PROCEDURE & PROFESSIONAL ETHICS - AdDU Bar Notes

aat ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIV ERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
PROCEDURE AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

(Formerly Remedial Law, Legal Ethics and Practical Exercise) - DAY TWO (Bar Exams 2020/2021)
QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS
CIVIL PROCEDURE
I.
Amanda filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property against Coco before the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City (RTC). The assessed value of the land involved is P15,000.00. Coco
engaged your services as his counsel. Coco said that the complaint of Amanda is frivolous because he is
the owner of the land and so he is entitled to the possession of the land. Coco wants to claim damages
against Amanda because of the latter’s baseless claim. You also noticed that the assessed value of the land
is below the jurisdiction of the RTC.
A. What is the best course of action that you can do wherein you address all the concerns of your
client?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The best course of action that I can do as counsel for Coco is to file an
Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. This way, I can raise the defect of lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter as an affirmative defense while at the same time interpose the compulsory counterclaim.
Although the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can also be raised in a Motion
to Dismiss, I cannot include a counterclaim in a Motion to Dismiss because the filing of a motion to
dismiss and the setting up of a compulsory counterclaim are incompatible remedies. A compulsory
counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support
therefrom. A counterclaim presupposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim.
Hence, where there is no claim against the counterclaimant, the counterclaim is improper and it must
dismissed. In the case of FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION vs. FORBES PARK
ASSOCIATION, G.R. No. 133119, August 17, 2000, the Supreme Court held that in the event that a
defending party has a ground for dismissal and a compulsory counterclaim at the same time, he must
choose only one remedy. If he decides to file a motion to dismiss, he will lose his compulsory
counterclaim. But if he opts to set up his compulsory counterclaim, he may still plead his ground for
dismissal as an affirmative defense in his answer.
B. What happens if a compulsory counterclaim is not properly interposed? Is there a possibility

that the same counterclaim can still be raised despite not having been properly interposed at
the earliest opportunity?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: As a general rule, a compulsory counterclaim must be interposed in

the Answer, otherwise, it is deemed barred. However, under Rule 11, Section 10 of the Rules of Court,
a pleader who fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or
when justice requires, may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or by amendment before judgment.
The counterclaim referred to under the said rule includes a compulsory counterclaim.
Hence, there is still a possibility for a Defendant to interpose a compulsory counterclaim based on
the grounds mentioned by filing an Amended Answer with Counterclaim with leave of court, before
judgment.
C. What is the consequence if as counsel of Coco, you file an Answer and interpose the affirmative
defense of lack of jurisdiction over your client’s person because of improper service of
summons, aside from lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The following are the consequences if as counsel of Coco, I file an
Answer and interpose the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction over my client’s person aside from
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter:
1. The filing of an Answer is considered as voluntary appearance. Based on several jurisprudence,

a defendant cannot be permitted to speculate upon the judgment of the court by objecting to the
court's jurisdiction over its person if the judgment is adverse to it, and acceding to jurisdiction
over its person if and when the judgment sustains its defense. Hence, by filing an Answer, the
defect in the service of summons is deemed waived;
Page 1 of 31
Contributors: Atty. John Frederick E. Derije, Judge Catherine M. Guerzo-Barrion, Atty. Gil E. Garcia II, Atty. John Christopherson A. Lei,
Atty. Melissa Romana P. Suarez, and Atty. Lielanie C. Yangyang-Espejo
2. Under Section 23 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other
grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall be deemed a
voluntary appearance. This applies with more reason when the affirmative defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is alleged together with other affirmative grounds
in the Answer; and
3. Assuming for the sake of argument that no voluntary appearance could arise by the filing of
Answer with affirmative defenses, my appearance in court for the purpose of questioning the
defect in the service of summons shall have the effect of having myself deputized by the court to
serve summons on the client.
II.
David filed a case for Collection of a Sum of Money against Jess before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Panabo City. The amount alleged in the Complaint was P100,000.00. However, it was later on discovered
by David that the P100,000.00 written in the promissory note and in the complaint was a mere typographical
error. Can David amend the complaint to correct a jurisdictional error? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: It depends.
If Jess has not yet filed an Answer, David can amend the Complaint as a matter of right. Here,
the court does not act. The admission of the amendment is a ministerial duty of the court. It requires no
positive action from the court. Since the court would not be acting in this regard, it could not be deemed
as acting without jurisdiction.
If Jess has already filed an Answer, David cannot amend the Complaint. The amendment this
time would require leave of court, a matter which requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The
exercise of this discretion requires the performance of a positive act by the court. If it grants the amend-
ment, it would be acting on a complaint over which it has no jurisdiction. Its action would be one
performed without jurisdiction.
III.
Vino Ang filed a complaint for a sum of money against Hellow Kitty in the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City.
A. If Hellow Kitty is a domestic private corporation and its president, managing partner,
general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, and in-house counsel for three attempts
on different dates, refused to receive summons, can there be substituted service of
summons? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, there can be no substituted service of summons when it comes
to domestic private corporations. Unlike a natural person who as a general rule must himself
be served personally, a juridical entity has several officers or agents designated under the
rules who can be served with summons. Thus, if one officer refuses to be served or is
unavailable, there are other designated officers or agents who can receive on behalf of the
corporation.
If the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, and in-
house counsel refused to receive the summons, service of summons can still be made to the
secretaries, or persons who customarily receive the correspondence in the principal office. If
service cannot be made upon these persons for three attempts on different dates, then service
of summons can be done by electronic service with prior leave of court.
B. If Hellow Kitty is a foreign private corporation not doing business and did not transact
business in the Philippines, how can the court acquire jurisdiction over Hellow Kitty?
Explain.
Page 2 of 31
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If Hellow Kitty is a foreign private corporation not doing business
and did not transact business in the Philippines, the possible ways that the court can acquire
jurisdiction over the said corporation is when Hellow Kitty has a representative in the
Philippines who can be served with summons while in the Philippines or when Hellow Kitty
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court under the several modes of voluntary
appearance recognized under the rules and jurisprudence. Otherwise, the court ca nnot
acquire jurisdiction over Hellow Kitty because the action involved is in personam.
C. If Hellow Kitty is a natural person who was a resident of the Philippines but abandoned
the Philippines, can extraterritorial service of summons be effected upon Hellow Kitty?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, extraterritorial service of summons cannot be effected upon

Hellow Kitty.
Under the instant scenario, Hellow Kitty is considered as a non-resident defendant. Although
he/she was a resident of the Philippines, he/she abandoned the Philippines. Applying the ruling
of the Supreme Court in the case of Asiavest Limited vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128803,
September 25, 1998, by his/her abandonment, Hellow Kitty had ceased to be a resident of the
Philippines, not even a resident temporarily out of the Philippines. As such, extraterritorial
service of summons cannot be effected upon Hellow Kitty because extraterritorial service under
Section 18 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court applies only to residents temporarily out of the
Philippines.
Moreover, even if the rules allow extraterritorial service for non-resident defendants under Section
17 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, such mode of service is applicable only when the action affects
the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the
Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in
which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest
therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines. These actions
refer to actions in rem or quasi in rem. On the other hand, the action involved in the instant case
is a complaint for a sum of money, which is an action in personam.
IV.
Jessica filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against Anya before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Digos City. Anya through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
prescription. If the RTC denies the Motion to Dismiss, what is the remedy of Anya? Would your
answer be the same if instead of filing a Motion to Dismiss, Anya interposed prescription as an
affirmative defense in the Answer and the RTC denied the affirmative defense?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If the Motion to Dismiss is denied, Anya can file a motion for
reconsideration. Then, if the motion for reconsideration is denied, she can file a petition for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus if there is grave abuse of discretion. She can also just opt to
file an Answer within the balance of the reglementary period to file the same.
If Anya instead filed an Answer with Affirmative Defense and the same is denied, it shall not be the
subject of a motion for reconsideration, petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. Her remedy
would be to go through trial and wait for the judgment on the merits. In the event that the judgment is
adverse to Anya, the affirmative defense may be among the matters to be raised on appeal.
V.
On January 15, 2009, Cora Tan bought a plane ticket from Supercool Airline bound for Singapore. Her
flight was supposed to be on February 14, 2009. However, when she was already on board the plane at the
airport, she was bumped off in favor of a Caucasian passenger. She was also called a moron during the
same flight. Cora Tan did not reach her destination.
Page 3 of 31
A. What are the possible case/s that Cora Tan may file? Can she file these cases separately?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: She may file cases for damages based on breach of contract of carriage,
violation of the law on human relations, and oral defamation. Yes she may file these cases
separately because these are based on different causes of action.
B. Assuming that on December 3, 2008, Cora Tan was also a passenger in the same plane where the
flight stewardess spilled coffee and ruined Cora Tan’s Chanel tweed suit, can Cora Tan lump all
her possible causes of actions against Supercool Airline in a single suit covering the incidents
on January 15, 2009 and December 3, 2008?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, under the rule on joinder of causes of action.
C. Assuming that Cora Tan would like to include the flight stewardess in the case mentioned in item B
hereof, would your answer in item B be the same?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. For joinder of parties to be allowed, the causes of action must arise
out of the same transaction or occurrence.
VI.
On October 17, 1985, 1488, Inc. and Edgardo V. Guevara instituted a suit against BPI, AIFL, and
ATHONA for (a) misrepresenting that an active market existed for two shares of stock included in Ducat’s
portfolio when, in fact, said shares were to be withdrawn from the trading list; (b) conversion of the stock
portfolio; (c) fraud, as ATHONA had never intended to abide by the provisions of its promissory note when
they signed it; and (d) acting in concert as a common enterprise or in the alternative, that ATHONA was
the alter ego of PHILSEC and AIFL. The suit was docketed as Civil Action No. H-86-440 before the U.S.
District Court of Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
BPI, AIFL, and ATHONA filed counterclaims against 1488, Inc. and Guevara, for the recovery of damages
and excess payment or, in the alternative, the rescission of the sale of the Harris County property, alleging
fraud, negligence, and conspiracy on the part of counter-defendants who knew or should have known that
the value of said property was less than the appraisal value assigned to it.
Before the referral of the case to the jury for verdict, the U.S. District Court dropped Guevara as counter-
defendant for lack of evidence to support the allegations against him. Guevara then moved in open court
to sanction BPI, AIFL, and ATHONA based on Rule 11 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In
its Order dated March 13, 1990, the U.S. District Court stated that on February 14, 1990, after trial, the jury
returned a verdict for 1488, Inc. In the same Order, the U.S. District Court ruled favorably on Guevara’s
pending motion for sanction and ordered that defendants, BPI, AIFL, and ATHONA, jointly and severally,
shall pay to Edgardo V. Guevara US$49,450.00 within 30 days of the entry of the order.
The Order of the U.S. District Court attained finality as it was no longer appealed by BPI, AIFL, and
ATHONA.
Through a letter dated February 18, 1992, Guevara demanded that BPI pay the amount of US$49,450.00
awarded by the U.S. District Court in its Order dated March 13, 1990. However, BPI continuously failed
and refused to comply with the Order of the U.S. District Court. According to BPI, the Order dated March
13, 1990 of the U.S. District Court was rendered upon a clear mistake of law or fact and/or in violation of
its right to due process.
A. What is the remedy available to Guevara on the refusal of BPI to honor the U.S. District Court
in its Order dated March 13, 1990?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Guevarra should file a petition for recognition and enforcement of the
foreign judgment in the Philippines. He can enforce the foreign judgment by motion for execution
in the case.
Page 4 of 31
B. Can BPI refuse to comply on the grounds that it cited?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a foreign
judgment or final order against a person creates a "presumptive evidence of a right as between the
parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title." Moreover, Section 48 of the Rules
of Court states that "the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." Thus,
Philippine courts exercise limited review on foreign judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve
into the merits of a foreign judgment. Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a
Philippine court, it can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e., "want of jurisdiction,
want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited
review embodies the policy of efficiency and the protection of party expectations, as well as
respecting the jurisdiction of other states. The U.S. District Court judgment already became final
and executory. Objections dealing on the merits of the case are no longer allowed (BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION vs. GUEVARA, G.R. No. 167052,
March 11, 2015).
VII.
Maunlad Homes, Inc. filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Malolos City, Bulacan, an
unlawful detainer case with damages against National Power Corporation (NPC). After trial, the MTCC
issued its Decision dated October 26, 2009, ordering NPC to vacate the subject premises and surrender
physical possession thereof to Maunlad Homes, Inc., to pay reasonable compensation reckoned from the
date of demand on October 6, 2008, until complete vacation and surrender of the subject premises; and to
pay Php20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and cost of suit.
Maunlad Homes, Inc. filed a Motion for Execution which was opposed by the NPC. The NPC also filed a
motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision. In an Order dated August 5, 2010, the RTC denied the
NPC's motion for reconsideration and granted Maunlad Homes, Inc.'s motion for execution.
Maunlad Homes, Inc. then filed an urgent motion for issuance of a Break Open Order since the sheriff who
tried to implement the writ of execution, by serving the notice of levy on the NPC Warehouse at Barangay
Lagundi, Mexico, Pampanga, was prevented by the security guards assigned therein. The Power Sector
Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM), an entity created and existing by virtue of
Republic Act No. 9136, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law), filed an Affidavit
of third-party claim with the sheriff pursuant to Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and alleging that
it is the owner of the levied properties pursuant to the EPIRA Law. PSALM filed a Manifestation with
Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Status Quo Order with the RTC arguing that it is the owner of the
subject properties pulled out by the sheriff by operation of law; that it is not a party to the instant case and
therefore cannot be bound by the judgment therein; that the obligation to pay Maunlad Homes, Inc. had not
been transferred to it. PSALM also prayed for the nullification of the levy of its properties and restoring
their immediate possession to it.
The RTC issued an Order denying PSALM’s motion for issuance of Status Quo Order, third-party claim,
and the prayer to nullify the levy. The Sheriff was directed to proceed with the implementation of the writ
of execution issued without further delay.
A. Discuss the remedy of terceria.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If the property levied by virtue of a writ of execution is claimed by a

