evidence Rule;
Discretion
The problem of the credibility of the expert witness
and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the
discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is
not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of that
discretion.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
There is no room for the application of the Best
Evidence Rule when there is no dispute regarding
the contents of the documents.
The Parol Evidence Rule may not be invoked where
at least one of the parties to the suit is not a party or
privy to the written document in question and does not
base his claim on the instrument or assert a right
originating in the document. (Paje v. Casino G.R. No.
207257, 207276, 207282 & 207366, February 3,
2015)
There is no law requiring that in drug cases the
testimony of a single witness has to be
corroborated to be believed.
The argument of the appellant that the prosecution’s
account of the buy-bust operation is unworthy of
belief since no corroborative testimony was
presented, fails to impress. There is no law requiring
that in drug cases the testimony of a single witness
has to be corroborated to be believed.
Corroborative evidence is vital only when there are
reasons to suspect that the witness twisted the truth,
or that his or her observation was inaccurate.
Evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not
quantity. It is to be weighed, not counted. Thus, it is
not uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the
basis of the testimony of a lone witness. (People v.
Alberto, G.R. No. 179717. February 5, 2010)
Hearsay Evidence Rule
Evidence, whether oral or documentary, is hearsay
if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of
another person who is not on the witness stand.
Exception to Hearsay Evidence Rule
Before Entries made in the Course of Business
may qualify under the exception to the hearsay rule
and given weight, the party offering entries made in
the course of business must establish that:
1. the person who made those entries is dead,
outside the country, or unable to testify;
2. the entries were made at, or near the time of
the transaction which they refer;
3. the entrant was in a position to know the
facts stated therein;
4. the entries were made in the professional
capacity or in the course of duty of the
entrant; and
5. the entries were made in the ordinary or
regular course of business. (Landbank of
the Philippines v. Onate G.R. No. 192371,
January 15, 2014)
Page 26 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
Dying Declaration
Delay in reporting a crime or an unusual incident in a
rural area is well-known. It is common for a witness to
prefer momentary silence for fear of reprisal from the
accused and delay in testifying is insufficient to
discredit his testimony.
The Requisites for the admissibility of a dying
declaration are:
a. the declaration is made by the deceased
under the consciousness of his impending
death;
b. the deceased was at the time competent as
a witness;
c. the declaration concerns the cause and
surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death; and
d. the declaration is offered in a(criminal) case
wherein the declarant's death is the subject
of inquiry (People v. Santos, G.R. No.
94545, April 4, 1997).
Testimonial Evidence
In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely
on the testimony of the victim, provided the testimony
is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things.
The credibility ascribed to the victim and her
testimony is an essential aspect of evidence which
appellate courts can rely on because of the unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses, their
demeanour, attitude, and conduct during their direct
and cross-examination. (People v. Caga, G.R. No.
206878, August 22, 2016)
Deaf-Mute Witness
A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but
his/her other senses, such as his/her sense of sight,
remain functional and allow him/her to make
observations about his/her environment and
experiences. The inability to hear and speak may
prevent a deaf-mute from communicating orally with
others but he/she may still communicate with others
in writing or through signs and symbols and, as in this
case, sketches. Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be
a witness so long as he/she has the faculty to make
observations and he/she can make those
observations known to others. (People of the
Philippines vs. Aleman, G.R. No. 181539, July 24,
2013)
2008 BAR QUESTION
Q. On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed
estafa against Petronilo in the amount of P3
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
Million. Petronilo brought his complaint to the
National Bureau of Investigation, which found
that Edgardo had visited his lawyer twice, the
first time on August 14, 2008 and the second
on August 16, 2008; and that both visits
concerned the swindling of Petronilo. During
the trial of Edgardo, the RTC issued a
subpoena ad testificandum to Edgardo’s
lawyer for him to testify on the conversations
during their first and second meetings. May the
subpoena be quashed on the ground of
privileged communication? Explain fully. (4%)
A. Yes, the mantle of privileged communication
based on lawyer-client relationship protects
the communication between a lawyer and his
client against any adverse party as in this case.
The subpoena requiring the lawyer to testify
can be quashed on the ground of privileged
communication (See Regala v.
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 105938, 20
September 1996). Sec. 24 (b) Rule 130
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 given thereon, including his
secretary, stenographer, clerk concerning any
fact the knowledge of which has been acquired
in such capacity. However, where the subject
matter of the communication involves the
commission of the crime, in which the lawyer
himself is a participant or conspirator, then the
same is not covered by the privilege.
Moreover, if the substance of the
communication can be established by
independent evidence, the lawyer maybe
compelled to testify.
Paternity: Filiation
A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the
putative father is not competent evidence of paternity
when there is no showing that the putative father had
a hand in the preparation of said certificate. (Perla v.
Baring, G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012)
Conclusive Presumptions
The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord at the time of commencement of the relation
of landlord and tenant between them. (Sec. 2, (b)
Rule 130)
A tenant may show that the landlord’s title has expired
or been conveyed to another or himself, and he is not
estopped to deny a claim for rent if he has been
