LAST MINUTE LECTURE

ON REMEDIAL LAW
For 2020/21 Compressed Bar
Prof. Manuel R. Riguera
 © 2022, Manuel R. Riguera.
All rights reserved.
 Docket fee
 Where the RTC did not require
payment of the docket fee for the
increased amount in the amended
complaint, the court still retains
jurisdiction. The docket fee for the
increased amount is considered a lien
on the judgment award. (ICTS v. City
of Manila, 17 Oct 2018, Leonen, J.).
 Docket fee
 Plaintiffmust pay docket fee on
interests, penalties, and attorney’s
fees which have accrued as of the
time of the filing of the complaint.
(Dragon v. Manila Banking Corp., 6
March 2019, Leonen, J.).
SMALL CLAIMS CASES
 Revised Rules of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases (eff. 1 Feb 16)
 Money claim >/ ₱300,000/₱400,000,
exclusive of IC
 And involving MLB

(ML²S²)
 RRP increased threshold amount to
₱300,000/₱400,000.
But n.a. anymore to actions
involving (a) civil aspect of criminal
action; and (b) damages arising from
fault, negligence, quasi-contract, or
contract.
Special rule in Small Claims Cases
 Ifplaintiff is engaged in the business
of lending, banking and similar
activities, and has a branch within the
municipality or city where the
defendant resides, the Statement of
Claim/s shall be filed where that
branch is located. (S7 RRP SCC).
 Motu proprio dismissal
 The court may motu proprio dismiss
the case outright on any of the
grounds for dismissal.
On the date of hearing, the court
may motu proprio dismiss even if the
ground is not pleaded in defendant’s
Response. (S11).
 Response
 The defendant shall file a verified
response within a non-extendible
period of 10 days from service of
summons.
 Permissive counterclaim allowed
 Defendant may file a permissive
counterclaim provided that the
amount & nature thereof are within
coverage of Rule.
 No attorneys please
 Attorneys are not allowed to appear
on behalf of or to represent a party.
If the court determines that a
party cannot properly present his claim
or defense, it may allow another
individual to assist that party upon the
latter’s consent.
 Decisions in small claims cases are
final, executory, and unappealable.
(S24). An aggrieved party may resort
to R65 certiorari. (A.L. Ang Network,
Inc. v. Mondejar, 22 January 2014).
CIVIL PROCEDURE
 Non-joinder of an indispensable party
is not a ground for dismissal of the
case.
However, a judgment entered
without impleading an indispensable
party is void and may be set aside by a
petition for annulment of judgment
under R47 for lack of jurisdiction.
 COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM,
BARRED IF NOT SET UP; Cf
PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM.
 Inthe bar, the most common
counterclaims used are:
1. Counterclaim for damages for
malicious or unwarranted filing of suit.
2. Counterclaim for
reimbursement of necessary and useful
improvements by possessor.
Effect if compulsory counterclaim
 1. No payment of docket fee.
2. Barred if not set up.
3. No need to answer
counterclaim.
4. Within RTC jurisdiction even if
below jurisdictional amounts.
 EFFECT IF ACTIONABLE
DOCUMENT NOT SPECIFICALLY
DENIED UNDER OATH.
Implied admission of genuineness
and due execution of actionable
document.
 Watch out for actionable document in
complaint or answer. They must be
specifically denied under oath.
N.A. if opponent is not a party to
the document. >
 FAQ
 Knowexceptions where implied
admission rule not applicable:

Vice PECPEC
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
 An affirmative defense is an
allegation of a new matter which,
while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the claimant’s
pleading, would nevertheless prevent
or bar recovery by him. (S5 R6).
 Grounds of MTD under 1997
Rules

JR LP JVC CLUE

“GROUP A” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
(S5[b] R6, 2nd ¶)

JR LP JVC CLUE

 “GROUP B” AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES(S5[b] 1st ¶)

FIRE FED UP
“and any other matter
by way of confession &
avoidance”
 Other matter by way of
confession & avoidance
 Caso fortuito, voidability, lack of
authority to adjudicate, vices of
consent.
 Group A cf Group B
GROUP A GROUP B
M otu proprio resolved by Court may conduct
the court w/in 30 days from summary hearing w/in 15
filing of answer. days from filing of answer.
AD shall be resolved by court
w/in 30 days from
termination of summary
hearing.
Court has duty to resolve AD Court has discretion to
in advance of trial. conduct summary hearing
for resolution of AD. >
 GROUP A GROUP B
JR L may be raised in P may be raised in
MTD. MTD.
List of ADs exclusive. List of ADs not
exclusive. <
 Under the 2020 Rules, affirmative
defenses outside of those ground
mentioned in the old S1 R16, e.g.
fraud or illegality, may be ground
of dismissal of complaint even
before trial.
 When should affirmative
defenses be raised?
 Affirmative defenses should be raised
at the earliest opportunity; otherwise,
the failure to do so shall constitute a
waiver thereof. (S12[b] R8, 2020
Rules of Civil Procedure).
 “Earliest opportunity”
 At the time of the filing of the
answer.
However, the affirmative defenses
of JR LP may be raised at any stage of
the case. (S1 R9).
Q May the period to file a pleading
be extended?
A A defendant may, for
meritorious reasons, be granted an
additional period of not more than 30
days to file an answer. A defendant is
allowed to file only one motion for
extension of time to file an answer. >
 A motion for extension to file any
pleading, other than an answer, is
prohibited and considered a mere scrap
of paper. The court, however, may
allow any other pleading to be filed
after the time fixed by these Rules.
(S11 R11, as amended in the 2020
Rules).
 Hence, the court may allow a
reply to be filed even > 15 days from
service of the answer.
R14. SUMMONS.
Q When may a plaintiff be authorized
to serve summons?
 1.In case of failure of service of
summons by the sheriff, his deputy,
or other proper court officer, the
court may authorize the plaintiff upon
ex parte motion to serve the
summons together with the sheriff.
 There is failure of service after
unsuccessful attempts to personally
serve the summons on the defendant
in his address indicated in the
complaint.∗
 2. In cases where summons is to
be served outside the judicial
region of the court where the case is
pending, the plaintiff shall be
authorized to cause the service of
summons.
Q Up to when shall a summons
remain valid?
A Summons shall remain valid
until duly served, unless it is recalled
by the court.
Q When is alias summons issued?
A In case of loss or
destruction of summons, the court
may, upon motion, issue an alias
summons.
 Personal service