third person who is not the judgment obligor, Section 16 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides for the remedy of such third party claimant. The third-party claimant may
execute an affidavit of his title or right to the possession of the property levied, and serve the same
to the officer making the levy and a copy thereof to the judgment creditor. This remedy is known
as terceria. The officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless the judgment creditor files
a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value
of the property levied on. An action for damages may be brought against the officer within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond. The same section also provides
that a third-party claimant may file a proper action to vindicate his claim to the levied property.
Page 5 of 31
B. Can PSALM file an appeal or an original action for certiorari to question the Order dated
November 11, 2010?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Neither an appeal nor a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy
from the denial of a third-party claim. The remedy of PSALM would be to file a separate and
independent action to determine the ownership of the attached property or to file a complaint for
damages chargeable against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the provincial
sheriff. PSALM is not prevented "from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper action."
In short, he has another "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law," and,
hence is not entitled either to a writ of certiorari or to a writ of prohibition.
Since the third-party claimant is not one of the parties to the action, he could not, strictly speaking,
appeal from the order denying its claim, but should file a separate reinvidicatory action against
the execution creditor or a complaint for damages against the bond filed by the judgment creditor
in favor of the sheriff. The rights of a third-party claimant should be decided in a separate action
to be instituted by the third person. In fine, the appeal that should be interposed, if the term appeal
may be properly employed, is a separate reinvidicatory action against the execution creditor or
complaint for damages to be charged against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of
the sheriff (POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
(PSALM) vs. MAUNLAD HOMES, INC., G.R. No. 215933, February 8, 2017).
VIII.
SANNAEDLE CO., LTD. (SCL) filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against ASIAN CONSTRUCTION
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ACDC). The complaint alleged that SCL and ACDC executed
a Memorandum of Agreement wherein SCL was engaged to supply and erect insulated panel systems at
various pavilions at the Philippine Centennial Exposition Theme Park, specifically for the Phase I Project,
for an agreed amount of US$3,745,287.94. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, ACDC made
various payments amounting to US$3,129,667.32 leaving a balance of US$615,620.33. ACDC claims that
it made several written demands for SCL to pay the said balance, but the latter continuously refused to heed
its plea.
Thereafter, ACDC filed its Answer with Counterclaim, mainly alleging the following:
1. The complaint should be dismissed on the ground that SCL's certification of non-forum shopping
is defective;
2. SCL has no legal capacity to sue, as it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines
without a valid license;
3. The unexpected default of First Centennial Clark Corporation (FCCC) on its obligations to ACDC
on account of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigation was a fortuitous event which
suspended, if not extinguished ACDC's obligation to FCCC.
If you were the legal counsel for SCL, what will be your next move?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will file a motion to render judgment on the pleadings.
It is irrefutable that ACDC acknowledged having entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with SCL
and that it still has an unpaid balance of US$615,620.33.
SCL’s complaint for a sum of money is based mainly on the alleged failure of ACDC to pay the balance
of US$615,620.33 under the Memorandum of Agreement. ACDC’s Answer admitted the material
allegations in the complaint. While ACDC raised affirmative defenses, i.e., defect in the certification of
non-forum shopping, no legal capacity to sue and fortuitous event, the same cannot still bar SCL from
seeking the collection of the unpaid balance. Other than these affirmative defenses, ACDC’s denial
neither made a specific denial that a Memorandum of Agreement was perfected nor did it contest the
genuineness and due execution of said agreement (ASIAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION vs. SANNAEDLE CO., LTD. G.R. No. 181676, June 11, 2014).
Page 6 of 31
IX.
Margarita filed a complaint for delivery of certificates of title, damages, and attorney's fees against
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Guarantee Fund for Small and Medium
Enterprise (GFSME) before the RTC.
In the Complaint, Margarita prayed, among others, for the issuance of a writ of seizure, pending hearing
of the case, for delivery of the certificates of title she claimed to be unlawfully detained by DBP and
GFSME. She alleged that the certificates of title were submitted to DBP for safekeeping pursuant to the
loan agreement she entered into with DBP. The same certificates of title were turned over by DBP to
GFSME because of its call on GFSME's guarantee on their loan, which became due and demandable, and
pursuant to the guarantee agreement between DBP and GFSME.
As prayed for, the RTC issued the Writ of Seizure on August 24, 2001. The writ was accompanied by
Plaintiffs Bond for Manual Delivery of Personal Property issued by Country Bankers Insurance
Corporation (CBIC).
DBP filed its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Complaint and to Quash Writ of Seizure on the ground of
improper venue, among others. Margarita filed her Opposition, to which they attached the Delivery Receipt
showing that the court sheriff took possession of 228 certificates of title from GFSME.
The RTC granted DBP's omnibus motion and dismissed the case for improper venue. DBP and GFSME
then filed their Joint Motion to Order Plaintiff to Return Titles to DBP and GFSME. The RTC issued an
Order dated February 14, 2003 directing Margarita to return the 228 certificates of title.
DBP filed its Motion for Writ of Execution of the February 14, 2003 Order before the RTC. The RTC
issued the corresponding Writ of Execution. The Sheriffs Return of Service, however, indicated that
Margarita failed to deliver the certificates of title.
Due to the non-delivery of the certificates of title by Margarita, DBP filed its Motion/Application to Call
on Plaintiff's Surety Bond, praying for the release of the bond issued by CBIC to answer for the damages it
sustained as a result of the failure to return the 228 certificates of title, invoking the residual powers of the
RTC.
Rule on DBP’s Motion/Application to Call on Plaintiff's Surety Bond.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will deny the Motion/Application.
The RTC dismissed the replevin case on the ground of improper venue. Such dismissal is one without
prejudice and does not bar the refiling of the same action; hence, it is not appealable. Clearly, the RTC
did not reach, and could not have reached, the residual jurisdiction stage as the case was dismissed due
to improper venue, and such order of dismissal could not be the subject of an appeal. Without the
perfection of an appeal, let alone the unavailability of the remedy of appeal, the RTC did not acquire
residual jurisdiction. Hence, it is erroneous to conclude that the RTC may rule on DBP's application for
damages pursuant to its residual powers (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
CARPIO, G.R. No. 195450, February 1, 2017)
X.
Roldan filed an action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage against the spouses Barrios. The spouses
Barrios filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because it appears from the complaint
that the assessed value of the property mortgaged is only P200,000.00. Being a real action, the assessed
value of the property determines the jurisdiction. Roldan filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
arguing that foreclosure of real estate mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and
jurisdiction lies with the RTC. Roldan cited Russell v. Vestil to show that action for foreclosure of mortgage
is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Rule on
the motion to dismiss.
Page 7 of 31
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will grant the motion to dismiss. While civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary estimation as it is
not for recovery of money, the court's jurisdiction will be determined by the assessed value of the property
involved. Republic Act No. 11576 specifically mandates that they are cognizable by the MTC, METC, or
MCTC where the assessed value of the real property involved does not exceed P400,000.00. If the
assessed value exceeds P400,000.00, it is the Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction (ROLDAN
vs. SPOUSES BARRIOS, ET. AL. (G.R. No. 214803, April 23, 2018).
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
1. Kim Clide was arrested without a warrant following the issuance by PGMA of PD 1017. On the eve of
his arrest, Kim Clide was subjected to an inquest at the Quezon City Hall ofJustice for Inciting to
Sedition (Art. 142,RPC) based on a speech he allegedly gave during a rally. The inquest was based on
a joint affidavit of Kim Clide's arresting officers who claimed to have been present at the rally. The
inquest prosecutor filed the corresponding Information with the MeTC. Several days after the first
inquest, he was again subjected to a second inquest but this time for rebellion allegedly committed
based on the letters of CIDG investigators claiming that Kim Clide was the leader/ promoter of an
alleged plot to overthrow the Arroyo government. The panel of prosecutors from the DOJ which
conducted the second inquest; subsequently issued a resolution finding probable cause to indict Kim
Clide as leader/ promoter of alleged rebellion. The panel filed an Information with the R TC of Makati.
The court sustained the finding of probable cause against Kim Clide. Kim Clide filed a Petition to set
aside the orders finding probable cause and the denial of the MR to enjoin his prosecution. Was the
second inquest valid?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO. Inquest proceedings are proper only when the accused has been
lawfully arrested without warrant. Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides the instances when such warrantless arrest may be effected.
The joint affidavit of Kim Clide's arresting officers states that the officers arrested Kim Clide, without
a warrant, for Inciting to sedition, and not for ebellion. Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only have
conducted - as he did conduct — an inquest for Inciting to Sedition and no other. Consequently,
when another group of prosecutors subjected Kim Clide to a second inquest proceeding for rebellion,
they overstepped their authority rendering the second inquest void (Crispin Beltran v. People and
Secretary Gonzales, G.R. No. 175013, June 1, 2007).
2. The police officers arrived at the scene of the crime less than one hour after the alleged altercation and
they saw Atty. Rivero badly beaten. Atty. Rivero pointed to Kim Clide as the person who mauled him,
which prompted the police officers to "invite" Kim Clide for investigation. Consequently, Kim Clide
was indicted for attempted murder. Kim Clide filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Investigation on the ground that he had not been lawfully arrested as there was no valid warrantless
arrest since the police officers had no personal knowledge that he was the perpetrator of the crime. Was
Kim Clide validly arrested without a warrant?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. The records show that soon after the report of the incident, the
police officers was immediately dispatched to render personal assistance to the victim. This alone
negates the Kim Clide's argument that the police officers did not have personal knowledge that a
crime had been committed. Personal knowledge of a crime just committed does not require actual
presence at the scene while the crime was being committed; it is enough that evidence of the recent
commission of the crime is patent and the police officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed
the crime (Pestilos, et. al v. Generoso and People, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014).
3. In the morning of December 25, 2006, Police officer Kim Clide was driving his motorcycle. From a
distance of 8 to 10 meters he saw Villareal holding a plastic sachet of shabu. When Villareal saw him,
he immediately ran away. When Kim Clide caught Villareal, he was brought to the police station where
he was arrested and the alleged shabu was turned over to be marked as evidence. The substance was
tested and was proven to be a 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The
Villareal was charged with the violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. During the trial Kim Clide claimed that Villareal had previous criminal charges for
Page 8 of 31
the same offense and that he arrested the Villareal because when he saw that Villareal was holding a
powdery white substance, it immediately gave him suspicion as to the matter thereof. Was there a valid
warrantless arrest?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO, there was no valid warrantless arrest. A lawful warrantless arrest
exists when either of the following circumstances are present: (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 he person to be arrested has committed it, and (c) when the
person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another. Based on the distance and the amount of the
powdery substance it is insufficient to conclude, even with clear vision that such substance
constitutes as shabu. The act of the appellant of examining the substance is not tantamount to arouse
suspicion of a commission or possible commission of a crimp even if he has previous criminal history
on the same offense. Personal knowledge is not defined as knowledge of a person's criminal record,
but personal knowledge as to the actual commission of the crime. The act of running away from
authority also does not automatically imply guilt on the accused. There are various reasons to run
away from authority, and commission of a crime is just one of the possible reasons. Because there is
an absence of overt act there is no justification for Villareal's warrantless arrest. Hence, it cannot
be presented as evidence in court as it is a fruit of the poisonous tree. (People of the Philippines v.
Villareal y Lualhati, G.R. No. 201363, March 18, 2013)
4. Kim Clide was arrested without a warrant. After preliminary investigation, an information was filed in
court. He pleaded not guilty during arraignment. After trial on the merits, he was found guilty by the
court. On appeal he claims that judgment was void due to his illegal arrest. As Solicitor General, how
would you refute said claim?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:Any objection to the illegality of the arrest of the accused without a warrant
is deemed. waived when he pleaded not guilty at the arraignment without raising the question. It is
too late to complain about an invalid warrantless arrest after trial is commenced and completed and
a judgment of conviction rendered against the accused (People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, January
16, 1998).
NOTE: An accused who enters his plea of not guilty and participates in the trial waives the illegality
of the arrest. Objection to the illegality must be raised before arraignment, otherwise it is deemed
waived, as the accused, in this case, has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
(People v. Macam, G.R. Nos. L-91011-12, November 24, 1994).
5. Kim Clide was arrested lawfully without a warrant for carnapping and detained at Camp Crame in
Quezon City. He asked for a preliminary investigation and signed a waiver of the provisions of Art.
125 of the RPC. However, the assisting judge of the R TC in Marikina approved the bail bond for Kim
Clide who was being held in Quezon City. Was the approval of the bail bond proper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:NO. The bail must be applied for and issued by the court in the province,
city, or municipality where the person arrested is held. In this case, the bail application should have
been filed with a Quezon City court which has the authority to grant the bail and not Marikina court
(Ruiz v. Beldia, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1731, February 16, 2005).
6. Kim Clide was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, he was arrested by virtue
of a warrant of arrest. He then filed an application for bail. The Sandiganbayan refused to resolve his
application for bail until after his arraignment. He argues that his arraignment is not a pre-condition to
his application for bail. Is Kim Clide correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. The arraignment of an accused is not a prerequisite to the conduct
of hearings on his petition for bail. A person is allowed to petition for bail as soon as he is deprived
of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his
arraignment before tiling a petition for bail.
Page 9 of 31
NOTE: If the court finds in such case that the accused is entitled to bail because the evidence against
him is not strong, he may be granted provisional liberty even prior to arraignment; for in such a
situation, bail would be "authorized" under the circumstances (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R, Nos.
148468, 148769 and149116, January 28, 2003).
7. Charged with murder, Kim Clide was convicted with the crime of homicide and was sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one
day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Pending appeal he applied for bail, but the same was denied
by the CA. Kim Clide's theory is that, where the penalty imposed by the trial court is more than 6 years
but not more than 20 years and the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Sec. 5 are absent,
bail must be granted to an appellant pending appeal. In an application for bail pending appeal by an
appellant sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years, does the discretionary nature
of the grant of bail pending appeal mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Sec. 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO. In an application for bail pending appeal by an appellant sentenced
for more than six years, the discretionary nature of the grant of bail pending appeal does not mean
that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Sec. 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
The third paragraph of Sec. 5 of Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where the penalty imposed on the
appellant applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding 6 years. The first scenario involves the absence
of any of the circumstances enumerated in the said paragraph. The second scenario contemplates
the existence of at least one of the said circumstances.
In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial discretion. This means that, if none of the
circumstances mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of Sec. 5 Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has
the discretion to grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if the
bail-negating circumstances in the third paragraph of Sec. 5, Rule 114 are absent.
On the other hand, on the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more stringent discretion,
