1.

If was the legal counsel of Bill Pinto, I would consider the procedural rules in
filing a complaint based on actionable document. Under the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, when an action is based on an actionable document, the complaint shall set
forth the substance of an instrument in the pleading and attach the original or a copy
thereof as an exhibit, which shall be deemed part of the pleading or set forth the said
document verbatim in the pleading. In this case, the action is based on the promissory
note therefore, I shall set forth the substance of the said promissory note in the complaint
and attach the original or a copy thereof in the complaint.

If I was the counsel of Mang Donald, I would specifically deny the genuineness
and due execution of the promissory note under oath. Under the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, when an actionable document is attached in the complaint, the answer must be
under oath and must specifically deny each material allegations and shall set forth the
substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to support his or her denial. If the
answer was not filed under oath, he will be deemed to have admitted the genuineness and
due execution of the actionable document.

2. The remedy available to Mang Donald when the allegations are not very clear in
order to intelligently prepare an answer is to file a motion for bill of particulars. Under
the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, a party may move for a bill of particulars, when
the complaint and the allegations therein are not made with sufficient definiteness or
particularity to enable him or her to properly prepare his or her responsive pleading. The
Rules further required that the bill of particulars must point out the defects referred to, the
specific paragraphs of the Complaint, and the details desired.

3. I would advise Puso Dela Rosa to perpetuate his testimony by filing a deposition
pending action. Under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, one of the modes of
discovery is Deposition Pending Action which may be used by the party if the deponent
is already dead. The Rules further provides that the deposition should be verified and
filed at the principal place of business of the corporation, which is considered as its
residence. In his petition, he should show the following:

• He expects to be a party to an action in the Philippines but is presently unable to

bring it or cause it to be brought;
• The facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony;
• His reasons for desiring to perpetuate it;
• The names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the
testimony which he or she expects to elicit; and
• He shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the
persons to be examined named in the petition for the purpose of perpetuating their
testimony.
4. Under the Revised Rules of Court, the modes of service of pleadings are as
follows:
• Personal Service
• Registered Mail
• Service by Accredited Courier
• Electronic Mail
• Facsimile transmission
• Other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court or as provided for in
international conventions which the Philippines is a party.

5. It is a valid service of summons provided that the requirements of the Revised

Rules of Civil Procedure is met. Under the Rules, summons may be validly served to the
the secretary or the person who customarily receives the correspondence for the
corporation or partnership at its principal office provided that the following persons are
unavailable or absent:
• president of the corporation
• managing partner
• general manager
• corporate secretary
• treasurer; or
• in-house counsel of the corporation.

6. Litigious motions are those which the court shall act upon only after the adverse
party has been given an opportunity to be heard by filing an opposition thereto, or after
period for filing the opposition has lapsed. While non-litigious motions are those which
the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party.

The Rules provides that the opposing party shall file his or her opposition to a litigious
motion within five calendar days from the receipt thereof, and that the court shall resolve
the motion within 15 calendar days from its receipt of the opposition thereto, or upon the
expiration of the period to file such opposition. While in non-litigious motion, the court,
in the exercise of its discretion, may set hearing to the said motions, giving the date and
time of hearing.

The following are litigious motions:

• Motion for Bill of Particulars;
• Motion to amend after a responsive pleading has been filed;
• Motion for Intervention;
• Motion to declare defendant in default;
• Motion to dismiss;
• Motion for Summary Judgment;
• Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings;
• Demurrer to Evidence;
• Motion for New Trial;
• Motion for Reconsideration; and
• Other similar motions.

The following are non-litigious motions:

• Motion for the issuance of alias summons;
• Motion for extension to file an answer;
• Motion for postponement;
• Motion for the issuance of a writ of execution;
• Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession;
• Motion for the issuance of an order directing the sheriff to execute the final
certificate of sale; and
• Other similar motions.

