Question No.

1[10%]Plaintiff filed a complaint for sum of money against defendant with the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, the total amount of the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, accosts,  being
P1,000,000.00. In due time, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
of the court’s lack of jurisdiction   over the subject matter of the complaint. After due hearing,
the Metropolitan Trial Court  
(1) ruled that the court indeed lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, and
(2) ordered that the case therefore should be forwarded to the proper RTC  immediately. Was
the court’s ruling concerning jurisdiction correct? Was the court’s order to forward the case
proper? Explain fully.

a. Yes.The Metropolitan Trial Court do not have jurisdiction over the case. The law
provides that, Metropolitan Trial Court can only acquire offenses punishable with a fine
of not more than 400,000.00. In the case at bar, the total amount of the demand
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses,
and costs, was P1million. Hence, the Court’s ruling concerning jurisdiction is correct.

b. No. The Court’s order to forward the case is not proper. The court should merely
dismiss the complaint. Under the law, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny
the motion or order the amendment of the pleading but not to forward the case to
another court.

Question No. 2[10%]“A” filed a complaint against “B” in the RTC of Iligan for the recovery of
the ownership of a car. “B” filed his answer within the reglementary period. After the pre-trial
and actual trial, and after “A” has completed the presentation of his evidence, “B” moved for
the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that under the facts proven and the law
applicable to the case, “A” is not entitled to the ownership of the car. The RTC granted the
motion for dismissal. “A” appealed the order of dismissal and the appellate court reversed the
order of the trial court. Thereafter, “B” filed a motion with the RTC asking the latter to allow
him to present his evidence . “A” objected to the presentation of evidence by “B”. Should the
RTC grant “B”’s motion to present his evidence? Why?

No. The RTC should deny the motion of “B” to present his evidence on the ground that he can no longer
present evidence. The Rules provide that, if the motion for dismissal is granted by the trial court but on
appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present
evidence. Hence, the motion of B should be denied.

Question No. 3[10%]“A”  filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against “B” for
damages. The RTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the complaint and
ordering “B”  to pay damages to “A”. “B”  timely filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals
(CA), questioning the RTC decision. Meanwhile, the RTC granted “A”’s motion for execution
pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal, “B”  filed
with the CA another case, this time a special civil action for certiorari assailing said RTC
order.Is there a violation of the rule against forum shopping considering that two (2) actions
emanating from the same case with the RTC were filed by “B” with the CA? Explain.

No. There is no violation of the rule against forum shopping. Under the law, forum shopping is
the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum,
seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special
civil action for certiorari; The act of submitting of more than one action concerning the identical
events for the identical cause of action, both concurrently or successively for the cause of
acquiring a positive judgment. Moreover, it was held by the Supreme Court in a case that one
party may validly question a decision in a regular appeal and at the same time assail the
execution pending appeal via certiorari without violating the rule against forum shopping. This
is because the merits of the case will not be addressed in the Petition dealing with the
execution and vice versa. Here, since B merely filed a special civil action for certiorari, the
same will not constitute a violation of the rules on forum shopping because the resolution or a
favorable judgment thereon will not amount to res judicata in the subsequent proceedings
between the same parties. Thus, B can file with the CA a special civil action for certiorari
assailing the said RTC order.

Question No. 4[10%]Having obtained favorable judgment in his suit for a sum of money
against “B”, “A”  sought the issuance of a writ of execution. When the writ was issued, the
sheriff levied upon a parcel of land that “B” owns, and a date was set for the execution sale.
(a) How may “B” prevent the sale of the property on execution?
(b) If “A” is the purchaser of the property at the execution sale, how much does he have to
pay?
(c) If the property is sold to a third party at the execution sale, what can “B” do to recover the
property?
 a. “B” may file a Petition for Relief with preliminary injunction under Rule 38, A security deposit
equal to the value of the collected assets. Or if there is a reason, it will be invalid, and the tax
will be challenged. Also, Patricio may simply pay the amount required by the writ and the costs
incurred therewith.

b. If “A” is the purchaser of the property, The judgment creditor have to pay simplest the extra
amount of the bid over the amount of the judgment, if the bid exceeds the amount of the
judgment.

c. If the property is sold to a third party at the execution sale, “B” Can workout his proper of
redemption legally within 12 months from date of registration of the certificates of sale through
paying the amount of the acquisition fee with an interest of 1% every month, plus evaluation
and taxes paid through the purchaser, with hobby thereon, on the equal rate.