that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated circumstances in fact exists. If it so
determines, it has no other option except to deny or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a finding that
none of the said circumstances is present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such
finding will simply authorize the court the less stringent sound discretion approach (Leviste v. CA,
G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010).
8. The search warrant authorized the seizure of "undetermined quantity of shabu." During the service of
the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in
newsprint. The accused, Kim Clide, moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as evidence for the
violation of Sec. 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not covered
by the search warrant. The State justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the "plain view"
doctrine. There was no indication of whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before
or after the seizure of the shabu. If you are the judge, how would you rule the motion to suppress?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: It should be granted. The search warrant violates the constitutional and
statutory requirement that should particularly describe the person or things to be seized (Sec. 2, Art.
Ill, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 2, Rule 126). The "plain view" doctrine cannot be invoked because the
marijuana leaves were wrapped in newsprint. Besides the marijuana leaves are not the subject of the
search warrant. There was no evidence as to whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and
seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If they were discovered after the seizure of the shabu,
then they could not have been seized in plain view. The confiscation of the marijuana leaves must
not be upheld, hence rendering the same inadmissible in evidence against the accused.
Page 10 of 31
9. An Information for murder was filed against Kim Clide. The RTC judge, after personally evaluating
the prosecutor's resolution, documents and parties' affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found
probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Kim Clide's lawyer examined the rollo of the case and
found that it only contained the copy of the information, the submissions of the prosecutor and a copy
of the warrant of arrest. Immediately, Kim Clide's counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant
for being void, citing as grounds: (a) The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct
a searching examination of the prosecution witnesses in violation of his client's constitutionally-
mandated rights; (b) There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued the arrest
warrant. May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Kim Clide's counsel? State your
reason for each ground.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO. The warrant of arrest may not be quashed on the grounds cited by
Kim Clide's counsel. (a) The Supreme Court has held in Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988)
that Section 2 of Art. Ill of the Constitution does not mandatorily require the judge to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. The judge may opt to personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by the regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis
thereof issue a warrant of arrest.
(b) There is no requirement of a prior order by the judge finding probable cause. The SC has held
that the judge may rely upon the resolution of the investigating prosecutor provided that he
personally evaluates the same and the affidavits and supporting documents, which he did (People v.
Grey, G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010).
10. Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the
nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz.
PO1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door, PO1 Remus and his companions
introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured
to them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen.
Asked by PO2 Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The
police officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1
Remus took the young lady's statement —who - identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is a
sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual intercourse with Oasis
Jung at least five times on different occasions and she was paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first
time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. PO2 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station's jail. After
the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an Information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The
VAWC Law) for physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The
Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an
order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment. After his release from
detention on bail, can Oasis Jung still question the validity of his arrest?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. Oasis Jung can still question the validity of his arrest after his
release from detention on bail. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, admission to bail shall not
bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest provided that he does so before entering
his plea (Sec. 26, Rule 114).
11. Kim requested the Ombudsman to investigate the Petitioner, Retired Brig. Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr.,
then President of the AFP-RSBS together with 27 other persons allegedly for conspiring in
misappropriating AFP-RSBS funds and in defrauding the government millions of pesos in capital gains
and documentary stamp taxes. Special Prosecutor Clide filed 24 separate Informations with the
Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and several other accused. Ramiscal, Jr. filed an Urgent
Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Proceedings, because of the pendency of his motion for
reinvestigation with the Office of the Ombudsman. Pending resolution of the aforementioned motions,
the law firm of Derije & Associates filed a "Notice of Appearance" as private prosecutors. The notice
of appearance was apparently made conformably to the letter-request of Retired Commodore Ismael
Aparri and Retired Brig. Gen. Pedro Navarro, who are members Association of Generals and Flag
Officers, Inc. (AGFOI). Petitioner Ramiscal, Jr. opposed the appearance of the law firm of Derije
&Associates as private prosecutors, contending that the charges brought against him were purely public
crimes which did not involve damage or injury to any private party; thus, no civil liability had arisen.
Is the contention of petitioner tenable?
Page 11 of 31
SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. The court agreed with the contention of the petitioner that the
AGFOI, and even Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, are not the offended parties
envisaged in Sec. 16, Rule 110, in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Under Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the
Rules, all criminal actions covered by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
direct supervision and control of the public prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is a public
function.
Under Sec. 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in
the criminal action personally or by counsel, who will act as private prosecutor for the protection of
his interests and in the interest of the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. However, the
offended party is the government which was allegedly deprived by the petitioner and the other
accused of the capital gains and documentary stamp taxes, based on the actual and correct purchase
price of the property stated therein in favor of the AFP-RSBS. The AGFOI was not involved
whatsoever in the sales subject of the crimes charged; neither was it prejudiced by the said
transactions, nor is it entitled to the civil liability of the petitioner for said cases. Thus, it is not the
offended party in the said cases (RamiscaI, Jr., v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140576-99, December
13, 2004).
12. Kim Clide together with his mother obtained several loans from Unicapital Inc., secured by a real estate
mortgage. However, it appears that the former are not the true owners of the property and theTransfer
Certificate Title presented is spurious. Kim Clide then filed a petition for injunctive relief in the RTC
of Pasig seeking to enjoin Unicapital to proceed against him on the ground that he merely acted as agent
of his mother. Unicapital, on the other hand, initiated a criminal complaint for estafa through
falsification of public document. Unicapital also filed a civil case in RTC ofMakati for recovery of sum
of money and damages, with application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Kim Clide moved to
defer his arraignment in the Makati criminal case on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question
due to the pendency of the Pasig and Makati civil case.Is there a prejudicial question?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO. An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the defrauded
party does not raise a prejudicial question to stop the proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution
of the defendant for estafa through falsification. This is because the result of the independent civil
action, the Civil Case for Damages and Attachment, is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or innocence
of the accused. As far as the Pasig civil case is concerned, the issue of Kim Clide's being a mere
agent of his mother, poses no prejudicial question, and even if respondent is declared merely an
agent of his mother, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability. Hence, the determination of
the issue involved in the civil case for injunctive relief is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the
respondent in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document (Consing v.
People, G.R. No. 161075, 15 July 2013).
13. An lnformation for Homicide was filed in the R TC against petitioner, Kim Clide. Upon arraignment,
Kim Clide, duly assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to the charge of Homicide. However,
on the same day and after the arraignment, the public respondent judge issued another Order directing
the trial prosecutor to correct and amend the Information to Murder in view of the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of rank alleged in the Information which public respondent judge registered
as Murder. Acting upon such Order, the prosecutor entered his amendment by crossing out the word
"Homicide" and instead wrote the word "Murder" in the caption and in the opening paragraph of the
Information. The accusatory portion remained exactly the same as that of the original Information for
Homicide. Kim Clide argued that the amendment and/or correction ordered by the respondent judge
was substantial; and under Sec. 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this cannot
be done, since Kim Clide had already been arraigned and he would be placed in double jeopardy. Decide
the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the present case, the change of the offense charged from Homicide to
Murder is merely a formal amendment and not a substantial amendment or a substitution. There
was no change in the recital of facts constituting the offense charged or in the determination of the
jurisdiction of the court.
Page 12 of 31
Sec. 14, Rule 110 also provides that in allowing formal amendments in cases in which the accused
has already pleaded, it is necessary that the amendments do not prejudice the rights of the accused.
The test of whether the rights of an accused are prejudiced by the amendment of a complaint or
information is whether a defense under the complaint or information, as it. originally stood, would
no longer be available after the amendment is made; and when any evidence the accused might have
would be inapplicable to the complaint or information. Since the facts alleged in the accusatory
portion of the amended Information are identical with those of the original Information for
Homicide, there could not be any effect on the prosecution's theory of the case; neither would there
be any possible prejudice to the rights or defense of petitioner (Pacoy v. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472,
28 September 2007).
14. Distinguish Custody of the Law from Jurisdiction over the Person of the Accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the case of Miranda v. Tuliao (486 SCRA 377, 388-389), the Supreme
Court defined Custody of the Law as simple custody of the body of the accused, such as but not
limited to, detention, thus Custody of the Law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby
deprived of his own will and liberty, and binding him to become obedient to the will of the law.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused however means that the accused comes under the power
and authority of the court to hear and try the particular offense charged against the person, and to
impose the appropriate punishment for such offense.
Thus, an offender may be under the custody of the law when he is arrested and detained for the
commission of a crime, but may not yet be under the jurisdiction of a court, as when the offender
questions the arrest, by virtue of which he is deprived of his liberty. However, once there is a valid
arrest, with or without warrant, an offender not only comes under the jurisdiction of the court but is
also under custody of the law.
15. Ricci Rivero filed a complaint for Grave Oral Defamation against CJ Cansino. After the Preliminary
Investigation, the Public Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, which reads:
“That on about 4:20 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon of 2 July 2020 at barangay Centro Norte,
Sto. Niño, Cagayan de Oro City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, with ill motive, did then and there(,) wil(l)fully, unlawfully, and feloniously,
uttered defamatory remarks against the honor and reputation of the undersigned complainant Mr.
Ricci Paolo Rivero, the following words and/or phrases addressed to the undersigned complainant
“UKININAM, PUTA, AWAN AD-ADAL MO” which if translated in the English language would
mean, “VULVA OF YOUR MOTHER, PROSTITUTE, ILLITERATE.”
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
CJ Cansino has been validly arrested by virtue of a warrant and is under detention in the Ma-a City
Jail.
a. What are the basic requisites before a court can acquire jurisdiction over criminal case?
b. Does the RTC of Davao City have criminal Jurisdiction over the Grave Oral Defamation filed
against CJ Cansino?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. A court acquires criminal jurisdiction to try a criminal case only when the following requisites
concur:
 The offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance (There is
Jurisdiction over the subject matter);
 The offense must have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients/elements
took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court (There is Jurisdiction over the
territory); and
Page 13 of 31
 The person charged with the offense must have been brought to its forum for trial, by
arrest, either with valid warrant or by virtue of a valid warrantless arrest, or upon the
voluntary submission/appearance to the court (There is Jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The RTC of Davao City has no subject matter jurisdiction, and
jurisdiction over the territory, and thus has no criminal jurisdiction over the Grave Oral Defamation
filed against CJ Cansino. A court acquires criminal jurisdiction to try a criminal case only when it
has jurisdiction over the subject matter, territory and person of the accused.
The court has subject matter jurisdiction when an offense is one which the court is by law authorized
to take cognizance. In this case, Grave Oral Defamation defined and punished under Article 358 of
the Revised Penal Code has an imposable penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period, and is thus under the jurisdiction of the first level
court, or in this case the MTC of Davao City.
Further, the court has jurisdiction over the territory if the offense have been committed or any one
of its essential elements took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Here, the
Information clearly shows that the offense took place in Cagayan de Oro City, and none of the
elements of the offense transpired in Davao City, thus the RTC of Davao City has no jurisdiction
over the territory.
Moreover, the court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest, either by valid
warrant or by virtue of a valid warrantless arrest, or upon the voluntary submission/appearance to
the court. In this case, while the RTC of Davao City has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused by virtue of a valid arrest thru a warrant, it becomes inconsequential in the determination
of the criminal jurisdiction of the court, considering that the RTC of Davao City lacks both subject
matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the territory. Thus, the RTC of Davao City has no criminal
jurisdiction over the Grave Oral Defamation filed against CJ Cansino.
16. On 1 June 2015, the Ombudsman filed an Information against CJ before the Sandiganbayan for Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices against a City Engineer of Davao City and alleged that the city Engineer is
Salary Grade “26” but and is a “City Department Head”. Does Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over
the graft charges against the city Engineer?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Since the Information is filed after 1 May 2015, the Sandiganbayan
has no jurisdiction over a City Engineer or a City Department Head, despite being listed as a public
officer/employee occupying a position in the government covered by the Sandiganbayan Law, as
amended. R.A. No. 10660 which became effective on 1 May 2015, now further requires that an
accused be Salary Grade “27” or higher or a Military or PNP officer specifically mentioned in the
list, to be within Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. Further, the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction where the Information: (a) does not allege any damage to the
government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same
or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
(Section 2, RA R.A. No. 10660, amending Section 4 of the Sandiganbayan Law)
Under the amendment of the Sandiganbayan Law found in R.A. No. 10660 it provides that in cases
where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade ‘27’ or higher or
military or PNP officers mentioned, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the
proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial
court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended.
Thus, City Engineer, CJ, who is only Salary Grade “26” is not under Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction,
but with the proper regular courts, depending on the allegations in the Information i.e., whether or
not there is an allegation of damage to the government or bribery, and if there is such an allegation,
depending on the amount involved.
Page 14 of 31
17. What are the cases covered by the Summary Procedure over which the first level courts, i.e., MTC,
MTCC, MeTC, MCTC, have jurisdiction over?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:The following cases are subject to the jurisdiction of first level courts as
provided under the rules on Summary Procedure:
a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

