LAST MINUTE REVIEWER IN REMEDIAL LAW. 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS L GENERAL PRINCIPLES I. JURISDICTION TIL. CIVIL PROCEDURE Iv. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE v. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Vi. EVIDENCE BY: ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, LL.M. Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law Firm Lifetime Member, IBP, Bulacan Chapter Member, Board of Directors, Philippine Trial Lawyers, Member, Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution In: Advance, Pre-Bar, Pre-week Reviewer and Mock Bar Examiner in Remedial Law, UP Law Center Pre-Bar Reviewer in Chair's Cases (Criminal Law), Legal EDGE Review Center Pre-week Reviewer in Criminal Law and Remedial Law, Magnificus Juris Reviews and Seminars, Inc. Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law, Powerhaus Review Center Special Lecturer in Remedial Law, Villasis Law Center Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law, Recoletos Law Center Member, Expert Committee in Criminal Law, UP Law Center Member, Expert Committee in Remedial Law, UP Law Center MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy Author, The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases Bar Notes and Cases in Criminal Law ‘The Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in Relation to The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure Bar Notes and Cases in Remedial Law The Revised Rules of Evidence, Notes and Cases The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure As Amended, Notes and Cases (Vol. 1) Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions, Notes and Cases (Vol. 2) ‘The Rules of Special Proceedings, Notes and Cases Cross-Examination as a Science and Not an Art (The Contrarian System) Professor, Tarlac State University College of Law in Remedial Law Review, Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Election Law, Environmental Law, and Conflict of Laws Professor, New Era University College of Law in Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Remedial Law Review Professor, San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Institute of Law, Manila in Criminal Law Review and Remedial Law Review Professor, University of the East College of Law in Remedial Law Review Professor, Bulacan State University College of Law in Remedial Law Review | and Criminal ProcedureGENERAL PRINCIPLES What is the purpose of our rules of procedure? Our rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of cases and permit the prompt disposition of unmeritorious cases which clog the court dockets and do little more than waste the courts’ time. (Go vs. Chaves (619 SCRA 333, 23 April 2010). Explain the clean hands doctrine. The Clean Hands Doctrine holds that wher a Eat ae a ST der: -cut legal nd ‘aim, he is not entitled to obtain am equitable remedy. (Marquez vs. Espejo, 629 SCRA 117, 25 August 2010.) Explain the doctrine of estoppel. The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. (Genato vs. Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5 February 2010.) ‘What is the principle of law of the case? The principle of "law of the case" states that determinations of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such n. ‘ough is alre: (Dela Merced vs. Government Service Insurance System, 661 SCRA 83, 23 November 2011) What is a moot and academic case? ‘A moot and academic case is one th: justicial wv i rvening Sf. use or value. (Lacson vs. MJ Lacson Development Company, Inc, 637 SCRA 505, 8 December 2010.) What is the doctrine of Stare Decisis? The doctrine of stare decisis dictates that when a court has reached a conclusion in one case, it should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the Same, even though the parties may be different. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs, La Tondefia, Inc. [now Ginebra San Miguel], 762 SCRA 636, 15 July 2015.) Whatis the essence of procedural due process? ‘The essence of procedural due process is that a party to a case must be given opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. (Malixi vs. Mexicali Philippines, 792 SCRA 586, 8 June 2016.) Is there a denial of due process in disbarment proceedings when the Supreme Court submits the case for Resolution without requiring the complainant to file a Reply to the Comment or Answer? Explain. No. The Supreme Court held that there was no denial of due process in resolving the instant ease. The respondents were required to file their respective Answers. Based on the Complaint and the supporting affidavits attached thereto, and the respective Comments of the respondents, the Court found that the presumption of innocence accorded to respondents was not overcome. The Court no longer required complainant to file a Reply since it has the discretion not to require the filing of the same when it can already judiciously resolve the case based on the pleadings thus far submitted. (Rodica vs. Lazaro, 602 SCRA 273. 13 March 201210. A ‘The Court can fs ' z : = : Can procedural laws be given retroactive effect? Yes. Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and What are provisional remedies? They are provisional because they constitute temporary measures availed of during ncy of the action, and they are ancillary becat in_and are dependent upon the result of the main action. (United Alloy Philippines Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23 November 2015.)11, 12. 13. n. JURISDICTION Whats Jurisdiction? How is it determined? Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. (Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc, 797 SCRA 655, 20 July 2016; Genato vs. Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5 February 2010.) ‘The settled principle is that “the allegations of the Complaint determine the nature of the action and consequently the jurisdiction of the courts. This rule applies whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein as this is a ‘matter that can be resolved only after and as a result of the trial. (Cacayorin vs. Armed Forces and Police Mutual Benefit Association, Inc, 696 SCRA 311, 15 April 201. Padre vs. Badillo, 640 SCRA 50, 19 January 2011.) Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law. It is determined by the material averments in the complaint as well as the character of the relief sought: (Dazon vs. Yap, 610 SCRA 79, 15 January 2010.) Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue of the party's voluntary submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes. ‘Thus, in civil cases, courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaints upon the filing of the complaint, while jurisdiction over the defendants is acquired either through the service of Summons upon them in the manner required by law or through their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority. What is the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in civil cases? What is the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Municipal Trial Court (MTC), ‘Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in civil cases? Pursuant to Section 19 of BP 129 2s amended by RA 7691, the RTCs shall, in civil cases, ‘exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (2) Inalleivil actions in which the subject ofthe litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation; (2) Inallcivilactions which involve the ttle to, or possession of real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds twenty thousand pesos (20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry inte and unlawful detainer of lands Courts, Municinal Trial Courts. and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts: (Cabrera vs. Francisco, 704 SCRA 103, 28 August 2013.) (3) Inall actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdietion where he demand or claim exceeds ‘One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in Metro Manila, where such demand or claim exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00); (4) Inall matters of probate, both testa and intestate, where the gross value of the estate exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in probate matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00) (8) _inallactions involving the contrat of marriage and marital relations {6 _Imall cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body ‘exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quas\ judicial functions; (7) Inall civil actions and special proceedings falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction ‘ofa juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by law; and (8) Inall other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interests, damages of whatever kind, attorney's Fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the property exceeds Onecom 15. bundled thousand pesas (P 100,000.00) a), 19 such other Ges in Metres Manila, where the demand, exclusive at the abovementioned tems exceeds Twa hundred thaueind pesos (200,000.00), Pursuant to Section 33, the MeTCs, MTGs, MCTCs shall, in civil cases, exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: Jungs testate ane a yg the grant at yest, oF A) over cei actions and probate pu provision readies ia proper cases, where the wale ob thee personal jt mount of the derand does not exceed One hnveliea! thousand pesos (PLOD.OG0.0) oF, in Meteo Manila wher nh such perseani plaperty, estate, at ameuat af the demandes wot xl thomsand pesos (P200,000.0) exclusive of matorest damages. al Dost he ants of wharf mst he exceed Two whatever kind, attorney's fees, specifically alleged: Provided, ‘That where there are several clauns or « between the same or different parties, embodied it the same coniplatas, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the elaims in all the causes of action, errespeutive of ‘whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; gation expenses, a 2) over cases of forcible entry and unlawhul detainer: Provided, That when, in suck cases the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question ot possession. cannot he resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession, @) im all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed ‘Twenty thousand pesus (720,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive af interest damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, Phat value of sueh property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lors. (AS amended by R.A, No.7691) (Maslag vs. Monzon, 698 SCRA 584, 17 June 2013.) ‘These jurisdictional amounts of exceeding P100,000.00 for RTCs outside of Metro Manila and exceeding ®200,000.00 in Metro Manila were already adjusted to P300,000.00 and 400,000.00, respectively, pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No, 21-99 dated April 15, 1999, making effective on March 20, 1999 the provision of Section 5 of RA 7691 which provides: ‘SEC. 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as aniended by this Act, shall be adjusted to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) Five (5) years thereafter, such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00}; Provided. however, That in the case of Meteo Manila, the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (8) years trom the effectivity of this Act ta Four hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00) Q How is an action ascertained as one capable or not of pecuniary estimation? Which court has the jurisdiction to try the case? A. In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the Supreme Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and wether jurisdiction is in the Municipal Courts or in the Courts of First Instance {mos Regional ‘Trial Court) would depend on the amount of the claim, However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money dim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relict sought. the Supreme Court has cansidered such actions ay Gises where the subject of the tigation hay not he estimated in terms at money, and are cagnizable exclusively by Courts et First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts). (Ungria v O54 SCRA 314, 25 July 2011) The criterion laid down in Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill (177 Phil. 575, 1979) In civil cases for r allege ‘overy of real property, what is incumbent upon the plaintiff to mplaint to determine which court has jurisdiction cal am the complaint tw determine which court has over the action, (Heirs of Te 0 vs. De Jesus, 736 SCRA 596, 29 September 2014.)16. 17, 18, 19. that in an Hased an Section 19(2) and Section A833) oF HP 129, as amended. at a etion for recovery of possession, the assessed value at the praperty sought Hecovered deter nnnaies Dus eaunts jai rate ten of the RVC, which has no internal branch designated as mercial Case is filed before it and raffled in one What is the proper recour a Special Commercial Court, ita e ofits branches? Te wath a designated Special Phe proper recourse is to refer the case to the nearest ae Commercial Court branch within the judicial region. Upon referral, the RTE to w ‘ease was referred ti» should re-docket the ease asa commercial case And af the said RTE has only ame branch desigiiated as a Special Cammercial Court. iUshiuld aysign the case to the sole special branch. (Forest Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Fil-Rstate Properties, Inc, supra; Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc. (formerly SJ. Land, Inc., 774 SCRA 242, 10 November 2015). What is the rationale of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative cemedies requires that betore a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed kimselt or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one’s cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administranve remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a spevdier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons ot comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, So as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case. (Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson, 759 SCRA 557, 22 June 2015.) What is the effect of failure to exhaust administrative remedies? ‘The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is @ ground for dismissal of the action, (University of Santo Tomas vs, Sanchez, 626 SCRA 126, 29 July 2010; Maglalang vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 712 SCRA 472, 11 December 2013; Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology, 485 Phil, 446, 2004). Can the respondent raise non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and forum shopping at any time during the proceedings of the case? No. in Tabino vs. Tabino (731 SCRA 372, 30 July 2014), it was held that petitioners may not raise the issues of exhaustion of administrative remedies and forum-shopping, after having voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the MeTC and the RTC trying the cjectment case. Besides, these issues were raised for the first time hetore the Supreme Court. As such, the Court said that they cannot be allowed to simultaneously attack and adopt the proceedings or actions taken by the lower courts What are the exceptions to the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? ‘Phe exceptions are the following: 11) when there isa violation ob due process (2) when the ssuemnvalvred 1 purely heya questin, (5) when the adiinstrative aetion is patently Blea amounung to lack oF excess of jurische tin, (4) when there is estoppel an the part of the admumistrative agency concerned (5) whew there is areeqaabte niry (6) when the responslent 1s a department secretary whose n alter eyo of the President bear the unplied sind asainied approval of the latter21. 