QHow is personal service on the

defendant made?
A Whenever practicable, the summons
shall be served by handing a copy thereof
to the defendant in person and informing
the defendant that he is being served,
or, if he refuses to receive and sign for it,
by leaving the summons within the
view and in the presence of the
defendant. (S5 R14, as amended).
 S5 R14
 Serviceof summons upon the
defendants while they were in the
courtroom is valid. There is no
requirement that personal service
under S5 R14 should be in the
defendant’s residence. (Sansio v. Sps
Mogul, 14 July 2009).
 Substituted Service (S6 R14).
 G.R. Strict compliance with
requirements of law otherwise service
invalid.
 When may substituted
service be effected?
Substituted service may be
effected if for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot, within a period of
30 days from issue and receipt of
summons, be served personally after at
least three attempts on two
separate dates. (S6 R14, S20 R14)
 S6 & S20 R14 adopts the guidelines
for substituted service laid down in
Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 16
August 2016, and abandons the case-
by-case approach in determining
propriety of substituted service.
 ROHE
Q How is substituted service of
summons effected?
A Substituted serviced may be
effected by:
a) By leaving copies of the summons
at the defendant's residence to a person
at least 18 years of age and of sufficient
discretion residing therein;
 b) By leaving copies of the summons
at the defendant's office or regular place
of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. A competent person
includes, but is not limited to, one
who customarily receives
correspondence for the defendant;
 c) By leaving copies of the summons,
if refused entry upon making his authority
and purpose known, with any of the
officers of the homeowners' association
or condominium corporation, or its chief
security officer in charge of the community
or the building where the defendant may
be found; and
 d) By sending an electronic mail
to the defendant's electronic mail
address, if allowed by the court. (S6
R14, as amended in the 2020 Rules of
Civil Procedure).
 S6(b) R14
A “competent person in charge”
refers to one managing the office or
the business, such as the president,
manager, or the officer-in-charge. A
property custodian cannot be
considered as such. (Ang v.
Chinatrust Commercial Bank Corp., 18
April 2016, Brion, J.).
Q How is service made upon a
defendant whose identity or
whereabouts are unknown?
 A In any action where the
defendant is designated as an unknown
owner, or the like, or whenever his or
her whereabouts are unknown and
cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry, within 90 days from the
commencement of the action, >
service may, by leave of court, be
effected upon him or her by
publication in a newspaper of general
circulation and in such places and for
such time as the court may order. (S16
R14 as amended).
Extraterritorial Service (S17 R14)
 Purpose is to confer jurisdiction over
the res.
Applicable only to PPA.
Modes of Service: PIPO
 Extraterritorial
service cannot be
resorted to if the action is in
personam.
 RULE 15. MOTIONS
 5-15
 The opposing party shall file his or
her opposition to a litigious motion
within 5 days from receipt thereof.
No other submissions shall be
considered by the court in the
resolution of the motion. >
 The motion shall be resolved by
the court within 15 days from its
receipt of the opposition thereto, or
upon expiration of the period to file
such opposition. (S5 R15, as amended
in the 2020 Rules).
 Hearing on a litigious motion is now
discretionary with the court. If the
court decides to call a hearing (where
deemed necessary for resolution of
the motion), it shall issue the notice
of hearing.
 Somotions no longer need to contain
a notice of hearing. A notice of
hearing is issued by the court if it
deems a hearing necessary for the
resolution of the motion.
 Prohibited motions
a) MTD except on grounds of JR
LP.
b) Motion to hear affirmative
defenses;
c) Motion for reconsideration of
the court's action on the affirmative
defenses;*
Q Will an order granting the motion
to dismiss or an affirmative defense
bar the refiling of the same action or
claim?
A S13 R15, captioned “[d]ismissal
with prejudice,” provides that subject
to the right of appeal, an order
granting a motion to dismiss or an
affirmative defense on the ground of
PURE shall bar the refiling of the same
action or claim. (S13 R15, as amended
by the 2020 Rules).
 The remedy of the plaintiff is to
appeal the order. Note that a motion
for reconsideration of the order
granting an affirmative defense is
prohibited. (S12[c] R15).
 If the dismissal is on a ground other
than PURE, the remedy of the plaintiff
is to file a petition for certiorari
pursuant to S1(g) R41.
Plaintiff should not file an MR
unless dismissal was because of a
MTD.
 R16
 Courtcannot motu proprio dismiss a
complaint for failure to comply with
Art. 151 of the Family Code. (Moreno
v. Kahn, 30 July 2018, Perlas-
Bernabe, J.).
 When MTD prohibited