b. Violations of rental law;
c. B.P. 22 cases (Bouncing Checks Law);
d. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
e. All other criminal case where the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment not exceeding
6 months, or a fine not exceeding Php1,000.00, or both irrespective of other imposable
penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom; and
f. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine
does not exceed Php10,000.00.
18. On or about 29 January 2020, Ricci Rivero was validly arrested without a warrant for killing CJ Cansino
using a basketball, in Jolo, Sulu Philippines. How will the criminal action against Ricci Rivero be
instituted?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:The felony of killing someone, either Homicide or Murder, is punishable

under the Revised Penal Code with a penalty of imprisonment of more than 4 years 2 months and
1 day, thus these are felonies which require a preliminary investigation. Since Ricci Rivero was
validly arrested without a warrant, the criminal action may be instituted as follows:
a. Under Section 7, Rule 112:
i. After the conduct of proper inquest proceedings, the Complaint or Information may be
filed to the proper court by a prosecutor without need of a preliminary investigation;
ii. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the Complaint may be filed by
the offended party or a peace office directly with the proper court on the basis of the
affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person;
iii. Before the Complaint or Information is filed, and if Ricci Rivero asks for a preliminary
investigation in accordance with Rule 112, a Preliminary Investigation may be conducte
provided that Ricci Rivero signs a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel.
Further, after the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
investigation, Ricci Rivero may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for
a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided
under Rule 112.
19. After a meticulous and careful surveillance, Clint caught his wife Cat in sexual congress with Sam.
Clint immediately executed an affidavit for adultery against Cat and Sam, filed with the PNP and the
Office of the City Prosecutor (“OCP”) of Makati City. Clint asked the OCP of Makati City to consider
his affidavit as his formal complaint against Cat and Sam. Before an Information is filed in court, Clint
died in the United States. The OCP of Makati City, through Public Prosecutor Ricci Rivero however
filed an Information for adultery before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Cat and Sam filed a
Motion to Quash the Information and argued that the criminal action is not prosecuted upon a complaint
by the offended spouse. If you were the Judge in this case, how will you resolve the Motion to Quash?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will deny the Motion to Quash as the requirement under Paragraph 2,
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: “that the offense of adultery shall
not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse” is met by the affidavit
executed by Clint before his death. To properly prosecute the private offense of adultery it should be
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure. At the outset, People v. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11, explains that the
aforementioned rule was “imposed out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to
suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial,” thus the rule
Page 15 of 31
leaves it to the option of the aggrieved spouse to seek judicial redress for the afront committed by the
erring spouse.
Here, Clint showed his desire to bring Cat and Sam to justice, which desire was clearly manifested
when Clint immediately filed his executed affidavit for adultery with the PNP and the OCP of Makati
City, and further asked the OCP of Makati City to consider his affidavit as his formal complaint for
adultery against Cat and Sam. Thus, to uphold the spirit of the rule, as a judge, and pursuant to the
case of People v. Ilarde, I will deny the Motion to Quash and consider the affidavit for adultery
against Cat and Sam executed by Clint before his death, as the complaint required under Paragraph
2, Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure to allow prosecution for the
offense of adultery.
20. A libel suit was filed by Ricci Rivero against CJ Cansino in the RTC of Manila City. Ricci is a resident
of Taguig City. The Information alleges that the news article written by CJ was “extensively circulated
in the UP Manila Campus”. Does the RTC of Manila City have jurisdiction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The RTC of Manila has no jurisdiction as the Information fails to
allege that he City of Manila is where the libelous article was printed and first published, and further,
Ricci is not a resident thereof. The RPC has a special provision on venue of prosecutions for libel.
Under Article 360 thereof, it provides that if the offended party is a private person, the criminal
action for libel may be filed in the (1) RTC where the libelous article is printed and first published;
or (2) RTC where the private offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense.
Here, the Information did not allege that it was in Manila City that the libelous Article was “printed
and first published”. In the case of Foz, Jr. v. People, 603 SCRA 124, the allegation that “the
newspaper is a daily publication with considerable circulation in the City of Iloilo and throughout
the region” was not considered by the Supreme Court as sufficient to establish that the libelous
article is printed and first published in Iloilo City. Similarly, the allegation in the present Information
that the news article written by CJ was “extensively circulated in the UP Manila Campus” is not
sufficient to establish that the libelous article is printed and first published in Manila City.
Further, Ricci, the private offended party is a resident of Taguig City at the time of the commission
of the offense, not of Manila City. Thus, Manila City has no jurisdiction to try and hear the case of
libel against CJ.
21. X was charged before the Regional Trial Court with Malversation involving P5,500,000.00. Prior to
the amendment of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the prescribed penalty for said offense is reclusion
temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. X was convicted and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. He appealed his conviction. In the meantime, the RPC was amended. The prescribed
penalty for the same charge is now reclusion temporal maximum. X applied for bail before the appellate
court arguing that bail may still be granted to him as a matter of right. Is X correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: X is wrong. Under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, bail on appeal is no longer a matter of right but a matter of discretion.
Moreover, although the grant of bail on appeal is non-capital offenses is discretionary, when the
penalty imposed on the convicted accused exceeds six years and circumstances exist that point to the
probability of flight if released on bail, then the accused must be denied bail, or his bail previously
granted should be cancelled.
Page 16 of 31
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE & SMALL CLAIMS
TERESITA filed an action for unlawful detainer against LOURDES before the MTC of Davao. The
MTC immediately issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed by the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure.
[1] Choose the INCORRECT statement.