——————

1. a. The affirmative defense that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over Andrea’s
person because she is not a resident in the Philippines is without merit. The Supreme
Court has held that jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired by the filing of
the complaint.
b. The affirmative defense that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) does not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action involving real property with an assessed value of
P19,700 is without merit. Under the Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the RTC has exclusive
and original jurisdiction over an action incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The Supreme Court has held that an action for rescission of contract of land is one
incapable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, the affirmative defense that the RTC has no
subject-matter jurisdiction is without merit.
c. The affirmative defense that the verification and certification against non-forum
shopping are fatally defective because there is no accompanying certification issued by
the Philippine Consulate in New York is without merit.

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of consular certification applies only to
an official record and not to an acknowledged or notarial document. Hence, it does not
apply to verification and certification against forum shopping which are acknowledged
documents.

2. Yes, the writ of execution may be enforced against Edmar. In a case involving
similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the tial court’s judgment is still valid and hence
the writ of execution may be enforced against the deceased heir’s notwithstanding that
there was no valid substitution. The reason is that the trial court may not be faulted for
proceeding to render judgment without ordering substitution since it was not informed of
the defendant’s death.
Under the Revised Rules of Court, the counsel shall inform the court of the death of the
party within 30 days from such death and to give the name and address of the legal
representatives or heirs so that they may be substituted for the deceased.

3. a. The RTC has a duty to resolve the motion dismiss. Under the Revised Rules on
Civil Procedure, a litigious motion such a motion to dismiss shall be resolved by the court
within 15 calendar days from its receipt of the opposition thereto, or upon the expiration
of the period to file such opposition.

b. The RTC may defer resolution of the affirmative defense of prescription. Under the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has the discretion to conduct or not a
summary hearing on the affirmative defense of prescription. It means that the if the court
opts not to conduct a summary hearing, the resolution shall be deferred to the trial of the
case.

4. The court should deny the motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. Under
the Rules on Civil Procedure, a persmissive counterclaim is not barred by res judicata if
not set up in the case.
In this case, the claim of Primus is the refund of the downpayment which is a permissible
counterclaim because the evidence to support it is different from the evidence to support
Dimitri’s action to recover the parcel of land. Thus, the claim of Primus for refund is a
permissive counterclaim which is not barred by res judicata.

5. a. No, the court may not grant the motion to discharge the writ of replevin and for
the return of the car.
In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that a prior demand is not a
condition precedent for an action for a writ of replevin.

b. The ground that the car was delivered to Danding by Pabling in payment of a pre-
existing obligation is without merit.

The Supreme Court has held that the policy under replevin is that questions to title over
the movable should be threshed out during the trial proper and not during the hearing on
the motion to discharge the writ of replevin.

In this case, the allegation by Danding that the car was delivered to him by Pabling in
payment of a pre-existing obligation is one which involves his title or right of ownership
over the movable car. Hence, such cannot be a ground of a motion to discharge the writ
of replevin.

6. The last day for the defendant to file his answer is June 13. Under the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure when the defendant files a motion to dismiss and the same is
denied, the defendant shall file his answer within the period to which he is entitled at the
time of the filing of motion. Provided further, that the day of the act that caused the
interruption shall be excluded in the computation of the period.
In this case, May 2 is excluded from the computation and added to the remaining 10 days.
Hence, the defendant would have 11 days from June 1 or until June 12 within which to
file his answer. However, if the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a legal
holiday the time shall not run until the next working day or on June 13. Therefore, the
last day for the defendant to file his answer is on June 13 since June 12 is a legal holiday.

7. a. Under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, an appellant can stay the execution
of the MTC judgment by perfecting an appeal. filing a supersedeas bond, and making
periodic deposits required under Rule 70.

b. No, the CA is not correct in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that the
appeal is moot and academic.

Under the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, while the judgment of the RTC against the
defendant shall be immediately executory, this is without prejudice to a further appeal
that may be taken therefrom. In this case, Marco had appealed the RTC judgment by
filing a petition for review with the CA.
Hence, the appeal was not rendered moot and academic and the CA was not correct in
dismissing the petition.