22, 23, 24. A Q (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it would amount toa nullification of a claim, (9) when the subject matter Is a private land In land case proceedings, (10) when the nite does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) whon there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. (University of Santo Tomas vs. Sanchez, supra.) What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction? When is this rule applicable? ‘The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. It does not allow a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Catipon, Jr. vs. Japson, supra; Heirs of Simeon Latayan vs. Tan, 776 SCRA 1, 2 December 2015.) The rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, an essential requisite for this doctrine to apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial power. ‘Whaat is the doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference? 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 vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23 November 2015; Pacific Ace Finance Led. (PAFIN) vs. Yanagisawa (669 SCRA 270, 11 April 2012). When is jurisdiction by estoppel applicable? ‘The principle of estoppel on jurisdiction seemingly depends upon whether the lower court actually had jurisdiction or not. Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be dismissed. Ifit had no jurisdiction, but the case was tried and decided upon the theory that it had jurisdiction, the parties are not barred, on appeal, from assailing such jurisdiction, for the same must exist as a matter of law, and may not be conferred by consent of the parties or by estoppel. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. (Calibre Traders, Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc. 633 SCRA 34, 13 October 2010). However, if the lower court had jurisdiction, and the case was heard and decided upon a given theory, such, for instance, as that the court had no jurisdiction, the party who induced it to adopt such theory will not be permitted, on appeal, to assume an inconsistent position ~ that the lower court had jurisdiction. Here, the principle of estoppel applies, The rule that jurisdiction fs conferred by law, and does not depend upon the will of the parties, has no bearing thereon. What is the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeal (CTA)? Kepulic Act No. 9232 expanded the jurisdiction of the CTA and elevated its rank to that of «Collett court with special jurisdiction. This expanded jurisdiction of the CTA includes is exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the decisions, orders or resolutions ‘of the ICT in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by the RTC in the exercise ts original or appellate jurisdiction. The CTA likewise has exclusive jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari n interlocutory order issued by the RTC in a local tax case. Thus, it has the to Issue writs of certiorart or to determine whether there has been graveabuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in cases falling within the CTA’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction, (CE Caseenan Water and Energy Company Inc. vs. Province of Nueva Ecija, 759 SCRA 180, 17 June 2015; City of Manila vs. Grecia-Cuerdo, 715 SCRA 182, 4 February 2014). n, what is the proper mode of appeal? 25. Q. From the adverse decision of the CTA Divi A. Jurisdiction to review decisions or resolutions issued by the Divisions of the CTA is no longer with the CA but with the CTA En Banc. This rule is embodied in Section 11 of RA 9282, which provides that: SECTION 11. Section 18 of the some Act is hereby amended as follows: SEC. 18. Appect to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc:- No civil proceeding Involving matters arising under the Nationat internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shail be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act. ‘Thus, a party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc. (TI Incorporated vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 618 SCRA 346, 19 April 2010.)26. 27, 28, 29, a. uk. CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS What is the importance of the payment of the prescribed docket fees? It is hormbook law that courts acquire jurisdiction over a case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fee. It is settled jurisprudence that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on appeal before the Supreme Court. What is the basis for the computation of the docket fee in a real action? In cases involving real property, the fair market value of the real property in litigation stated in the current tax declaration or current zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated value of the property in litigation x xx shall be the basis for the computation of the docket fees. In Trayvilla vs. Sejas (782 SCRA 578, 1 February 2016), the Supreme Court held that the petitioners should have observed the requirement under A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC relative to declaring the fair market value of the property as stated in the current tax declaration or zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Since there was no such allegation made in the Amended Complaint, then the value of the subject property as stated in the handwritten document sued upon and restated in the Amended Complaint should be the basis for determining jurisdiction and the amount of docket fees to be paid. For purposes of computing the docket fee in real action and filing of the civil case, the Purchased value as indicated in the complaint shall be made as the basis in the absence of a current tax declaration or zonal valuation of the BIR. Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, provides that: For filing an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counterclaim, CROSS-CLAIM, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, if ‘the total sum claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES, SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases involving property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT x xx (Emphasis supplied) RULE2 CAUSE OF ACTION What is a cause of action? What are its essential elements? A cause of action is an act or omission by which a person violates the right of another. Its essential elements are as follows: (1) plainulf right, which arises from or is created by whatever means, and is covered by whatever law, (2) detendant’s obligation not to violate such right; and (4) dletenclant’s act or omission in violation of the such right and for which plaintif's may seek rehot te " detendant (Pamaran vs. Bank of Commerce, 795 SCRA 430, 4 July 2016.) Wht is the distinction between a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of Colon, under Section 1(g) of Rule 16, and the one under Rule 33 of the Rules of ourt?30. 31. 10 1) In the first situation, the motion must be made before a responsive pleading is filed: and it can be resolved only on the basis of the allegations in the initiatory pleading. On the other hand, in the second instance, the motion to dismiss must be filed after the plaintiff rested his case; and it can be determined only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. 2) Inthe first case, itis immaterial if the allegations in the complaint are true or false; ‘however, in the second situation, the judge must determine the truth or falsity of the allegations based on the evidence presented. 3) Stated differently, a motion to dismiss under Section 1(g) of Rule 16 is based on. preliminary objections made before the trial; while the motion to dismiss under Rule 33 is a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, and is made only after the plaintiff rested his case. (Pamaran vs. Bank of Commerce, supra.) RULES PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS Who is a 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. ‘Interest’ within the meaning of the rules means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. A real party-in interest is one who has a legal right. The action must be brought by the person who, by substantive law, possesses the right sought to be enforced, (Villondo vs. Quijano, 686 SCRA 694, 3 December 2012; Mifioza vs. Lopez, 648 SCRA 684, 13 April 2011.) Can a court or tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions question the decision of an appellate court which reversed its decision? No. In Republic vs. Namboku Peak, Inc. (730 SCRA 64, 18 July 2014), the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Labor is not the real party-in-interest vested with personality to file the petition. It would have been the duty of the private petitioners to appear and defend the ruling of the Secretary of Labor for they are the ones who were interested that the same be sustained. Of course, they had the option not to pursue the case before a higher court, as what they did in these cases. As to the Secretary of Labor, she was impleaded in the Petitions for Certiorari fled before the CA as a nominal party because one of the issues involved therein was whether she committed an error of jurisdiction. But that does not make her a real party-in-interest or vests her with authority to appeal the Decisions of the CA in case it reverses her ruling. Under Section 1,Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only real parties-in-interest who participated in the litigation of the case before the CA can avail of an appeal by certiorari ALDO Realty, a juridical entity engaged in renting out apartment buildings, owns the ABC Building which consists of three (3) floors occupied by the Chua family, the jority owner of the realty company. In front of the said building, there is an on- going construction of HINGTO Hardware, owned by HINGTO family. The Chua and Hingto families have a standing property boundary dispute. The Chua installed a cCTV Camera right in front of the on-going construction. Thus, the Hingto lodged a complaint with the Barangay as the camera invaded their right to privacy. As the dispute was not settled amicably, they instituted a civil case in violation of Art. 26 (1) of the Civil Code. The Chua Family filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that they are not the real Party defendant as they are only renting the apartment building. Rule on the Motion to Dismiss.a ‘The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. The Chua Family Is the real party defendant. Although Aldo has a juridical personality separate and distinct from its stockholders, records show that it is a family-owned corporation managed by the Chua family. ‘The personalities of respondents and Aldo Realty seem to merge. “The Chua's are merely using the corporate fiction of Aldo as a shield to protect themselves from this suit. Thus, the Chua's are the proper parties to this suit. ((Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., 699 SCRA 667, 26 June 2013.) RULE 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS What is a real action? ‘A real action is an action affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, These include partiti jon or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property. (Cabrera vs. Francisco, 704 SCRA 103, 28 August 2013.) Distinguish real action from personal action. 8) A real action is one affecting title to or possession of real property or interest ‘therein; all other actions are personal actions. Personal actions include those filed for recovery of personal property, or for enforcement of contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for the recovery of damages for injury committed to a person or property. b) A real action must be filed in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the ‘subject real property, while a personal action may be filed where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or ifthe defendants a non-resident, where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the parties may agree in writing to limit the venue of future actions between them to a specified place. (Pamaran vs. Bank ‘of Commerce, 795 SCRA 430, 4 July 2016.) RULE6 KINDS OF PLEADINGS Can a letter-complaint be considered as a pleading? No. Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court defines pleadings as written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. In Monsanto vs. Lim, 735 SCRA 252 (17 September 2014), the Regional Director of the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG) requested the intervention of Executive Judge of the RTC of Catbalogan, Samar on the alleged anomalous auction sale conducted by a certain Sheriff. The Supreme Court stressed that the Pag-IBIG’s letter could not be considered as a formal complaint or petition. First, the parties to the case were not identified pursuant to Section 1, Rule 3 and Section 1, Rule 7. Second, the so- called claim or cause of action was not properly mentioned or specified. Third, the letter miserably failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 7, Rules of Court. The letter bore no caption; it was not even assigned a docket number; the parties were not properly identified: the allegations were not properly set forth; no particular relief is sought; in fact, only the intervention of the Executive Judge Monsanto is requested; it was not signed by a counsel; and most of all, there is no verification or certification against forum-shopping, What is a compulsory counterclaim? A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief, which a defending y may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is sarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of the court, does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will be barred if not set up in the swer to the complaint in the same case, Any other claim is permissive. (Calibre Traders, Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc,, 633 SCRA 34, 13 October 2010.) What are the tests to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not?38. 39. 40. 2 Following are the test iid down by the Supreme Court to determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not (1) Arethe issues of tact or law raised by the elaim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims, absent the compulsory caunterelaiin rile? (3) Will substantially dhe same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defenclant’s counterclainy? (4) sthere any logical relation hetween the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantia Guplication of effort and time by the parties and the court? The fourth test is the ‘compelling test of compulsoriness’. (Calibre, Traders Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc, supra) RULE PARTS OF A PLEADING Is the non-verification of a pleading jurisdictional in character? No. The verification of a pleading is a formal and not a jurisdictional requirement. It is intended to assure that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct. As such, the court may order the correction of unverified pleadings, or it may act on them and waive strict compliance with the rules. (Bacolor vs. VE Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc. (790 ‘SCRA 20, 18 April 2016), What is forum shopping? Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (ather than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two oF more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. (University of Santo Tomas vs. Sanchez, 626 SCRA 126, 29 July 2010.) ‘Thus, the essence of forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment, It exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another, (Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. vs. Ando, 791 SCRA 337, 30 May 2016; Commissioner of Customs vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC), 791 SCRA #2, 20 April 2016; Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc, 645 SCRA 205, 9 March 2011.) Is there forum shopping if cases for unlawful detainer and action for recovery of ownership are both pending? There is none, The causes of action in the two cases are not identical or similar In the summary action of unlawful detainer, the question to be resolved is which party has the better or superior right to the physical/material possession (or de facto possession) of the disputed premises. Whereas, in the action for recovery of ownership, the question to be resolved is which Party has the lawful title or dominical right (ce., owner's right) to the disputed premises, ‘Thus, in Malabanan vs. Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc.(2009) where dhe petitioner therein asserted, among others, that the complaint for unlawtul detainer against him must be dismissed on grounds of fitis pendencia and forum-shopping in view of the pending case for annulment of in aetinn for dacion en page and fae the transter certificate of title in another case, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled rule that a pending action involving ownership neither suspends nor bars the praceedings in the su ry action for ejectinent pertaining to the same property, in view of the dissimilarities or differences in the reliets prayed for. (Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. vs, Ando, supra.)AL. 42, 43. e 13 ‘What are the three (3) ways of committing forum shopping? Under prevai @ 1g jurisprudence, forum shopping can be committed in three ways, to wit: 1g multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); or (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with difterent prayers [splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata) (Commissioner of Customs vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC), supra; Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc., supra.) What is the rationale for requiring the plaintiff/petitioner, not the counsel, to sign the certification of non-forum shopping? What must be done if he could not do so? ‘The requirement that it is the petitioner, not her counsel, who should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is due to the fact that a “certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an assurance given to the court or other ‘tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action. Obviously, it is the petitioner, and not always the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether she actually fled or caused the filing of a petition in that case. However, if a petitioner is unable to sign a certification for reasonable or justifiable reasons, she must execute an SPA designating her counsel of record to sign on her behalf. "A certification which had been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.” (Anderson vs. Ho, 688 SCRA 8, 7 January 2013.) What is the present rule on the non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping? In Heirs of Babai Guiambangan vs. Municipality of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat (798 SCRA 584, 27 July 2016), Bacolor vs. VL Makabalt Memorial Hospital, Inc, supra, Jacinto vs. Gumaru, Jr. (724 SCRA 343, 2 June 2014), the Supreme Court restated the jurisprudential pronouncements in Altres vs. Empleo, (2208) on the non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping, viz: 1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. 2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. 8) __Verifcation is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification’ and ‘whien matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, *) 4s-to certification against forum shopping. non-compliance therewith or a defect unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or corieciion (hereof, unless thee is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of “substantial compliance” or presence of “special circumstances or compelling reasons” 5) The cevtificntion against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners twa case: otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under jJMouable ox justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners: shar Hvinterestand invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of i substantially complies with only one of them, i jopping | a ary ae gy ulan YS. Security and Credit Investigation, Inc, 663 SCRA 1, 16 January 244. 45. 46. 47. 48. r= ; = oo —) ov if 1 toni Shopping, mites he cece ated fey the: pant pleat drut by bis cause for teaenahte i peaituable teacvonss the party plates + ioabiee tovsaygan, We abet ever uta Special Passos aol Attonnny aesaggiatont, he canoe ot scl toy gn at Bes shal If there are numerous petite signature of any one of then verification-certification require ppinpy anes be capaed bay ald ph will foe alr capypedd ats patties tee Hee ta Yes. As a rule, the certiticate against forum sh petitioners; otherwise, those who diel not sin Under reasonable or justifiable situations, such a when the plant a-conimon interest and invoke a common cause of action or dete fof them in the certificate against fo with the rules. stare ub one ny shopping, 1s Comudered sal ‘The requirement of strict compliance with the rules on filing, of eeetuhirate against fore shopping highlights the mandatory character of ibe sion eof fae be cert hice However, this mandatory requirement allows substan there are justifiable circumstances for the tion of the cules. (Bacalor vs. Vi Makabali Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra.) nce provided tha tion of non-forum shopping by Is the subsequent filing of verification and certi the party considered as substantial compliance? nell should thus ‘The subsequent filing of the certification duly signed by the petitioner hy he deemed substantial compliance, pro hae vier. (Anderson vs. Ho, sups RULES. MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS Are charge invoices considered actionable document? No. A document is actionable when an action or detense is grounded upon such written Instrument or document, In the case of Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs. Mendoza (675 SCRA 284, 27 June 2012), the Supreme Court held that charge invoices are not actionable documents per se as these only provide detail, an the alleged transactions. These documents need not be attached to of stated in the enmplaint as these are evidentiary in nature Whatis ‘negative pregnant’ and its effect? Ifan 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 laaguage, and the denial is conjunctive, a ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and only the qualitic ation ot modification is denied, while the fact itself is admitted, A denial in the form of «neat pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it eaunot be ascertained whether it is thus act or only the qualification that is intended to be denied, Profession of igtorance abnut a tact which is patently and necessarily within the pleader’s knowledge, or mea ineffectual, is no denial at all. (Venzon vs. Rural Bank of Buenavista (A, Norte), Inc. 704 SCRA 138, 28 August 2013.) Ys ot Keanna usan Del 9 JRE TO PL D the Can the defense of lack of jurisdiction be first time on appeal? Yes. Under Section 1, Rule Yat the Revised Rules of Court, d snotron to dasmss or in the Lonses not pleaded either in a except for back at jartscli hen, fiers 1 pendentia, res juchenta, aid prescepbon, whieh anast fe apypaanent treat the pale the evidence on record tw ather words, he detense of Lick at pits Hatt aver the satbyeet ter may be natsed at any stage ol the proceedings, even for (he fest ewe on appesd te fact, the Court may moter propre desmuss complet atany time when i appears trom the pleadings or the evides fon record that Lick of jurisdiction exists. (Heirs of TelesforeSi. 52. 53. 55. 56. 15 Julao vs, De Jesus, 736 SCRA 596, 29 September 2014.) What is compulsory counterclaim? ‘A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief, which a defendit party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of sult arises out of, or is. necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint. It is compulsory in the sense that itis within the jurisdiction of the court, does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will be barred if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. Any other claim is permissive. (Calibre Traders, Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc, 633 SCRA 34, 13 October 2010.) Can a defendant be declared in default if there was no valid service of summons? No, Settled is the rule that a defendant cannot be declared in default unless such declaration is preceded by a valid service of summons. (Atiko Trans, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc, 655 SCRA 625, 17 August 2011.) What is excusable negligence? Negligence, to be ‘excusable,’ must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have granted against. (Magtoto vs. Court of Appeals, 686 SCRA 88, 21 November 2012) RULE 10 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS When can a party amend his pleading as a matter of right? Under Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules, a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. No motion to admit the same was required; as the amendment is allowed as a matter of right, prior leave of court was unnecessary. (Guntalilib vs. dela Cruz, 796 SCRA 1, 7 July 2016.) ‘What is a supplemental pleading? ‘A supplemental pleading states the transactions, occurrences or events which took place ince the time the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. A supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter. It does not supersede the original, but assumes that the original pleading is to stand. (Loy, Jr. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (SMCEU-PTGWO), 605 SCRA 212, 24 November 2009.) RULE 13 FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS, JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS What Is the reckoning period of receipt of the Decision or Order for purposes of Appe: Notice to counsel is an effective notice to the client, while notice to the client and not his counsel is not notice in law. Therefore, receipt of notice by the counsel of record is the reckoning point of the reglementary period. (Malixi vs, Mexicali Philippines, 792 SCRA 586, 8 June 2016.) What are the two ways of fling a pleading? Pleadings may be filed in court either personally or by registered mail. In the first case, the date of filing is the date of receipt. In the second case, the date of mailing is the date of receipt. (Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, 700 SCRA 746, 8 July 2013.) se te filing of pleadings through private courier allowed by the Revised Rules of_ 57. 59. 60. 61. 62. 16 In Paltleo vs. Planters Development Bank, 738 SCRA 2, 8 October 2014), the Supreme Court held that service and filing of pleadings by courier service is a mode not provided in the Rules. If a party filed a pleading in court through a private courter, instead of registered mail, what would be Its effect? It is an established jurisprudence that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter- forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court; instead, the date of actual receipt by the court is deemed the date of filing of that pleading. (Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, supra.) What is a notice of lis pendens? A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in 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. (Dela Merced vs. Government Service Insurance System, 661 SCRA 83, 23 November 2011.) RULE 14 SUMMONS How can the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant if it is a domestic corporation? When the defendant is a domestic corporation, service of summons may be made only upon the persons enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. However, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant can be acquired not only by proper service of summons but also by defendant's voluntary appearance without expressly objecting to the court's jurisdiction, as embodied in Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. (Atiko Trans, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc, 655 SCRA 625, 17 August 2011.) How can the court acquire jurisdiction if the defendant is a foreign entity? In Pioneer International, Ltd. vs. Guadiz, Jr.,(2007) the Supreme Court held that when the defendant is a foreign juridical entity, service of summons may be made upon: (@) ts resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose: (2) _ the government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not have a resident agent; or (3) __any of the corporation’s officers or agents within the Philippines. ‘Thus, in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant foreign private juridical entity under Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, there must be prior valid service of summons upon the agent of such defendant. (Atiko Trans, Inc. vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., supra.) What are the instances which can be considered as voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court? In Palma vs. Galvez (2010) the Court reiterated the oft-repeated rule that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, (Atiko Trans, Inc, vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., supra.) Is the special appearance of the defendant questioning the jurisdiction of the court considered as voluntary? In Lhuililer vs. British Airways (615 SCRA 380, 15 March 2010), it was held that a special appearance to question a court's jurisdiction is not voluntary appearance. A defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his63. 6s, 2 a7 Person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearance means is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. RULE 15, MOTIONS ‘What is the concept of the Omnibus Motion Rule? Under the Omnibus Motion Rule embodied in Section 8 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, all available objections that are not included in a party's motion shall be deemed waived. (Home Development Mutual Fund [HDMF] vs. See, 652 SCRA 478, 22 June 2011.) RULE 16 MOTION TO DISMISS SECTION 1. Grounds.— Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following ground: cause; © limitations; (@)___ ‘That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party; {®) That the courthas no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; (© Thatvenue ts improperly laid; (@) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; (©) __ That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same ‘That the cause of action Is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of {g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; ‘That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintif’s pleading has been paid, hy walved, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; @ _ That the claim on which the action Is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and a) 2 A @ That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. What is the effect of the dismissal based on the grounds enumerated in Section 1, Rule 16? Except for cases falling under paragraphs (0, (h), or (1), 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 Section | (g) of Rule 41,an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. (United Alloy Philippines Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23 November 2015.) What is the remedy of the party whose case was dismissed based on the enumerated grounds under Section 1, Rule 16? ‘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 (A), (h), or (i) (ie.,res judicata, prescription, extinguishment of the claim or demand, and unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds), the dismissal, under Section 5, of Rule 16, is with prejudice and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to appeal the order granting the motion to dismiss. (United Alloy Philippines Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, supra.) What is the duty of the trial court if a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw information is filed?‘A. When trial court Is confronted to rule an “a motion to dismiss a case or to withdraw an Information’, Its its "bounden duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and this assessment must be embodied In a written order disposing of the motion.” (Jose vs. ‘Suarez, 701 SCRA 466, 17 July 2013.) RULE 17 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS Q What constitutes fallure to prosecute? A. To constitute fallure to prosecute, his non-appearance must be equated with unwillingness to proceed with the trial as when both plaintiff and counsel made: no appearance at all, or with the assumption that plaintiff has already lost interest in prosecuting his action, in the same way that should the ground for dismissal be delay, this delay or failure to proceed must be for an unreasonable length of time beyond the reasonable allowance which by judicial leniency litigant is normally entitled. (Laurel vs. Vardeleon, 765 SCRA 362, 5 August 2015.) Q. When can the dismissal of the case be made under Section 3, Rule 17? ‘A.case may be dismissed on the ground of non-prosequitur, if, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. (Auza, Jr. vs. MOL Philippines, Inc., 686 SCRA 66, 21 November 2012.) RULE 18 PRE-TRIAL Q — Whatis the duty of the parties during the pre-trial? ‘A. To obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privileged or impeaching matters. The determination of issues at a pre-trial conference bars the consideration of other questions on appeal. (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Ofiate, 713 SCRA 678, 15 January 2014.) RULE 19 INTERVENTION Q Canaan intervenor appeal the decision of a case where he was denied by the trial court to intervene? ‘The right to appeal applies only to the denial of his intervention. Not being a party to the case, a person whose intervention the court denied has no standing to question the decision of the court but only the trial court's orders denying his intervention, not the decision itself. (Republic vs. Heirs of Diego Lim, 788 SCRA 62, 4 April 2016.) RULE 23 DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION Q _ Whatare the instances when defendant can take depositions? ‘The two instances are as follows: (1) After the court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or the property subject of the action; and (2) After ananswer has been served. Both instances presuppose that the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, 623 SCRA 354, 5 july 2010.)72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. © 2 19 RULE 25, INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES Can the adverse party be called to the witness stand? As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand Is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules of Court. (Afulugencia vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., 715 SCRA 399, 5 February 2014.) ‘What is the purpose of the prohibition in Section 6, Rule 257 ‘The provision seeks to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays. Its goal is to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring. Another reason for the rule is that by requiring prior written interrogatories, the court may limit the inquiry to what is relevant, and thus prevent the calling party from straying or harassing the adverse party when it takes the latter to the stand. Thus, the rule not only protects the adverse party from unwarranted surprises or harassment; it likewise prevents the calling party from conducting a fishing expedition or bungling its own case. Using its own judgment and discretion, the court can hold its own in resolving a dispute, and need not bear witness to the parties perpetrating unfair court practices such as fishing for evidence, badgering, or altogether ruining their own cases. Ultimately, such unnecessary processes can only constitute a waste of the court's precious time, if not pointless entertainment. (Afulugencia vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., supra.) RULE35 SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: When can there be a summary judgment? The Rules of Court allows the rendition of a summary judgment 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. There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact are in issue or where material allegations of the pleadings are in dispute. (Loy, Jr. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union- Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization [SMCEU-PTGWO], 60S SCRA 212, 24 November 2009; Ferrer vs. Diaz, 619 SCRA 226, 23 April 2610.) What is a genuine issue? A ‘genuine issue’ is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. (Adolfo vs. Adolfo, 753 March 580, 18 March 2015.) What is the purpose of summary judgment? Summary judgment is a procedural devise resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays. (Ferrer vs. Diaz, supra.) Distinguish judgment on the pleadings from summary judgment. Judgment on the pleadings is proper where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading.78. Q ma judgment, on the other hand, will be granted if the pleadings, supporting Staats 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 toa judgment as a matter of law. RULE 36 JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF Rules of Court. ‘The court renders judgment according to Section 1, Rule 36 of the What then is the rationale for promulgating A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC," to provide for the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests relative to the writing ofa decision? In Dangan-Corral vs. Commission on Elections (612 SCRA #98, 12 February 2010), the Court made a comparison of the said Rules. Section 1 of Rule 36 merely states: "A judgment or 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 itis based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.” In the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests, however, Section 2 of Rule 14 states: Section 2. Form of decision in election protests. After termination of the revision of ballots and before rendering its decision in an election protest that involved such revision, the court shall examine and appreciate the original ballots. The court, in its appreciation of the ballots and in rendering rulings on objections and claims to ballots of the parties, shall observe the following rules (@___ On Marked Ballots The court must specify the entries in the ballots that clearly indicate that the intention of the voter is to identify the ballot. The specific markings in the ballots mustbe illustrated or indicated; (2) __On Fake or Spurious Ballots- The court must specify the COMELEC security markings that are not found in the ballots that are considered fake or spurious: ()__On Stray Ballots- The court must specify and state in detail why the ballots are considered stray; (@__ On Pair or Group of Ballots Written by One or Individual Ballots Written by Two- When ballots are invalidated on the ground of written by one person, the court ‘must clearly and distinctly specity why the pair or group of ballots has been. ‘only one person. The specific strokes, figures or letters indicating that the ballots have been written by one person must be specified. A simple ruling that a pair or group of ballots has been written by one person would not suffice. The same is true when. ballots are excluded on the ground of having been written by two persons. The court ‘must likewise take into consideration the entries of the Minutes of Voting and Counting relative to illiterate or disabled voters, if any, who cast theit votes through assistors, in determining the validity of the ballots found to be written by one person whether the ballots are in pairs or n groups; and (©) __ On Claimed Ballots- The court must specify the exact basis for admitting or crediting claimed votes to either party. (Emphasis supplied) The Court said that the word “must” is used in the above-quoted rule, thus, clearly cating the m: = 1 = er nl decision should contain, The specific rules on the contents of decisions in election contests ‘were formulated so that the decision could, by itself, be taken as a valuable aid in expeditiously deciding on appeal incidents peripheral to the main case. What is the effect of a final and executory decision? Once a decision or order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it. It thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. An order of execution which varies Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay OMctals.80. 81. 82. 83. 85, a the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. (National Power Corporation vs, Tarcelo, 734 SCRA 413, 8 September 2014.) Explain the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment. Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it was made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. (Genato vs. Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5 February 2010; Solidbank Union vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (680 SCRA 629, 17 September 2012; Montemayor vs. Millora, 654 SCRA 580, 27 July 2011; Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Coquia, Jr, 646 SCRA 215, 23 March 2011; Palileo vs. Planters Development Bank, 738 SCRA 2, 8 October 2014.) What are the two-fold purpose of the doctrine of immutability and ulalterability of final judgments? ‘The doctrine of immutability and unalterability serves a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) toavoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (>) _toputan end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why the courts exist. (Teafio vs. Municipality of Navotas, 784 SCRA 63, 15 February 2016.) What are the exceptions to the doctrine of finality of judgment? ‘The only recognized exceptions are as follows: 4) correction ofelerical errors: b)__theso-called mune pro tune entries which cause no prejudice to any party; void judgments; and 4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. (Genato vs. Viola, supra; Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Coquia, Jr, supra.) What is a void judgment? A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever itis involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. (Republic vs. Benigno, 753 SCRA 135, 11 March 2015.) Can a non-party to a case be bound by the judgment of the court? It is well-settled that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by a judgment rendered by the court. Due process requires that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against one who did not have his day in court. (Malixi vs. Maxicali Philippines, supra) Distinguish Amended Judgment from Supplemental Judgment. In Esquivel vs. Alegre, (1989) the Court made the distinction, viz: In an amended and clarified judgment, the lower court makes a thorough study of the original judgment and renders the amended and clarified judgment only after considering all the factual and legal issues. decision which supersedes the original decision. Whereas, supplemental decision does not take the place or extinguish the existence of the original, As its very name denotes, it only serves to bolster or adds something to22 the primary decision. A supplement exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements. (Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23 April 2010.) RULE 39 EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS 86. Q.__ In what intances can there be errors in execution of judgments and what is the available remedy? A. During execution proceedings, errors may be committed such that the rights of a party may be prejudiced, in which case corrective measures are called for. These may involve instances where— (2) the Writof Execution varies the judgment (2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust: (3) executions sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution: (4) itappears that the controversy has never been subject tothe judgment ofthe court: (5) thetenns of the judgment are notclear enough and there remains room or interpretation thereof: or (6) Writ of Execution was improvidently issued, or is defective in substance, or was issued against the wrong party, or the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. In such event, one of the corrective measures that may be taken is the quashing of the Writ of Execution. (Araullo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 711 SCRA 570, 4 December 2013) 87. Q _Ifan appeal has been duly perfected, can a partial execution be issued as a matter of right? What is required for the issuance of the writ of execution? A. When an appeal had been duly perfected, execution of the judgment, whether wnolly or Partially, was not a matter of right, but of discretion provided good reasons therefor existed. The compelling grounds for the issuance of the writ must be stated ina special ‘order after due hearing. Aside from the existence of good reasons, the rules also require that the motion for partial execution should have been filed while the trial court still had jurisdiction over the case. (Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation vs. Court ‘of Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23 April 2010.) EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IN ELECTION CASES ile 14 of the Ri 88. Q. What is the legal basis of the execution pending appeal in election contest cognizable by the Regional Trial Court? A. The case of Dangan-Corral vs. Commission on Elections (612 SCRA 498, 12 February 2010), is instructive in this respect. Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests states Sec. 11. Execution pending appeal. On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, the court, while still in possession of the original records, may, at its discretion, order the execution of the decision in an election contest before the expiration of the period to appeal, subject to the following, (®) There must be a motion by the prevailing party with three-day notice to the adverse party. Execution pending appeal shall not issue without prior hotice and hearing There must be good reasons for the execution pending appeal. ‘The court, in a special order, must state the good or89. 90. 91. 92. 93, 23 special reasons justifying the execution pending appeal. Such reasons must (1) constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the injury or damage should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment on appeal; and. (2) be manifest, in the decision sought to be executed, that the defeat of the protestee or the victory of the protestant has been clearly established. What is a valid exercise of discretion in granting execution pending appeal in election contest? A valid exercise of discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it must be manifest in the decision sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the victory of the protestant have been clearly established. The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests now embody this doctrine, which the Comelec has in the past given value to and used in resolving cases before it, and which has formed part of our jurisprudence. (Dangan-Corral vs. COMELEG, supra.) What is the purpose of giving notice through posting and publication under Section 15 (0) of Rule 397 ‘The purpose of giving notice through posting and publication under Section 15(c) of Rule 39 is to let the public know of the sale to the end that the best price or a better bid may be made possible to minimize prejudice to the judgment debtor. (Dalangin vs. Perez, 695 SCRA 86,3 April 2013.) During public auction of the property under execution, what amount should be credited to the judgment debtor? Drawing from Section 19, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which states that property under execution must be made at public auction, to the highest bidder,” it naturally follows that the highest bid submitted is the amount that should be credited to the account of the judgment debtor. (Genato vs. Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5 February 2010.) Whatis res judicata? Res judicata means a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. It denotes that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit. (Solidbank Union vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 680 SCRA 629, 17 September 2012.) What is the concept of res judicata as a bar to prior judgment? In its concept as a bar by prior judgment under Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, res judicata dictates that a judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction operates as an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same cause of action since that judgment is conclusive not only as to the matters offered and received to sustain it but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for that purpose and which could have been adjudged therein, (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Coquia, Jr., 646 SCRA 215, 23 March 2011; Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc. vs. Ando, 791 SCRA 337, 30 May 2016; Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Coquia, Jr., supra.)4, 95. 96. 97. 98. 24 APPEALS RULE40 APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS Explain the doctrine of fresh period rule? To standardize the appeal periods and afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court ruled in Neypes vs. Court of Appeals(2005) that litigants must be given a fresh period of 15 days within which to appeal, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration under Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Rules of Court. This ruling, as the Court have said in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. vs. Homena-Valencia, (2008) retroactively applies even to cases pending prior to the promulgation of Neypes on September 14, 2005, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure. (Duarte vs. Duran, 657 SCRA 607, 14 September 2011; See also Heirs of Francisco Bihag vs. Heirs of Nicasio Bathan, 723 SCRA 499, 23 April 2014.) In what courts shall the fresh period rule apply? ‘The "fresh period rule" shall also apply to: 1, Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; 2 Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional ‘Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; 3 Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals; and 4. Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution. (Go vs. Sunbanun, 642 SCRA 367, 9 February 2011.) RULE 41 APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL. ‘TRIAL COURTS What is the remedy of a party where the judgment is based on a compromised agreement? From the express language of Rule 41, a decision based on a compromise agreement is ‘immediately final and executory and cannot be the subject of appeal. for when parties enter int agri and request a court to render a decision on the basis of their agreement. it is presumed that such action constitutes a waiver of the right t appeal said decision. While there may have been other remedies available to assail the decision, the proper remedy is to institute a special civil action under Rule 65. (Pasco vs. Heirs of Filomena de Guzman, 625 SCRA 342, 26 July 2010.) What is the effect of the dismissal based on Section 1(g), Rule 41? What is your remedy? Under Section I{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. (United Alloy Philippines Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23 November 2015.) What are the two (2) modes of appeal of RTC Decision or Resolution on issues of fact and law?A 9 @ 100. Q A 101. Q A 102. Q A Purthe 25 There are two modes of appealing towit RITC decision or resolution on issues of fact and law, 1) ‘The first mode is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 in cases where the RTC exercised, its original jurisdiction. this dane by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. 2) The second mode is a petition for review under Rule 42 in cases where the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction over MTC decisions. It is done by filing a Petition for Review with the CA. Simply put, the distinction between these two modes of appeal lies in the type of jurisdiction exercised by the RTC in the Order or Decision being appealed. (Maslag vs. Monzon, 698 SCRA 584, 17 June 2013.) Can certiorari be availed of as a substitute of appeal? No. Certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. It is proper only ‘when appeal is not available to the aggrieved party. (Home Development Mutual Fund [HDMF] vs. See, 652 SCRA 478, 22 June 2011.) What the remedy of a party in case of Order of Execution? Section 1(f) Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution, the remedy of an aggrieved party being an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (BPI Employees Union-Metro Manila vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, 658 SCRA 127, 21 September 2011.) What is the period for filing a Notice of Appeal? It is basic and elementary that a Notice of Appeal should be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from, (Heirs of Numeriauo Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, 700 SCRA 746, 8 July 2013.) Is payment in full of docket and other lawful fees by the appellant an indispensable requirement in order to perfect an appeal? Yes. In Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, 726 SCRA 559 (18 June 2014) citing Gonzales vs. Pe, (2011) the Court's explanation anent the requirement of full payment of docket and other lawful fees under Section 4, Rule #1 was reiterated, viz: In Far Corporation vs. Magdaluyo, as with other subsequent cases of the same ruling, the Court explained that the procedural requirement under Section 4 of Rule 41 is not merely directory, as the payment of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. It bears stressing that an appeal is not a right, but a mere statutory privilege. An ordinary appeal from a decision or final order of the RTC to the CA must be made within 15 days from notice. And within this period, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. 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. CROSS-REFERENCE under Section 1(c), Rule 50, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the ground of the non-payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period as provided under Section 4 of Rule 41. The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In both original and appellate cases, the acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees. (Gipa vs- Southern Luzon Institute, supra.) 103. Q. If the appeal required is merely by notice of appeal, when should the notice of appeal be filed?104, 105. 106. 107. A ppeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the In appeals by notice of perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the Other parties. Each party only has at most 15 days from their receipt of the final order to appeal it. (Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23 April 2010.) Explain the doctrine of residual jurisdiction. ‘This stage is reached upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to issue protective orde! i f is xe it of | appeal. (Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, 735 SCRA 82, 15 September 2014.) RULE 42 PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO. ‘THE COURT OF APPEALS Explain the right to appeal full ‘The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. This being so, an appealing party must strictly comply with the Fequisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. ‘The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. ‘Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. (Boardwalk Business Ventures, inc. vs. Villareal, Jr., 695 SCRA 468, 10 April 2013.) What is the effect of non-compliance with the procedures under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 42? Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a party desiring to. appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the CA, submitting together with the petition a certification on non-forum shopping, Under Section 3 of the same Rule, the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Mathaeus vs. Medequiso, 783 SCRA 143, 3 February 2016.) What are the guideposts in determining the necessity of attaching pleadings and portions of the record to petitions under Rules 42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure? For the guidance of the CA, in Galvez vs. Court of Appeals, (2013) the 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. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition 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. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.2 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. ‘The guideposts reflect that the significant determinant of the sufficiency of the attached documents is whether the accompanying documents support the allegations of the petition 108, @. What is the purpose of the requirement under Section 2(d), Rule 42 that the required annexes be appended to the petition? ‘A. The annexes mentioned in Section 2(d) of Rule 42 are required to be appended to the petition in order to enable the Court to determine even without consulting the record if the petition is patently without merit or the issues raised therein are too insubstantial to require consideration, in which case the petition should be dismissed outright, or whether there is a need to require the respondent to comment on the petition. Thus, more often than not, the Court has resolved petitions for review under Rule 42 without unnecessary ‘movement of the original record of the case which could entail not only undue delay but also the possibility of the record being lost in transit. (Maravilla vs. Rios, 767 SCRA 522, 19 August 2015.) 109, Q._Isitrequired to attach all the pleadings and documents filed before the lower court as Annexes to the Petition? No. Section 2 of Rule 42 does not require that all the pleadings and documents filed before the lower courts must be attached as annexes to the petition. Aside from clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, it merely requires that the petition be accompanied by copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. Section 3 empowers the CA to dismiss the petition where the allegations contained therein are utterly bereft of evidentiary foundation. Since the CA gave due course to respondent's Petition for Review and proceeded to decide it on the merits, it can be fairly assumed that the appellate court is satisfied that respondent has sufficiently complied with Section 2 of Rule 42. (Yuki, Jr. vs. Co, 606 SCRA 211, 27 November 2009.) RULE 43 APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA) PURSUANT TO RA. NO. 9282 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating Its Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections or Republic Act No. 1125, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes, approved on 30 March 2004 SECTION 7. Jurisdiction.— The CTA shall exercise: a Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 1 Decisions of the Ci disputed assessments, refunds of i missioner of Internal Revenue in cases invelving, jernal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; 2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in eases involving disputed assessments refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalise relations thereto. or other matters arising under the National Internal Revere Cove or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where te Navona Internal deemed a denial; sa i acai 3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of cases originally ved by th h f their original or appellate2a Joner of Customs in cases involving liability for ines, seizure, detention or release of property n relation thereto, or other matters arising 4 Decisions of the Commi customs duties, fees or other money chi affected. fines, forfeitures or other penalties Under the Customs Law of other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs: 5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals; 6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him tically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code: 7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No, 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. b Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as hereii provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount 0 taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One tillion pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultancously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding bby the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized. 2 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses: @ Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction. b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction. « Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided: a Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court. 