Question No. 5[10%]In an action for damages filed by “A” against “B” before the RTC of
Marawi, and after a full-blown trial on the merits, a judgment was rendered in favor of “A”.
Copy of the decision was served upon the counsel of “B”. Fourteen (14) days after receipt of
said decision, and as counsel was then set to leave for Cagayan de Oro for a very important
personal commitment, he filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial and
prayed for an additional period of ten (10) days within which to file said motion for new trial.

Upon due consideration of the facts given, I will deliberately deny the motion of “B”. The law
provides that, the period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or
reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall be allowed. Hence, the counsel of “B” cannot file a motion for extension
of time.

Question No. 6[10%]After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action before the RTC, has completed
presentation of his evidence, the defendant without prior leave of court moved for dismissal of
plaintiff’s complaint for insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence. After due hearing of the motion and
the opposition thereto, the court issued an order, reading as follows: “The Court hereby grants
defendant’s motion to dismiss and accordingly orders the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint,
with the costs taxed against him. It is so ordered.” (a) Is the order of dismissal valid?
Reason(b) May plaintiff properly take an appeal? Reason
a. No. The order of dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is invalid. The law provides that a final
order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by
the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Here, the
state findings of fact and of the law is absent, as required by the law.
b. No. The plaintiff cannot take an appeal. Since the order is void, appeal is not available.
Under the Rules of Court, only the writ of certiorari is the only remedy available to the plaintiff.

Question No. 7[10%]Corporation “A” filed a complaint for a sum of money against Corporation
“B” for the latter’s failure to pay for its purchases of industrial chemicals. In its answer,
Corporation “B”  contended that it refused to pay because Corporation “A”  misrepresented
that the products it sold belonged to a new line, when in fact they were identical with
Corporation “A’”s existing products. To substantiate its defense, Corporation “B”  filed a
motion to compel Corporation “A” to give a detailed list of the products’ ingredients and
chemical components, relying on the right to avail of the modes of discovery allowed under
Rule 27. Corporation “A”  objected, invoking confidentiality of the information sought by
Corporation “B”. Resolve Corporation “B’s” motion with reasons.

Considering the facts, I will be denying the motion of Corporation “B”.

The law provides that, upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in
which an action is pending may order any party to produce and permit the inspection and
copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents,
not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
action and which are in his possession.
In the present case, The ingredients and chemicals of Corporation B products are trade
secrets in the legal sense. Due to their confidential and privileged nature, they may not be
subject to disclosure obligations. A detailed list of ingredients and chemicals is privileged and
should not be subject to discovery mode.
Question No. 8[10%]Judgment was rendered against defendant Jaypee in an action for
unlawful detainer. The judgment ordered Jaypee to vacate and to pay attorney’s fees in favor
of Bart, the plaintiff. To prevent the immediate execution of the judgment would you advise the
posting of a supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee? Explain

Yes. I would advise the posting of a supersedeas bond as councel for Jaypee.
The law provides that, if judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue
immediately upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond approved by MTC.
Here, I would advise the posting of a supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee provided that
an appeal has been perfected and valid.

Question No. 9[10%]Mr. “A”, a Sheriff,  attempts to enforce a Writ of Execution against “X”, a
tenant in a condominium unit, who lost in an ejectment case. “X” does not want to budge and
refuses to leave. “Y”, the winning party, moves that “X” be declared in contempt and after
hearing, the court held “X” guilty of indirect contempt. If you were X's lawyer, what would you
do? Why?

If I were X’s lawyer, I would file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The law provides that
the charge of indirect contempt is initiated through a verified petition. In the case at bar, the
judge has acted on Y’s motion to declare X in contempt. Moreover, the writ was directed to the
sheriff not to X. As the writ did not command the judgment debtor to do anything, he cannot be
guilty of the facts described under the law which is the disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of any court.

Question No. 10[10%]“B” was renting an apartment unit in the building owned by “A”. When
“B” failed to pay six months’ rent, “A” filed an ejectment suit. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
rendered judgement in favor of “A”, who then filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution. The MTC issued the writ. (a) How can “B”  stay the execution of the MTC
judgment?(b) “B” appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the MTC decision. “B”
then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition on the
ground that the sheriff had already executed the MTC decision and had ejected “B” from the
premises, thus rendering the appeal moot and academic. Is the CA correct?

No. The CA erred on dismissing the petition on the ground that the sheriff had already executed the
MTC decision and had ejected “B” from the premises. The law provides that the RTC judgment against
the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken
therefrom. The dismissal of the appeal is invalid since the execution of the RTC judgment is only in
respect of the eviction of the defendant from the premises. Such execution pending appeal has no effect
because it still must be resolved in the pending appeal. Hence, the CA is incorrect.