2020 SELANE HA
 When court may dismiss
case motu proprio
JRLP S
 MNT/MR Prohibited
 Judgment in Small Claims Cases.

Order of Court granting an

affirmative defense. (S12[c] R15)
 EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT BY
MOTION OR INDEPENDENT
ACTION (S6 R39).
 Takenote of dates: If motion for
execution or levy is more than 5
years from entry of judgment, cannot
be enforced by motion.
APPEAL
 Anappeal from an RTC judgment
which raises only questions of law is
taken to the SC by a petition for
review on certiorari under R45. (S2[c]
R41).
 APPEAL TO SC
 GR:Petition for review on certiorari
under R45.
 Where notice of appeal
 1. CA judgment in criminal case imposing
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
2. SB judgment in criminal case
(original jurisdiction).
3. CA judgment in habeas corpus cases
(original jurisdiction).
Common Error
Rule 47. Annulment of Judgment
 Judgment which did not implead
indispensable party may be nullified
under R47 on ground of lack of
jurisdiction. (Fernando v. Paguyo, 18
Sep 2019, Caguioa, J.).
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
Q May an administrative agency like
the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board issue writs of
certiorari?
 No. Administrative agencies, such
as the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), are not
courts of law exercising judicial power.
(Zoleta v. Land Bank, 9 August 2017,
Leonen, J.).
 Doctrine of hierarchy of courts
 Direct recourse SC is allowed only to
resolve questions of law,
notwithstanding the invocation of
paramount or transcendental
importance of the action. (Gios-
Samar Inc. v. DOTC, e.b., 12 March
2019, Jardeleza, J.).
 Case
 DOH acted in a quasi-judicial capacity
when it issued a CDO. Hence, the
petition for certiorari should be filed with
the CA which has exclusive jurisdiction
over it pursuant to S4 R65 and Sec. 9 of
B.P. Blg. 129. (Association of Medical
Clinics v. GCC Medical Centers, 6
December 2016, e.b., Brion, J.).
Q Does mandamus lie to compel
the payment of an informer’s reward?
 A No. The grant of an
informer's reward for the discovery of
tax offenses is a discretionary quasi-
judicial matter. (Lihaylihay v. Tan, 23
July 2018, Leonen, J.).
 MANDAMUS, WHEN PROPER.
 Note that there must be ministerial
duty. Discretionary function cannot
be subject of mandamus.
Contracts cannot be enforced by
mandamus but by specific
performance.
RULE 66. QUO WARRANTO
 Case
Q R.A. 10660 created six
new vacancies in the Sandiganbayan.
The JBC submitted six groups or
“clusters” corresponding to each
vacancy to President Aquino for his
consideration. Petitioners are
members of one of the clusters. >
However not one from their cluster was
appointed by President Aquino. They
filed a petition for quo warranto
challenging the appointment of the SB
justices by Aquino. >
They alleged that the President violated
the Constitution when he disregarded
the JBC’s clustering by not appointing
any one of their cluster to the
Sandiganbayan. Will the action for quo
warranto prosper?
 No. In a petition for quo warranto filed
by an individual claiming entitlement to
office, such individual must show that he
has a clear right to the office. Petitioner
judges who merely have an expectant not
a clear right to SB positions are not proper
parties to file petition for quo warranto
under S5 R66. >
Petitioners’ rights depended on an
expectancy: that they would be the
ones appointed by the President.
(Aguinaldo v. Aquino, 29 Nov 2016,
e.b., Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
 Case
Q In the quo warranto case filed by
the Republic against Maria Lourdes
Sereno, seeking her ouster from the
position of Chief Justice of the
Philippines, certain private individuals
filed motions for leave to intervene as
citizens and as taxpayers. >
They claim that as citizens and as
taxpayers, they have a legal interest in
the matter of Sereno’s ouster or
removal. May these individuals be
allowed to intervene?
 No. The movants do not possess
the required legal interest to intervene
in a quo warranto suit since they
neither claim to be entitled to the
questioned position nor are they the
ones charged with the usurpation
thereof. (Republic v. Sereno, 11 May
2018, e.b., Tijam, J.).
 Case
Q In the quo warranto case filed by
the Republic against Maria Lourdes
Sereno, seeking her ouster from the
position of Chief Justice of the
Philippines, the respondent moved to
dismiss the petition on the ground of
prescription, invoking S11 R66 >
which provides that quo warranto must
“be commenced within one year after
the cause of such ouster, or the right of
the petitioner to hold such office or
position, arose.” May the petition for
quo warranto be dismissed on the
ground of prescription?
 A No. The one-year limitation is
not applicable when the petitioner is not
a mere private individual pursuing a
private interest, but the government
itself seeking relief for a public wrong
and suing for public interest. (Republic
v. Sereno, 11 May 2018, e.b., Tijam,
J.). >
 Note: Prescription applies when
the petition for quo warranto is filed by
the Sol Gen or public prosecutor at the
request and upon the relation of
another person under S3 R66.
(Republic v. Sereno, e.b., 19 June
2018 [res.]).
Rule 67. Expropriation
Q In an expropriation proceeding the
court rendered judgment awarding
just compensation to the defendant
landowner. The government
appealed. May the landowner move
for execution pending appeal?
 A No. Execution pending
appeal not applicable to expropriation
proceedings. The reason is that public
funds cannot be seized under a writ of
execution. (National Power Corp. v.
Rabie, 17 Aug 2016, Carpio, J.).
 Inverse condemnation
 Inverse condemnation refers to the
action for recovery of just compensation
filed by the property owner in the
situation wherein the State, local
government unit or public utility seizes or
takes private property for public use
without filing beforehand a complaint for
expropriation. >
 It is called inverse because it is the
property owner rather than the State
which initiated the proceedings for the
payment of just compensation.
(National Power Corporation v.
Makabangkit, 24 August 2011,
Bersamin, J.). <
 JC in inverse condemnatino
 Ininverse condemnation, the just
compensation should be reckoned as
of the time of the taking, even if
apparently unjust. Landowner will
however be compensated by interest,
exemplary damages, and attorney’s
fees. (Sec. of DPWH v Tecson, 21
April 2015 [e.b.])