2 Exclusive appellate jurisdi ion in tax collection cases: a Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction, b Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional ‘Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit ‘Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction, Atocted BeTION 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal.— Any party adversely diected ‘by a decision, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the110. 14 29 ‘Trial Courts may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. ‘Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) lays from the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration ofthe period fixed by-lav-t0 act therean. A Divison ofthe CTA shall hear the appeal: Provided, however. That with respec to decisions-or rulings of the Central Board. of Assessment Appeals and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review under a procedure analogous to that provided for under-rule 43, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA. which shall hear the case en banc. {All other cases involving rulings, orders or decisions filed with the CTA as provided for in Section 7 shall be railed to its Divisions. A party adversely affected by a ruling, order or decision of No appeal taken to the CTA from the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Customs or the Regional Trial Court, provincial, city or municipal treasurer or the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry and Secretary of Agriculture, as the case may be shall suspend the payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer’ for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law: Provided, however, That when in the opinion of the Court the collection by the aforementioned government agencies may jeopardize the interest of the Government and/or the taxpayer the Court any stage of the proceeding may: ‘suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount claimed or to file ‘a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court, In criminal and collection cases covered respectively by Section 7(b) and (c) of this Act, the Government may directly file the said cases with the CTA covering amounts within its exclusive and original jurisdiction. SECTION 18. Appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc— No civil proceeding involving matter arising under the National Internal Revenue Code, the Tariff and Customs Code or the Local Government Code shall be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been previously filed with the CTA and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of, this Act A party adversely affected by a resolution of a Division of the CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a petition for review with the CTA en banc. DECISION OF THE CTA (EN BANC) IS APPEALABLE TO THE SUPREME COURT VIA RULE 45 AND NOT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS SECTION 19. Review by Certiorari.— A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of, the CTA en banc may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Is there an appeal from the adverse decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office of the Ombudsman? Yes. It is settled jurisprudence that appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43, in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. (Araullo vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 711 SCRA 570, 4 December 2013; Contes vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 698 SCRA 129 (10 June 2013). Can the Court of Appeals grant a Second Motion for Extension to File an Appeal by Petition for Review? For how many days will the party be allowed to do so?113. Q. A 114, 115. Q A 116. Q A 30 “The CA. after it has already allowed petitioner an extension of 15 days within which to file | petition for review, may only grant a further extension when presented with the most Compelling reason but the same is limited only to a period of 15 days. Technical rules huay be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving, (Barangay Dasmarinas vs. Creative Play Corner School, 640 SCRA 294, 24 January 2011.) PROCEDURE IN ‘THE COURT OF APPEALS RULE 44 ORDINARY APPEALED CASES What is the purpose of the appellant's reply? The purpose of a reply is to deny or allege facts in denial of new matters alleged by way of defense in the answer. Itis not the office or function of a reply to set up or introduce a new issue or to amend or amplify the Petition. (Gipa vs. Southern Luzon Institute, 726 SCRA 559, 18 June 2014.) Is the failure to furnish appeal brief to the opposing counsel a ground for the outright dismissal of the appeal? If not, what shall be the duty of the court in this regard? In Go vs. Chaves, the failure to serve a copy of the appellant's brief to two of the adverse parties was a mere oversight, constituting excusable neglect. A litigant's failure to furnish his opponent with a copy of his appeal brief does not suffice to warrant dismissal of that appeal. In such an instance, all that is needed is for the court to order the litigant to furnish his opponent with a copy of his brief. Anent the failure to append a copy of the assailed judgment, instead of dismissing the appeal on that basis, it is more in keeping with equity to simply require the appellants to immediately submit a copy of the Decision of the lower court rather than punish litigants for the reckless inattention of their lawyers. ‘What questions may be raised on appeal? A court with appellate jurisdiction can review both the facts and the law, including ‘questions of jurisdiction. It can set aside an erroneous decision and even nullify the ‘same, if warranted, Appeal is a speedy remedy, as an adverse party can file its appeal from a final decision or order immediately after receiving it A party, who is alleging that an appeal will not promptly relieve it of the injurious effects of the judgment, should ‘establish facts to show how the appeal is not speedy or adequate. (V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. vs. Municipality of Parafiaque, 685 SCRA 117, 12 November 2012.) It has to be noted however that, it is settled that new issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or on motion for reconsideration. (Montafio vs. Verceles, 625 SCRA 405, 26 July 2010; Carique vs. Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation ‘Agency, Inc, 770 SCRA 567, 16 September 2015.) RULE 45 APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT When can there be question of law and question of fact? In Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan (610 SCRA 90, 15 January 2010), citing the case of Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,(1995) the Supreme Court said that for a question to be one of law, itt must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them, There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or the falsity of alleged facts. What is the remedy of a party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals? 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117. 118. 119. Q an continuation of the appellate process over the original case. (Mendez vs. Court of Appeals, 672 SCRA 200, 13 June 2012.) What findings of the appellate court are conclusive with the Supreme Court under Rule 45? In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, Where the factual findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals coincide the same are binding on the Supreme Court. (Nicolas vs. People, 790 SCRA 680, 20 April 2016; Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, supra.) Moreover, factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed. (Angeles vs. Bucad, 730 SCRA 295, 21 July 2014; ‘See also Philippine Science High School-Cagayan Valley Campus vs. Pirra Construction Enterprises, 803 SCRA 137, 14 September 2016; Jose vs. Novida, 728 SCRA 552, 2 July 2014; Nahas vs. Olarte, 724 SCRA 224, 2 June 2014; Apo Cement Corporation vs. Baptisma, 674 SCRA 162, 20 June 2012; Hipolito, Jr. vs. Cinco, 661 SCRA 311, 28 November 2011.) Can the party aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeals avail of the remedy under Rule 65 instead of Rule 45? 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, however, exceptions to this rule, to wil 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; (Associated Anglo- ‘American Tobacco Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23 April 2010.) 2) when the broader interest of justice so requit 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 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) im other meritorious cases. (Bureau of Internal Revenue vs. Court ofA 536, 24 November 2014.) PP eae 8) _ When there is divergence between the findings of facts of the NLRC and that of the CA, there is a need to review the records. (Leo's Restaurant and Bar Café vs. Bensing, 806 SCRA 596, 19 October 2016; Santos vs. Integrated Pharmaceutical, Inc., 796 SCRA 211, 11 July 2016; Alilin vs. Petron Corporation, 725 SCRA 342, 9 June 2014; Ang vs. San Joaquin, J 703 SCRA 269, 7 August 2013.) : 9} When the questioned order amounts ti pres unts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authorit (Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, supra.) : What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases bt e rought to it fro1 of Appeals under Rule 45? " hhc The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. (Litex Glass and Aluminum Supply vs. Sanchez, 757 SCRA 206, 22 April 2015; Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation vs. Mangalinao, 664 SCRA 87, 25120. 121, 122, 2 January 2012; Titan Construction Corporation vs. David, Sr, 615 SCRA 362, 15 March 2010.) Appreciation of evidence” or fatal errors which are not within the province of a nator e 45. ue vs. People, 755 St , 6 Apt pettion for review on certiorari under Rule 45, (Rog Zots:Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos, Inc. vs. Fernandez, 736 SCRA 667, 29 September 2014.) What are the exceptions to the rule that a petition for review should raise only questions of law? There are recognized exceptions to the rule, as reiterated in Jose Yulo Agricultural Corporation vs. Davis (764 SCRA 589, 3 August 2015), such as: ses or conjectures: (Perla (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, sur vs. Baring, 685 SCRA 101, 12 November 2012.) (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible, (3) _ when there is grave abuse of discretion; ; \ces Maritime 4) _when the judgment i based ona misapprehension of facts; (Saso vs. 88 Aces . Services, Inc., 772 SCRA 189, 7 October 2015; Ico vs. Systems Technology Institute, Inc. 729 SERA 429, 9 July 2014) (5) __ when the findings of fact are conflicting: (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellantand 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; (Silos vs. Philippine National Bank, 728 SCRA 617, 2 July 2014.) (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; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11)_ when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Republic vs. Pasicolan, 755 SCRA 495, 15 April 2015.) In an action for quieting of title, the issue to be resolved is who, between the parties, has a better right to the challenged property. Adversely affected by the decision of the trial court and affirmation by the CA, a petition for review was brought to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. Is the action proper? Explain, A petition to review the decision of the CA isnot a i discretion. It has been repeatedly held that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing errors of law; findings of fact of the appellate court are conclusive upon the Court, as it is not its function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again. However, there are recognized exceptions to the rule, When the petitioner has not shown that the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions, the Court shall respect the findings of the CA. (Jose Yulo Agricultural Corporation vs. Davis, supra.) Can the Supreme Court exercise its jurisdiction under Rule 45 when an issue involving the admissibility of evidence is brought before them, such as when the petitioners assail the appellate courts’ rejection of their evidence (as to the contractual intent) as inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule? Explain. In Marquez vs. Espejo (629 SCRA 117, 25 August 2010) the Supreme Court held that the question involving the admissibility of evidence is a legal question that is within the cries (AhOrity to review. Even if t were a factual question, the Court is not precluded to review the same.123, 124, 125, 126. 127, Qa in labor cases? How is the principle of Rule 45 appl Asa rule, the Court is not a trier of facts and only questions of law are reviewable under a Rule 45 Petition. This principle applies with greater force in labor cases where the Supreme Court has consistently held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded great respect and even finality, especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by substantial evidence. Judicial review by the Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor iribunal has based its determination. Factual issues are beyond the scope of this Court's authority to review on certiorari, Nonetheless, this rule admits of exceptions including instances where the findings of the lower courts or tribunals are contradictory with the other (Angeles vs. Bucad, 730 SCRA 295, 21 July 2014.) In Magsaysay Maritime Corp. vs. Cruz (792 SCRA 344, 6 June 2016), the Supreme Court ‘was compelled to resolve the factual issues and examine the evidence on record in view of the opposing positions of the Labor Arbiter and the CA, on one hand, and the NLRC on ths other. (See also Doehle-Philman Manning Agency, Inc. vs. Haro, 790 SCRA 41, 18 April 2016; Heirs of the Late Delfin Dela Cruz vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc, 756 SCRA 141, 20 April 2015.) What is the extent of the Supreme Court's review over labor cases, under Rule 45? In testing for legal correctness, the Court views the CA Decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it. It entails a limited review of the acts of the NLRC, of whether it committed errors of jurisdiction. It does not cover the issue of whether the NLRC committed any error of judgment, unless there is a showing that its findings and conclusion were arbitrarily arrived at or were not based on substantial evidence. (New Filipino Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs. Datayan, 774 SCRA 677, 11 November 2015; Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. vs. Aligway, 770 SCRA 609, 16 September 2015.) While the strict inquiry on the correctness of evaluation of evidence is not required in acertiorari proceeding, it is still necessary to determine that the conclusions of labor tribunals were supported by substantial evidence. This is because a decision unsupported by substantial evidence is a judgment rendered with grave abuse of discretion. (Etom, Jr. vs. Aroma Lodging House, 774 SCRA 141, 9 November 2015.) Can the Supreme Court pass upon the issue on vitiation of consent to the execution of amicable settlement in a Petition for Review on Certiorari? In Lacson vs. MJ Lacson Development Company, Inc. (637 SCRA 505, 8 December 2010), it was held that vitiation of consent to the execution of amicable settlement is a ‘question of fact that entails re-evaluation of factual findings which the Court cannot pass upon in a Petition for Review on Certiorari. A question of fact x x x exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. Is the existence of bad faith a question of law that may be raised on appeal via Rule 45 to the Supreme Court? In Meyr Enterprises Corporation vs. Cordero (734 SCRA 253, 3 September 2014), the Supreme Court held that the existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary; it requires that the reviewing court look into the evidence to find if indeed there is proof that is substantial enough to show such bad faith. This being the case, the appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must fail because a question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. If the case is on appeal to the Supreme Court, can the appellee introduce new arguments to modify the appealed judgment? What would be the proper remedy? No. Settled is the rule that a party is barred from assailing the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him. In an appeal, an appellee may argue only to sustain the appealed judgment, but not introduce arguments that would modify the same; in order to128. 