PRE-WEEK AND LAST MINUTE

NOTES AND CASES IN

REMEDIAL LAW
IN
(1) GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(2) CIVIL PROCEDURE
(3) PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
(4) SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
(5) APPELLATE PRACTICE, PROCEDURE IN THE
CA, CTA, AND THE SC
(6) APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES: MODES OF
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
ORDERS OF VARIOUS COURTS/TRIBUNALS
(7) PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES
(8) PROCEDURE IN THE CA
(9) PROCEDURE IN THE SC

FOR THE
2022 BAR EXAMINATION
BY:
DEAN SALVADOR N. MOYA II, Ll.M., DCL
Founding Dean, Tomas Claudio Colleges, College of Law, Morong, Rizal
Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law Firm
MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy
Bar Reviewer [Legal EDGE Review Center, Villasis Law Center, Powerhaus Review
Center, Recoletos Law Center, Magnificus Juris Reviews and Seminars Inc., UP Law
Center, University of Cebu, Albano Review Center, PUP Bar Review Center, University
of San Jose Recoletos-Cebu]
Author [The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Notes and Cases (2017); The Revised
Guidelines on Continuous Trial in Criminal Cases in Relation to The 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure (2018); Bar Notes and Cases in Remedial Law (2018); Bar Notes
and Cases in Criminal Law, 2018 & 2019; Notes and Cases in Remedial Law (Volumes
I-IV), 2019; Notes and Cases in Civil Procedure (Volumes I, II & IV), 2020; Notes and
Cases in Remedial Law, Volume IV (Evidence), 2020; Notes and Cases in Civil
Procedure (Volume III), 2021; Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law (Volumes I-IV), 2021]
Professor in Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Spec. Pro., Remedial Law
Review I & II, and Criminal Law [TCC-COL, TSU-SOL, NEU-COL, SSCR-COL, UE-COL,
BulSU-COL, UP-COL, PUP-COL, JOHN WESLEY-SOL]
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1Q. Explain the doctrine of Stare decisis et non quieta movere.

1A. The doctrine enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in
subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine is based on the principle that once a question of law has
been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.1 (Umali vs. JBC,
G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.][The wordings of Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution are to be considered as indicative of the final intent of its Framers, that is, for Congress as a whole to
only have one representative to sit in the JBC.][This has been ruled upon by the SC in Chavez v. Judicial and Bar
Council (G.R. No. 202242, 16 April 2013)](Art. 8, Civil Code).

2Q. When is an issue considered moot and academic?

2A. An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a
declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. [Dangerous Drugs Bord vs. Matibag (G.R. No.
210013, 22 January 2020)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]; PADPAO vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 223505, 3 October
2017)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.]; Umali vs. JBC (G.R. No. 228628, 25 July 2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.].]

3Q. When can the court still decide cases even if it is already moot and academic?

3A. The Court will decide cases, otherwise moot, if the following requisites are present:

first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;

second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved;

third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the
bench, the bar, and the public; and

fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.2 (In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of
Writ of Habeas Corpus with Petition for Relief (IBP Pangasinan Legal Aid and Jay-Ar R. Senin vs. DOJ,
PPOBJMP and PNP, G.R. No. 232413, 25 July 2017)(En Banc)[Mendoza, J.].

4Q. What is the law of the case doctrine? Explain.

4A. It means that as a general rule, a decision on a prior appeal of the same case is held to be the law of the
case whether that question is right or wrong, the remedy of the party deeming himself aggrieved being to seek a
rehearing."3 [PPA vs. Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (G.R. No. 214864, 22 March
2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Sps. Garcia vs. Santos (G.R. No. 228334, 17 June 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.].

1 Tala Realty Services Corp. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 132051, 359 SCRA 469 (25 June 2001).
2 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), G.R. Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301 &
G.R. No. 209430 (Resolution), July 26, 2016.
3 Heirs of Felino M. Timbol, Jr. v. Philippine National Bank G.R. No. 207408, April 18, 2016.
1
 2

5Q. What does the requirement that the matter at issue must be decided en banc? Explain.

5A. It means that it reaches a decision as a collegial body, and not necessarily, as an entire body.

The Supreme Court had interpreted the provisions in the Securities Regulation Code, which state that only the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) en banc can adopt rules and regulations and can issue opinions, to mean
that any opinion of individual Commissioners or SEC legal officers does not constitute a rule or regulation of
the SEC and is ultra vires.4 (DFA vs. COA, 194530, 7 July 2020)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

6Q. What are the requisites before the Supreme Court can entertain questions involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act?

6A. The requisites are as follows:

(a) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power;

(b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject act or
issuance;

(c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and

(d) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.5 (Ocampo, et al. vs. Enriquez,
et al., G.R. No. 225973, 8 November 2016)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.](Whether President Duterte's
determination to have the remains of former President Marcos interred at the LNMB poses a justiciable
controversy).

SUBSTANTIVE LAW VS. REMEDIAL LAW

7Q. What is the concept of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? Explain.

7A. It means that: "Recourse through court action, as a general rule, cannot prosper until all the remedies
have been exhausted at the administrative level."6 (Colmenares, et al. vs. ERC, G.R. No. 210245 and 210255,
210502, 3 August 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez, J., J.]. 7

8Q. What are the exceptions to the doctrines of primary jurisdiction or exhaustion of administrative
remedies?

8A. The exceptions are as follows:

(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;

(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;

(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;

4 Gamboa v. Teves, 696 Phil. 276 (2012); FASAP v. PAL, G.R. No. 178083, March 13,2018.
5 Belgica, et al., v. Han. Exec. Sec. Ochoa, Jr., 721 Phil. 416, 518-519 (2013).
6 Rosales v. Court of Appeals, 247-A Phil. 437, 443-444 (I 988).
7 See also Mangune, et al. vs. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 182604, 27 September 2016)(En Banc)[Jardeleza, J.]; Mangune et al. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 182604, 27
September 2016)(En Banc)[Jardeleza, J. - Constitutionality of E.O. No. 567[Devolving the Taguig-Pateros District Hospital from the DOH to the City of Taguig)
of PGMA was upheld);(Mohammad vs. Belgado-Sequeton, G.R. No. 193584, 12 July 2016)(En Banc)[Sereno, C.J.].
 3

(d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;

(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice;

(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;

(g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage;

(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;

(i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;

(j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

(k) when strong public interest is involved; and,

(1) in quo warranto proceedings.8 [The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. et al. vs. Heirs of
Mariano Marcos (G.R. No. 225971, 17 June 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Marzan vs. City Government of
Olongapo (G.R. No. 232769, 3 November 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].]

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT

9Q. What is judicial power?

9A. Under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution:

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice not only "to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable," but also "to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Calleja, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No.
252578, etc., 7 December 2021)(En Banc)[Carandang, J.].

10Q. Is a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court proper to review/
prohibit/nullify the acts of legislative and the executive branches of the government? Explain.

10A. Yes. These writs may be issued to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the Government, even if it does not
exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.9 (Yaphockun, et al. vs. PRC, G.R. No. 213314, 23 March
2021)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.][Challenge the validity of Section 3(h), Rule I of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9646, promulgated by PRC and Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate
Service (PRBRES)].

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY

11Q. Explain the principle of the judicial hierarchy of courts.

8 As enumerated in Republic v. Lacap, 546 Phil. 87, 97-98 (2007). Citations omitted. One of the earlier cases that compiled the list of exceptions to the doctrine
of exhaustion of administrative remedies is Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Judge Abad, 283 Phil. 400 (2007). Included in the exceptions enumerated in
Sunville is when the subject of the controversy is private land. Lacap included more grounds when it considered grounds (c), (h), and (i); (Bayan Muna
Representatives Colmenares et al. vs. ERC, G.R. No. 210245 and 210255, 210502, 3 August 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez, J., J.]
9 Araullo v. Pres. Aquino III 737 Phil. 457 (2014).
 4

11A. The doctrine of the hierarchy of courts dictates that, direct recourse to the Supreme Court is
allowed only to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or
transcendental importance of the action. This doctrine is not mere policy, rather, it is a constitutional
filtering mechanism designed to enable the Court to focus on the more fundamental and essential tasks
assigned to it by the highest law of the land. [Nepomuceno vs. Duterte (UDK No. 16838, 11 May 2021)(En
Banc)[Lopez, J., J.]; Aala, et al. vs. Uy, et al., G.R. No. 202781, 10 January 2017)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.].

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE/JUDICIAL STABILITY

12Q. What is the applicability of the doctrine of non-interference vis-a-vis the Office of the
Ombudsman? Explain.

12A. The Supreme Court, generally, does not interfere with the Ombudsman's findings as to whether
probable cause exists,10 except: When the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in the exercise
of its function. Grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of its functions means a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned, which is equivalent to an excess or lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.11 (Macasil vs. FAIO-COA, et al., G.R.
No. 226898, 11 May 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez, M., J.].

JURISDICTION

13Q. What is jurisdiction? Explain.

13A. Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In
order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire,
among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the
power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by
law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by the erroneous belief of the court that it
exists.12 (Montero vs. Montero, Jr., G.R. No. 217755, 18 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

14Q. Can the issue of jurisdiction be raised anytime?

14A. Yes. Whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action
shall be dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time, during appeal or even after final judgment. Such is
understandable, as this kind of jurisdiction is conferred by law and not within the courts, let alone the parties, to
themselves determine or conveniently set aside.13

Further, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss
the action as any act that it performs without jurisdiction shall be null and void, and without any binding
legal effects.14 (MR Holdings, Inc. vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 217837, 4 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa,
J.].

15Q. As a rule jurisdiction can be raised at any time and even on appeal. When is the doctrine of
estoppel by laches find an application?
10 Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, 687 Phil. 468, 475-476 (2012)
11 Gov. Garcia, Jr. v, Office of the Ombudsman, 747 Phil. 445, 458 (2014).
12 Foronda-Crystal v. Son, G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 280, 288-289; (Dayrit vs. Norquillas, et al., G.R. No. 201631, 7 December 2021)(En
Banc)[Hernando, J.]; Colmenares et al. vs. ERC, G.R. No. 210245 and 210255, 210502, 3 August 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez, J., J.].
13 Machado v. Gatdula,626 Phil. 457 (2010).
14 Bilag v. Ay-ay,, 809 Phil. 236 (2017).
 5

15A. The doctrine of estoppel by laches finds application when the following exceptional circumstances
are present:

i) the existence of a statutory right in favor of the claimant;

ii) the non-invocation of such statutory right;

iii) the lapse of an unreasonable length of time before the claimant raised the issue of jurisdiction;
and

iv) the active participation of the claimant in the case.15

Therefore, in assessing whether the party have waived their right to question the jurisdiction of the court,
the circumstances of the case must be compared to the circumstance’s attendant in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy
131 Phil. 556 (1968), as summarized in Amoguis v. Ballado, supra.

It is only when the circumstances in Tijam are present that a waiver or an estoppel in questioning
jurisdiction is appreciated. (Sps. Ramonte vs. Sps. Lucero, G.R. No. 237812, 2 October 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.](Petitioner waited for 28 years before the issue of jurisdiction was raised).

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS PHILIPPINE COURTS [ORIGIN OF THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE
SUPREME COURT]

16Q. What is the origin of the direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over the
issuance of extraordinary writs?

16A. Direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over the issuance of extraordinary writs
started in 1936 with Angara vs. Electoral Commission.16 Angara is the first case directly filed before the Supreme
Court after the 1935 Constitution took effect on November 15, 1935. It is the quintessential example of a valid direct
recourse to the Supreme Court on constitutional questions.

Angara was an original petition for prohibition seeking to restrain the Electoral Commission from taking further
cognizance of an election contest led against an elected and confirmed member of the National Assembly. The main
issue before the High Court involved the question of whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the Electoral
Commission and the subject matter of the controversy.17

The High Court took cognizance of the petition, ruling foremost that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over
the case by virtue of its "power of judicial review under the Constitution." (Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, G.R. No.
217158, 12 March 2019)(En Banc)[Jardeleza, J.].

17Q. Under the expanded power of judicial review, are political questions beyond its scope? Explain.

17A. No. The power of judicial review has since been strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. The scope of that
power has been extended to the determination of whether in matters traditionally considered to be within the
sphere of appreciation of another branch of government, an exercise of discretion has been attended with grave

15 Amoguis v. Ballado G.R. No. 189626, August 20, 2018.

16 3 Phil. 139 (1936).
17 Angara averred that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case because it involves the interpretation of the Constitution. The Solicitor General,
appearing on behalf of the Electoral Commission, asserted that the Electoral Commission cannot be the subject of a writ of prohibition because it is not an
inferior tribunal, corporation, or person within the purview of Sections 226 and 516 of the 1901 Rules. Pedro Ynsua raised the same argument. Id. at 153-
155.
 6

abuse.18 The expansion of this power has made the political question doctrine "no longer the insurmountable
obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions
from judicial inquiry or review."19

18Q. When was the doctrine of transcendental importance first used by the Highest Court?

18A. Transcendental importance" was first used in the 1949 case of Araneta vs. Dinglasan.20 Araneta
involved five consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court assailing the validity of the President's orders issued
pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 671, or "An Act Declaring a State of Total Emergency as a Result of War Involving
the Philippines and Authorizing the President to Promulgate Rules and Regulations to Meet such Emergency." (Gios-
Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, supra).

In overruling the objection to the personality or sufficiency of the interest of petitioners in bringing the actions
as taxpayers, the Supreme Court declared that "above all, the transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure." Thus,
and similar with Angara, direct recourse to the Supreme Court in Araneta is justified because the issue to be resolved
there was one of law; there was no dispute as to any underlying fact. Araneta has since then been followed by a
myriad of cases21 where transcendental importance was cited as basis for setting aside objections on legal standing.

It was in Chavez vs. PEA22 when, for the first time, it appeared that the transcendental importance
doctrine could, apart from its original purpose to overcome objections to standing, stand as a justification
for disregarding the proscription against direct recourse to the Supreme Court. Chavez is an original action for
mandamus filed before the Supreme Court against the PEA. There, the petition sought, among others, to compel the
PEA to disclose all facts on the PEA's then on-going renegotiations to reclaim portions of Manila Bay.

The High Court took cognizance of the mandamus case for being under its original jurisdiction and the issue
was of transcendental importance to the public.