[a] All pleadings shall be verified [CORRECT]
[b] Permissive counterclaims are allowed [INCORRECT, compulsory only]*
[c] A patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the RSP is a ground for disciplinary
action. [CORRECT, Rule 38, Sec. 6]
[d] The Regular Rules may apply in a suppletory capacity [CORRECT]*
[2] Choose the INCORRECT statement. Upon the filing of the Complaint with the MTC:
[a] LOURDES may file a motion to dismiss within the period for filing an answer [INCORRECT]*
[b] It may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom [CORRECT]
[c] It may issue summons to LOURDES if no ground for dismissal is found [CORRECT, RRSP Sec. 4]
[d] It shall state in the summons that the RRSP shall apply [CORRECT]
[3] What happens if LOURDES fails to file an Answer?

[a] TERESITA may file a motion to declare LOURDES in default [INCORRECT, must be a motion
for immediate decision]
[b] The MTC may allow TERESITA to present evidence ex-parte [INCORRECT]
[c] The MTC shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint
[CORRECT, RRSP Sec. 6*]
[d] The MTC cannot reduce the amount of damages and attorney’s fees [INCORRECT]
[4] LOURDES filed his timely Answer. Choose the CORRECT statement.
[a] A preliminary conference shall be held not more than 30 days after LOURDES filed his Answer
[CORRECT, RRSP Sec. 7]*
[b] If LOURDES fails to appear during the preliminary conference, it shall be cause for dismissal of the
Complaint [INCORRECT, entitled to judgment on his counterclaim]*
[c] The MTC shall issue a preliminary conference order within 10 days from its termination
[INCORRECT, RRSP Sec. 8, 5 days only]
[d] Within 10 days from receipt of Pre-con Order, the MTC shall set the case for trial [INCORRECT,
RRSP Sec. 9, the parties shall submit their affidavits]
[5] The MTC ordered the parties to file their respective position papers within 10 days from receipt of the
Pre-con Order. LOURDES filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file the same. If you were the judge,
what would you do?
[a] Grant the motion. [no]
[b] Deny the motion [no]
[c] Ignore the motion [Yes, it is prohibited so it should be treated as a mere scrap of paper]*
[d] Continue with the trial [no]
[6] Both parties failed to file their respective position papers within the prescribed period. Choose the
INCORRECT statement.
[a] The MTC shall render judgment [CORRECT, RRSP Sec. 10]
[b] The MTC may call for a clarificatory hearing [INCORRECT, RRSP Sec. 10, not allowed if no
position papers]
[c] The MTC shall not resort to clarificatory procedure to gain time for the rendition of the judgment
[CORRECT, RRSP Sec. 10]
[d] No cross-examination will take place [CORRECT]
Page 17 of 31
[7] Choose what is NOT PROHIBITED under the RRSP.

[a] Motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
[PROHIBITED]
[b] Memoranda [PROHIBITED]
[c] Motion for reopening of trial [PROHIBITED]
[d] Petition for mandamus against the judgment of the MTC [NOT PROHIBITED, only interlocutory
order]*
[8] The MTC rendered judgment in favor of TERESITA. Choose the INCORRECT statement.
[a] LOURDES may appeal to the RTC [correct]
[b] The judgment is immediately executory [incorrect, from RTC RRSP, Sec. 21]*
[c] The judgment shall be stayed by a timely appeal [correct]
[d] The MTC will eventually lose jurisdiction [correct]
[9] Choose the INCORRECT statement. The Small Claims Rule:

[a] Only applies to civil cases [correct]
[b] Applies to actions for damages arising from culpa aquiliana [incorrect, SCR, Sec. 5]*
[c] Applies to actions for liquidated damages arising from a breach in a contract of carriage [correct]
[d] Applies to enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement involving a money claim pursuant to Sec.
417 of RA 7160 [correct]
[10] Choose the INCORRECT statement. Under the Small Claims Rule:
[a] All pleadings shall be verified [correct]
[b] The CNFS shall be signed by the plaintiff [correct]
[c] The complaint may be signed by the plaintiff or his counsel [incorrect, no lawyers allowed]*
[d] Joinder of claims is allowed [correct]
[11] Choose the INCORRECT statement. Under the Small Claims Rule:
[a] The MTC may motu proprio dismiss the case outright on any grounds for dismissal [correct]
[b] The order of dismissal shall be without prejudice [incorrect, RRSP Sec. 11, it shall state if with or
without]
[c] If, during the hearing, the MTC determines that there exists a ground for dismissal, it may, by itself,
dismiss the case even if such ground is not pleaded in the defendant’s Response. [correct]
[d] If plaintiff misrepresents that he is not engaged in the business of lending when in fact he is so engaged
– the Statement of Claim/s shall be dismissed with prejudice [correct]
[12] Choose the INCORRECT statement. Under the Small Claims Rule, if the case actually falls under the
RRSP:
[a] The MTC Small Claims judge shall motu proprio dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction [incorrect,
RRSP Sec. 11]*
[b] The case shall not be dismissed [correct, RRSP Sec. 11]
[c] The case shall be transferred to the regular MTC [correct]
[d] The plaintiff shall be liable for deficiency filing fees [correct]
[13] Choose the CORRECT statement. Under the Small Claims Rule, if the defendant fails to file his
Response within the required period, AND likewise fails to appear on the date set for hearing:
[a] The MTC shall declare the defendant in default [incorrect, RRSP Sec. 14]
[b] The MTC shall reset the hearing to a later date [incorrect, RRSP Sec. 14]
[c] The MTC shall dismiss the case [incorrect, RRSP Sec. 14]
[d] The MTC shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff [correct]*
[14] Choose the INCORRECT statement. Under the Small Claims Rule, a counterclaim is allowed:
[a] If its claim is within the coverage of the Small Claims Rule, inclusive of interests and costs [incorrect,
RRSP Sec. 15, exclusive]
[b] Even if it permissive [correct]
[c] If it does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third parties [correct]
[d] If it is not the subject of another pending action [correct]
Page 18 of 31
EVIDENCE
1. A buy bust operation was conducted in the house of AAA. P01 BBB conducted a body search. Inside
AAA’s pocket were the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box which contained a
plastic sachet of a white substance. P01 BBB took into custody the ₱500 bill, the plastic box with the
plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. While in the house, P01 BBB marked the
items seized. Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative from the media
and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking. The buy-bust team brought
AAA to the PDEA Regional Office, with P01 BBB in possession of the seized items. Upon arrival, an
inquest investigation was conducted. AAA now insists that the inquest was illegal as his arrest was
illegal. Do you agree?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. In the en banc case of People v. Lim [Sep 4, 2018] the Supreme Court
said: “Judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically
made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings.”
2. VVV was found dead in a ravine with a deep wound on his head.
Upon investigation SPO1 KKK reported that:

 A large green triangular shaped rock, the size of a fat man’s fist, was found around 500 meters
away from the crime scene.
 Blood, presumably that of VVV, was found at the sharp end of the rock.
 Fingerprints were also taken from the rock.
Is the blood found on the rock a unique or non-unique object? What about the rock itself?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: People v. Olarte [March 11, 2019]

The blood is non-unique.
Cannot be distinguished and is not readily identifiable, such as:
 Narcotic substances,
 Industrial chemicals, and
 Body fluids
Non-unique objects present an inherent problem of fungibility or substitutability and
contamination which adversely affects their relevance or probative value.
The rock is unique.