129. 130. 131. er do that, he likewise should have seasonably filed an appeal. The rule is rooted in the presumption that a party who did not interpose an appeal is satisfied with the judgment fendered by the lower court. (Maersk-Filipinas Crewing, Inc. vs. Jaleco, 771 SCRA 163, 2 a 18 SCRA 169, 5 March 21 September 2015: One Network Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Baric, 71 , 2014; Cafedo vs. Kampilan Security and Detective Agency Inc, 702 SCRA 647, 31 July 2013; Libcap Marketing Corp. Vs. Baquial, 727 SCRA 520, 30 June 2014.) Can points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the lower court be raised on appeal? No, Settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. (Andres vs. Sta. Lucia Realty & Development, Incorporated, 768 SCRA 56, 24 August 2015; Bautista vs. Civil Service Commission, 625 SCRA 251, 22 July 2010.) What is the exception to the rule that in appellate proceedings, the reversal of the judgment on appeal is binding only on the parties in the appealed case and does not affect or inure to the benefit of those who did not join or were not made parties to the appeal? ‘An exception to the rule exists where a judgment cannot be reversed as to the party appealing without affecting the rights of his co-debtor, or where the rights and liabilities of the parties are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable, in which case a reversal as to one operates as a reversal as to all. This exception, which is based on a communality of interest of said parties, is recognized in this jurisdiction. (Romero vs. Singson, 764 SCRA 620, 3 August 2015.) When can the party be excused from complying with the material data rule under Section 4(b) of Rule 45? Failure to comply with the rule on a statement of material date in the petition may be excused if the date is evident from the records. (Sy vs. Fairland Knitcraft Co,, Inc., 662 SCRA 67, 12 December 2011.) Is the non-attachment of material portions of the record in a petition for review under Rule 45 fatal to the petitioner? No. Petitioners’ failure to attach the material portions of the record that would support the allegations in the Petition is not fatal. In F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. vs. Online Networks International, Inc.(2011) the Supreme Court held that such a requirement failure to attach material portions of the record was not meant to be an ironclad rule such that the failure to follow the same would merit the outright dismissal of the petition. In accordance with Section 7 of Rule 45, ‘the Supreme Court may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate. More importantly, Section 8 of Rule 45 declares that if the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may require the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days from notice. (Robern Development Corporation vs. People’s Landless Association, 693 SCRA 24, 11 March 2013.) RULE 47 ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OF FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS When is the remedy of annulment of judgment available? In Teafto vs. Municipality of Navotas (784 SCRA 63, 15 February 2016), the Supreme Court said that annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy in equity that may be availed of when ordinary remedies are unavailable without fault on the part of the petitioner. As aptly explained by the Court in Dare Adventure Farm Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, (2012) a petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when, other remedies are wanting, and133. 134, 135, 136. 137. Q a5 only ifthe judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the || judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner Thus, it 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, L., extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. (Mangubat vs. Morga-Seva, 775 SCRA 312, 23 November 2015.) Explain the two (2) grounds for annulment of judgment under Rule 47? Annulment of judgment must be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and of lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud is that which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy. On the other hand, lack of jurisdiction involves the want of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the case. (Teafio vs. Municipality of Navotas, supra.) Whats the principle of laches? The principle of laches or ‘stale demands’ ordains that the failure or neglect. for_an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence ‘could or should have been done earlier— negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (Mangubat vs. Morga-Seva, supra.) What should be shown in a petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction? In Mangubat vs. Morga-Seva, supra, it was held that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of Jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter is conferred by law. Can an action for revival of a judgment modify, alter, or reverse the original judgment, which is already final and executory? Explain. No. An action for revival of a judgment cannot modify, alter, or reverse the original judgment, which is already final and executory. ‘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. As such, 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. The original judgment, which is already final and executory, may no longer be reversed, altered, or moditied. (Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, 700 SCRA 746, 8 July 2013) Which court has jurisdiction over a petition for revival of judgment? RTC has jurisdiction over the Petition for Revival of Judgment. It may be filed either in the same court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general. It is settled that once jurisdiction has been acquired, it is not lost | the court shall have disposed of the case in its entirety. (Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, supra.)1a, 139, 140. 141. 143. a Q RULE SO DISMISSAL OF APPEAL, ‘even when the filing of the appel Can the Court of Appeals dismiss an brief was caused by the trial court and the respondents? In Republic vs. Benigno (753 SCRA 135, 11 March 2015), the Supreme Court cited held that the power conferred upon the CA to dismiss an appeal appellant's brief is discretionary. The CA's application of Section 1(e) What is the consequence of a wrong mode of appeal? An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (Maslag vs. Monzon, 698 SCRA 584, 17 June 2013) RULE 52 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Can a party file a Motion for Extension of Time to file Motion for Reconsideration? No. In V.G. Ponce Company, Inc. vs. Municipality of Parafiaque (685 SCRA 117, 12 November 2012), it was held that the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not extendible. Based on Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and Rule 7 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a party has 15 days from its receipt of the Decision, to file a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a motion for new trial. Failure to file the necessary pleading within the reglementary period would render the CA Decision final and executory. Since the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not extendible, the Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration did not toll the reglementary period. ‘The Court has pronounced strict adherence to the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Judge Japson (1986) 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). PROVISIONAL REMEDIES RULES8: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Whatis injunction? Injunction is a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action. (United Alloy Philippines Corporation vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23 November 2015; See also Republic vs. Cortez, Sr., 769 SCRA 267, 7 September 2015.) Distinguish a main action for injunction from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction, Under the law, the main action for injunetion seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of prelimi tion, the sole object of which is to preserve the status junction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until itis dissolved or until the termmation of the action without the court issuing a final injunction. (United Alloy Philippines C¢ vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, supra.) Distinguish prohi y from mandatory injunction?144, 145. 146. 147. 148, Q 37 Prohibitory injunction requires a party to refrain from doing a particular act, whereas, mandatory injunction, which commands a party to perform a positive act to correct a wrong in the past ‘A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, however, is more cautiously regarded because it commands the performance of an act. (Sy vs. Autobus Transport Systems, Inc,, 686 SCRA 707, 3 December 2012.) When can the court refuse the relief of injunction prayed for by the party? In Golding vs. Balatbat, (1917) the Supreme Court held that the writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue the writ rests in the probability of irreparable injury, the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of the multiplicity of suits, and where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of injunction should be refused. (Power Sites and Signs, Inc. vs. United Neon, 605 SCRA 196, 24 November 2009.) ‘An injunction or restraining order must be obeyed while it remains in full force and effect until the injunction or restraining order has been set aside, vacated, or modified by the court which granted it, or until the order or decree awarding it has been reversed on appeal. The injunction must be obeyed irrespective of the ultimate validity of the order, and no matter how unreasonable and unjust the injunction may be in its terms. (Pacific ‘Ace Finance Ltd. [PAFIN] vs. Yanagisawa, 669 SCRA 270, 11 April 2012.) In case of acts done in violation of a standing injunction, what is the remedy of the party in whose favor the injunction was issued? Jurisprudence holds that all acts done in violation of a standing injunction order are voidable as to the party enjoined and third parties who are not in good faith. The party, in whose favor the injunction is issued, has a cause of action to seek the annulment of the offending action. (Pacific Ace Finance Ltd. [PAFIN] vs. Yanagisawa, supra.) What are the requisites for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction? Itmust be issued only upon a clear showing that the following requisites are established: (2) the applicanthas a el ‘and unmistakable right that must be protected; (2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and @)__thereis an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant. vs. Autobus Transport Systems, Inc., supra.) F er (4) there is no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury. (Aldover vs. Court of Appeals, 706 SCRA 188, 23 September 2013.) ‘SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES. Who has jurisdiction over a suit for quieting of title? The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the suit for quieting of title. It is clear under the Rules that an action for quieting of title may be instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the assessed value of the real property in dispute. Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet ttle to real property or remove clouds therefrom may be brought in the appropriate RTC. (Sabitsana, Jr. vs, Muertegui, 703 SCRA 145, 5 August 2013.)149, 150. 151. 153, aa RULE 64 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT. What is the issue to be resolved in a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court? The primordial issue to be resolved is whether the respondent tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack oF excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolution. And as a matter of policy, the Court will not interfere with the resolutions of the Comelec unless it is shown that it had committed grave abuse of discretion. Thus, in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, a Rule 64 petition will not prosper: Jurisprudence, on the other hand, defines grave abuse of discretion as the "capricious and Whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. Grave abuse of discretion has likewise been defined as an act done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence. (Arnado vs. Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168, 18 August 2015.) Whaat is the effect of filing a Rule 64 Petition to the Supreme Court to the pending motions in the COMELEC? In Cayago vs. Lina,(2005) it was held that once a party elevates the case before the appellate tribunal, the appellant is deemed to have abandoned the unresolved motion Which remains pending with the tribunal of origin. It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards make a volte face and deny that same jurisdiction. RULE 65 CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS. When can a government agency be considered to have adjudicatory functions? What is the effect of its Decision in the performance of its adjudicatory functions? A government agency performs adjudicatory functions when it renders decisions or awards that determine the rights of adversarial parties, which decisions or awards have the same effect as a judgment of the court. These decisions are binding, such that when they attain finality, they have the effect of res judicata that even the courts of justice have to respect. As held in one case, judicial or quasi-judicial function involves the determination of what the law is, and what the legal rights of the contending parties are, with respect to the matter in controversy and, on the basis thereof and the facts obtaining, the adjudication of their respective rights. In other words, the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function must be clothed with power and authority to pass judgment or render a decision on the controversy construing and applying the laws to that end. (Villanueva vs. Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, 691 SCRA 556, 25 February 2013.) What is the principal function of a Petition for Certiorari? A Petition for Certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. In Aldover vs. Court of Appeals (706 SCRA 188, 23 September 2013), the Supreme Court held that its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, is it necessary to attach documentary evidence? In Power Sites and Signs, Inc. vs. United Neon (605 SCRA 196, 24 November 2009), the Court said that a plain reading of the provision indicates that there is no specific enumeration of the documents that must be appended to the petition, other than a certified true copy of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution. The Supreme Court has emphasized that not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached, but only those which are material and pertinent that they may154, 155. 156. 157. 158. 30 provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case for abuse of discretion. (Go vs. Sunbanun, 642 SCRA 367, 9 February 2011.) What are the requisites in order that a petition for certiorari shall prosper? Certiorari is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse. It is proper only when appeal is not available to the aggrieved party. (Home Development Mutual Fund [HDMF] vs. See, 652 SCRA 478, 22 June 2011.) Moreover, Rule 65 petitions for certiorari are extraordinary remedies available only when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and the petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for correcting such abuse. (Disini vs. Sandiganbayan, 623 SCRA 354, 5 July 2010; See also Bureau of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 741 SCRA 536, 24 November 2014.) Describe “grave abuse of discretion” referred to under Section 1, Rule 65? Grave abuse of discretion refers to such “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of 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 and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. (Estate of Soledad Maninang vs. Court of Appeals, 653 SCRA 543, 6 July 2011; Philippine National Bank vs. DKS International, Inc,, 610 SCRA 603, 22 January 2010.) What constitute grave abuse of discretion in the decision of a quasi-judicial body like the NLRC to warrant a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65? In Capili vs. Philippine National Bank (796 SCRA 235, 11 July 2016), the Supreme Court held that: In order that the extraordinary writ of certiorari be issued against a court or quasi-judicial body, it is necessary to prove that such court or tribunal gravely abused its discretion, which connotes ‘a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as; is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. ‘What is the indispensible ingredient in a valid petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus? In Candelaria vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, City of San Fernando, Pampanga (730 SCRA 1, 14 July 2014), it is to be stressed that in every special civil action under Rule 65, a party seeking the writ whether for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, must be able to show that his or her resort to such extraordinary remedy is justified by the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. He must allege in his petition and establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not speedy or adequate. Further, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 does not include review of the correctness of a board or tribunal's evaluation of the evidence but is confined to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. (De Guzman vs. Gonzales III, 616 SCRA 546, 26 March 2010.) Is filing of a Motion for Reconsideration a condition sine qua non for filing a petition for certiorari? Yes. Rule 65 states that where a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion. This can only mean that even though a motion for reconsideration is not required or even prohibited by the concerned government office, and the petitioner files the motion just the same, the 60-day period shall nonetheless be counted from notice of the denial of the motion. The very nature of certiorari ~ which is an extraordinary remedy resorted to only in the absence of plain, available, speedy and adequate remedies in the course of law ~ requires that the office issuing the decision or order be given the opportunity to correct itself. Quite evidently, this opportunity for rectification does not arise if no motion for reconsideration has been160. 161. 162. 163. Q “0 ranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. Philtranco Workers Union-Association ¢ Labor Organizations [PWU-AGLO], 717 SCRA 340, 26 February 2014.) filed. (Ph of Genu In labor cases, is the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration also an indispensable requirement ina Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65? Yes. In Philippine National Bank vs. Arcobillas (703 SCRA 226, 7 August 2013), ater PNB received a copy of the NLRC Decision, it did not file any Motion for Reconsideration such that the said Decision became final and executory. Instead, PNB went directly to the CA to assail the NLRC Decision through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which the said court took cognizance of. The Supreme Court held that PNB's failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC before filing its Petition for Certiorari before the CA is a fatal infirmity. Will the finality and thereafter entry of judgment preclude the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65? Explain. No. In Philippine National Bank vs. Arcobillas, supra, the High Court recognizes that the finality of the NLRC’s Decision does not preclude the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. That the NLRC issues an entry of judgment after the lapse of ten (10) days from the parties’ receipt of its Decision will only give rise to the prevailing party’s right to move for the execution thereof but will not prevent the CA from taking cognizance of a Petition for Certiorari on jurisdictional and due process considerations. However, itis a well-established rule that a Motion for Reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari. ‘The rationale for the rule is that the law intends to afford the NLRC an opportunity to rectify such errors or mistakes it may have committed before resort to courts of justice can be had. ‘What is the remedy of an aggrieved party from the decision or resolution of the Secretary of Labor? ‘The remedy is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. There is no distinction: when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over a labor case in an industry indispensable to national interest, he exercises great breadth of discretion in finding a solution to the parties’ dispute. The authority of the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest includes and extends to all questions and controversies arising therefrom. The power is plenary and discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and efficiently dispose of the primary dispute. This wide latitude of discretion given to the Secretary of Labor may not be the subject of appeal. What is the remedy of a party from the adverse resolution of the Secretary of Justice? It has been held that the remedy of a party desiring to elevate to the appellate court an adverse resolution of the Secretary of Justice is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A Rule 43 petition for review is a wrong mode of appeal. (Barangay Dasmarifias vs. Creative Play Corner School, 640 SCRA 294, 24 January 2011.) Are there exceptions to the rule that a Motion for Reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special civil action for certiorari? Yes. Jurisprudence has laid down exceptions when the filing of a Petition for Certiorari is proper notwithstanding the failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration, such as: ()___ where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the court; ime as those raised and passed upon in the lower168. 169. 170. an Then in Labao vs. Flores,(2010) the Court laid down some of the exceptions to the strict, application of the 60-day period rule, thus: There are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (2) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply. with the prescribed procedure: (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time Irom the time of the default; (4) _ the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) _ the merits of the case; © contirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the (7) alack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) __ the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby: (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (21) inthe name of substantial justice and fair play; (42) importance of the issues involved: and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply the rules. (Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. [Formerly Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc] vs. Court of Appeals, 715 SCRA 153, 3 February 2014.) Can heavy pressure of work be considered as compelling reason to justify a motion for an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari? It is settled jurisprudence that heavy pressure of work is not considered compelling reason to justify a request for an extension of time to file a petition for certiorari. Heavy workload is relative and often self-serving. Standing alone, it is not a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day rule. In Yutingco vs. Court of Appeals, therein petitioners’ counsel cited heavy workload in seeking the court's leniency. However, the same was rebuffed by the Court ratiocinating that such "circumstance alone does not provide the court sufficient reason to merit allowance of an extensi file the petition for certiorari. Heavy workload ought to be coupled with more compelling reasons such as illness of counsel or other emergencies that could be substantiated by affidavits of merit. (Heirs of Ramon B. Gayares vs. Pacific Asia Overseas Shipping Corporation, 676 SCRA 450, 16 July 2012.) ls the Petition for Certiorari dismissible for failure to implead the trial court as required by Section 5 of Rule 65? ‘The Supreme C: urt, in the case of Heirs of Babat Guiambangan vs. Municipality of Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat (798 SCRA 584, 27 July 2016), held that it is not fatal. Accordingly it said, in Abdulrahman vs, The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao,( 2013) that “neither the misjoinder nor the non-joinder of parties is a ground for the n action,” particularly a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65; the CA should simply order that a party be impleaded in the ease. Is the filing of reply and other subsequent pleadings mandatorily required by the court in giving due course to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65?43 No. Section 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that before the court gives due course to a petition for certiorari, it may require the respondent to file a comment to the petition. Afterwards, the court may require the filing of a reply and such pleadings as it may deem necessary. In turn, Section 8 of Rule 65 states that after the comment or other pleadings are filed or the period for their filing has expired, the court may require the parties to file memoranda It is thus clear that the filing of a reply and other subsequent pleading, as well as memoranda, is subject to the sound judgment of the court. The word ‘may’ when used in a statute is permissive only and operates to confer discretion. (Etom, Jr. vs. Aroma Lodging House, 774 SCRA 141, 9 November 2015.) 17i. Q Ina petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, will it admit a pleading filed out of time? A. Yes.In Areno, fr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio (611 SCRA 721, 5 February 2010), the Court said that a close scrutiny of Section 6, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which grants discretionary authority to the CA in ordering parties to file responsive and other pleadings in petitions for certiorari filed before it, will reveal that such rule is merely directory in nature. This is so because the word "may" employed by the rule shows that it is not mandatory but discretionary on the part of the CA to require the filing of pleadings which it deems necessary to assist it in resolving the controversies. In the same way, the admission of any responsive pleading filed by party-litigants is a matter that rests largely on the sound discretion of the court. At any rate, rules of procedure may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice and in order to afford litigants maximum opportunity for the proper and just determination of their causes. Strict adherence to technical adjective rules should never be unexceptionally required because a contrary precept would result in a failure to decide cases on their merits. The CA could not have erred in admitting the comment, albeit filed late, when it viewed that the interest of justice would be better served by the policy of liberality. 172, Q Did the Court of Appeals violate the Constitution when it denied a Motion for Reconsideration without indicating its legal basis? A. In Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-Baguio, supra, it was held that: While it is provided in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, that no petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis thereof, this requirement, however, was complied with, when the CA, in its resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, stated that it found no cogent reason to modify, much less reverse itself. 173. Q. __ Isthe filing of a petition for certiorari stay the proceedings of a pending case? A. No. 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, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules is clear on this, ‘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. vs. Silverio, Jr., 730 SCRA 152, 18 July 2014; Juliano-Llave vs. Republic, 646 SCRA 637, 30 March 2011.) RULE 68 FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE. 174. Q. Is the issuance of Writ of Possession ministerial in a judicial foreclosure proceeding? A As a general rule, the issuance of a writ of possession is ministerial. However, in Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. vs. Lamb Construction Consortium Corporation (606 SCRA 159, 27 November 2009), the Supreme Court cited the case of Sulit vs. Court of