18 Gutierrez vs. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, supra; Francisco vs. House of Representatives, supra; Tanada vs. Angara, 338 Phil. 546 (1997);
Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 (30 July 1993), citing Llamas vs. Orbos, 279 Phil. 920 (1991); Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
(20 November 1991); Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 (19 November 1990); Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 (12 July 1990); Daza vs. Singson, 259
Phil. 980 (1989); and I RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, 434-436 (1986).
19 Oposa vs. Factoran, supra. See also Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (CoTeSCUP), et al. vs. President Benigno
Simeon C. Aquino III, Dept. of Education Secretary Br. Armin Luistro, G.R. No. 216930 (9 October 2018)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].
20 84 Phil. 368 (1949); In Aguinaldo et al. Aquino III, G.R. No. 224302 (29 November 2016)(En Banc)[Leonardo-De Castro, J.], the High Court held: Thus, the
Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of
"transcendental importance." Pertinent are the following cases:
(1) Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority, where the Court ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the equitable
diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi;
(2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan vs. Zamora, wherein the Court held that "given the transcendental importance of the issues involved, the Court may
relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the parties seeking judicial review" of the Visiting Forces
Agreement;
(3) Lim vs. Executive Secretary, while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that
"Balikatan 02-01" involves the exercise of Congress' taxing or spending powers, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan vs. Zamora, that in
cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed.
21 See SJS Officers vs. Lim, 742 SCRA 1 (25 November 2014); Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, 637 SCRA 78 (7 December 2010); Chavez vs.
Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441 (15 February 2008); Automotive Industry Workers Alliance (AIWA) vs. Romulo, 449 SCRA 1 (18 January 2005); Bayan (Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan) vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449 (10 October 2000); IBP vs. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (15 August 2000); Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA
789 (20 October 1992); Solicitor General vs. Metropolitan Manila Authority, 204 SCRA 837 (11 December 1991); Osmeña vs. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 750 (30
July 1991); Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (14 July 1989); Gonzales vs. COMELEC,
27 SCRA 835 (18 April 1969); Padilla vs. Congress, G.R. No. 231671 (25 July 2017); Ocampo vs. Mendoza, 816 SCRA 300 (31 January 2017); Intellectual
Property Association of the Philippines vs. Ochoa, 797 SCRA 134 (19 July 2016); Funa vs. Manila Economic & Cultural Office, 715 SCRA 247 (4 February
2014); Liberal Party vs. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 393 (6 May 2010); Guingona, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 620 SCRA 448 (6 May 2010); Francisco, Jr. vs. Desierto, 602 SCRA
50 (2 October 2009); SJS vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410 (3 November 2008); Province North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), supra; Lim vs. Executive Secretary, 380 SCRA 739 (11 April 2002); Matibag vs. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49
(2 April 2002); Nazareno vs. CA, 378 SCRA 28 (27 February 2002); and De Guia vs. COMELEC, 208 SCRA 420 (6 May 1992).
22 384 SCRA 152 (9 July 2002).
 7

19Q. When was the dictum that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts first appeared in our
jurisprudence?

19A. It first appeared in the 1974 case of Chemplex (Philippines) Inc. vs. Pamatian.23 Chemplex involved
a petition for certiorari against an order recognizing the validity and legitimacy of the election of directors on the
board of a private corporation. In his concurrence to the majority decision dismissing the petition, Chief Justice
Querube Makalintal wrote:

This Court is not a trier of facts, and it is beyond its function to make its own findings of certain vital
facts different from those of the trial court, especially on the basis of the conflicting claims of the parties
and without the evidence being properly before it. For this Court to make such factual conclusions is
entirely unjustified- first, because if material facts are controverted, as in this case, and they are issues
being litigated before the lower court, the petition for certiorari would not be in aid of the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court; and, secondly, because it preempts the primary function of the lower court,
namely, to try the case on the merits, receive all the evidence to be presented by the parties, and only then
come to a definite decision, including either the maintenance or the discharge of the preliminary injunction
it has issued.24

Up to this date, the requirement of alleging facts with certainty remains in Sections 1 to 3 of Rule 65 of the
amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Also in the Supreme Court’s limitations, decreed in Section 2, Rule 3 of its
Internal Rules.25 (Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. DOTC, supra.)

20Q. What is the jurisdiction of the SC under the third paragraph of Section 18, Art. VII and Sections 1
and 5, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution? Explain.

20A. In Lagman,26 the Supreme Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under the third paragraph of Section
18, Article VII is special and specific, different from those enumerated in Sections 127 and 528 of Article VIII. It was
further stressed therein that the standard of review in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has
committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his or her
functions, whereas under Section 18, Article VII, the Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of

23 57 SCRA 408 (25 June 1974).

24 See also Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139 (25 March 1976).
25 Administrative Matter No. 10-4-20-SC (4 May 2010).
26 G.R. No. 231658 (4 July 2017); (G.R. No. 236061), pp. 595-597.
27 SECTION I. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
28 SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission
to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
 8

the President's exercise of emergency powers. Hence, the Court concluded that a petition for certiorari pursuant to
Section 1 or Section 5 of Article VIII is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It was held that to apply
the standard of review in a petition for certiorari will emasculate the Court's constitutional task under Section 18,
Article VII, which was precisely meant to provide an additional safeguard against possible martial law abuse and
limit the extent of the powers of the Commander-in-Chief. (Lagman vs. Pimentel III, 854 SCRA 184, 6 February
2018)(En Banc)[Tijam J.].

21Q. Can the Ombudsman’s independence be invoked in order to insulate it from the judicial power of
the courts?

21A. No. The concept of the Ombudsman’s independence cannot be invoked as a basis to insulate the
Ombudsman from judicial power constitutionally vested unto the courts. Courts are apolitical bodies, which are
ordained to act as impartial tribunals and apply even justice to all. Hence, the Ombudsman's notion that it can be
exempt from an incident of judicial power - that is, a provisional writ of injunction against a preventive suspension
order - clearly strays from the concept's rationale of insulating the office from political harassment or pressure.29

COURT OF APPEALS

22Q. Can the congress compel the attendance of the Justices of the CA, and if they refuse, cite them in
contempt by virtue of the petition for Habeas Corpus filed by the resource persons who refused to answer
questions of one of its committees? Explain.

22A. No. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the
Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only the
Supreme Court that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws, and take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may intrude
into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. [Agcaoili, Jr., et al. and Marcos vs.
Farinas, et al., G.R. No. 232395 (3 July 2018)(En Banc)[Tijam, J.],30 citing Maceda vs. Ombudsman Vasquez].31

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

23Q. Does the CTA En Banc have jurisdiction over a case of Petition for Annulment of Judgment of one
of its Divisions? Explain.

23A. No. The CTA En Banc has no jurisdiction to rule upon the Petition for Annulment of Judgment of one of
its divisions. The proper remedy is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

Annulment of judgment, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, is based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It is a recourse that presupposes the filing of a separate and original action
for the purpose of annulling or avoiding a decision in another case. An annulment is a remedy in law independent of
the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered. It is unlike a motion for reconsideration, appeal or
even a petition for relief from judgment, because annulment is not a continuation or progression of the same case,
as in fact, the case it seeks to annul is already final and executory. Rather, it is an extraordinary remedy that is
equitable in character and is permitted only in exceptional cases.

29 Carpio-Morales vs. CA (6th Division) and and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., 774 SCRA 431 (10 November 2015)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
30 Petitioners were cited in contempt by the House of Representatives and they were ordered detained for their continued refusal to answer the questions of
the members of the Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability.
31 293 Phil. 503 (1993).
 9

Annulment of judgment involves the exercise of original jurisdiction, as expressly conferred on the Court of
Appeals by B.P. Blg. 129, Section 9(2). It also implies power by a superior court over a subordinate one, as provided
for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, wherein the appellate court may annul a decision of the regional trial court, or
the latter court may annul a decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court. (CIR vs. Kepco Ilijan Corporation,
794 SCRA 193, 2 June 2016)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].

24Q. Does the CTA have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing an
interlocutory order of the RTC in a local tax case? Explain.

24A. Yes. Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides the general definition of judicial power.

Based on this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court recognized, for the first time, The City of Manila vs.
Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo (G.R. No. 175723, 4 February 2014)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.], the CTA’s jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari assailing interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in a local tax case.

In this regard, Section 1 of RA 9282 states that the CTA shall be of the same level as the CA and shall possess all
the inherent powers of a court of justice.

Judicial power likewise authorizes lower courts to determine the constitutionality or validity of a law or
regulation in the first instance. This is contemplated in the Constitution when it speaks of appellate review of final
judgments of inferior courts in cases where such constitutionality is in the issue. [COURAGE, et al. vs. CIR, et al.
(G.R. No. 213446 and G.R. No. 213446, 3 July 2018)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.]; BDO, et al. vs. RCBC (G.R. No.
198756, 16 August 2016)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.].]

25Q. Which court has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari to review the DOJ resolutions in
preliminary investigations involving tax and tariff offenses? Explain.

25A. It is the CTA. By virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, vesting judicial power in the
Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law, to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government, in relation to Section 5(5),
Article VIII thereof, vesting upon it the power to promulgate rules concerning practice and procedure in all courts,
the Court thus declares that the CA's original jurisdiction32 over a petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution
in a preliminary investigation involving tax and tariff offenses was necessarily transferred to the CTA pursuant to
Section 7 of R.A. No. 9282,33 and that such petition shall be governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Accordingly, it is the CTA, not the CA, which has jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ
resolution of dismissal of the BOC's complaint-affidavit against private respondents for violation of the TCCR.
(Bureau of Customs vs. Devanadera, 770 SCRA 1, 8 September 2015)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

26Q. What does an action involving “title to real property” mean? Explain.

32 Section 9(1), BP Blg. 129 - The Court of Appeals shall exercise: (1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
33 Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise:
xxxx
b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising
from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or
the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount of taxes and fees,
exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be
tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary
notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be
simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily
carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized.
 10

26A. It means that the plaintiff’s cause of action is based on a claim that he owns such property or that
he has the legal rights to have exclusive control, possession, enjoyment, or disposition of the same.34

Hence, it was held that even if the action is supposedly one for annulment of a deed, the nature of an action is
not determined by what is stated in the caption of the complaint but by the allegations of the complaint and the
reliefs prayed for. Where the ultimate objective of the plaintiffs is to obtain title to real property, it should be
filed in the proper court having jurisdiction over the assessed value of the property subject thereof.35 (Montero vs.
Montero, Jr., G.R. No. 217755, 18 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

27Q. What is the jurisdictional division of the RTCs and the MTCs? Explain.

27A. In the case of First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. PBCOM (G.R. No. 202836, 19 June 2018)
(En Banc)[Leonen, J.], the High Court pronounced:

B.P. Blg. 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as amended by R.A. No. 7691 (now further amended
by R.A. No. 11576), provided for the jurisdictional division between the first and second level courts by considering
the complexity of the cases and the experience needed of the judges assigned to hear the cases.

In criminal cases, first-level courts are granted exclusive original jurisdiction to hear complaints on violations
of city or municipal ordinances and offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years. In contrast,
second-level courts, with more experienced judges sitting at the helm, are granted exclusive original jurisdiction to
preside over all other criminal cases, not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body.

The same holds true for civil actions and probate proceedings, where first-level courts have the power to hear
cases where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed P100,000.00 or
P200,000.0036 if in Metro Manila. First-level courts also possess the authority to hear civil actions involving title to,
possession of, or any interest in real property where the value does not exceed P20,000.00 or P50,000.0037 if the
real property is situated in Metro Manila.

Second-level courts then assume jurisdiction when the values involved exceed the threshold amounts reserved
for first-level courts or when the subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.

First-level courts were also conferred with the power to hear the relatively uncomplicated cases of forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, while second-level courts are authorized to hear all actions in admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction with claims above a certain threshold amount. Second-level courts are likewise authorized to hear all
cases involving the contract of marriage and marital relations, in recognition of the expertise and probity required
in deciding issues, which traverse the marital sphere.

Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides Regional Trial Courts with exclusive, original jurisdiction
over "all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation."

28Q. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over suits involving the sequestered coco levy assets and coco levy
funds?

28A. No. The RTC has no jurisdiction over suits involving the sequestered coco levy assets and coco levy funds.

34 Heirs of Generoso Sebe v. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla, 618 Phil. 395, 407 (2009).
35 Spouses Huguete v. Spouses Embudo, 453 Phil. 170, 176-177 (2003).
36 Now P2,000,000.00 with no distinction between MTCs in Metro Manila and the provinces, per Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 11576.
37 Now P400,000.00 with no distinction between MTCs Metro Manila and the provinces, per Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 11576.
 11

Under Section 4(c) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249, the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan included suits for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and related cases:

(c) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14,
and 14-A, issued in 1986.

xxxx

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme
Court.38 (PCGG vs. Dumayas, G.R. No. 209447 and G.R. No. 210901, 11 August 2015)(En Banc)
[Villarama, Jr., J.].

JURISDICTION OF THE RTC SITTING AS SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT

29Q. Who has jurisdiction over the cancellation of registered emancipation patent awarded under R.A.
No. 6657 as amended? Explain.

29A. Under the new Section 24 of R.A. No. 9700,39 all cases involving the cancellation of registered
emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership awards, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program are now within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary.40 He or
she takes jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of titles issued under any agrarian reform program,
whether registered with the Land Registration Authority or not.

With the enactment of Republic Act No. 9700, the exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases for cancellation
of registered emancipation patents now belongs to the DAR Secretary.41 (Secretary of the DAR vs. Heirs Abucay,
G.R. No. 186432 and Secretary of the DAR vs. Heirs Abucay, G.R. No. 186964, 12 March 2019)(En Banc)
[Leonen, J.].

30Q. Which court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for determination of just
compensation in land reform cases? Explain.

30A. Regional Trial Courts, sitting as special agrarian courts, have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, as well as the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.42 In contrast to the special agrarian courts, the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board only has preliminary administrative determination of just compensation.43

38 See also PCGG vs. Peña, 243 Phil. 93 (1988) and Soriano III vs. Yuzon, 247 Phil. 191 (1988).
39 An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending The Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting
Necessary Reforms, Amending For the Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988, as amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefor.
40 Rep. Act No. 9700 (2009), Sec. 24 provides:
SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. -
All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian
reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR.
41 Rep. Act No. 9700 (2009), Sec. 9, amending Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), Sec. 24.
42 Machete vs. CA, 320 Phil. 227 (1995)[Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
43 See LBP vs. Suntay, 678 Phil. 879 (2011)[Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing LBP vs. Suntay, 561 Phil. 711 (2007)[Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, First Division].
 12

(LBP vs. Franco, G.R. No. 203242, 12 March 2019)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.];44 (Alfonso vs. LBP, G.R . Nos. 181912
& 183347, 29 November 2016)(En Banc)[Jardeleza, J.].

31Q. What are the guidelines in the determination of just compensation when a case is remanded to
the RTC sitting as SAC?

31A. The following guidelines in the remand of the case should be observed by the RTC:

1. Just compensation must be valued at the time of taking, or the time when the owner was
deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred in the name of the Republic
or CLOAs were issued in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries. Hence, the evidence to be presented by the
parties before the RTC for the valuation of the subject land must be based on the values prevalent on such
time of taking for like agricultural lands.