8. Yes, the RTC may, without notice and hearing issue an order granting the
application for preliminary attachment against Derick.
Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may issue ex parte or without notice and
hearing an order granting the application for preliminary attachment.

b. No, the RTC may not grant Derick’s motion to discharge the attachment.
The Supreme Court has held that an attachment may not be dissolved by a showing of its
irregular or improper issuance if it is upon a ground which is at the same time the
applicant’s cause of action in the main case.

In this case, the ground for the issuance of the writ is fraud which is at the same time
Ponty’s cause of action in the main case. The presence of fraud is determinative of
whether Ponty is entitled to the return of the money entrusted to Derick. Hence, the
attachment may not be dissolved and thus, the RTC may not grant Derick’s motion.

9. a. The argument that the petitioner is deemed to have admitted the genuineness
and the due execution of the birth certificates is not correct.
Under the Revised Rule on Civil Procedure, the requirement that the genuineness and due
execution of a document be specifically denied under oath does not apply to a document
which is not an actionable document but an evidentiary one.

In this case, the birth certificates are not actionable documents since they are not the
basis of the private respondent’s action but merely evidentiary of their relationship to the
decedent. Hence, the requirement that the denial or the answer be under oath does not
apply to the petitioner.

b. The Court should deny the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause action.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that a prior determination of
heirship in a separate special proceeding is no longer a prerequisite before one can file an
ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession. Hence,
the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action will not longer lie.

10. No, Loggin’s contention that the Republic should have filed a record of appeal
along with the notice of appeal is not correct.
The Supreme Court has held that an appeal from a judgment granting a petition for
change of name is perfected by the filing of the notice of appeal without the need for a
record on appeal, the reason being that the case does not involve multiple or separate
appeal.

11. No, the conviction of AB for murder may not be reduced to homicide. Under the
Rules of Criminal Procedure, a ground for a motion to quash must be raised before
plea, otherwise such ground is waived. In a case with similar facts, the Supreme
Court has held that failure of the information to specifically allege facts relative to
treachery is a ground for a motion to quash, that is, the information does not
conform substantially to the required form. Since AB did not raise this ground in a
motion to quash, he is deemed to have waived such ground for quashal and thus his
conviction may not be reduced to one for homicide.

12. a. The Court should deny the Dong’t motion to suspend the civil case. Under the
Rules of Criminal Procedure, an independent civil action shall proceed independently of
the criminal action and is not suspended by the filing of the criminal action.

In this case, the civil action filed by Caloy is an independent civil action since it is based
on fraud, that is, Dong’s act of selling a land he had previously sold. Thus, the civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and is not suspended by its
filing.

b. The court should grant Dong’s motion to suspend the criminal case. Under the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, a motion to suspend the criminal case may be filed during the
pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action.
In this case, the civil action presents a prejudicial question since a finding in the civil
action that Dong’s signature in the deed of sale to Caloy was forged would mean that the
criminal action may no longer proceed. Thus, the court should grant Dong’s motion to
suspend.

c. Assuming that no motion to suspend was filed either in the civil case or in the criminal
case, the criminal court and the civil court may both render judgment finding Dong to be
civilly liable.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the civil case shall proceed independently of the
criminal action being an independent civil action and thus a judgment may be rendered
therein. Provided further by the Rules is that the criminal case may proceed to judgment
in the absence of a motion to suspend it based on prejudicial question. However, the
offended party may not recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in
the criminal action.

13. No, the CA did not act correctly. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, when the
accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the prosecution is required to prove his guilt. In
this case, the accused pleaded guilty to murder which is a capital offense since it is
punishable by death under the Revised Penal Code. However the prosecution failed to
prove the accused’s guilt. The CA should have acquitted the accused for failure of the
prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt. A remand is not proper since the prosecution
was given adequate opportunity to present evidence of the accused’s guilt but failed to do
so.
Therefore, the accused was entitled to an acquittal because of the failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and thus the CA’s order to
remand was not correct.

14. Yes, the offer of the testimony is objectionable for being in violation of the
original document rule. Under Revised Rules of Evidence, when the contents of a
document are the subject of inquiry, no evidence of such contents shall be admissible
other than the original document. A video is considered as a document under the original
document rule.