A unique object already exhibits identifiable visual or physical peculiarities, such as:
 A particular paint job or
 An accidental scratch, dent, cut, chip, disfigurement or stain
3. VVV was hit by a motorcycle driven by DDD. When VVV was brought to the hospital, a chest X-ray
was taken which showed that three [3] of VVV’s ribs were broken.
VVV filed an action for damages based on quasi-delict against DDD. VVV’s lawyer presented the
chest X-ray of VVV as documentary evidence.
If you were DDD’s lawyer, would you object to its presentation as documentary evidence?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Rule 130, Sec. 2. Documentary evidence.
Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing

letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent or other modes of written
expression offered as proof of their contents.
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos.
(2a)
Page 19 of 31
4. On September 16, 2021, PPP filed an action for damages based on breach of contract against DDD.
During the trial, CPP calls the plaintiff, PPP to the witness stand:
 CPP: “What is your cause of action against the defendant, DDD?”
 PPP: “On January 16, 2021, DDD borrowed my spare motorcycle for the purpose of using it
as a Food Panda delivery service. We agreed that after 6 months, he would buy the said
motorcycle from me for P150,000 after he earns enough money from Food Panda.”
 CPP: “What happened after 6 months?”
 PPP: “DDD told me that the motorcycle was stolen, and he could no longer buy it from me.”
 CPP: “Do you have any evidence that you and DDD entered into such kind of agreement?”
 PPP: “We have a handwritten agreement on a piece of paper which DDD signed. I cannot find
it, but I have a photograph thereof in my phone. Here is a printout of the photograph.”
 CDD: “Objection, your honor! Violative of the Original Document Rule,”
If you were the judge, will you sustain or overrule the objection? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will overrule the objection.
 The objection is improper.

 Rule 130, Sec. 4. Original of document. —
An “original” of a document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the
same effect by a person executing or issuing it.
A “duplicate” is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the
same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, …
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless
 [1] a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or [2] in the
circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.
 Here, the photograph is considered a duplicate which is admissible to the same extent as the
original.
5. A buy bust operation was conducted. AAA was arrested after he received the marked money from PPP
in exchange for 2 packets of shabu.
During the trial, PPP was presented by the prosecution.

 CPP: “What are the items that you seized from AAA during the buy bust operation?”
 PPP: “I seized 2 packets of shabu which he handed over as I gave him the marked money.”
 CPP: “Where are these items?”
 PPP: “Here are the two packets of shabu which I duly marked at the time of seizure. Here is a
photocopy of the marked money.”
 CAA: “Objection your honor, the best evidence is the original of the document!”
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will overrule the objection. The ODR only applies to documentary
evidence.
 The photocopy is real object evidence and not documentary evidence.
 Although it is conceded that the bills contain letters, words, numbers and other modes of written
expression, this fact alone does not make the bills documentary evidence.
 To be considered documentary evidence, the same must be offered as proof of their contents.
 The bills were presented to show that money exchanged hands in the illegal transaction.
 They are, therefore, real or object evidence.
6. On September 16, 2021, PPP filed an action for damages based on breach of contract against DDD.
PPP alleged in his Complaint that:

 On January 16, 2021, DDD borrowed PPP’s spare motorcycle for the purpose of using it as a Food
Panda delivery service.
Page 20 of 31
 On the same day, PPP and DDD entered into a written agreement which states that on July 16,
2021, DDD will pay PPP P150,000 for the motorcycle, after which PPP will execute the necessary
document to transfer ownership of the motorcycle to DDD.
 DDD did not comply with the provisions of the agreement and now claims that the motorcycle was
stolen.
DDD now insists that the agreement is incomplete, haphazardly made, and does not show the entire
agreement.
If you were the lawyer of DDD, what steps will you take to ensure a proper defense for DDD?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will follow the procedure laid down in Rule 130, Sec. 10 [Parol Evidence
Rule]
 I will put in issue in a verified pleading the terms of the written agreement or last will and
testament, he may present evidence to:
 Modify it,
 Explain it or
 Add to it
 The failure of the written agreement to express the true intent and agreement of the parties
thereto.
7. DDD and AAA were charged with Plunder for taking bribes by entering into anomalous contracts
involving face shields amounting to more than P5B.
DDD, a public official was charged before the Sandiganbayan, while AAA, a private citizen, was
charged before the RTC. AAA was convicted by the RTC.
During the trial of DDD before the Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman prosecutor filed a Motion praying
that the court issue an order to allow AAA, who was already incarcerated at the Bilibid Prison, to testify
against DDD.
DDD’s lawyer opposed the Motion on the ground that AAA is not qualified to be a witness against
DDD because:
1. He was already convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and
2. He will testify against AAA just to save himself.
If you were the judge, will you grant the Motion of the Ombudsman prosecutor? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes.

 Rule 130, Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications.
 All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may
be witnesses. (20a)
 Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless
otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (20)
8. WWW is the young 2nd wife of HHH. HHH has a 16-year-old son SSS, with his deceased first wife.
While HHH was away on a business trip, SSS tried to kill WWW while putting a pillow on her face
while she was asleep. His attempt proved to be futile.
During the trial of SSS for attempted murder, CAA, the lawyer of SSS called HHH to the witness stand.
 CAA: “Your honor, the testimony of this witness, HHH, is being offered to prove that the private
complainant, WWW regularly physically, verbally and emotionally abused his son, SSS, even in
front of him.”
 CPP: “Objection, your honor, the witness HHH is not qualified to testify against his wife, WWW
pursuant to the marital disqualification rule.”
 CAA: “Your honor, this situation falls under the 2nd exception of the marital disqualification rule!”
Page 21 of 31
Who is correct between CPP and CAA? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: CPP is correct.

 This falls under the general rule.
 Rule 130, Sec. 24 - Disqualification by Reason of Marriage
 General Rule – During their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot testify against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse
 Exception – Except in a:
 Civil case – by one against the other, or
 Criminal case for a crime committed by one spouse against:
 The other spouse, or
 The latter's direct descendants or ascendants
The criminal case is not against WWW. So it does not fall under exception # 2.
9. AAA was charged with the crime of murder. During pre-trial, plea bargaining occurred.
AAA made a judicial confession admitting to the crime of homicide and asked the prosecutor if he
could plead guilty to the crime of homicide instead. The prosecutor agreed and AAA was immediately
arraigned and entered a plea of guilty.
Later, the court received a motion from AAA to withdraw the plea of guilty. Hence, the court set the
case for pre-trial.
During the trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the TSN of the pre-trial wherein AAA judicially
confessed to the crime of homicide.
If you were CAA, the lawyer of AAA, what would you do? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will object to the admissibility of the TSN.

 A plea of guilty later withdrawn, or an unaccepted offer of a plea of guilty to lesser offense, is
not admissible in evidence against the accused who made the plea or offer.
 Neither is any statement made in the course of plea bargaining with the prosecution, which does
not result in a plea of guilty or which results in a plea of guilty later withdrawn, admissible.
10. PPP and GGG were owners of neighboring fishponds in Kabangkalan, Negros.
GGG’s property was adjacent to the river while PPP’s property was adjacent to that of GGG. Since
they were very good friends, GGG granted PPP an easement of aqueduct along his property to enable
PPP to collect water from the river. GGG even instructed his foreman, WWW, to show PPP and his
workers the most convenient location to place the aqueduct.
GGG suddenly died of COVID-19. GGG’s son, SSS who works in a call center in Davao City, took
over the management of the fishpond of GGG.
When SSS saw the aqueduct running through the property, he immediately blocked the flow of the
water thereof.
PPP filed an action against SSS asking the court to order the unblocking of the aqueduct.
During the trial, PPP presented WWW:

 CPP: “Your honor, the testimony of this witness is being offered to prove that SSS, the defendant
had no right to block the aqueduct in favor of PPP. WWW will testify that by his acts and
declarations, FFF voluntarily granted the easement of aqueduct to PPP.”
 CSS: “Objection your honor! Res inter alios acta!”
If you were the judge, would you sustain or overrule the objection? Explain.
Page 22 of 31
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will overrule. The testimony of WWW is admissible against SSS.
 Rule 130, Sec. 32. Admission by privies.
 Where one derives title to property from another, the latter’s act, declaration, or omission, in
relation to the property, is evidence against the former if done while the latter was holding the
title.
11. PPP and DDD were best friends. DDD’s restaurant suffered huge loses because of the COVID-19
pandemic. DDD borrowed P1M to put up a small face mask manufacturing factory.
Since they were best friends, the loan given by PPP to DDD was not reduced in writing.
Unfortunately, DDD died of COVID-19. However, his factory was doing well and is now being
managed by his son SSS. SSS is also the administrator of the estate of DDD.
PPP files a collection case against the estate of DDD.
During the trial, PPP testified that DDD borrowed P1M from him and promised to pay him when the
business started making money.
Is the testimony of PPP admissible against the estate of DDD? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Under Rule 130, Sec. 39

 Sec. 39. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind. –
 In an action against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person,
or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against the estate of such
deceased person or against such person of unsound mind, where a party, PPP testifies on a
matter of fact occurring before the death of DDD, any statement of DDD, may be received in
evidence,
o If the statement was made upon the personal knowledge of PPP
o At a time when the matter had been recently perceived by PPP and while his recollection was
clear.
 Such statement, however, is inadmissible if made under circumstances indicating its lack of
trustworthiness
12. HHH and BBB are brothers. HHH confided to BBB that he stole P10M from XXX Corporation, the
company he was working for. HHH then died.
Later, XXX Corporation filed a criminal case for estafa against AAA, the Chief Operating Officer of
XXX Corporation.
During the trial, BBB was called to the witness stand.