2. Courts should consider the factors in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, prior to its amendment
by RA 9700, as translated into the applicable DAR formula. However, if the RTC finds that a strict
application of the relevant DAR formulas is not warranted, it may depart therefrom upon a reasoned
explanation.45

3. Interest may be awarded as may be warranted by the circumstances of the case and based on
prevailing jurisprudence. In previous cases, the Court has allowed the grant of legal interest in
expropriation cases where there is delay in the payment since the just compensation due to the
landowners was deemed to be an effective forbearance on the part of the State. Thus, legal interest on the
unpaid balance shall be pegged at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of taking, as shall be
determined by the RTC, until June 30, 2013 only. Thereafter, or beginning July 1, 2013, until fully paid, the
just compensation due the landowners shall earn interest at the new legal rate of 6% per annum 46 in line
with the amendment introduced by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Circular No. 799,47 Series
of 2013.48 [LBP vs. Rural Bank of Hermosa (Bataan), Inc., G.R. No. 181953, 25 July 2017](En Banc)
[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].

JURISDICTION OF THE RTC AS SPECIAL COMMERCIAL COURT

32Q. Is the dismissal of a commercial case wrongfully raffled to a regular RTC, instead of its lone
commercial court branch, the proper recourse? Explain.

32A. No. In such a scenario, the proper course of action was not for the commercial case to be dismissed;
instead, it should have first referred the case to the Executive Judge for re-docketing as a commercial case; thereafter,
the Executive Judge should then assign said case to the only designated Special Commercial Court in the station.
(Gonzales, et al. vs. GJH Land, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 202664, 20 November 2015)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].

33Q. What is the duty of the Executive Judge when a commercial case is wrongfully raffled to a regular
RTC where there is multiple sala of commercial courts? Explain.

44 See also LBP vs. Dalauta, G.R. No. 190004 (8 August 2017)(En Banc)[Mendoza, J.]; Limkaichong vs. LBP, G.R. No. 158464 (2 August 2016) (En Banc)[Bersamin,
J.]; PVB vs. CA, 379 Phil. 141 (2000); LBP vs. Martinez, 582 Phil. 739 (2008); Soriano vs. Republic, 685 Phil. 583 (2012); EPZA vs. Dulay, 233 Phil. 313
(1987)[Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc]; Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad, 634 Phil. 9 (2010)[Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; LBP vs. Montalvan, 689 Phil. 641
(2012)[Per J, Sereno, Second Division].
45 See Heirs of Pablo Feliciano, Jr. vs. LBP, G.R. No. 215290 (11 January 2017); and Alfonso vs. LBP, G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347 (29 November 2016).
46 See Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
47 Rate of interest in the absence of stipulation (1 July 2013).
48 See Heirs of Pablo Feliciano, Jr. vs. LBP, supra; LBP vs. Kho, G.R. No. 214901 (15 June 2016); DAR vs. Sps. Sta. Romana, 738 Phil. 590 (2014); and DAR vs.
Beriña, 738 Phil. 605 (2014).
 13

33A. In such a scenario, the Executive Judge, after re-docketing the same as a commercial case, should proceed
to order its re-raffling among the said special branches.

34Q. What is the proper disposition of the Executive Judge if there is no commercial court? Explain.

34A. If the RTC acquiring jurisdiction has no branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, then it should
refer the case to the nearest RTC with a designated Special Commercial Court branch within the judicial region.49
Upon referral, the RTC to which the case was referred to should re-docket the case as a commercial case, and then:
(a) if the said RTC has only one branch designated as a Special Commercial Court, assign the case to the sole special
branch; or (b) if the said RTC has multiple branches designated as Special Commercial Courts, raffle off the case
among those special branches. (Gonzales, et al. vs. GJH Land, Inc., et al., supra).

JURISDICTION OF THE RTC DESIGNATED AS A SPECIAL FAMILY COURTS

35Q. Are Family Courts of the same level as Regional Trial Courts?

35A. Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise
known as the Family Courts Act of 1997, family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases
of domestic violence against women and children.50 In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated from
among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of several key cities identified. 51
(Garcia vs. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352, 25 June 2013)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].

JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS IN CITIES, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

36Q. What is the jurisdiction of the MTC in civil actions? Explain.

36A. For civil actions and probate proceedings, where first level courts have the power to hear cases where
the value of personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed P100,000.00 (now P300,000.00) or
P200,000.00 (now P400,000.00, see Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 7691) if in Metro Manila.52

First level courts possess the authority to hear civil actions involving title to, possession of, or any interest in
real property where the value does not exceed P20,000.00 or P50,000.00 if the real property is situated in Metro
Manila.53 (First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. PBCOM, G.R. No. 202836, 19 June 2018)(En Banc)
[Leonen, J.].

ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION [JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES]

37Q. How is the jurisdiction over the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, acquired by the court?
Explain.

49 See Item No. 3 of A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, as amended, dated 15 June 2015.
50 SEC. 5. Jurisdiction of Family Courts. – The Family Courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases:
xxxx
k) Cases of domestic violence against:
1) Women - which are acts of gender based violence that results, or are likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women;
and other forms of physical abuse such as battering or threats and coercion which violate a woman's personhood, integrity and freedom movement;
and
2) Children - which include the commission of all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, violence, and discrimination and all other conditions
prejudicial to their development.
51 Sec. 17, R.A. 8369.
52 Batas Blg. 129, Sec. 33. [Now P2,000,000.00 with no distinction between MTCs in Metro Manila and the provinces, per Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 11576].
53 Batas Blg. 129, Sec. 33. [Now P400,000.00 with no distinction between MTCs in Metro Manila and the provinces, per Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 11576].
 14

37A. The courts acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiffs when they file their initiatory pleading, while the
defendants54 come under the court's jurisdiction upon the valid service of summons or their voluntary
appearance in court.55 [First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. PBCOM, supra; UCPB vs. Ang-Sy (G.R. No.
204753, 27 March 2019) (Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].]

Courts exercise the powers conferred on them with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over:

(a) the cause of action or the subject matter of the case;

(b) the thing or the res;

(c) the parties; and

(d) the remedy.56

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

38Q. Explain the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction.

38A. Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, jurisdiction lies exclusively with the
administrative agency to act on a quasi-judicial matter. Hence, the court has no alternative but to dismiss a case for
lack of jurisdiction. (National Federation of Hog Farmers, Inc. vs. BOI, G.R. No.205835, 23 June 2020)(En Banc)
[Leonen, J.].57

39Q. Can a party be barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction? Explain.

39A. Yes. A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different
reasons. Thus, we speak of estoppel in pais, of estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. (Tijam, et
al. vs. Sibonghanoy, et al., G.R. No. L-21450, 1968)(En Banc)[Dizon, J.].

JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

40Q. Can jurisdiction over the issue be conferred by the parties?

40A. Yes. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter, may be conferred by consent
either express or implied of the parties. Although an issue is not duly pleaded, it may validly be tried and decided if
no timely objection is made thereto by the parties. (Bernabe, et al. vs. Vergara, G.R. No. L-48652, 16 September
1942)(En Banc)[Moran, J.].

54 See also Carson Realty & Management Corporation vs. Red Robin Security Agency and Monina C. Santos, G.R. No. 225035 (8 February 2017)(Third
Division)[Velasco, Jr., J.] and Prudential Bank (Now Bank of the Philippine Islands) vs. Magdamit, Jr., G.R. No. 183795 (12 November 2014)(First
Division)[Perez, J.].
55 See Villagracia vs. Fifth Shari'a District Court, 734 Phil. 239 (2014)[Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
56 De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706 (2014)[Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
57 See also Jaka Investments Corporation vs. Urdaneta Village Association, Inc. and Ayala Land, Inc., G.R. Nos. 204187 and 206606 (1 April 2019)(Third
Division)[Leonen, J.], citing the case of Maria Luisa Park Association, Inc. vs. Almendras, 606 Phil. 670 (2009)[Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]; The
Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (PBOAP), et al. vs. DOLE, et al., G.R. No. 202275 (17 July 2018)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.], citing Pambujan
Sur United Mine Workers vs. Samar Mining Company, Inc., 94 Phil. 932 (1954)[Per J. Bengzon, En Banc]; and Park Developers Incorporated, et al. vs. Daclan,
G.R. No. 211301 (27 November 2019)(Second Division)[Inting, J.].
 15

CIVIL PROCEDURE

GENERAL PROVISIONS (RULE 1) [CASES GOVERNED (SEC. 2)]

41Q. Distinguish ordinary action and special proceeding?

41A. Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection of
a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong; Whereas, special proceeding is the act by which one seeks to
establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. 58 (Treyes vs. Larlar, et al., G.R. No. 232579, 8
September 2020)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION (SEC. 5)

42Q. What is the importance of the payment of legal fees under the Rules of Court?

42A. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading but the payment
of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the
action. Appellate docket and other lawful fees are required to be paid within the same period for taking an appeal.
Payment of docket fees in full within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without
such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision
sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.59 (DFA vs. COA, G.R. No. 194530, 7 July 2020)(En Banc)
[Caguioa, J.].

CONSTRUCTION (SEC. 6)

43Q. What is the purpose of compliance with the Rules of Court and the effect of Sec. 6, Rule 1?
Explain.

43A. It should be emphasized that compliance with procedural rules is necessary for an orderly
administration of justice. These are set in place in order to obviate arbitrariness, caprice, or whimsicality.60
Nonetheless, these rules are not to be rigidly applied so as to frustrate the greater interest of substantial justice. Even
the Rules of Court provides that the rules "shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist
the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."61 (Lukban vs.
Morales, G.R. No. 238563, 12 February 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

44Q. Invoking Section 6, Rule 1 of the RROC, can the belated filing of MR of 7 days due to the
untimely withdrawal of the counsel of the petitioner be given due course? Explain.

44A. Yes. The delay of 7 days, due to the withdrawal of the petitioner's counsel during the reglementary
period of filing an MR, was excusable considering the merits of the case. Records show that the petitioner
immediately engaged the services of a new lawyer to replace its former counsel and petitioned the CA to extend the
period of filing an MR due to a lack of material time to review the case. There is no showing that the withdrawal of
its counsel was a contrived reason or an orchestrated act to delay the proceedings; the failure to file an MR within
the reglementary period of 15 days was also not entirely the petitioner's fault, as it was not in control of its former
counsel's acts. [Lukban vs. Morales (G.R. No. 238563, 12 February 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.]; PNB v.
Yeung, 722 Phil. 710 (2013)].

58 Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Organization v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 109373 & 112991, March 20, 1995, 242 SCRA 492.
59 Re: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees, 626 Phil. 93(2010).
60 Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association, 574 Phil. 20, 38 (2008).
61 RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec. 6.
 16

45Q. What are some of the instances when the High Court relaxed the rigid application of the Rules
of Court?

45A. The Supreme Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice considering:

(a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property;

(b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;

(c) the merits of the case;

(d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules;

(e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and

(f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (Lukban vs. Morales, G.R. No.
238563, 12 February 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

46Q. What is the rule in case a decision of the Supreme by a division is in conflict with that of the
En Banc? Explain.

46A. The decision of the Supreme Court en banc cannot be overturned by the ruling of a Division of the
High Court. The Constitution provides that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a decision
rendered En Banc may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting En Banc.62 [Treyes vs. Larlar, et
al., G.R. No. 232579, 8 September 2020)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

CAUSE OF ACTION (RULE 2)

47Q. Distinguish right of action from the cause of action.

47A. The distinctions are as follows:

A cause of action arises when that which should have been done is not done, or that which should not have
been done is done.

A party's right of action accrues only when the confluence of the following elements is established:

(a) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

(b) An obligation on the part of defendant to respect such right; and

(c) An act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff.

It is only when the last element occurs or takes place can it be said in law that a cause of action has arisen. More,
the aggrieved party must have either actual or presumptive knowledge of the violation by the guilty party of his
rights either by an act or omission. (Ramiscal, Jr. vs. COA, G.R. No. 213716, 10 October 2017)(En Banc)
[Jardeleza, J.].

62 Article VIII, Section 4(3), 1987 CONSTITUTION; De Vera, citing Hernandez, et al. v. Padua, et al., 14 Phil. 194 (1909); Uy Coque, et al. v. Sioca, et al., 45 Phil.
430 (1923); Mendoza Vda. de Bonnevie v. Cecilio Vda. de Pardo, 59 Phil. 486 (1934 and Government of the Philippine Islands v. Serafica, 63 Phil. 93 (1934).
 17

48Q. What is the rationale of the prohibition against splitting a single cause of action?

48A. The splitting of a single cause of action violates the policy against multiplicity of suits, whose primary
objective is to avoid unduly burdening the dockets of the courts.63 [Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.)
vs. Presbitero, Jr., 755 SCRA 90, 7 April 2015](En Banc)[Leonen, J.].

PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS (RULE 3)[WHO MAY BE PARTIES; PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT (SECTION 1)]

49Q. Is the qualification of the defendant to be a party to a suit the same as the plaintiff? Explain.

49A. Yes. In order to maintain an action in a court of justice, the plaintiff must have an actual legal
existence, that is, he, she or it must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or an artificial
person, and no suit can be lawfully prosecuted save in the name of such a person.64 (Gaffney vs. Butler, G.R. No.
219408, 8 November 2017)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PARTIES IN INTEREST (SECTION 2)

50Q. Who is considered a real party in interest? Explain.

50A. The real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. "Interest" within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an
interest in an issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or
a mere incidental interest. Consequently, a person who is not a party to a contract and for whose benefit it was not
expressly made cannot maintain an action thereon, notwithstanding that the contract, if performed by the parties to
it, would incidentally inure to his benefit. [Rapid City Realty and Development Corporation vs. Paez-Cline (G.R.
No. 217148, 7 December 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.], citing Francisco, the Revised Rules of Court in the
Phil., Vol., 1, p. 126; Rosales, et al. vs. ERC (G.R. No. 201852, 5 April 2016)(En Banc)[Peralta, J.].]

51Q. What are the two (2) requirements for a party in interest under Section 2, Rule 3?

51A. The two (2) requirements are as follows:

1) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in interest; and

2) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in an issue to be
affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved.
One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the plaintiff in an action. 65
(Pili, Jr. vs. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 222798, 19 June 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

52Q. When can a judicial review be exercised? Explain.

52A. Judicial review may be exercised only when the person challenging the act has the requisite
legal standing, which refers to a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or
will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.66 The party's interest must also be material as
63 Chu vs. Sps. Cuncman, 657 SCRA 379 (12 September 2011)[Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
64 Ventura v. Militante, 374 Phil. 562, 573 (1999), cited in Spouses Berot v. Siapno, 738 Phil. 673, 682 (2014).
65 Goco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157449, 6 April 2010 (Second Division)[Brion, J.].
66 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002 Ed., p. 259; Board of Optometry v. Hon. Colet, 328 Phil. 1187, 1205 (1996); Macasiano v. National Housing Authority, 224
SCRA 236, 242-243 (1993); Santos III v. Northwestern Airlines, 285 Phil. 734, 742-743 (1992); National Economic Protectionism Association v. Ongpin, 253
Phil. 643, 649 (1989); see also Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936).
 18

distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a mere incidental interest. It must be personal and not
based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party.67 (DBP vs. COA, G.R. No.
247787, 2 March 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez, M., J.].