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
 HABEAS CORPUS
 8.
WHEN HABEAS CORPUS
AVAILABLE; AS A POST-
CONVICTION REMEDY.
 Note that writ of habeas corpus
available in two instances:
1. Illegal deprivation of liberty.
2. Withholding of custody of
person from one entitled thereto.
 Habeas corpus is the proper remedy
for a person deprived of liberty due to
mistaken identity. In such cases, the
person is not under any lawful
process and is continuously being
illegally detained. (In re Datukan
Malang Salibo, 8 April 2015).
  Sgt. Osorio validly
arrested and detained for
kidnapping. Kidnapping is
Osorio v. not part of the functions
Navera of a soldier. Thus, the
(26 Feb RTC and not the courts
martial have jurisdiction
2018) over him. (Osorio v.
Navera, 26 February
2018, Leonen, J.).
 Rule is that habeas corpus is not
available as a post-conviction remedy
if person was convicted.
Exc: JEC
 Watch out for cases where court had
no jurisdiction to render the judgment
of conviction or where the accused’s
constitutional right was violated.
 Rappler, 13 Nov 2016 (Common
Error)
 The 1987 Constitution, however,
allows the President to suspend the
writ of habeas corpus "in case of
invasion and rebellion, when the
public safety requires it."
 Writ cf privilege of the writ
Writ Privilege of the writ
The order requiring the The further order
production of the body inquiring into the cause
of the person and to of the detention and
justify his detention (S5 directing the release of
R102) the person (S15 R102)
Not appealable Appealable
May not be suspended May be suspended by
by the President the President (S18 A7
Consti)
 WRIT OF AMPARO
  The Rule on the Writ of
Amparo (eff. 24 Oct 2007) was
issued as an exercise of the
Consti- SC’s power to promulgate rules
tutional
concerning the protection and
Basis
of WOA; enforcement of constitutional
Aim rights. (Sec. 5[5], Art. VIII). It
aims to address concerns
regarding extrajudicial killings
& enforced disappearances.
 A special proceeding
 A petition for issuance of a writ
of Amparo is a special proceeding. It
is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right or particular
fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action,
hence, the application of the Rule on
Summary Procedure is misplaced. (De
Lima v Gatdula, 19 Feb 2013)
  The RTC judge acted
with grave abuse of
discretion in ordering
the Respondents De
Lima et al., to file an
Return, answer rather than a
not return. A return is
different from and
answer serves a different
function from an
answer. (De Lima v.
Gatdula, 19 February
2013).
Tulfo vs. Santiagos
“Thrilla in the Pila!”
 Court may motu proprio dismiss a
petition for Writ of Amparo,
regardless of the filing of a motion to
dismiss, if it is clear that the case falls
outside the purview of the Rules on
the Writ of Amparo. (Santiago v.
Tulfo, 21 Oct 2015, Perlas-Bernabe,
J.). >
 The petition does not involve any
case of extrajudicial killing and/or
enforced disappearance, or any threats
thereof. Santiago’s petition is merely
anchored on a broad invocation of the
purported violation of their right to life
and security, >
carried out by private individuals
without any showing of direct or
indirect government participation.
Thus, it is apparent that their amparo
petition falls outside the purview of
the Rule on the WOA and, perforce,
must fail. (Id.).
 Production order cf search
warrant
 Ina Writ of Amparo case, the court
issued a production order against
respondent military officers. The
respondents argue that the PO was
issued without complying with the
requirements of a search warrant
under the Constitution. >
 Production order cf search
warrant
The production order under
the Amparo Rule should not be
confused with a search warrant under
the Constitution. The requirements of
a search warrant do not apply to the
grant of a production order. >
 This Constitutional provision is a
protection of the people from the
unreasonable intrusion of the
government, not a protection of the
government from the demand of the
people. (Sec. of National Defense v.
Manalo, 7 Oct 2008, e.b., Puno, C.J.).
 WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Police officer, sweet lover?
 *@#!
 Petition must adequately show that
there exists a nexus between the
right to privacy on the one hand, and
the right to LLS on the other. (Lee v.
Ilagan, 8 Oct 2014, Perlas-Bernabe,
J.). Re sex videos of cop obtained by
his live-in partner who threatened to
turn these over to NAPOLCOM.
 Writ of Habeas Data
 Petition
for Writ of Habeas Data vs.
President Duterte should be
dismissed because of presidential
immunity. (De Lima v. Duterte, 15
Oct 2019, Bersamin, C.J.).
 Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College,
29 September 2014
 Nothing in the Rule would suggest
that the habeas data protection shall
be available only against abuses of a
person or entity engaged in the
business of gathering, storing, and
collecting of data. It is enough that
the person or entity is engaged in the
gathering or storing or collecting of
data. >
Regularity  To “engage” in something
in the is different from
gathering undertaking a business
or endeavor. To “engage”
storing of means “to do or take part
data not
essential in something.” It does
not necessarily mean that
the activity must be done
in pursuit of a business.
The element of regularity
is not essential. <
  There is no right to
informational privacy
Vivares v. St. on photos posted on
Theresa’s Facebook. That the
photos are viewable
College, by “friends only”
29 September does not necessarily
bolster the
2014 petitioners’
contention. >
 Digital images under
this setting still remain to
be outside the confines
of the zones of privacy
in view of the sheer
number of Facebook
“friends” and the facility in
which photos can be
shared even to those who
are not “friends.” <
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 10.
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION,
PROCEEDS INDEPENDENTLY OF
CRIMINAL CASE.
 Independent civil action (ICA)
CPP Q
 Art.32 (Constitutional/Civil Rights)
Art. 33 (PDF)
Art. 34 (Police Force)
Art. 2176 (Quasi-Delict)
 Features of ICA (RR PP)
 Reservation not needed for ICA.
 It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action (S3 R111). Lis
pendens n.a.
 The result of the civil action is
independent of the result of the
criminal action. Res judicata n.a.
 Primacy of criminal action n.a.
 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.
Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125
(1980)
X (seller)