 CAA: “BBB, do you know the accused, AAA?”
 BBB: “No, I do not AAA, but I know that AAA also works in the company that HHH, my brother
worked for before he died.”
 CAA: “What do you know about the crime that AAA is being accused of?”
 BBB: “I know that AAA was not the person who stole the P10M from XXX Corporation.”
 CAA: “Really, why do you say so?”
 BBB: “Because, my brother, HHH, told me that he was the one who actually stole the P10M from
XXX Corporation.”
 CXX: “Objection, your honor! Hearsay!”
 CAA: “Your honor! This is a declaration against interest made by HHH!”
Page 23 of 31
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Sustain.

 Rule 130, Sec. 40. Declaration Against Interest
 When NOT Admissible
 General Rule – A statement involving a declaration against interest is not admissible when:
 It tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability, and
 It is offered to exculpate the accused
 Exception – Unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
statement.
13. A collision occurred in Diversion Road involving TTT [driving a Lamborghini Urus SUV] and DDD
[driving a delivery van].
Alleging the collision was caused by the negligence of DDD, TTT filed an action for damages based
on culpa aquiliana against DDD and his employer EEE, the owner of the trucking company.
TTT sought to recover the price of her brand-new Lamborghini Urus SUV which was given to her by
her sugar daddy, YHM.
During the trial, TTT tried to present in evidence a brochure for the Lamborghini Urus SUV which she
downloaded from the internet.
Is the brochure admissible in evidence as a commercial list? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Sec. 47 of Rule 130 - Requisites for Admissibility of Commercial Lists
and the Like
 The document presented in evidence must refer to statements of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation
 Such evidence is contained in a:
 List,
 Register,
 Periodical, or
 Other published compilation
 The list or compilation is:
 Published for use by persons engaged in that occupation, and
 Generally used and relied upon by them therein
14. On Jan 8, 2020, VVV filed a criminal case for Unfair Competition against AAA.
During the trial, WWW, witness for the prosecution testified, was cross-examined by AAA.
On May 8, 2020 – VVV filed a civil case for Unfair Competition against AAA, BBB and CCC.
The Special Commercial Court issued a subpoena requiring WWW requiring WWW to testify anew
for the plaintiff, VVV in the civil case. However, the sheriff who served the subpoena was informed
that WWW had already left for Dubai to work as an OFW.
During the scheduled trial VVV’s counsel presented the transcript of the WWW’s testimony in the
criminal case as evidence.
Is the transcript of the WWW’s testimony in the criminal case admissible in evidence in the civil
case? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, but only as against AAA.

Rule 130, Sec. 49 - Requisites for Admissibility of Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding
 The testimony or deposition being presented in evidence was given by a witness in a former case
or proceeding, judicial or administrative;
 The former case or proceeding was between the same parties;
 The former testimony relates to the same subject matter or issues;
 The adverse party has had opportunity to cross-examine the witness; and,
Page 24 of 31
 The witness is:

 Deceased
 Out of the Philippines,
 Cannot [with due diligence] be found in the Philippines,
 Unavailable, or
 Otherwise unable to testify
15. PPP was seriously injured while riding a taxi driven by DDD and owned by XXX Taxi Corporation.
PPP filed an action for damages based on culpa aquiliana against DDD and XXX Taxi Corporation.
GGG is the General Manager of XXX Taxi Corporation.
During the trial, CPP called GGG to the witness stand.

 CPP: “GGG, isn’t it true that all the taxis operated by your company are surplus units that have not
been approved by the LTFRB??”
 CXX: “Objection your honor! Leading!.”
If you were the judge, will you sustain or overrule the objection? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will overrule. The leading question is allowed.

Rule 132, Sec. 10. Leading and misleading questions. —
A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading
question. It is not allowed, except:
a) xx
b) xxx
c) xxx
d) xxx
e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party.
16. PPP is the owner of a hardware store. DDD is a building contractor who is a “suki” of DDD since 2010.
Instead of paying for his purchases in cash, DDD would issue a “purchase order”. A statement of
account would then be sent to DDD after 30 days from purchase, after which DDD would deposit the
payment in the bank account of PPP.
In 2018, PPP discovered that DDD failed to deposit payments amounting to over P2M. Despite repeated
demands, DDD failed to pay.
In 2020, PPP filed a collection case against DDD.
During the trial, CPP presented WWW:
 CPP: “How are you related to PPP?”

 WWW: “I am an employee at the hardware store of PPP.”
 CPP: “How long have you been working for PPP?”
 WWW: “Since 2010.”
 CPP: “WWW how much does DDD owe PPP?”
 PPP: “DDD owes PPP P2.4M.”
 CPP: “What is the basis of your statement that he owes PPP P2.4M?”
 PPP: “I have the delivery receipts and the statements of account issued to DDD.”
 CPP: “Who issued and signed said delivery receipts and the statements of account?”
 WWW: “They were all issued by XXX, my former colleague in the hardware store of PPP.”
 CPP: “Where is XXX now?”
 WWW: “She is now working as a nanny in Jordan.”
 CPP: “How do you know that it was XXX who issued them?”
 WWW: “At that time, XXX was the only one authorized by PPP to issue them.”
 CPP: “Did you see XXX issue the said documents?”
 WWW: “Not really.”
 CDD: “Objection, your honor! Hearsay!.”
 Judge: “Sustained.”
Page 25 of 31
Do you agree with the ruling of the court? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Must be overruled.

Three [3] Ways of Proving that a Particular Handwriting is the Handwriting of a Person:
 By any witness:
 Who believes it to be the handwriting of such person
 Because he or she has seen the person write, or
 By any witness who has seen writing purporting to be his or hers, upon which the witness:
 Has acted or been charged, and
 Has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.
 By a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings:
 Admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or,
 Proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
17. AAA, a Filipina nurse working in Reno, Nevada was granted a divorce by the Nevada court from BBB,
her American husband.
Now back in the Philippines, AAA wants to marry CCC. AAA approaches you with the following
documents:
1. Judgement of Final Divorce, issued by the Nevada court.
2. Nevada law on Divorce, printed in U.S.A Today, a newspaper of general circulation in the United
States of America.
AAA wants you to file a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment of Divorce before the Family
Court of Davao City.
What, as a lawyer, will you prepare before filing the action? Outline your answer in detail.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Have the 2nd one certified and authenticated.
Rule 132, Sec. 24. Proof of official record. —

The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any
purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or
convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty
or convention pursuant to paragraph [c] of Section 19, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the
form prescribed by such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to a treaty or
convention referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and
genuineness of the document involved, the certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention
between a foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the
document itself from this formality. (24a)
Page 26 of 31
18. Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, what are the three
[3] means of proving its authenticity?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Electronic Evidence Rule – Rule 5, Sec. 2

a. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the
same;
b. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by
the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document; or
c. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge
19. PPP was crossing the street when he was hit by a speeding taxi. PPP was seriously injured. PPP was
brought to the hospital and a CT scan was conducted immediately.
PPP filed an action for damages against DDD, the operator of the taxi. PPP presented in evidence the
print-out of the CT scan issued by the hospital.
Is the print-out excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Electronic Evidence Rule

Rule 8, Sec. 1 – As long as it is:
 Made at or near the time of or from transmission by a person with knowledge thereof, and
 Kept in the regular course or conduct of a business activity, and
 Such was the regular practice of making the report by electronic means,
 All of which are shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witnesses,
20. AAA was convicted of Rape with Homicide and was sentenced to suffer a penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
The victim, VVV, gave birth to a son, SSS, a few months after the alleged rape took place.
Twenty years later, SSS, trying to find his biological father, approached you.
SSS wants to take a biological sample from AAA, now incarcerated at the Davao Penal Colony, for
purposes of post-conviction DNA testing.
How will you advice SSS? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Not applicable.