COMPULSARY JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES (SEC. 7)

53Q. Who is considered an indispensable party?

53A. Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the RROC, an indispensable party is a party in interest without
whom there can be no final determination of an action. Indispensable parties are those with such a material and
direct interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights so that the court cannot
proceed without their presence. The interests of such indispensable parties in the subject matter of the suit and the
relief are so bound with those of the other parties that their legal presence as parties to the proceeding is an absolute
necessity and a complete and efficient determination of the equities and rights of the parties is not possible if they
are not joined. (Roy III vs. Herbosa, et al., G.R. No. 207246, 18 April 2017)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

NECESSARY PARTY (SEC. 8)

54Q. Is the non-inclusion of the necessary party fatal to the case of the plaintiff? Explain.

54A. No. Section 8, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines a necessary party as "one who is
not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claimed subject of the action." Necessary parties
are those whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far separable
that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting them.68 (Golden Boracay Realty, Inc. vs. Pelayo,
G.R. No. 219446, 14 July 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

55Q. Is the non-joinder of an indispensable party ground for a Motion to Dismiss?

55A. No. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At any
stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on
the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of
the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to
implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.69 (Golden Boracay Realty, Inc. vs. Pelayo, G.R. No. 219446,
14 July 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

AUTHORS NOTE:

Rule 16 has been deleted/transposed under the amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure per A.M.
No. 19-10-20-SC which took effect on 01 May 2020. The limited grounds for a Motion to Dismiss are provided for by
Sec. 12(a)(1-3), Rule 15. All other grounds not included, shall be alleged as an affirmative defense.

VENUE (RULE 4)

56Q. What is the distinction between an action in personam and quasi in rem?

56A. A proceeding in personam is a proceeding to enforce personal rights and obligations brought
against the person and is based on the jurisdiction of the person, although it may involve his right to, or the

67 Hon. Aguinaldo v. Pres. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, 801 Phil. 492, 522 (2016).
68 Sena v. Mangubat, No. L-44339, December 2, 1987, 156 SCRA I 13.
69 Heirs of Faustino Mesina v. Heirs of Domingo Fian, Sr., G.R. No. 201816, April 8, 2013, 695 SCRA 345, 353
 19

exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance
with the mandate of the court. The purpose of a proceeding in personam is to impose, through the judgment of a
court, some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant. Of this character are suits to compel
a defendant to specifically perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him. An action in
personam is said to be one which has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a
judgment against the propriety to determine its state. It has been held that an action in personam is a proceeding
to enforce personal rights or obligations; such action is brought against the person.

xxxx

On the other hand, a proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the
property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed. In an action quasi in rem, an individual is named
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his interests therein to the obligation or loan
burdening the property. Actions quasi in rem deal with the status, ownership or liability of a particular property
but are intended to operate on these questions only as between the particular parties to the proceedings and not to
ascertain or cut off the rights or interests of all possible claimants. The judgments therein are binding only upon the
parties who joined in the action.70 (Sps. Pozon vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 210607, 25 March 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.].

PLEADINGS (RULE 6)

57Q. What is the effect of ‘negative pregnant’? Explain.

57A. It is a denial coupled with the admission of substantial facts in the pleading responded to which
are not squarely denied. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries
with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. Where a fact is
alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally
denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstance alone is denied while the fact itself is admitted.71
(Valdez vs. Dabon, Jr., 775 SCRA 1, 16 November 2015)(En Banc)[Per Curiam].

THIRD, (FOURTH, ETC.)-PARTY COMPLAINT (SEC. 11.)

58Q. What is the nature of the third-party complaint? Explain.

58A. The third-party complaint is a procedural device whereby a "third party" who is neither a party
nor privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of court, by
the defendant, who acts as a third-party plaintiff to enforce against such third-party defendant a right for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiffs claim. (Sps. Gaspar vs. Disini,
Jr., et al., G.R. No. 239644, 3 February 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING (RULE 7) [SIGNATURE AND ADDRESS (SEC. 3)]

59Q. Every pleading must be signed by the party or his counsel. An unsigned pleading produces no
legal effect. Can the court exercise its discretion and allow the party or counsel to sign it? Explain.

59A. Yes. The court may, in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the
same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay. (Dizon vs. Matti, Jr., G.R. No. 215614, 27 March
2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

70 Domagas vs. Jensen (G.R. No. 158407, 17 January 2005)( Second Division)[Callejo, Sr., J.].
71 Guevarra vs. Eala, 555 Phil. 713 (2007).
 20

AUTHOR’S NOTE:

(The foregoing answer was based on the old provision. Section 3,72 Rule 7 of the amended 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure is however stricter.)

VERIFICATION (SECTION 4)

60Q. What is the importance of verification and certification against forum shopping of a pleading?
Explain.

60A. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made
in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative."

On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is required based on the principle that a
party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora." The important purposes
behind these requirements cannot be simply brushed aside absent any sustainable explanation justifying
their relaxation.73 [De Lima vs. Guerrero (G.R. No. 229781, 10 October 2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.]; Lanao
del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Provincial Government of Lanao del Norte, et al. (G.R. No. 185420, 29
August 2017)(En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.].

61Q. What are the effects of non-compliance with verification and certification against forum
shopping? Explain.

61A. A defective verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading and thus produces no legal
effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied;

While the failure to certify against forum shopping shall be a cause for dismissal without prejudice
unless otherwise provided, and is not curable by amendment of the initiatory pleading. (De Lima vs. Guerrero,
supra)

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING (SEC. 5)

62Q. What is forum shopping?

72 Section 3. Signature and address. - (a) Every pleading [and other written submissions to the court] must be signed by the party or counsel representing
him or her.
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the pleading and document; that to the best of his or
her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation:
(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or jurisprudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing jurisprudence:
(3) The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after availment of the modes of
discovery under these [R]ules: and
(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information.
(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this [R]ule has been violated, it may impose an appropriate
sanction or refer such violation to the proper office for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible for the
violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally liable for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or
employee. The sanction may include, but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court; or, if imposed on
motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses
directly resulting from the violation, including attorneys fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law firm cannot pass on the monetary
penalty to the client. (3a)
73 William Go Que Construction v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016, 790 SCRA 309.
 21

62A. Forum shopping is committed by a party who institutes two or more suits involving the same parties
for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the other court
would make a favorable disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a favorable decision or action.74 It is
an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles the courts, abuses their processes, degrades
the administration of justice, and adds to the already congested court dockets.75 (Mampo, et al. vs. Morado, G.R.
No. 214526, 3 November 2020)(Caguioa, J.].

63Q. What are the two (2) rules on forum shopping under Rule 7, Section 5?

63A. The two (2) rules on forum shopping are as follows:

1) compliance with the certificate of forum shopping and

2) avoidance of the act of forum shopping itself.76 (Mampo, et al. vs. Morado, supra).

64Q. What are the different ways of committing forum shopping?

64A. Forum shopping can be committed in several ways:

(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not
having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia);

(2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having
been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and

(3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of
action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).77

These tests notwithstanding, what is pivotal is the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a
party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same
reliefs and, in the process, creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon
the same issues.78 (Mampo, et al. vs. Morado, supra).

65Q. What is the consequence if the court finds that there is forum shopping?

65A. Forum shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of both initiatory pleadings without prejudice to
the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned.79 This is a punitive measure to those who
trifle with the orderly administration of justice.80 (Mampo, et al. vs. Morado, supra).

74 Zamora v. Quinan, Jr., G.R. No. 216139, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 251, 257; Yap v. Chua, G.R. No. 186730, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 419, 427-428.
75 Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, February 17, 2014, 716 SCRA 175, 178; (IN RE: A.M. NO. 04-7-373-RTC [REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU] AND A.M. NO. 04-7-374-RTC [VIOLATION OF JUDGE ILDEFONSO SUERTE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, BARILI, CEBU OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 36-2004 DATED MARCH 3, 2004], PROSECUTOR MARY ANN T.
CASTRO-ROA, RESPONDENT, A.C. No. 9871, 29 June 2016)(Third Division)[Jardeleza, J.]
76 Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 142286-87, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 224, 243; City of Taguig v. City of Makati, G.R. No. 208393, June 15, 2016,
793 SCRA 527, 549.
77 Zamora v. Quinan, Jr., supra note 39 at 260, citing City of Taguig v. City of Makati, supra note 41 at 550.
78 Yap v. Chua, G.R. No. 186730, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 419, 427-428.
79 Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 142286-87, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 224, 243
80 Ley Construction & Development Corporation v. Philippine Commercial & International Bank, G.R. No. 160841, June 23, 2010, 621 SCRA 526, 537.
 22

PENALTY FOR FORUM SHOPPING

66Q. If the Verification and certification of non-forum shopping were signed by a person other than
the principal petitioner, is the late submission of the Special Power of Attorney cured of the defect?

66A. Yes. The belated submission of an authorization for the execution of a certificate of non-forum
shopping constitutes substantial compliance with Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.81

The Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied with reason and liberality to promote its objective of securing
a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are used to help secure
and not override substantial justice. Thus, the dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon
especially if it will result in unfairness.82 (Dizon vs. Matti, Jr., G.R. No. 215614, 27 March 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.].

67Q. If the plaintiff is a juridical person who is authorized to sign the Certification against Forum
Shopping? Explain.

67A. It may be signed only by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that
corporations, as artificial persons, cannot personally do the task themselves.83 (Filipinas Eslon
Manufacturing Corp. vs. Heirs of Basilio Llamas, G.R. No. 194114, 27 March 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa,
J.].

MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS (RULE 8) [CAPACITY (SEC. 4)]

68Q. What is the consequence if the Certificate of Registration of a party was revoked by the SEC?

68A. Upon the revocation of its registration, a party no longer existed for all legal intents and purposes.
Section 4, Rule 8 of the RROC states that the facts showing the capacity of a party to sue must be averred.

Hence, if a party failed to show that it is a juridical entity, endowed by law with the capacity to bring suits in
its own name, it is devoid of any legal capacity to institute an action. (Bayan Muna Party List vs. Mendoza, G.R. No.
190431, 31 January 2017)(En Banc)[Sereno, C.J.].

HOW TO CONTEST SUCH DOCUMENTS (SEC. 8)

69Q. When is a document considered actionable?

69A. As provided in the Rules, a written instrument or document is "actionable" when an action or
defense is based upon such instrument or document. While no contract or other instrument need not and cannot
be set up as an exhibit that is not the foundation of the cause of action or defense, those instruments which are merely
to be used as evidence do not fall within the rule on an actionable document.84

To illustrate, in an action to enforce a written contract of lease, the lease contract is the basis of the action
and therefore a copy thereof must either be set forth in the complaint or its substance must be recited therein,
attaching either the original or a copy to the complaint. The lease contract is an actionable document. Any letter or
letters written by the lessee to the lessor or vice versa concerning the contract should not be set forth in the
complaint. While such letters might have some evidential value, evidence, even in writing, does not necessarily have

81 Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. v. The Treasurer of the City of Manila, 713 Phil. 240, 249 (2013).
82 Benguet Corp. v. Cordillera Caraballo Mission Inc., 506 Phil. 366, 370-371 (2005).
83 BA Savings Bank v. Sia, 391 Phil. 370, 377-378 (2000).
84 Vicente J. Francisco, THE REVISED RULES OF COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, 1973 ed., pp. 586-587, citing 71 C.J.S. 780-783.
 23

a proper place in the pleadings.85 (Young Builders Corp. vs. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 198998, 19 June
2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PROBLEM:

70Q. Plaintiff-SNMII filed a complaint against Y2Y for the collection of a sum of money for the
construction of a building. SNMII’s cause of action is primarily based on Y2Y alleged non-payment of its
outstanding debts to SNMII arising from their main contract. SNMII attached to the complaint the
accomplishment billing for the construction of the building. Is the accomplishment billing considered an
actionable document, hence needs to be denied under oath? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

70A. No. The Accomplishment Billing is not an actionable document contemplated by the Rules but is
merely evidentiary in nature. As such, there was no need for Y2Y to specifically deny its genuineness and due
execution under oath.

Besides, even where the written instrument or document copied in or attached to the pleading is the basis of
the claim or defense alleged therein, if the party against whom the written instrument or document is sought
to be enforced does not appear therein to have taken part in its execution, such party is not bound to make a
verified specific denial.86 (Young Builders Corp. vs. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 198998, 19 June 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD (RULE 9); [DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS NOT PLEADED (SECTION 1)]

71Q. Is moto proprio dismissal of the case by the court allowed under the amended 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure? Explain.

71A. Yes. Under the new rules a court may motu proprio dismiss a claim when it appears from the
pleadings or evidence on record that:

i. it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

ii. when there is another cause of action pending between the same parties for the same cause
(litis pendincia);

iii. where the action is barred by a prior judgment (res judiciata); and

iv) prescription of the action.87 (PBCOM vs. ROD of Benguet, G.R. No. 222958, 11 March
2020)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]; (Treyes, vs. Larlar et al., G.R. No. 232579, 8 September 2020)(En Banc)
[Caguioa, J.].

AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS (RULE 10) [AMENDMENTS IN GENERAL (SEC. 1)]

72Q. How should the pleading be amended under the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?

72A. Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the parties to amend their pleadings:

85 Gregorio Araneta, Inc. v. Lyric Film Exchange, Inc., 58 Phil. 736, 741 (1933).
86 Manuel V. Moran, COMMENTS ON THE RULES OF COURT, Vol. I (1979 ed.), p. 326, citing Gregorio Araneta, Inc. v. Lyric Film Exchange Inc., id.
87 Katon v. Palanca, Jr., 481 Phil. 168 (2004). citing Gumabon v. Larin, 422 Phil. 222, 230 (2001); Section 1, Rule 9 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
 24

(a) by adding or striking out an allegation or a party's name; or

(b) by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or rectifying a mistaken or inadequate allegation or
description in the pleadings for the purpose of determining the actual merits of the controversy in the most
inexpensive and expeditious manner. (Central Bank Board of Liquidators vs. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 173399, 21 February 2017)(En Banc)[Sereno, CJ].

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS (SEC. 6)

73Q. What is supplemental pleading? Explain.

73A. A supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not
to dispense with or substitute the latter. It does not supersede the original, but assumes that the original
pleading is to stand.88 (Central Bank Board of Liquidators vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R.
No. 173399, 21 February 2016)(En Banc)[Sereno, J.].

FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS (RULE 13)

74Q. What are the modes of filing pleadings in court under the amended 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure? Explain.

74A. Rule 13, Section 3 of the amened 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pertinently states:

Section 3. Manner of filing. – The filing of pleadings and other court submissions shall be made
by:

(a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court;

(b) Sending them by registered mail;

(c) Sending them by accredited courier; or

(d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by
the court in places where the court is electronically equipped.

In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing;.

In the second and third cases, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, [and other court
submissions, and] payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the
registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope
shall be attached to the record of the case.

In the fourth case, the date of electronic transmission shall be considered as the date of filing.
(3a)

88 Asset Privatization Trust vs. CA, 381 Phil. 530 (2000); Loy, Jr. vs. San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization (SMCEU-PTGWO), supra.
 25

Service and filing of pleadings via private courier should be reckoned from the date of mailing when
said private courier is accredited by the courts.89 Otherwise, the pre-amendment jurisprudential doctrine would
govern, that is, it would be considered similar to filing via ordinary mail where the date of actual receipt is deemed
the date of filing, albeit it was posted much earlier.90

The procedure for accreditation is prescribed under Administrative Order 242-A-202091 which the Supreme
Court En Banc approved on September 1, 2020. Said Administrative Order took effect on October 1, 2020.
(Barroso vs. COA, G.R. No. 253253, 27 April 2021)(En Banc)[Lazaro-Javier, J.].

75Q. Can initiatory pleading be filed through an accredited private courier?

75A. No. Section 14, Rule 13, of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on 01 May
2020 provides:

Section 14. Conventional service or filing of orders, pleadings and other documents. –
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following orders, pleadings, and other documents must
be served or filed personally or by registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served or filed
electronically, unless express permission is granted by the Court:

(a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court;

(b) Sending them by registered mail;

(c) Sending them by accredited courier; or

(d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized
by the court in places where the court is electronically equipped.

As stated, initiatory pleadings such as petition for certiorari should be filed personally or via
registered mail. The provision does not allow its filing via private courier regardless of accreditation. Under
such circumstances, the petition should be treated as if filed via ordinary mail.92 Consequently, the date when the
Court received a copy of the petition, shall be deemed the date of filing, not the date of mailing on September 11,
2020. (Barroso vs. COA, supra).

76Q. What is the rule if the pleading is filed by registered mail?

76A. When a pleading or motion is filed by registered mail, the date of the mailing, as shown by the post
office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing in
court.93 (Republic vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953, 23 June 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.](Answered in the
light of the amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on 01 May 2020).

89 Section 5. Modes of Service. — Pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other court submissions shall be served personally or by registered mail,
accredited courier, electronic mail, facsimile transmission, other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court, or as provided for in international
conventions to which the Philippines is a party.
90 See Industrial Timber Corp. v. NLRC, 303 Phil. 621, 626 (1994); Philippine National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 678 Phil. 660, 674 (2011).
91 Guidelines on the Accreditation of Courier Service Providers.
92 See Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, 823 Phil. 725, 734-735 (2018).
93 SECTION 3. Manner of filing. — The filing of pleadings and other court submissions shall be made by:
(a) Submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such, to the court;
(b) Sending them by registered mail;
(c) Sending them by accredited courier: or
(d) Transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the Court in places where the court is electronically
equipped.
In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second and third cases, the date of the mailing of
motions, pleadings, and other court submissions, and payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall
 26

77Q. How should the filing of a pleading be proven?

77A. Section 16, Rule 13 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SECTION 16. Proof of filing. — The filing of a pleading or any other court submission shall be proved by its
existence in the record of the case.

(a) If the pleading or any other court submission is not in the record, but is claimed to have been filed
personally, the filing shall be proven by the written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court
on a copy of the pleading or court submission;

(b) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by registered mail, the filing shall be proven
by the registry receipt and by the affidavit of the person who mailed it, containing a full statement of the date
and place of deposit of the mail in the post office in a sealed envelope addressed to the court, with postage fully
prepaid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) calendar days
if not delivered.

(c) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed through an accredited courier service, the
filing shall be proven by an affidavit of service of the person who brought the pleading or other document to the
service provider, together with the courier’s official receipt and document tracking number.

(d) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by electronic mail, the same shall be proven
by an affidavit of electronic filing of the filing party accompanied by a paper copy of the pleading or other
document transmitted or a written or stamped acknowledgment of its filing by the clerk of court. If the paper
copy sent by electronic mail was filed by registered mail, paragraph (b) of this Section applies.

(e) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed through other authorized electronic means,
the same shall be proven by an affidavit of electronic filing of the filing party accompanied by a copy of the
electronic acknowledgment of its filing by the court. (12a) (Republic vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953, 23 June
2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.](Answered in the light of the amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure which took effect on 01 May 2020).

78Q. How are judgments, final orders, or resolution served? Explain.

78A. As a rule, judgments are sufficiently served when they are delivered personally, or through registered
mail to the counsel of record, or by leaving them in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof.94 After service, a judgment or order which is not appealed nor made the subject of a motion for
reconsideration within the prescribed 15-day period attains finality.95 (Heirs of Leung vs. Heirs of Madio, G.R. No.
224991, 23 June 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

79Q. What is the concept of Notice of lis pendens? Explain.

79A. Lis pendens literally means 'a pending suit,' while a notice of lis pendens, inscribed in the certificate
of title, is an announcement to the whole world that the covered property is in litigation, serving as a warning that
one who acquires interest in the property does so at his own risk and subject to the results of the litigation.96

be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case. In the fourth case, the date of
electronic transmission shall be considered as the date of filing. (3a)
94 Rubia v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), G.R. No. 151439, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 529, 537.
95 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 36 on Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof. See also Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of Communication, G.R. No. 140316, August
1, 2002, 386 SCRA 117; Videogram Regulatory Board v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106564, November 28, 1996, 265 SCRA 50.
96 Rep. of the Phils. v. Ravelo, et al., 583 Phil. 199 (2008).
 27

A notice of lis pendens is "founded upon public policy and necessity"97 and "is intended to keep the properties
in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment
or decree by subsequent alienation."

The rules governing the notice of lis pendens are found in Section 14, (now Section 19) Rule 13 of the Rules
of Court, and Sections 76 and 77 of PD 1529. [Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (Now BDO Unibank, Inc) vs. South Rich
Acres, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 202384, 4 May 2021)(En Banc)[Inting, J.].]

80Q. When can a litigant avail the notice of lis pendens to protect his rights?

80A. A litigant may avail himself of the notice of lis pendens in any of the following case:

(a) an action to recover possession of real estate;

(b) an action to quiet title thereto;

(c) an action to remove clouds thereon;

(d) an action for partition; and

(e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof or the building thereon.98 [Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (Now BDO Unibank, Inc) vs. South Rich
Acres, Inc., et al., supra].

81Q. Can the notice of lis pendens be canceled even before final judgment?

81A. Yes. As expressly provided under Section 77 of PD 1529, before final judgment, the notice of lis
pendens may be canceled upon order of the court after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of
molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be
recorded.

On the other hand, after final judgment, the notice of lis pendens is rendered functus officio.99 Thus, under
Section 77 of PD 1529, in cases where there is already a final judgment, the notice of lis pendens may be cancelled
upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the
manner of disposal thereof. [Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (Now BDO Unibank, Inc) vs. South Rich Acres, Inc., et al.,
supra].

SUMMONS (RULE 14)

82Q. Does the PAO have the authority to serve summons?

82A. Yes. Officials and employees of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) are authorized to serve summons,
subpoenas and other court processes on behalf of their clients, in coordination with the concerned court, pursuant
to Section 3, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. (In Re: Letter dated April 18, 2011, of Chief Public Attorney Persida
Rueda-Acosta Requesting Exemption from the Payment of Sheriff's Expenses, A.M. No. 11-10-03-O, 30 July
2013)(En Banc)[Reyes, J.].

97 J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc. v. Registrar of Deeds of Las Piñas, 636 Phil. 725, 733 (2010).
98 Hernudd v. Lofgren, 560 Phil. 477, 487 (2007).
99 See J. Casim Construction Supplies, Inc. v. Registrar of Deeds of Las Pinas, supra
 28

VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE (SECTION 23)

83Q. Can the defendant who actively participated in the proceedings, raise the issue of defective
service of summons as the process server did not comply with the proper substituted service?

83A. No. Under Rule 14, Section 23 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "the defendant's
voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons." (Sps. Ramonte vs. Sps. Lucero,
G.R. No. 237812, 2 October 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

MOTIONS (RULE 15) [OMNIBUS MOTION RULE (SEC. 9)]

84Q. Under the omnibus motion rule when the grounds for dismissal are those stated in the former Rule
16 of the 1997 Rules of Court and the movant failed to raise it, it is deemed waived. What are the exceptions?

84A. The exceptions are as follows:

i. the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,

ii. litis pendentia,

iii. res judicata, and

iv. prescription. (Treyes vs. Larlar, et al., G.R. No. 232579, 8 September 2020)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS (RULE 17) [DISMISSAL DUE TO FAULT OF PLAINTIFF (SEC. 3)]

85Q. If the case is dismissed due to the fault of the plaintiff for failure to present his evidence
without justifiable reason, what is the effect and his remedy? Explain.

85A. The dismissal based thereon has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits unless otherwise
declared by the court. Thus, if there is no declaration on the part of the court to the dismissal of the complaint, the
dismissal is an adjudication on the merits and should be challenged by appeal within the reglementary
period. (PBCOM vs. Guanlao, JR. G.R. No. 218901, 15 February 2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PRE-TRIAL (RULE 18)

86Q. How should the rule on pre-trial be applied?

86A. The rules governing pre-trial should be, at all times, applied in absolute terms. While faithful
compliance with these rules is undoubtedly desirable, they may be relaxed in cases where their application
would frustrate, rather than facilitate, the ends of justice.100 The relaxation of these rules, however, is contingent
upon a showing of compelling and persuasive reasons to justify the same.101 (Chua vs. Cheng, et al., G.R. No.
219309, 22 November 2017)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

INTERVENTION (RULE 19) [WHO MAY INTERVENE (SECTION 1)]

87Q. What is the nature of the remedy of intervention? Explain.

100 Vette Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Cheng, 539 Phil. 37, 48, 49 and 52 (2006).
101 Domingo v. Spouses Singson, G.R. Nos. 203287 & 207936, April 5, 2017, p. 9.
 29

87A. Intervention is not a matter of right but is left to the trial court's sound discretion. To ensure
that delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene, the Rules also explicitly say Intervention may
be allowed only before the rendition of judgment by the trial court.102

The factors to be considered to allow intervention is the delay and the consequent prejudice to the
original parties that the intervention will cause. Both requirements must concur, as the first requirement on
legal interest is not more important than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result.
[Tirol vs. Nolasco (G.R. No. 230103, 27 August 2020)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Montenegro vs. COA (G.R.
No. 218544, 2 June 2020)(En Banc)[Inting, J.].]

88Q. Can a party be allowed by the court to intervene when there is already a final judgment?

88A. No. Jurisprudence has made it clear that "intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already
terminated by final judgment."103 (Yu vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 225752, 27 March 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.].

89Q. What are the requisites for the intervention of a non-party?

89A. The requisites are as follows:

1. Legal interest

(a) in the matter in controversy; or

(b) in the success of either of the parties; or

(c) against both parties; or

(d) person is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of

property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof;

2. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of original parties;

3. Intervenor's rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding.104 (Republic vs. Heirs
of Ikang Paus, G.R. No. 201273, 14 August 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

MODES OF DISCOVERY (Rule 23-29)

PROBLEM:

90Q. Amalia Dipaculangan was apprehended at Adisucipto International Airport in Yogyakarta,

Indonesia for allegedly carrying 2.6 kilograms of heroin inside her luggage. She was convicted and sentenced to death
by firing squad for Drug Trafficking.

Jess Dima and Anthony Tavern, the recruiters of Amalia in the Philippines, were charged by the NBI for
the following violations of: R.A. No. 9208, otherwise known as "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003"; Illegal
recruitment as penalized under Section 6, par. (k) and (1) of R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as "Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Workers Act of 1995"; and estafa in violation of Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.

102 Ongco v. Dalisay G.R. No. 190810, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 232.
103 Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 366 Phil. 863, 867 (1999), citing Rabino v. Cruz, 294 Phil. 480 (1993).
104 Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, 572 Phil. 523 (2008).
 30

The representatives of the PDEA and DFA went to Inonesia, where Amalia executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay
of her ordeal when she was recruited by Dima and Tavern. In view of the representation of the Philippine
Government that the testimony of Amalia is vital to the case filed in the Philippines, the President of Indonesia
granted an indefinite suspension of the execution of Amalia. The Indonesian authorities, however, imposed the
following conditions relative to the taking of Amalia’s testimony: Amalia shall remain in detention in Yogyakarta,
Indonesia; No cameras shall be allowed; The lawyers of the parties shall not be present, and the questions to be
propounded to Amalia shall be in writing.

The prosecution filed a "Motion for Leave of Court to Take the Testimony of Complainant Amalia by
Deposition Upon Written Interrogatories." Dima and Tavern objected to the motion asserting that the deposition
should be made before and not during the trial. The depositions under Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules of Court are not
designed to replace the actual testimony of the witness in open court and the use thereof is confined only in civil
cases. Also, they argued that such a method of taking testimony will violate their right to confront the witness, Amalia,
or to meet her face to face as provided under Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution. The trial court granted the
motion. However, on certiorari to the CA, it was reversed.

QUESTION:

May a prosecution witness, like Amalia, who was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death
by firing squad by the Indonesian Government and presently confined in a prison facility in Indonesia, testify
by way of a deposition without violating the constitutional right of the accused to confront the witness?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

90A. Yes. Nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a deposition of a
prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by the final judgment and imprisoned in a
foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of a such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent
as to how to take the testimony of a witness who is unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another
country.

Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although the rule
on a deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the Court holds that it may be applied
suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is a compelling reason.

In the problem, the conditions with respect to the taking of the testimony of Amalia that were laid down
by the Indonesian Government support the allowance of written interrogatories under Rule 23, Sections 1,
11, and 25 of the Rules of Court. Similarly, the deposition by written interrogatories will not infringe on the
constitutional right to confrontation of accused Dima and Tavern.

True, Dima and Tavern have no opportunity to confront Amalia face-to-face in light of the prevailing
circumstance. However, they can be given ample opportunity to cross-examine Amalia by way of written
interrogatories so as not to defeat the purpose of their constitutional right to cross-examination.

Although the deposition is in writing, the trial court judge can still carefully perceive the reaction and
deportment of Amalia as she answers each question propounded to her both by the prosecution and the defense.