A (1st buyer)

B (2 nd buyer)
RULE112. PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION
 Hearsay is admissible in
determining probable cause in a
preliminary investigation because
such investigation is merely
preliminary and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligations of
parties. (Estrada v. Ombudsman, 21
January 2015, en banc). >
 Uncounselled confession made during
preliminary investigation is admissible
since accused not under custodial
investigation (People v. Omilig, 12
August 2015, Perez, J.).
 Judge is not obligated to first resolve
a MTQ, even if grounded on lack of
jurisdiction, before issuing an arrest
warrant. (De Lima v. Guerrero, 10
Oct 2017, e.b.).
 If the investigating fiscal filed the drugs
case despite absence of showing that
chain of custody observed, the court may
either refuse to issue a commitment
order (or arrest warrant) or dismiss the
case outright for lack of probable
cause per S5 R112. (People v
Turematsu, 10 Apr 2019, Leonen, J.).
 Trial
judge cannot remand case to
prosecutor for another preliminary
investigation on ground that earlier PI
was improperly conducted. Judge’s
choices are limited to S5 R112
(DEW). (Maza v. Turla, 15 Feb 2017,
Leonen, J.)
 WARRANTLESS ARREST.
 When warrantless arrest
may be made (JPE)
A peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: (JPE)
(a) When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense; >
 (b) When an offense has just
been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be
arrested is an escaped prisoner.
 Where the arrest took place a day
after the commission of the crime, it
cannot be said that an offense has
just been committed. Hence the
warrantless arrest was not lawful.
(People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA
740).
 Case
A motorcyclist flagged down by a
policeman for not wearing a helmet
and then taken into custody is not
deemed validly arrested since he was
only given a traffic citation and the
penalty for the violation of the
ordinance is only a fine. >
 Hence, the subsequent search of
the motorcyclist was illegal and the
items seized were inadmissible in
evidence. (Luz v. People, 29 February
2012).
 13.
BAIL; WHEN A MATTER OF
RIGHT, WHEN DISCRETIONARY
 Q When is bail a matter of right?

A Bail is a matter of right:

1. Before or after conviction by the
MTC and
2. Before conviction by the RTC of
an offense not punishable by DRL.
(S4 R114).
 When is bail discretionary?
 (1) Before conviction by the RTC of
an offense punishable by DRL.
(2) After conviction by the RTC
of an offense not punishable by DRL.
 No double jeopardy
 B.P.Blg. 22 and Article 315(2)(d) of
the RPC are different offenses
although they arise from the same
act. The violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is
malum prohibitum while that of
Article 315(2)(d) is malum in se.
(Nierras v. Dacuycuy, 181 SCRA 1).
 Art. 171 of the RPC and Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are not the same
since there is no identity of elements
between them. Falsification of a public
document is malum in se while the
violation of Section 3(e) is a malum
prohibitum. (Suero v. People, 31
January 2005).
 Charging an accused with rape, under
the Revised Penal Code, and with
sexual abuse, under Republic Act No.
7610, in case the offended party is a
child 12 years old and above, will not
violate the right of the accused
against double jeopardy. (People v.
Udang, 10 January 2018, Leonen, J.).
 DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN
CRIMINAL CASES; WAIVER OF
RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IF
FILED WITHOUT LEAVE,
ACQUITTAL.
 16.
WHEN WARRANTLESS
SEARCH ALLOWED.
CPA SCAM
 Stop-and-frisk requires “reasonable
suspicion” of criminal activity
 Combination of police asset’s specific
tip and arresting officer’s observation
of gun-shaped bulge in arrestee’s
shirt is adequate basis for stop-and-
frisk. (Manibog v People, 20 March
2019, Leonen, J.).
 Searchof a car based on a solitary tip
was not valid. Items seized
inadmissible because fruit of a
poisonous tree. (People v. Sison, 31
July 2019, Leonen, J.)
 Saluday Guidelines in search
of public transport vehicle
 Priorto entry, passengers and their
bags can be subjected to a routine
inspection akin to airport and seaport
security protocol. In this regard,
metal detectors and x-ray scanning
machines can be installed at bus
terminals. >
 While in transit, a bus can still be
searched by government agents or
the security personnel of the bus
owner in the following three
instances:
 First, upon receipt of information
that a passenger carries contraband
or illegal articles.
Second, whenever a bus picks up
passengers en route, the prospective
passenger can be frisked and his or her
bag or luggage be subjected to the
same routine inspection. >
 Third,a bus can be flagged down at
designated military or police
checkpoints where State agents can
board the vehicle for a routine
inspection of the passengers and
their bags or luggages. (Saluday v.
People, 3 April 2018, e.b., Carpio, J.).
EVIDENCE
 ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT RULE,
WHEN APPLICABLE
 New original document rule
 The original document rule provides
that when the subject of inquiry is
the contents of a document, writing,
recording, photograph or other
record, no evidence is admissible
other than the original document
itself. (S3 R130 as amended by the
2020 amendments).
 Illustration
Q The prosecution witness testified that
he saw a CCTV footage of the accused
robbing the bank. The defense counsel
objected on the ground of the original
document rule. The prosecutor argued
that the CCTV footage is not a document
since it is not a writing. Is the
prosecutor correct?
A No. Photographs, which includes
motion pictures or videos, are expressly
included in the definition of
documentary evidence under S2 R130
and in the original document rule under
S3 R130 of the 2020 Rules on
Evidence.
 Independently Relevant Statement
(IRS)
 An out-of-court statement which
is relevant not for the truth of a
matter asserted therein but for
something else, e.g., state of mind,
intent, belief, the mere fact of
utterance, or legal effect. (SIBUL)
 Take note
 IRS is not an exception to the
hearsay rule because in the first place
it is not hearsay.
 Example of IRS
 Deceased testator’s statement that
there were Martians in his backyard is
admissible in a probate proceeding to
prove that the testator was not of
sound and disposing mind.
 Rule of Thumb to spot IRS

 Would the statement have

probative value even if it was
false or incorrect?
 DYING DECLARATION.
 Important points to remember:
1. Declarant must have
consciousness of his impending death.
2. This consciousness may be
inferred from the gravity of the
declarant’s wounds. “I’ve been
stabbed. Can’t breathe.” >
 3. Declaration must be about
the declarant’s death, not that of
another person. <
 PARTOF THE RES GESTAE
(EXCITED UTTERANCE).
 Points to note
 1. Statement must be made under
the stress of excitement caused by
the startling occurrence.
2. Ante-mortem statement if not
admissible as dying declaration may be
admissible as part of the res gestae.
 People v. Feliciano
A sudden attack on a group peacefully
eating lunch on a school campus by
masked men wielding baseball bats is
a startling occurrence. The statements
of bystanders made immediately after
the assault are admissible as part of
the res gestae. (People v. Feliciano, 5
May 2014, Leonen, J.).
OFFICIAL RECORDS §46
 Requirements: (K POP)
 Entriesin official records made in the
performance of his duty by a public
officer of the Philippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty
specially enjoined by law. >
The entrant must have personal
knowledge of the facts stated by him or
knowledge acquired through official
information. (Africa v. Caltex, 16
SCRA 448). >
 Traffic
Accident Investigation Report
was hearsay since the police officer
who prepared it did not have
personal knowledge of the cause of
the accident. (DST Movers Inc. v.
People’s Gen. Ins. Corp., 13 January
2016, Leonen, J.).
RULES OF
PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
CASES (RPEC)
Justice Leonen’s call
for Eco Warriors
 Environmental Actions
ACTION WHERE FILED
Environmental Civil Action MTC/RTC
Citizen Suit RTC
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan CA, SC
Pet. for Continuing Mandamus RTC, CA, SC
 CIVIL
PROCEDURE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
 Scope & Applicability