ousted or evicted by title paramount.
Page 27 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
What a tenant is estopped from denying is the title of
his landlord at the time of the commencement of the
landlord-tenant relation. If the title asserted is one that
is alleged to have been acquired subsequent to the
commencement of that relation, the presumption will
not apply.” Hence, “the tenant may show that the
landlord’s title has expired or been conveyed to
another or himself; and he is not estopped to deny a
claim for rent, if he has been ousted or evicted by title
paramount.” (Chua v. People G.R. No. 171129, April
6, 2011)
Formal Offer of Evidence
Courts will only consider evidence that which has
been formally offered. (Segiratan v. People G.R. No.
172896, April 19, 2010)
However, even if an exhibit is not formally offered, the
same may still be admitted against the adverse party
if:
1) it has been duly identified by testimony duly
recorded; and
2) it has itself been incorporated in the records
of the case. (People v. Baturi, G.R. No.
189812)
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal. When a party desires the court to
reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the
form of an objection during trial. (People v. Gabuya,
G.R. No. 195245, February 16, 2015)
Credibility of Witnesses
The workings of a human mind placed under
emotional stress are unpredictable leading people to
act differently. There is no standard form of
behavioural response when confronted with a
startling or frightful occurrence. (People v. Villarino,
G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010)
Authentication and proof of documents
J.Perlas-Bernabe Ponencia:
Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by
clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery to
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.
(Spouses Aguinaldo vs. Torres, Jr., G.R. No.
225808, September 11, 2017)
The opinions of handwriting experts are not
necessarily binding upon the court especially when
the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual
comparison of specimens of the questioned
signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ]
REMEDIAL LAW
(The Heirs of Donton vs. Stier, G.R. No. 216491,
August 23, 2017)
Generally, a notarized document carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and documents acknowledged before
a notary public have in their favor the presumption of
regularity which may only be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence. A defective notarization will
strip the document of its public character and reduce
it to a private document and the measure to test the
validity of such document is preponderance of
evidence. (Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, Inc. vs.
Melecio-Yap, G.R. No. 178451, July 30, 2014)
Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
Courts likewise view the defense of Alibi with
suspicion and caution, not only because it is
inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it
can be fabricated easily; when a defense witness is a
family member, relative or close friend, courts should
view such testimony with scepticism. (People v.
Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010)
Circumstantial Evidence; Requisites.
Sufficient to sustain a conviction if:
1. there is more than one circumstance;
2. the facts from which the inferences were
derived have been established; and
3. the combination of all circumstances is such
as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. (Etom, Jr. v. Aroma
Lodging House G.R. Nos. 173510 &
174099, March 12, 2010)
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term
writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum
or any other form of writing, such term shall be
deemed to include an electronic document as
definedin the Rules. (Sec. 3, Rule 1, Rules on
Electronic Evidence)
An electronic document does not only refer to the
information itself. It also refers to the representation
of that information. Whether it be the information itself
or its representation, for the document to be deemed
electronic, it is important that it be received, recorded,
transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically. (Sec. 1(h), Rule 2, Rules on Electronic
Evidence)
Page 28 of 29
BRAVO BASTE!
An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it
complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by
the Rules of Court and related laws and is
authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Rules
(Sec. 2, Rule 3, Id.).
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
Sec. 19. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
Motion to Dismiss
The Rule on Summary Procedure, by way of
exception, permits only a motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
but it does not mention the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person. (Victorias Milling
Co.Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168062, June
29, 2010)
2010 BAR QUESTION
Q. Marinella is a junior officer of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines who claims to have
personally witnessed the malversation of funds
given by US authorities in connection with the
Balikatan exercises. Marinella alleges that as
a result of her exposé, there are operatives
within the military who are out to kill her. She
files a petition for the issuance of a writ of
amparo against, among others, the Chief of
Staff but without alleging that the latter ordered
that she be killed. Atty. Daro, counsel for the
Chief of Staff, moves for the dismissal of the
Petition for failure to allege that his client
issued any order to kill or harm Marinella. Rule
on Atty. Daro’s motion. Explain. (3%)
A. The motion to dismiss must be denied on
the ground that it is a prohibited pleading under
Section 11 (a) of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo. Moreover, said Rule does not require
the petition therefor to allege a complete detail
of the actual or threatened violation of the
victim‟s rights. It is sufficient that there be an
allegation of real threat against petitioner‟s life,
liberty, and/or security (Gen. A. Razon, Jr. vs.
Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, Dec. 03, 2009).
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CASES
Writ of Kalikasan; Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies
The writ is categorized as a special civil action and
was, thus, conceptualized as an extraordinary
remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from
threatened or actual violation/s of the constitutional
right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a
 S C B A R S T A G N O T E S [ 2019 ] Page 29 of 29
REMEDIAL LAW BRAVO BASTE!