It must be mentioned that a "dying declaration" is one of the recognized exceptions to the right to
confrontation.105 In the problem, it will not be amiss to state that Amalia’s deposition through written
interrogatories is akin to her dying declaration. There is no doubt that Amalia will be answering the written

105 Bernas, Joaquin G., The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary, Volume 1, 1987 Edition, p. 393.
 31

interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending death - or execution by a firing squad to be exact. (People
vs. Sergio and Lacanilao, G.R. No. 24053, 9 October 2019)(Third Division)[Hernando, J.].[PREVAILING
DOCTRINE]

TRIAL (RULE 30)

91Q. When can a motion for postponement be granted due to the absence of evidence? Explain.

91A. A motion to postpone the trial on the ground of absence of evidence can be granted only upon affidavit
showing the materiality or relevancy of such evidence, and that due diligence has been used to procure it.
Rules governing postponements serve a clear purpose — to avert the erosion of people's confidence in the
judiciary.106

Sections 2107 and 3108 of Rule 30 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect on May 1, 2020,
provide for the adjournments, postponements, and the requisites of motion to postpone the trial for illness of
party or counsel. (Hun Hyung Park vs. Eung Won Choi, G.R. No. 220826, 27 March 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.].

JUDGE TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE; DELEGATION TO CLERK OF COURT (SECTION 9)

92Q. Can reception of evidence in criminal case ex-parte be delegated to the Clerk of Court? Explain.

92A. No. Nowhere in the Rules of Criminal Procedure are Clerks of Court allowed to receive evidence ex-
parte in criminal proceedings — unlike in ordinary civil actions and in special proceedings where the judge may
delegate such act to his Clerk of Court.109 (In Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
20, Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental, A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC, 5 December 2017)(En Banc)[Del
Castillo, J.].110

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (RULE 33)

93Q. What is a demurrer to evidence mean?

93A. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is a remedy
available to the defendant, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law,
whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an issue.111 The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the
plaintiff, by his evidence in chief, had been able to establish a prima facie case.112 (Republic vs. De Borja, G.R. No.
187448, 9 January 2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

106 Rosauro v. Judge Villanueva, Jr., 389 Phil. 699 (2000).

107 Section 2. Adjournments and postponements. - A court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and convenient
transaction of business may require, but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one [(1)] month for each adjournment, nor more than
three [(3)] months in all, except when authorized in writing by the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
The party who caused the postponement is warned that the presentation of its evidence must still be terminated on the remaining dates previously
agreed upon. (2a)
108 Section 3. Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of party or counsel. - A motion to postpone a trial on the ground of illness of a party or counsel
may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the character
of his or her illness is such as to render his or her non-attendance excusable. (4a)
109 See Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.
110 Citing Sps. Lago vs. Judge Abul, Jr., 654 Phil. 479 (2011).
111 Felipe v. MGM Motor Trading Corp., G.R. No. 191849, September 23, 2015, p. 5.
112 Condes v. Court of Appeals, 555 Phil. 311, 323 (2007).
 32

Judgment on the pleadings (Rule 34)

94Q. When can there be a judgment on the pleadings?

94A. A judgment on the pleadings may be allowed in cases "where an answer fails to tender an issue,
or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading."113 (Republic vs. Cortez, G.R.
No. 187257, 7 February 2017)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.].114

In this relation, jurisprudence dictates that an answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the
requirements of a specific denial as set out in Sections 8115 and 10,116 Rule 8 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings.117 As such, it is a
form of judgment that is exclusively based on the submitted pleadings without the introduction of evidence, as
the factual issues remain uncontroverted.118

SUMMARY JUDGMENTS (RULE 35) [MOTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON (SEC. 3)]

95Q. When can the court render a summary judgment? Explain.

95A. According to Section 3, Rule 35, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
supporting affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.

The term has been defined as an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence as distinguished
from an issue that is sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith, and patently unsubstantial so as not to
constitute a genuine issue for trial. The court can determine this on the basis of the pleadings, admissions,
documents, affidavits, and/or counter-affidavits submitted by the parties before the court. (Trade and Investment
Dev’t Corp. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 233850, 1 July 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

96Q. If a Motion for Summary Judgment is granted by the court upon the motion of the plaintiff as
there is no genuine issue except for damages, what is the proper remedy for the losing party?

96A. Such order or resolution takes the nature of a final order susceptible to appeal. In leaving out
the determination of the amount of damages, a summary judgment is not removed from the category of final
judgments.119 (Trade Investment Dev’t Corp. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 233850, 1 July 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

113 Rules of Court, Rule 34, Sec. 1.

114 See also GSIS vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., 710 SCRA 337 (20 November 2013)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].
115 Sec. 8. How to contest such documents. — When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding
pleading as provided in the preceding Section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse
party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
116 Sec. 10. Specific denial. — A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she does not admit and, whenever practicable,
shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he or she relies to support his or her denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an
averment, he or she shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial.
117 Mongao vs. Pryce Properties Corporation, 467 SCRA 201 (18 August 2005).
118 See Luzon Development Bank vs. Conquilla, 470 SCRA 533 (21 September 2005).
119 Ybiernas, et al. v. Tanco-Gabaldon, et al., 665 Phil. 297 (2011).
 33

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 37) [CONTENTS OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR
RECONSIDERATION AND NOTICE THEREOF (SEC. 2)

97Q. What is required if a party files a Motion due to newly discovered evidence under Sec. 1(b), Rule
37?

97A. Section 2 of Rule 37 requires that a motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b) of the Section
1, Rule 37, shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given,
or by duly authenticated documents that are proposed to be introduced in evidence. The affidavit required is
an affidavit of merit which states the facts constituting the movant's good and substantial defense, which he may
prove if the motion is granted.120 (Mandin-Trotin vs. Bongco, G.R. No. 212840, 28 August 2019)(Second
Division)[Caguioa, J.].

98Q. What are the requisites for the introduction of newly discovered evidence?

98A. The requisites are as follows:

(1) the evidence was discovered after trial;

(2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence;

(3) it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; and

(4) the evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the judgment if admitted.121

If the alleged evidence could have very well been presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence,
the same could not be considered newly discovered evidence. (Mandin-Trotin vs. Bongco, G.R. No. 212840, 28
August 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS (RULE 39) [EXECUTION UPON JUDGMENTS OR
FINAL ORDERS (SEC. 1)]

99Q. What is the effect of a Motion for reconsideration to the judgment or final resolution? Explain.

99A. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay
the execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered. (Prescilla, et al. vs. Lasquite, et
al., G.R. No. 205805, 25 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.][Sec. 4, Rule 52, 1997 ROCP].

100Q. What are the instances when writs of execution may be assailed?

100A. Some of the instances are as follows:

(1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;

(2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust;

(3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;

120 Uy v. First Metro Integrated Steel Corporation, 534 Phil. 839, 848 (2006).
121 Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, 665 Phil. 297, 311 (2011).
 34

(4) it appears that the controversy has been submitted to the judgment of the court;

(5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for the interpretation
thereof; or

(6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in
substance, or issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the
writ was issued without authority.122 (Frondozo, et al. vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. 178379, 22 August 2017)(En Banc)
[Carpio, J.].

EFFECT OF REVERSAL OF EXECUTED JUDGMENT (SEC. 5)

101Q. What is the duty of the court if the judgment already executed is reversed on appeal? Explain.

101A. Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the
trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may
warrant under the circumstances. [Valencia (Bukidnon) Farmers Coop. Marketing Association vs. Heirs of
Cabotaje (G.R. No. 219984, 3 April 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.][Sec. 5, Rule 39, 1997 ROCP].

102Q. Does the execution of the judgment bar the continuation of the appeal process? Explain.

102A. No. Execution "does not bar the continuance of the appeal on the merits, for the Rules of Court
precisely provide for restitution according to equity and justice in case the executed judgment is reversed on
appeal."123 (Valencia (Bukidnon) Farmers Coop. Marketing Association vs. Heirs of Cabotaje, supra).

RETURN OF WRIT OF EXECUTION (SEC. 14)

103Q. What is the duty of the sheriff upon receipt of the writ of execution?

103A. The sheriff is required:

(1) to make a return and submit it to the court immediately upon satisfaction in part or in full of
the judgment; and

(2) if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full, state why full satisfaction cannot be made. As well,
the sheriff is required to make a report every thirty (30) days in the proceedings being undertaken by him
until judgment is fully satisfied. (Arinola vs. Almodiel, A.M. No. P-19-3925, 7 January 2019)(Second Division)
[Caguioa, J.](Sec. 14, Rule 39, 1997 ROCP).

EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS (SEC. 47)

104Q. What does res judicata mean? Explain.

104A. Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment."124 It rises from the underlying idea that parties should not be permitted to
litigate the same issue more than once and that a right or fact that has already been judicially determined

122 Mayor Vargas v. Cajucom, 761 Phil. 43, 56 (2015).

123 Silverio v. Court of Appeals, 225 Phil. 459 (1986).
124 Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82475, January 28, 1991, 193 SCRA 437, 439-440, citing BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (Rev. 4th ed., 1968), p. 1470.
 35

by a competent court should be conclusive to the parties.125 [People vs. Camenforte, et al. (G.R. No. 220916,
14 June 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Republic vs. Roguza Dev’t. Corp. (G.R. No. 199705, 3 April 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

105Q. What are the requisites before res judicata can apply?

105A. The following requisites must be present:

(a) the former judgment must be final;

(b) it must be rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

(c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and

(d) there must be, between the first and second actions, the identity of parties, the subject matter, and of
the cause of action.126 [Jebsen Maritime, Inc et al. vs. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 244098, 3 March 2021)(First
Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Golez, et al. vs. Abais (G.R. No. 191376, 8 January 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].]

106Q. What is the applicability of conclusiveness of judgment? Explain.

106A. Conclusiveness of judgment means, the dictum laid down in the earlier final judgment or order
becomes conclusive and continues to be binding between the same parties, their privies, and successors-in-
interest, as long as the facts on which that judgment was predicated continue to be the facts of the case or
incident before the court in a later case; the binding effect and enforceability of that earlier dictum can no
longer be re-litigated in a later case since the issue has already been resolved and finally laid to rest in the
earlier case.127 (People vs. Camenforte, et al., supra).

107Q. When can there be res judicata in the concept of the bar by prior judgment?

107A. There is a "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was
rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is the identity of parties, subject matter, and
causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation
between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of
action before the same or any other tribunal.128 (Kolin Electronics Co., Inc. vs. Kolin Philippines International,
Inc., G.R. No. 228165, 9 February 2021)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

125 Degavo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, 757 Phil. 376, 382 (2015), citing Philippine National Bank v. Barreto, et al., 52 Phil. 818 (1929); Escudero, et al. v. Flores, et
al., 97 Phil. 240 (1955); Navarro v. Director of Lands, 115 Phil. 824 (1962).
126 Magdangal v. City of Olongapo, G.R. No. 83828, November 16, 1989, 179 SCRA 506, 509.
127 Degavo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, 757 Phil. 376, 382 (2015), citing Philippine National Bank v. Barreto, et al., 52 Phil. 818 (1929); Escudero, et al. v. Flores, et
al., 97 Phil. 240 (1955); Navarro v. Director of Lands, 115 Phil. 824 (1962).
128 Monterona v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 209116, January 14, 2019, 890 SCRA 278.
 36

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES
PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT (RULE 57)

108Q. What is the concept of preliminary attachment?

108A. A writ of preliminary attachment is only a provisional remedy issued upon order of the court where
an action is pending; it is an ancillary remedy. Attachment is only adjunct to the main suit. Therefore, it can have
no independent existence apart from a suit on a claim of the plaintiff against the defendant. In other words,
an attachment or garnishment is generally ancillary to, and dependent on, a principal proceeding, either at law or in
equity, which has for its purpose a determination of the justice of a creditor's demand. Any relief against such
attachment could be disposed of only in that case.129 (Yu vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 252752, 27 March 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PROCEEDINGS WHERE PROPERTY IS CLAIMED BY A THIRD PERSON (SEC. 14)

109Q. What is the proper disposition by the court if the property subject of the attachment is claimed
by a third person? Explain.

109A. Under Rule 57, Section 14 of the Rules of Court, if the property attached is claimed by any third
person, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating the
grounds of such right or title, and serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the
attached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the
property under attachment, unless the attaching party or his agent, on demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond
approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied
upon. (Yu vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 252752, 27 March 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (RULE 58); [GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (SECTION
3)]

110Q. What is a writ of preliminary injunction and its purpose? Explain.

110A. A writ of a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that is adjunct to the main suit, as well as
a preservative remedy issued to maintain the status quo of the things subject of the action or the relations between
the parties during the pendency of the suit.

The purpose of the injunction is to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the parties
before their claims can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated. Its sole aim is to preserve the status quo until
the merits of the case are fully heard. (Ama Land Inc. vs. Wack Wack Residents’ Association, Inc., G.R. No.
202342, 19 July 2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

111Q. In order to be entitled to the injunctive writ, what must the petitioner show? Explain.

111A. The petitioner must be able to show the following:

(1) there exists a clear and unmistakable right to be protected;

(2) this right is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined;

129 Adlawan v. Tomol, 262 Phil. 893, 904-905 (1990).

 37

(3) the invasion of the right is material and substantial; and

(4) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious and irreparable
damage.130 [Sps. Tumon vs. Radiowealth Finance Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 243999, 18 March 2021)(First Division)
[Caguioa, J.]; SM Investment Corp. vs. Mac Graphics Carranz International, Corp. (G.R. No. 224131-32, 25 June
2018)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Lerias vs. CA (G.R. No. 193548, 8 April 2019)(Special En Banc)
[Bersamin, J.].

112Q. What are the additional requisites before a WPI can be issued involving judicial or extra-
judicial foreclosure of mortgage?

112A. In addition to the requirements under Section 3, Rule 58, the issuance of a WPI in the context of a
judicial or an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage requires compliance with the additional rules in A.M.
No. 99-10-05-0, as amended,131 viz.:

(1) No [TRO or WPI] against the extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage shall be issued on the
allegation that the loan secured by the mortgage has been paid or is not delinquent unless the application is
verified and supported by evidence of payment.

(2) No [TRO or WPI] against the extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage shall be issued
on the allegation that the interest on the loan is unconscionable, unless the debtor pays the mortgagee at
least twelve percent per annum interest on the principal obligation as stated in the application for a
foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending.

(3) Where a [WPI] has been issued against foreclosure of a mortgage, the disposition of the case shall be
speedily resolved. To this end, the court concerned shall submit to the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court
Administrator, quarterly reports on the progress of the cases involving ten million pesos and above.

(4) All requirements and restrictions prescribed for the issuance of a [TRO or WPI], such as the posting
of a bond, which shall be equal to the amount of the outstanding debt, and the time limitation for its
effectivity, shall apply as well to a status quo order. (Sps. Tumon vs. Radiowealth Finance Co., supra).