 Civil
and criminal actions before
the MTCs and RTCs involving
enforcement or violations of
environmental laws, rules and
regulations.
  Any real party in
Who may file an interest, including the
environmen- government and
tal juridical entities
civil action?
authorized by law,
may file such action.
>
 A citizen suit may
also be filed by any
Who may Filipino citizen in
file a representation of others,
citizen including minors or
suit? generations yet unborn, to
enforce rights or
obligations under
environmental laws.
A real party in interest need not
be a Filipino citizen, but only a
Filipino citizen can bring a citizen
suit.
 Filing Fees in Environmental Civil
Action
 The payment of filing and other legal
fees by the plaintiff shall be deferred
until after judgment unless the
plaintiff is allowed to litigate as an
indigent. It shall constitute a first lien
on the judgment award. >
 Filing Fees in Citizen Suit
For a citizen suit, the court shall
defer the payment of filing and other
legal fees that shall serve as first lien
on the judgment award.
Q May a court issue a TRO or WPI
against lawful actions of government
agencies that enforce environmental
laws or prevent violations thereof?
 No, except for the SC. Of
course, courts other than the SC
can render judgment granting
final injunction.
 1. COMPLAINT.
2. ANSWER which may
include COMPULSORY
Pleadings COUNTERCLAIMS &
& motions CROSS-CLAIMS.
allowed 3. MOTION FOR
under INTERVENTION.
RPEC 4. MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY.
(3CA RID)
5. MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
JUDGMENT.
 Motion for postponement, motion
for new trial and petition for relief
from judgment shall be allowed in
highly meritorious cases or to prevent a
manifest miscarriage of justice.
 Permissive counterclaim
not allowed
 Note that permissive
counterclaims are not allowed in
ECA and citizen suit but
compulsory counterclaims are.
 Verifiedanswer must be filed
within 15 days from service of
summons. (S14)
Prohibited  (a) Motion to dismiss
pleadings the complaint;
& motions (b) Motion for a bill of
(4M [D particulars;
BED] (c) Motion for
RRT) extension of time to file
pleadings, except to file
answer, the extension not
to exceed 15 days;
 Ifmediation fails, the court will schedule
the continuance of the pre-trial.
The judge shall exert best efforts to
persuade the parties to arrive at a
settlement of the dispute. The judge may
issue a consent decree approving the
agreement between the parties.
  Consent decree
refers to a judicially-
approved settlement
Consent between concerned
parties based on
Decree
public interest and
public policy to
protect and preserve
the environment.
  EPO refers to an order
issued by the court
directing or enjoining
any person or
Environmen- government agency to
tal Protection perform or desist from
performing an act in
Order order to protect,
preserve or
rehabilitate the
environment.
 When may a Temporary
Environmental Protection Order be
issued?
 Ifit appears from the verified
complaint with a prayer for the
issuance of an Environmental
Protection Order (EPO) that the
matter is of extreme urgency and the
applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury, >
the executive judge of the multi-sala
court before raffle or the presiding
judge of a single-sala court as the case
may be, may issue ex parte a TEPO
effective for only 72 hours from date of
the receipt of the TEPO by the party or
person enjoined.
 TEPO may be extended
Within said period, the court where the
case is assigned, shall conduct a
summary hearing to determine whether
the TEPO may be extended until the
termination of the case.
Applicant is exempted from posting
a bond.
 Reliefs that may be granted
in a citizen suit (PARS)
 1.Protection, preservation or
rehabilitation of the environment.
2. Attorney’s fees, costs of suit
and other litigation expenses (ACL).
3. Submission of a
rehab/restoration program.
4. Contribution to a special trust
fund.
 Can
the plaintiff be awarded
damages in a citizen suit?
  No damages (except
ACL) can be awarded in a
citizen suit. The only
recourse of a party or
No
person who wishes to
damages recover damages for
injury suffered is to file a
separate action under S4
R2.
 The policy is that a citizen suit is filed
in the public interest, and in effect, it
is the environment which is
vindicated in the action. >
 Hence, a party or person who
suffers damage or injury arising from
an environment prejudice which is also
the same subject of citizen suit cannot
claim for damages in a citizen suit since
it is the environment that is vindicated
in the action. >
A person who suffers damage or injury
arising from an environmental prejudice
which is also the same subject of a
citizen suit can file a separate action
under S4 R2 to recover for his personal
injury. Here, a citizen suit can take place
simultaneously with the filing of an
individual complaint.
Judgment immediately executory
 Judgment directing the protection,
preservation or rehabilitation (PPR) of
the environment is executory pending
appeal.
 Inthe judgment, the court may
convert the TEPO to a permanent
EPO or issue a writ of continuing
mandamus directing the performance
of acts which shall be effective until
the judgment is fully satisfied.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
KALIKASAN
 The writ is available in
an environmental case
involving environmental
damage of such
magnitude as to
prejudice the life,
health, or property of
the inhabitants in two
or more cities or
provinces (≥2PC).
 Where filed
 The verified petition shall be filed with
the Supreme Court or with any of the
stations of the Court of Appeals. The
petitioner shall be exempt from the
payment of docket fees.
 Provisionon where to file relates
only to venue, not to jurisdiction.
 When shall the writ issue?
 Within three (3) days from the date of
filing of the petition, if the petition is
sufficient in form and substance,
the court shall give an order: (a)
issuing the writ; and (b) requiring the
respondent to file a verified return
within 10 days from service of writ.
Q Does the service of a Writ of
Kalikasan ipso facto enjoin the
respondent from doing the act subject
of the petition for a Writ of Kalikasan?
 No. Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan
and service upon respondent requires
the latter to file a verified return
within 10 days from service but
does not ipso facto enjoin or restrain
the respondent unless a TEPO or
CDO was issued.
 PDI Editorial 23 Sep 14:
“Risky Powers”
 “Since 2012, the government had
been warned that a shortage of
electricity was very likely by 2015.
That was after the Supreme Court
stopped private investors from
putting up a 600-megawatt coal-fired
power plant inside the Subic free
port.”
 Prohibited Pleadings & Motions
5M (BED DP) RTCC
 (a) Motion to dismiss;
 (b) Motion for extension of time to
file return;
 (c) Motion for postponement;
 (d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
 (e) Motion to declare respondent in
default. >
 (e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
 (f) Third-party complaint; and
 (g) Reply. <
 Notethat both compulsory and
permissive counterclaim not allowed.
Motion for intervention allowed.
 Osmeña v. Garganera (20 Mar 2018)

