ANSWER TO NO.

1 (QUIZ #1)

The jurisdictional threshold of the lower courts have been

modified to expand the jurisdiction of the first-level courts by virtue of R.A.
11576. Can the Supreme Court further modify the same in keeping with the
constantly changing economic status of the country? Justify your answer. 

Answer:
Yes.
While R.A. 11576 is a legislative enactment and, therefore, could be amended,
changed or modified only by another legislative action, the Supreme Court may
still do so if expressly granted such authority under the law. Section 3 of
R.A. 11576 has expressly delegated the authority to the Supreme Court to adjust
the jurisdictional amounts for the first and the second level courts, thus, it
may modify the same subject to the limitations therein set by the law.

ANSWER TO No. 2 (QUIZ #2)

Aggrieved by the decision of the court, the defendant

questioned the same via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 65. He
averred that because of the errors it committed in the applying the law, the
decision is rendered void. Comment with reason.

Answer:
The reason and the corresponding remedy that the defendant undertook are flawed.

Error in applying the law or jurisprudence merely result in an error of judgment which does not affect the
court’s jurisdiction as to render the court’s decision void save in cases where there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Error of judgment may be corrected in an ordinary appeal and not by the
extra ordinary remedy of Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65.

ANSWER TO NO. 3 (QUIZ #1)

The case for damages in the amount of Php5,000,000.00 was

filed by A against C. During trial, what was proven to be A's entitlement for
damages is only Php200,000.00. Can the RTC proceed to render judgment?

Suggested answer:
Yes, because jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and not by the decision
rendered by the court. Considering that the RTC has jurisdiction over claims for damages over
Php2M, the instant complaint which alleged a claim of Php5M worth of damages is well within its jurisdiction,
notwithstanding the award which is below its jurisdiction.

ANSWER TO NO. 4 (QUIZ #4)

In the middle of
trial, a new law was passed divesting RTC of authority to hear the same. May
the RTC download the case to the MTC or should the court dismiss the same for
lack of jurisdiction? Justify your answer.
Suggested Answer:

As a rule, no. This is by virtue of the Principle of Adherence of Jurisdiction

that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court, it shall
continue to exercise such jurisdiction until the final determination of the
case. The exception would be when a subsequent law modifying the court’s
jurisdiction expressly so provides or intends to apply the same to actions pending
before its enactment. In the case, therefore, unless there is such provision in
the law, the RTC should continue to hear the case until its final
determination.

ANSWER TO NO. 5 (QUIZ NO. 1)

In a case for recovery of

possession of real property before the Municipal Trial Court, the defendant
presented evidence that he is the owner of the property although ownership was
not raised as an issue during the pre-trial. Can the court proceed to render
decision on the basis of such evidence? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
Yes, the court can decide on an issue even if it is not raised in the pre-trial nor in the pleadings should the other
party fail to object to the presentation of evidence that raises such issue  during trial. The court would have
acquired jurisdiction over the said issue in such case and proceed to render judgment resolving such issue because
the other party will be considered to have waived questioning the same.