RECEIVERSHIP (Rule 59)

113Q. Is a sequestration order issued by the PCGG equivalent to a receivership?

113A. Yes. A sequestration order is similar to the provisional remedy of Receivership under Rule 59 of
the Rules of Court. The PCGG may thus exercise only powers of administration over the property or business
sequestered or provisionally taken over so as to bring and defend actions in its own name, receive rents, collect debts
due, pay outstanding debts; and generally do such other acts and things as may be necessary to fulfill its mission as
conservator and administrator. (Republic vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 88228, 27 June 1990)(En
Banc)[Gutierrez, Jr., J.].

114Q. How do our rules of procedure classify sequestration proceedings instituted by the PCGG as
regards to ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and his cronies during the Aquino administration?

130 Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of Padre Garcia, Batangas, 684 Phil. 283, 292 (2012); Borlongan v. Banco de Oro (formerly Equitable PCI
Bank) G.R. Nos. 217617 & 218540, April 5, 2017, 822 SCRA 418.
131 A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, PROCEDURE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGES, February 20, 2007, as amended by OCA
Circular No. 25-07 issued on March 5, 2007.
 38

114A. The Supreme Court has likened sequestration to preliminary attachment and receivership under
Rules 57 and 59 of the Rules of Court and has accordingly applied the said rules to sequestration cases.
[Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COFED), et al. vs. Republic, G.R. Nos. 177857-58, 17
September 2009](En Banc)[Velasco, Jr., J.].132

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI, AND MANDAMUS (RULE 65) [CERTIORARI (Secs. 1 and 7)]

115Q. What is the sole office of the writ of certiorari? Explain.

115A. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, which
includes the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this regard, mere
abuse of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ. The abuse of discretion must be grave, which
means either that the judicial or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually
refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or board
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. (Inmates of the New Bilibid Prisons vs. Sec. De Lima, G.R. No. 212719, 25 June 2019)(En Banc)
[Peralta, J.].

116Q. What is the concept of grave abuse of discretion? Explain.

116A. Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not
based on law and evidence, but on caprice, whim, and despotism. (Genuino vs. COA, G.R. No. 230818, 15 June
20121)(En Banc)[Delos Santos, J.].

117Q. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. When may the Supreme Court allow the resort
to a petition for certiorari despite the existence of or prior availability of an appeal?

117A. In the following instances per our jurisprudence, the High Court allowed the resort to a Certiorari
petition under Rule 65:

(1) where the appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy;

(2) where the orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction;

(3) for certain special considerations, as public welfare or public policy;

(4) where in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the prosecution as, in case of
acquittal, there could be no remedy;

(5) where the order is a patent nullity; and

132 G.R. Nos. 177857-58 (17 September 2009)(En Banc)[Velasco, J.].

 39

(6) where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid future litigations.133 (DENREU, et al. vs. Abad,
G.R. No. 204152, 19 January 2021)(En Banc)[Peralta, C.J.]; Limkaichong vs. LBP, G.R. No. 158414, 2 August
2016)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].

118Q. After the finality of a Decision or Resolution of a quasi-judicial body, can the losing party
resort to a Rule 65 petition?

118A. No. According to jurisprudence, "public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of
occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final and executory at some definite time fixed by law; and this
rule holds true over decisions rendered by administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers."134 (LGU
of San Mateo, Isabela vs. Guerrero, et al., G.R. No. 214262, 13 February 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

119Q. What is the distinction between traditional certiorari under Rule 65 of the RROC and under
the expanded certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

119A. The distinction is:

A certiorari petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court speaks of lack or excess of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Whereas, the remedy under the Supreme Court's expanded jurisdiction expressly mentions
only grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.135 [Section 1(2), Article VIII of the
Constitution](DTI vs. Enriques, Sr., G.R. No. 225301, 2 June 2020)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

PROHIBITION (SEC. 2)

120Q. What is the office of prohibition?

120A. The office of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful and oppressive exercise of authority and
is directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It
is the remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards, or persons from usurping or exercising jurisdiction
or power with which they have not been vested by law.136

Prohibition is also recognized as a proper remedy to prohibit or nullify acts of executive officials that
amount to the usurpation of legislative authority.137 And, in a number of jurisprudence, prohibition was
allowed as a proper action to assail the constitutionality of a law or prohibit its implementation. (Southern
Luzon Drug Corporation vs. DSWD, G.R. No. 199669, 25 April 2017)(En Banc)[Reyes, J.][Which sought to
prohibit the implementation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9257, otherwise known as the "Expanded Senior
Citizens Act of 2003" and Section 32 of R.A. No. 9442, which amends the "Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,"
particularly the granting of 20% discount on the purchase of medicines by senior citizens and persons with disability
(PWD), respectively, and treating them as a tax deduction.]

133 Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 222710 (Resolution), September 10, 2019.
134 Brett v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 269 Phil. 722, 733 (1990).
135 Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) v. Department of Health. 802 Phil. 116 (2016).
136 Lt. Gonzales v. Gen. Abaya, 530 Phil. 189, 215 (2006)..
137 Diaz, et al. v. The Secretary of Finance, et al., 669 Phil. 371 (2011).
 40

MANDAMUS (SEC. 3)

121Q. Define Mandamus.

121A. It is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person,

immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done.138 It may be granted only if
the duty involved is ministerial. [Valmores vs. Achacoso (G.R. No. 217453, 19 July 2017)(First Division)
[Caguioa, J.]; Cabigao, et al. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 247806, 9 November 2021)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.]; Bayan
VNP Movement, Inc., et al. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 222731, 8 March 2016)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.]; Baguilat, Jr.,
et al. vs. Alvarez, et al. (G.R. No. 227757, 25 July 2017)(En Banc)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.].]

122Q. When is mandamus as a special civil action available? Explain.

122A. A writ of mandamus shall be issued only upon a showing that "there is no other plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."139 A writ of mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy that
is issued only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate
and speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled."140 (Marzan
vs. City Government of Olongapo, et al., G.R. No. 232769, 3 November 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

123Q. Can a City or Municipality be compelled by mandamus to prohibit the construction of a

condominium project which allegedly a nuisance per se because of the despoliation of the sight view of the
Rizal Monument?

123A. No. The Constitution states that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law x x x." It is a fundamental principle that no property shall be taken away from an individual without
due process, whether substantive or procedural. The dispossession of property, or in this case the stoppage of the
construction of a building on one's own property, would violate substantive due process.

The Rules on Civil Procedure are clear that mandamus only issues when there is a clear legal duty imposed
upon the office or the officer sought to be compelled to perform an act, and when the party seeking mandamus has
a clear legal right to the performance of such act. (Knights of Rizal vs. DMCI Homes, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 213948,
25 April 2017)(En Banc)[Carpio, J.].

EXPROPRIATION (RULE 67)

124Q. What is the concept of the power of Eminent Domain? Explain.

124A. The power of an eminent domain, which is also called the power of expropriation, is the inherent
right of the State to condemn private property for public use upon payment of just compensation.

The right of eminent domain has been described as “the highest and most exact idea of property
remaining in the government' that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method 'in nature of
a compulsory sale to the State.”141 The right of eminent domain is the ultimate right of the sovereign power to
appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose. The exercise of this power, whether
directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. Hence, it is considered
to be one of the harshest proceedings known to the law.142

138 Hipos, Sr. v. Bay, 600 Phil. 720, 727 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]
139 Ha Datu Tawahig v. Lapinid, 850 Phil. 137, 150 (2019) [Per J. Leanen, Third Division]
140 Special People, Inc. Foundation v. Canda, 701 Phil. 365,369 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
141 Isagani A. Cruz, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2015 ed., p. 129, citing Black's Law Dictionary, 4 th ed., 616.
142 Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation Inc. v. Municipality (now City) of Pasig, 503 Phil. 845, 862 (2006).
 41

Because the right of eminent domain is a power inherent in sovereignty, it is a power that need not be granted
by any fundamental law.143 Hence, Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "private property
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" is not a grant, but only a limitation of the State's
power to expropriate. (PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. vs. National Grid Corp., G.R. No. 224936, 4 September
2019)(Second Division)[Cagiuoa, J.].

125Q. What are the two stages of expropriation of private property?

125A. The two stages for the expropriation of private property are:

i) The first stage is concerned with "the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise
the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the
suit."144

ii) The second stage is concerned with "the determination by the court of 'the just compensation
for the property sought to be taken. This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than three (3)
commissioners." [PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. vs. National Grid Corp. (G.R. No. 224936, 4 September 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]; National Transmission Corporation vs. Orville Development Corporation
(G.R. No. 223366, 1 August 2017)(En Banc)[Mendoza, J.].]

126Q. Is the exercise of this right of eminent domain exclusive to the State?

126A. No. The power to expropriate is not exclusive to Congress. The latter may delegate the exercise of the
power to government agencies, public officials, and quasi-public entities.145 According to eminent constitutionalist
and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., "the authority of the legislature to
delegate the right of eminent domain to private entities operating public utilities has never been
questioned."

In the hands of government agencies, local governments, public utilities, and other persons and entities, the
right to expropriate is not inherent and is only a delegated power. In fact, even as to municipal corporations, it
has been held that they can exercise the right of eminent domain only if some law exists conferring the power
upon them.146

Hence, with the right of eminent domain not being an inherent power for private corporations, whose right
to expropriate is granted by mere legislative fiat, the delegate's exercise of the right of eminent domain is
restrictively limited to the confines of the delegating law. The scope of this delegated legislative power is necessarily
narrower than that of the delegating authority and may only be exercised in strict compliance with the terms of the
delegating law.147 (PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. vs. National Grid Corp., G.R. No. 224936, 4 September 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

ORDER OF EXPROPRIATION (SEC. 4)

127Q. What is the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation?

127A. Section 4, Rule 67 mandates that just compensation must be determined "as of the date of the
taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first." This provision is, first and foremost,

143 Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A Commentary, 2009 ed., p. 397.
144 Spouses Arrastia v. National Power Corp., 555 Phil. 263, 273 (2007).
145 Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. J. King and Sons Co., Inc., 603 Phil 471 480 (2007)
146 City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349, 358, (1919).
147 Heirs of Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, 384 Phil. 676, 689 (2000).
 42

part of the Rules which the Court itself promulgated for purposes of uniformity, among others.148 (PNOC Alternative
Fuels Corp. vs. National Grid Corp., G.R. No. 224936, 4 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

128Q. Is the order to expropriate appealable?

128A. Yes. Section 4 of Rule 67 states that a final order sustaining the right to expropriate the property,
such as the Order of Expropriation, may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however,
shall not prevent the court from determining the just compensation to be paid. It is clear from the foregoing that the
proper remedy of a defendant in an expropriation case who wishes to contest an order of expropriation is not to file
a certiorari petition and allege that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of
expropriation. The remedy is to file an appeal of the order of expropriation. (PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. vs.
National Grid Corp., G.R. No. 224936, 4 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PROCEEDINGS BY COMMISSIONERS (SEC. 6)

129Q. What is the rule in case of award of consequential damages like CGT (Capital Gains Tax)?
Explain.

129A. Consequential damages may be awarded to the owner if, as a result of the expropriation,
the remaining portion not so expropriated suffers from an impairment or decrease in value.149 (Republic vs.
Sps. Bunsay, G.R. No. 205473, 10 December 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (SEC. 4, R.A. NO. 8974, AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES)

130Q. Can R.A. No. 8974 be given a retroactive application? Explain.

130A. No. Statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively unless the
legislative intent to the contrary is manifest by express terms or by necessary implication because the retroactive
application of law usually divests rights that have already become vested. This is based on the Latin maxim: Lex
prospicit non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward). (Republic vs. Larrazabal, et al., G.R. No. 204530, 26
July 2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

131Q. What is just compensation in expropriation proceedings? Explain.

131A. It is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The
Court repeatedly stressed that the true measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word 'just'
is used to modify the meaning of the word 'compensation' to convey the idea that the equivalent to be given
for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample."150 (Republic vs. Sps. Bunsay, G.R. No.
205473, 10 December 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE [JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE, RULE 68]

132Q. In case of default of payment by a mortgagor, can the latter exercise collection suits and
foreclosure proceedings at the same time? Explain.

132A. No. The settled rule is that these remedies of collection and foreclosure are mutually exclusive.

148 National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 671 Phil. 569 (2011); National Power Corporation v. Spouses Saludares, 686 Phil. 967 (2012).
149 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 612 Phil. 965 (2009).
150 Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic, 817 Phil. 1048, 1058 (2017).
 43

In the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor
either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may pursue
either of the two remedies, but not both. If the creditor waives such personal action and pursues his remedy
against the mortgaged property, an unsatisfied judgment thereon would still give him the right to sue for a
deficiency judgment, in which case, all the properties of the defendant, other than the mortgaged property, are
again open to him for the satisfaction of the deficiency. (Pineda vs. Zuniga, G.R. No. 233774, 10 April 2019)
(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE (ACT NO. 3135, AS AMENDED)

133Q. What are the three (3) elements that must be established before a creditor may proceed with
the extra-judicial foreclosure of a mortgage?

133A. The elements are:

1. First, there must have been a failure to pay the loan obtained from the mortgagee-creditor;

2. Second, the loan obligation must be secured by a real estate mortgage; and

3. Third, the mortgagee-creditor has the right to foreclose the real estate mortgage either
judicially or extra-judicially."151 [Sps. Rodriguez vs. Export and Industry Bank, Inc. (Formerly Urban Bank,
Inc.), G.R. No. 214520, 14 June 2021](First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

134Q. What is the importance of demand before foreclosure?

134A. If demand was made and duly received by the respondents and the latter still did not pay, then
they were already in default and foreclosure was proper. However, if demand was not made, then the loans
had not yet become due and demandable. This meant that respondents had not defaulted on their payments and
the foreclosure by the petitioner was premature. Foreclosure is valid only when the debtor is in default in the
payment of his obligation.152 [Sps. Rodriguez vs. Export and Industry Bank, Inc. (Formerly Urban Bank, Inc.),
G.R. No. 214520, 14 June 2021](First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

PARTITION (Rule 69) [WHEN PARTITION IS NOT ALLOWED]

135Q. When can a judicial partition under Rule 69 be disallowed by the court? Explain.

135A. The judicial partition will not be allowed if the subject property is in the actual adverse possession of
third persons, who claim to be the owners thereof, and who are not parties to the suit, the proceedings cannot go on.
(Araullo, et al. vs. Araullo, et al., G.R. No. 1432, 30 March 1904)(En Banc)[Willard, J.].153

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER (Rule 70)

136Q. In an ejectment suit, the only issue is material possession. Can the court pass upon the issue
of ownership if raised?