magnitude or degree of damage that transcends
political and territorial boundaries. It is intended “to
provide a stronger defense for environmental rights
through judicial efforts where institutional
arrangements of enforcement, implementation and
legislation have fallen short” and seeks “to address
the potentially exponential nature of large-scale
ecological threats.”
Under Sec. 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must
be present:
(1) There is an actual or threatened violation of
the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;
(2) The actual or threatened violation arises from
an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or private individual or entity;
and the actual or threatened violation
involves or will lead to an environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice
the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces.
in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection
of the environment or assertion of environmental
rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be
governed by these Rules.( RULE 6, Sec. 1, Rules Of
Procedure for Environmental Cases)
SLAPP as a Defense
In a SLAPP filed against a person involved in the
enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment, or assertion of environmental rights, the
defendant may file an answer interposing as a
defense that the case is a SLAPP and shall be
supported by documents, affidavits, papers and other
evidence; and, by way of counterclaim, pray for
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit. (Rule 6,
Sec. 2, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature

or degree of environmental damage but only that it
must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial
scope of such damage, so as to call for the grant of
this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of
environmental damage sufficient to grant the writ is,
thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.

Due to the extreme urgency of the matter at hand, the

present case is an exception to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies

It is worth noting that the Rules on the Writ of

Kalikasan allow the parties to raise, on appeal,
questions of fact and, thus, constitutes an exception
to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because of the
extraordinary nature of the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of a writ of kalikasan. Thus,
we shall review both questions of law and fact in
resolving the issues presented in this case.

No Injunction Rule. Except the Supreme Court,

no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against lawful actions of government
agencies that enforce environmental laws or prevent
violations thereof. (Sec. 10, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

(SLAPP)
A legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person,
institution or the government has taken or may take