 In2016, Petitioner Garganera for

and on his behalf, and in
representation of the people of
the cities of Cebu and Talisay and
the future generations, filed
against the Cebu City mayor a
petition for writ of kalikasan with
prayer for the issuance of a TEPO
before the CA. >
 Petitioner asserted that the
continued operation of the Inayawan
landfill causes serious environmental
damage which threatens and violates
their right to a balanced and healthful
ecology. >
 The CA granted a writ of kalikasan.
In respondent's verified return, he
alleged that petitioner failed to comply
with the condition precedent which
requires 30-day notice to the public
officer concerned prior to the filing of a
citizen’s suit under R.A. 9003 >
(Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act) and R.A. 8749
(Clean Air Act). Is the 30-day notice
under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 a
requirement for the filing of a petition
for Writ of Kalikasan?
 No. A petition for writ of kalikasan
under the RPEC is a separate and distinct
action from [a citizen suit under] R.A. 9003
and R.A. 8749. A writ of kalikasan is an
extraordinary remedy covering
environmental damage of such magnitude
that will prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces. >
Given that the writ of kalikasan is an
extraordinary remedy, the prior 30-day
notice requirement for citizen suits
under R.A. 9003 and R.A. 8749 is
inapplicable. (Osmeña v. Garganera,
20 March 2018, e.b., Tijam, J.).
 JUDGMENT
 Within 60 days from the time the
petition is submitted for decision, the
court shall render judgment granting
or denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan.
 Remedy from Judgment
 Within15 days from notice of the
adverse judgment or denial of motion
for reconsideration, any party may
appeal to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise
questions of fact.
PETITION
FOR CONTINUING
MANDAMUS
 Available when any government
agency or officer neglects the
performance of a ministerial duty
in connection with the
enforcement of an environmental
law or rule or in connection with
the violation of an environmental
right; >
 Or when a government agency or
officer unlawfully excludes another
from the use or enjoyment of an
environmental right.
Petitioner is entitled to damages
sustained by reason of the malicious
neglect to perform the ministerial duty.
 Environmental law highlights the shift
in the focal-point from the initiation
of regulation by Congress to the
implementation of regulatory
programs by the appropriate
government agencies.
 Where filed
 RTC exercising jurisdiction over the
territory where the actionable neglect
or omission occurred or with CA or
SC.
Petitioner shall be exempt from
docket fees.
 When writ issues; comment
 Ifthe verified petition is sufficient in
form and substance, the court shall
issue the writ and require the
respondent to comment on the
petition within 10 days from receipt of
a copy thereof.
 TEPO

 The court in which the petition is

filed may issue such orders to
expedite the proceedings, and it
may also grant a TEPO for the
preservation of the rights of the
parties pending such proceedings.
 Judgment
 Ifwarranted, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ of continuing
mandamus requiring respondent to
perform an act or series of acts until the
judgment is fully satisfied and to grant
such other reliefs as may be warranted
resulting from the wrongful or illegal acts
of the respondent.
 Pet. for Writ of
Kalikasan
Filed with SC or CA.
Environmental damage
prejudicial to life, health,
or property of inhabitants
in ≥ 2 cities/provinces.
Verified return within 10
days from service of writ.
Pet. for Continuing
Mandamus
RTC where
neglect/omission occurred
or SC or CA.
Govt agency/officer
neglects enforcement of
envi laws & rules.
Comment within 10 days
from receipt of petition.
 Pet. for Writ of Pet. for Writ of
Kalikasan Continuing Mandamus
No award of damages for Damages may be awarded
individual petitioners. to petitioner. <

Directed against private or Directed against

public individuals or government agency or
entities. officer.
EVIDENCE IN ENVI CASES
 Precautionary Principle
 Itis the principle which states that when
human activities may lead to threats of
serious and irreversible damage to the
environment that is scientifically plausible
but uncertain, the court shall take actions
to avoid or diminish that threat
notwithstanding that there is a lack of full
scientific certainty in establishing a
causal link between human activity and
environmental effect. >
 Burden of Evidence Shifted
 The precautionary principle shifts the
burden of evidence of harm away from
those likely to suffer harm and onto
those desiring to change the status quo.
Application of the precautionary principle
to the rules on evidence will enable
courts to tackle future environmental
problems before ironclad scientific
consensus emerges.
BEST OF LUCK
IN THE BAR
EXAM!