In this case, the prosecution presented not the contents of the original video or CCTV
footage of Argus robbing the bank instead, a secondary evidence thereof in the form of
the witness’s testimony thereon. Thus the testimony is inadmissible.

Hence, the offer of the testimony is objectionable

15. Yes, the petitioner may present a witness to testify that the respondent had
punched the child’s mother after an argument.
Under the Revised Rules of Evidence, specific instances of conduct ma be used to prove
character where character is directly in issue. Character evidence is admissible in such a
case. In this case, respondent’s character is directly in issue in a habeas corpus case
involving custody of a child. The respondent’s character as a violent person goes into his
fitness to take custody of the child. Such character may be proved by specific instance of
conduct, in this case, the act of punching the child’s mother.

Therefore, the petitioner may present a witness to testify regarding the conduct of then
respondent.

16. The legal remedy or step I would take in behalf of Boris is to file a petition for
writ of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court has held that the writ of habeas corpus is available as a post-
conviction remedy in cases where there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right
resulting in the restraint of a person.

In this case, Boris was deprived of his constitutional right against unlawful searches when
his car was searched without a warrant and without probable cause and such deprivation
resulted in his restraint or incarceration. Being a fundamental constitutional right, it is not
waived by failure to assert it during the trial. Nor was there any consent since Boris
opened the trunk only upon being directed to do so by the armed policemen.

Hence, a petition for habeas corpus is available to Boris as a post-conviction remedy.

[Further, the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide exceptions to searches without a

warrant, which include consented search and police checkpoint. However, this case, does
not fall under the aforementioned exception. Consent must be freely given which is
absent in this case since, Boris opened the trunk only upon being directed to do so by the
armed policemen. The Supreme Court has held that inspection in checkpoints is limited
to visual search and an extensive search may be conducted on a vehicle at a checkpoint
only when law enforcers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle's passengers
committed a crime or when the vehicle contains instruments of an offense which is absent
in this case.]

17. The legal remedy I would invoke in behalf of my client is to file a motion for
reconsideration with the Court of Appeals (CA), and if denied, to go to the Supreme
Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari.

I would argue that the Supreme Court has held that if an appeal by an accused public
officer is wrongly taken to the CA rather than the Sandiganbayan, the CA should, instead
of dismissing the appeal, endorse it to the Sandiganbayan.
18. a. No, the affidavit may not be admitted in evidence over objection that it is
hearsay.

Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, hearsay is inadmissible in evidence.

In this case, the medical certificate is an out-of-court statement of Dr. No which is
offered to prove the truth of the fact stated therein, that is, the physical injuries suffered
by Punky.
Hence, the medical certificate may not be admitted over hearsay objection.

b. Yes, my answer would be the same even if Dr. No had been presented in court as a
witness to testify regarding his medical certificate.
Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, an out-of-court statement is still considered as
hearsay even if the declarant testifies in court and is subject to cross-examination
concerning the statement.

19. The objection that the testimony is hearsay should be overruled.

Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, reputation evidence as to moral character is an
exception to the hearsay rule.
In this case, the testimony relates to the reputation of Dukesa’s moral character, that is,
she is of an honest and scrupulous character. Thus such reputation evidence is an
exception to the hearsay rule.
Thus, the objection on the ground of hearsay should be overruled.

The objection that the testimony is irrelevant should, however, be sustained.

Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, character evidence is inadmissible for being
irrelevant, unless character itself is directly in issue.
In this case, evidence of Dukesa’s honest character is inadmissible and irrelevant
because, what is directly in issue is whether or not there was fraud in that particular case,
not whether Dukesa was of an honest character.
Hence, the objection that the evidence is irrelevant should be sustained.

20. I would respond to the offer of the letter by objecting that it is inadmissible
hearsay.

Under the hearsay exception for declarations against interest, a statement tending to
expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not
admissible in evidence unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement.
In this case, the statement of the declarant Radley exposes him to criminal liability for
murder or homicide and it was offered to exculpate the accused Guy. However there was
no showing of corroborating circumstances that Radley’s statement was trustworthy.
Hence, Radley’s statement is inadmissible for being hearsay.