DNA Evidence Rule
Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. –
Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the prosecution
or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists,
(b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or
modification of the judgment of conviction.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
1. Distinguish between an ordinary civil action from a special proceedings.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:The main point of differentiation between a civil action and a special
proceeding is that in the former, a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right
which the party claims he/she is entitled to, such as when a party-litigant seeks to recover property
from another, while in the latter, a party merely seeks to have a right established in his/her favor.
Page 27 of 31
2. X and Y used to be lovers. Y, however, discovered that X had a sexual encounter with Z, which
was recorded in X’s cellphone. Y accessed the latter’s phone and copied the video into her phone.
She utilized said video as evidence in filing criminal and administrative complaints against X. X
filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data claiming that the video would somehow
find its way to Twitter or Pornhub and destroy his and Z’s lives. Y argues, however, that the Writ
of Habeas Data will not issue unless there are extralegal killings or enforced disappearances.
Rule on Y’s argument.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Y is wrong. The Writ of Habeas Data may also be availed of in cases
outside of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data provides:
Sec. 2. Who May File. – Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas
data. However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition
may be filed by: x x x
Had the framers of the Rule intended to narrow the operation of the writ only to cases of extralegal
killings or enforced disappearances, the above underscored portion of Section 2, reflecting a
variance of habeas data situations, would not have been made. Habeas data, to stress, was designed
"to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age." As such, it is erroneous to
limit its applicability to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances only.
3. X claims that his name is included in what is alleged to be an Order of Battle List (OB List) of the
Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division, which is a list of people supposedly connected to the
New People's Army. X asserts that the OB List is a military hit-list. He filed before the Regional
Trial Court a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo. Rule on the Petition.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Petition should be denied. The mere inclusion of one’s name in the
OB List is not substantial evidence to prove an actual threat to one’s right to life, liberty and
security.
LEGAL ETHICS
Police Officer Eduardo Lagumbay flagged down a 1969 Mustang Grande driven by Mr. Stephen Don
because he committed an illegal left turn. Mr. Don believed that he did not commit the alleged traffic
violation. Consequently, a heated argument transpired between Police Officer Lagumbay. Eventually, the
argument between Mr. Don and Police Officer Lagumbay turned into a fist fight. Both suffered minor
injuries.
Mr. Don went to his lawyer Atty. Dan Cruz to assist him in filing several cases against the Police Officer.
He wanted to file a criminal compliant against Police Officer Lagumbay before the City Prosecution Office.
Mr. Don also wanted to raise complaint against the Police Officer before the Commission on Human Rights
in order to secure a recommendation for possible violation of Human Rights. Finally, Mr. Don wanted to
file a case against Police Officer Lagumbay before the Ombudsman for grave misconduct. If you were
Atty. Dan Cruz can you assist Mr. Don in filing all the cases against Police Officer Lagumbay without
violating the Canons the Code of Professional Responsibility? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Atty. Dan Cruz may assist Mr. Don in filing all three cases against
Eduardo Lagumbay. Under the Rule 12.02, of the CPR – A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising
from the same cause. Such provision does not apply in this case. The cases that Mr. Don intends to file
does not arise from the same cause.
The case to be filed before the City Prosecution Office is criminal in nature, the case to be filed before
the OMB is administrative, and the one to be filed before the CHR is merely for recommendation, thus,
forum shopping does not apply to cases filed before the CHR.
Page 28 of 31
II
Atty. Jun P. Val-Don is a practicing lawyer and passionate musician. He wanted to buy the Fender Mustang
actually used and owned his late idol, Kurt Cobain. Kurt Cobain was the frontman/lead guitarist of the
greatest band ever – Nirvana. Kurt’s guitar costs P1,000,000.00. Atty. Val-Don desperately wants to
become like Kurt Cobain, but he does not have the money to purchase the guitar. So, he borrowed
P1,000,000.00 from Michelle, a beautiful bank manager from Good-Hands Bank. Atty. Val-Don’s loan is
payable in four equal monthly installments with interest at P100,000.00 per month until fully paid.
Atty. Val-Don issued four post-dated checks in favor of Michelle to cover and ensure the payment of the
loan and interest. Considering that Atty. Val-Don has been known to be a member in good standing of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Michelle accepted the post-dated checks. Upon maturity of the checks,
Michelle presented them for payment. However, the checks "bounced" for being drawn against insufficient
funds. Michelle then attempted to encash the checks for a second time. However, the checks were
dishonored because the account was closed.
Michelle sent a notice of dishonor with demand for payment to Atty. Val-Don. The notice was personally
received by Atty. Val-Don. However, he failed to settle his obligations within the period given in the notice.
This prompted Michelle to file a complaint against Atty. Val-Don for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
The City Prosecutor’s Office found probable cause for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. An Information
was then filed before the MTC against Atty. Val-Don. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the
trial court.
During the pendency of the criminal case, Michelle instituted an administrative case against Atty. Val-Don
praying for his disbarment and/or suspension for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
lawyers. The administrative case was based on the issuance of worthless check committed by Atty. Val-
Don. In his defense, Atty. Val-Don argued that the filing of the administrative complaint was premature in
view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings. He further argued that if the criminal case be dismissed,
the administrative case becomes moot.
a. What is moral turpitude?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general.
b. Decide the administrative case against Atty. Val-Don.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Atty. Val-Don committed serious misconduct and should be held
administratively liable for the issuance and dishonor of worthless checks in violation of the
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Atty. Val-Don’s defense of pendency of the B.P. Blg. 22 case is untenable. Conviction of the
criminal charges raised against him is not essential, so far as the disbarment charge against him
is concerned. The issue to be resolved in disbarment case is whether the lawyer is still fit to
continue to practice the legal profession.
In this case, the mere issuance of the checks when he did not have enough money in his bank
account to cover the total amount constitutes serious misconduct on the part of a member of the
Bar.
c. Assume that Jun P. Val-Don is a bar applicant. Michelle opposed the Val-Don’s petition to
take the bar examination for issuing the worthless checks, while Val-Don raised the same
defenses (as above stated). Should Val-Don’s petition be granted or denied? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The petition of Jun P. Val-Don must be denied. Among the
qualifications of a Bar candidate are (1) No charges involving moral turpitude, filed or pending
in any courts of the Philippines and (2) Of good moral character.
Page 29 of 31
In this case, the issuance of worthless checks committed by Jun P. Val-Don adversely affects the
moral character of Mr. Val-Don. Moreover, jurisprudence provides that the issuance of
worthless check constitutes moral turpitude. Hence, the pendency of the charge of Violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 against Mr. Val-Don is a ground to deny his petition.
III
Atty. Jayvee L. Atilaph previously worked as Clerk of Court in a particular Branch of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Davao City. He resigned from his position effective 31 December 2019. Thereafter, she
engaged in the private practice of law. Within one year from her retirement, she appeared as counsel in
several cases before that Branch of RTC where she used to work as Clerk of Court.
Within 1 year from his resignation and four appearances in the above-mentioned branch of the RTC, Atty.
Atilaph sent a letter-query to the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court. In her letter-
query, he posed these questions relating to Section 7 (b)(2) and the last paragraph of the same sof R.A.
6713, as amended or the or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
"Why may an incumbent government official engage in private practice of law when
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to
conflict with their official functions. But a non-incumbent like himself cannot engage in
private practice of law for a period of one year after the public official or employee’s
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office with respect to any matter before the
office the public officer or employee used to work with. Why is the former allowed, who is
still occupying the very public position that he is liable to exploit, but a non-incumbent like
himself – who is no longer in a position of possible abuse/exploitation – cannot?"
a. If you are the one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, how would you resolve the query of
Atty. Jayvee L. Atilaph?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Section 7 prohibitions continue to apply for a period of one year
after the public official or employee’s resignation, retirement, or separation from public office.
The one-year prohibited period applies with respect to any matter before the office the public
officer or employee used to work with.
The Section 7 prohibitions are predicated on the principle that public office is a public trust; and
serve to remove any impropriety, real or imagined, which may occur in government transactions
between a former government official or employee and his or her former colleagues,
subordinates or superiors. The prohibitions also promote the observance and the efficient use of
every moment of the prescribed office hours to serve the public.
It must be noted that incumbent government official may engage in private practice, they must
secure an authority to practice. Their practice will be limited by the scope of such authority.
Before this authority is granted, the issuing authority sees to it that the lawyer will not be
harboring conflict of interest.
Under both provisions, a common objective is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the
employee who may wittingly or unwittingly use confidential information acquired from his
employment, or use his or her familiarity with court personnel still with the previous office.
b. Rule on the propriety of Atty. Jayvee L. Atilaph’s appearance before the RTC branch where
she used to work as Clerk of Court.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Atty. Atilaphs appearance, before the very same branch she served
and immediately after her resignation, is a violation of the both RA. 6713 and Canon. We note
that at the time he filed his letter-query he had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least
three (3) cases.
Page 30 of 31
The terms of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 did not deter her in any way and her misgivings
about the fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she committed. In other
words, she took the risk of appearing before her own Branch and should suffer the consequences
of the risk she took.
IV
a. May a Filipino who lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in the Philippines? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because Philippine Citizenship is a continuing requirement for

the practice of law.
b. Cite exception/s to your answer in (a), if any. Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: When the lawyer who lost his Philippine Citizenship reacquires the
same pursuant to R.A. 9225.
c. What is the sanction for violating the rule against forum shopping?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: It shall cause the dismissal of both actions and contempt and
administrative charge to the party and counsel.
d. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to
practice law. What are the exceptions to this rule?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter's
death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified
in the agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan even if the
plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing agreement.
VI
The Director of the Philippine Patent Office (PPO) issued a circular announcing that before a lawyer be
qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the PPO, they must take and pass the examination given by
the said office for that purpose. The said examination covers patent law and jurisprudence and the rules of
practice before said office. The reason for requiring such examination is that the prosecution of patent cases
does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical
knowledge and training. That, as a matter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases may be handled
not only by lawyers, but also engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training
who pass the prescribed examinations as given by the Patent Office. Is the action of the Director proper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action of the director is not proper.
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice
of law in the Philippines and to any member of the Philippine Bar in good standing may practice law
anywhere and before any entity, whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the Philippines.
In this case, considering that the appearance before the PPO constitutes practice of law, therefore the
director has no authority to impose rules and regulations that limits, regulates or restrict the practice of
law.
Page 31 of 31

PROCEDURE &amp; PROFESSIONAL ETHICS - AdDU Bar Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROCEDURE &amp; PROFESSIONAL ETHICS - AdDU Bar Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aat ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIV ERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

PROCEDURE AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

B. What happens if a compulsory counterclaim is not properly interposed? Is there a possibility

SUGGESTED ANSWER: As a general rule, a compulsory counterclaim must be interposed in

1. The filing of an Answer is considered as voluntary appearance. Based on several jurisprudence,

SUGGESTED ANSWER: It depends.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, extraterritorial service of summons cannot be effected upon

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, under the rule on joinder of causes of action.

B. Can BPI refuse to comply on the grounds that it cited?

A. Discuss the remedy of terceria.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: If the property levied by virtue of a writ of execution is claimed by a

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will file a motion to render judgment on the pleadings.

Rule on DBP’s Motion/Application to Call on Plaintiff's Surety Bond.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will deny the Motion/Application.

a. Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:The felony of killing someone, either Homicide or Murder, is punishable

a. Under Section 7, Rule 112:

RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE & SMALL CLAIMS

[1] Choose the INCORRECT statement.

[3] What happens if LOURDES fails to file an Answer?

[7] Choose what is NOT PROHIBITED under the RRSP.

[9] Choose the INCORRECT statement. The Small Claims Rule:

Upon investigation SPO1 KKK reported that:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: People v. Olarte [March 11, 2019]

The rock is unique.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Rule 130, Sec. 2. Documentary evidence.

Documents as evidence consist of writings, recordings, photographs or any material containing

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will overrule the objection.

 The objection is improper.

During the trial, PPP was presented by the prosecution.

PPP alleged in his Complaint that:

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes.

Who is correct between CPP and CAA? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: CPP is correct.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will object to the admissibility of the TSN.

During the trial, PPP presented WWW:

PPP files a collection case against the estate of DDD.

Is the testimony of PPP admissible against the estate of DDD? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Under Rule 130, Sec. 39

During the trial, BBB was called to the witness stand.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Sustain.

Is the brochure admissible in evidence as a commercial list? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, but only as against AAA.

 The witness is:

GGG is the General Manager of XXX Taxi Corporation.

During the trial, CPP called GGG to the witness stand.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will overrule. The leading question is allowed.

In 2020, PPP filed a collection case against DDD.

During the trial, CPP presented WWW:

 CPP: “How are you related to PPP?”

Do you agree with the ruling of the court? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Must be overruled.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Have the 2nd one certified and authenticated.

Rule 132, Sec. 24. Proof of official record. —

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Electronic Evidence Rule – Rule 5, Sec. 2

Is the print-out excepted from the rule on hearsay evidence? Explain

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Electronic Evidence Rule

How will you advice SSS? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Not applicable.

1. Distinguish between an ordinary civil action from a special proceedings.

a. What is moral turpitude?

b. Decide the administrative case against Atty. Val-Don.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because Philippine Citizenship is a continuing requirement for

b. Cite exception/s to your answer in (a), if any. Explain.

PROCEDURE & PROFESSIONAL ETHICS - AdDU Bar Notes

PROCEDURE & PROFESSIONAL ETHICS - AdDU Bar Notes