136A. Yes. The courts may pass upon that issue only for the purposes of determining who between the
parties has the better right to possess the property. Where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that
of possession, adjudication of ownership is not final and binding, but merely for the purpose of resolving the issue

151 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. S.F. Naguiat Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 178407, March 18, 2015, 753 SCRA 474, 505-506.
152 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Licuanan G.R. No. 150097, February 26, 2007, 516 SCRA 644.
153 Based on the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190).
 44

of possession.154 (Sps. Pozon vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 210607, 25 March 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.];
(Camarines Sur Teachers Employees Assoc. vs. Province of Camarines Sur, G.R. No. 199666, 7 October 2019
[Sec. 16 and 18, Rule 70](Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]

137Q. What are the three (3) actions to recover possession of the real property?

137A. The three (3) usual actions to recover possession of the real property are:

1. Accion interdictal or a summary ejectment proceeding, which may be either for forcible entry
(detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), for the recovery of physical or material possession (possession
de facto) where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year and should be brought in the proper
inferior court;155

2. Accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the better right of possession (possession de jure),
which should be brought in the proper inferior court or Regional Trial Court (depending upon the value of the
property)156 when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year (or for less than a year in cases other
than those mentioned in Rule 70 of the Rules of Court)157; and

3. Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion or reivindicatory action, which is an action for

recovery of ownership which must be brought in the proper inferior court or Regional Trial Court (depending
upon the value of the property).158 (Cullado vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 212938, 30 July 2019)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

WHO MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS, AND WHEN (SEC. 1)

138Q. What is the effect of the judgment in forcible entry and unlawful detainer? Explain.

138A. The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer is conclusive with respect
to the possession only, will not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building, and will not bar an
action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building.159 (Cullado vs. Gutierrez, G.R. Nao.
212938, 30 July 2019)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

154 Spouses Santiago v. Northbay Knitting, Inc., G.R. No. 217296, October 11, 2017, 842 SCRA 502, 511.
155 The jurisdiction of MeTCs, MTCs, MCTCs in civil cases pursuant to Section 33 of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, and further amended by R.A. No.
11576, viz:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxx
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession;
156 Sections 19 and 33, BP 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, and further amended by R.A. No. 11576, provide:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
xxxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred
thousand pesos (P400,000.00) except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
xxxx
Section 33. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Civil Cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be
determined by the by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
157 See Gumiran v. Gumiran, 21 Phil. 174, 179 (1912), citations omitted. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court was formerly section 80 of the Code of Procedure in Civil
Actions, as amended by Act No. 1778.
158 See II Paras, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED (17th ed., 2013), pp. 91-136; Encarnacion v. Amigo, 533 Phil. 466, 472 (2006).
159 Rule 70, Sec. 18.
 45

139Q. If in an ejectment suit, the defendant interposed the defense of ownership, is this equivalent
to a collateral attack on the title? Explain.

139A. No, because there is no real attack, whether direct or collateral, on the certificate of title in
question for the simple reason that the resolution by the ejectment court cannot alter, modify, or cancel the
certificate of title. Thus, the issue of whether the attack on a Torrens title is collateral or direct is immaterial in
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases because the resolution of the issue of ownership is allowed by the Rules
of Court on a provisional basis only. (Cullado vs. Gutierrez, G.R. Nao. 212938, 30 July 2019)(En Banc)[Caguioa,
J.].

140Q. Is ejectment the proper remedy for a landowner whose property was taken for public use
without expropriation proceedings? Explain.

140A. No. The proper remedy is an action for the payment of just compensation, not ejectment.160
Where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his property by the government for public use, he thereby waives
his right to the institution of a formal expropriation proceeding covering such property. The failure for a long time
of the owner to question the lack of expropriation proceedings covering a property that the government had taken
constitutes a waiver of his right to gain back possession. (NTC vs. Bermuda Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 214782, 3 April
2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

141Q. Can the RTC where the case for recovery of possession against the public utility corporation
determine the just compensation even in the absence of expropriation proceedings?

141A. Yes. The RTC can determine just compensation based on the evidence presented before it in an
ordinary civil action for recovery of possession of property or its value and damages.161 As to the time when
just compensation should be fixed, it is settled that where the property was taken without the benefit of
expropriation proceedings and its owner filed an action for recovery of possession before the commencement of
expropriation proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling.162 (NTC vs.
Bermuda Dev’t Corp., supra).

142Q. Pursuant to R.A. No. 9136163 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, the National
Transmission Corporation (TransCo or TRANSCO), a government agency, was created to assume the electrical
transmission functions of the National Power Corporation and is vested with the power of eminent domain subject
to the requirements of the Constitution and existing laws.164

What is the proper disposition of the court if an ejectment suit is filed against said public utility
corporation? Explain.

142A. Any action to compel the public utility corporation to vacate such property is unavailing since the
landowner is denied the remedies of ejectment and injunction for reasons of public policy and public necessity as
well as equitable estoppel.

The proper recourse is for the ejectment court:

(1) to dismiss the case without prejudice to the landowner filing the proper action for recovery of just
compensation and consequential damages; or

160 Eusebio v. Luis, 618 Phil. 586, 595-596 (2009).

161 Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 494 (2005).
162 Eusebio v. Luis, 618 Phil. 586, 595-596 (2009).
163 AN ACT ORDAINING REFORMS IN THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN LAWS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
164 R.A. No. 9136, Sec. 8.
 46

(2) to dismiss the case and direct the public utility corporation to institute the proper expropriation
or condemnation proceedings and to pay the just compensation and consequential damages assessed therein; or

(3) to continue with the case as if it were an expropriation case and determine the just compensation
and consequential damages pursuant to Rule 67 (Expropriation) of the Rules of Court, if the ejectment court
has jurisdiction over the value of the subject land. (NTC vs. Bermuda Dev’t Corp., supra).

REFERRAL FOR CONCILIATION (SEC. 12)

143Q. Is the non-referral for barangay conciliation of an ejectment suit a ground for the dismissal of
the case? Explain.

143A. No. Although mandatory, the High Court, in Lansangan v. Caisip,165 explained that "non-referral of
a case for barangay conciliation when so required under the law is not jurisdictional in nature and may therefore
be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss or in a responsive pleading."166 (Sps. Belvis vs.
Sps. Conrado, G.R. No. 239727, 24 July 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

CONTEMPT (RULE 71)

144Q. Define Contempt.

144A. Contempt is defined as disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice,
and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders but such conduct which
tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede
the due administration of justice. It is a conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into
disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties-litigant or their witnesses during litigation.167

By jurisprudence, the power to punish for contempt, however, should be used sparingly with caution, restraint,
judiciousness, deliberation, and due regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights of the
individual.168 (Panadero et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 215548, 5 April 2016)(En Banc)[Reyes, J.]; Bagumbayan-
VNP Movement vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206719, 10 April 2019)(En Banc)[Reyes, A. Jr., J.]

145Q. How is indirect contempt committed? Explain.

145A. Indirect contempt is one committed out of or not in the presence of the court that tends to belittle,
degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice, as distinguished from direct contempt which is characterized
by misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings before the
same.169 (Panadero et al. vs. COMELEC, supra); Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. vs. COA, G.R. No. 213525,
21 November 2017)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].

146Q. Is good faith a defense in contempt proceedings? Explain.

146A. Yes. In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith, or lack of it,
of the alleged contemnor is considered. Where the act complained of is ambiguous or does not clearly show on its
face that it is contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his rights, the presence or
absence of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative of its character, x x x To

165 G.R. No. 212987, August 6, 2018,

166 Citing Bañares II v. Balising, 384 Phil. 567, 583 (2000).
167 Roxas, et al. v. Judge Tipon, et al., 688 Phil. 372, 382 (2012).
168 Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Lerma, 647 Phil. 216, 243 (2010).
169 Commissioner Rodriguez v. Judge Bonifacio, 398 Phil. 441, 466-467 (2000).
 47

constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully and for an illegitimate or improper purpose.170 (Panadero et al.
vs. COMELEC, supra).

CONTEMPT AGAINST QUASI-JUDICIAL ENTITIES (SEC. 12)

147Q. In what court the indirect contempt petition must be filed if committed against a quasi-judicial
body like HLURB? Explain.

147A. Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is clear and unequivocal in stating that, with respect to
contumacious acts committed against quasi-judicial bodies such as the HLURB, it is the RTC of the place where the
contemptuous acts have been committed, and not the Court, that acquires jurisdiction over the indirect
contempt case. (Sps. Rodriguez vs. HLURB, G.R. No. 183324, 19 June 2019)(Second Division) [Caguioa, J.].

APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES: MODES OF APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS OF

VARIOUS COURTS/TRIBUNALS

Rule 122

1. Appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts

2. Appeals from the Regional Trial Courts
3. Appeals from the Court of Appeals

WHO MAY APPEAL (SECTION 1)

148Q. In criminal cases, can the private offended party file an appeal in case of dismissal or acquittal
of the accused? Explain.

148A. No. In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant
or the offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, if a criminal case is dismissed by
the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the order of dismissal or acquittal may be
undertaken, whenever legally feasible, insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made
only by the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through the OSG. The private
complainant or offended party may not undertake such motion for reconsideration or appeal on the criminal
aspect of the case. However, the offended party or private complainant may file a motion for reconsideration of
such dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned. In so
doing, the private complainant or offended party need not secure the conformity of the public prosecutor. If the court
denies his motion for reconsideration, the private complainant or offended party may appeal or file a petition
for certiorari or mandamus, if grave abuse amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction is shown and the aggrieved
party has no right of appeal or x x x adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.171 (Cu vs. Small Business
Guarantee and Finance Corp., G.R. No. 211222, 7 August 2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

149Q. Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. -(a) An appeal taken by one or more of
several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the
appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

xxxx

170 Saint Louis University, Inc. v. Olairez G.R. No. 162299, March 26, 2014, 720 SCRA 74.
171 Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa 493 Phil. 85 (2005); Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844 (2002).
 48

Does this provision apply even if what was filed was not an appeal but a petition for review on
certiorari?

149A. Yes. The same principle applies even in cases where the Court was being called to resolve not an
appeal but a petition for certiorari or a petition or review on certiorari.172 In Constantino v. Sandiganbayan (First
Division),173 the Supreme Court held:

Although the rule states that a favorable judgment shall benefit those who did not appeal, we
have held that a literal interpretation of the phrase "did not appeal" will not give justice to the purpose
of the provision. It should be read in its entirety and should not be myopically construed so as to defeat
its reason, i.e., to benefit an accused who did not join in the appeal of his co-accused in case where the
appellate judgment is favorable.

In fact, the Court has at various times applied the foregoing provision without regard to the
filing or non-filing of an appeal by a co-accused, so long as the judgment was favorable to him. In such
cases, the co-accused already withdrew his appeal, failed to file an appellant's brief, or filed a notice
of appeal with the trial court but eventually withdrew the same. Even more, in these cases, all the
accused appealed from the judgment of conviction but for one reason or another, their conviction had
already become final and executory. Nevertheless, the Court still applied to them the favorable
judgment in favor of their co-accused. Therefore, we cannot find a reason to treat Lindong differently,
especially so in this case where the public officer accused of violating the anti-graft law has been
acquitted, and the appeal by Lindong was dismissed on a technicality. [Cited in Ramiscal vs. People
(G.R. No. 199428); Satuito vs. People (G.R. No. 199473); Quilicot, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 199473, 13
October 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].]

SECTION 13 (CERTIFICATION OR APPEAL OF CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT), RULE 124

PROBLEM:

150Q. Antone was charged for two (2) counts of rape of his then eleven (11)-year old niece-in-law,
AAA.

After trial in the RTC, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of simple statutory
rape, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, and to indemnify
AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

On appeal to the CA, it affirmed the ruling of the RTC with modification, adjusting the award of damages in
favor of AAA to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages, plus legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of the ruling until fully paid.

Dissatisfied, Antone moved for reconsideration of the CA adverse decision but the same was denied. He then
filed an Appeal via Petition for Review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to the
Supreme Court.

Is the remedy of Antone correct? Explain.

172 See Diosdado Samay Hinupas, et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224469, January 5, 2021; People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019, 912 SCRA
1; and Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. 228718, January 7, 2019, 890 SCRA 75.
173 G.R. No. 140656, September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 205.
 49

150A. No. Antone should have filed a Notice of Appeal because the penalty of reclusion Perpetua
imposed by the RTC was affirmed by the CA. This is provided for by Section 3(c), Rule 122 in relation to
Section 13(c) of Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the penalty imposed in less than
reclusion Perpetua or life imprisonment, the proper remedy of Antone is to file an appeal by Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising only pure question of law.

Antone’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal before the CA resulted in the latter court's Decision
and the Resolution to the Motion for Reconsideration lapsing into finality. (Antone vs. People (G.R. No. 225146,
20 November 2017)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]. (Section 3(c) and (e), Rule 122 in relation to Section 13(c),
Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure)

APPEALS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES

151Q. If the respondent is absolved in an administrative case by the Office of the Ombudsman, is it
appealable? Explain.

151A. No. Decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases, where the respondent is absolved of the
charges, are final, executory, and unappealable, but if issued with grave abuse of discretion, may be assailed
by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.174 (Alaska vs. Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 228298, 23
June 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Gatchalian vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, 1 August
2018)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.]; Ancheta vs. Villa, G.R. No. 229634, 15 January 2020)(First Division)
[Caguioa, J.].

152Q. How about if the respondent is not exonerated in an administrative case by the Ombudsman,
what is the proper remedy? Explain.

152A. In cases where the respondent is not exonerated and the penalty imposed is not merely public
censure or reprimand, or suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary, the Ombudsman's decision is
appealable, and the proper remedy is to file an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court
of Appeals. (Section 7,175 Rule III of the Ombudsman Rules)[Yatco vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, et
al. (G.R. No. 244775, 6 July 2020)(Second Division)[Perlas-Bernabe, J.]; Tallado vs. COMELEC, et al. (G.R. No.
246679, 2 March 2021)(En Banc)[Gesmundo, C.J.][Resolution to the denial of the MR].

In Kuizon v. Desierto176 and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the Ombudsman177, it was held that: The
Supreme Court has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari questioning resolutions or orders of the

174 Administrative Order No. 07, or the RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Rule 3, Sec. 7. See also Mandagan v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
228267, October 8, 2018, 882 SCRA 349.
175 Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. – Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is

public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final,
executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the
requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order
denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such
appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did
not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall
ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an
order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
176 G.R. Nos. 140619-24. March 9, 2001(First Division)[Puno, J.]
177G.R. No. 149148 - April 5, 2002 (Second Division)[Mendoza, J.]
 50

Ombudsman in criminal cases. For administrative cases, however, it was declared in the case of Dagan v.
Office of the Ombudsman(Visavas) that the petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals in observance
of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. The Dagan ruling homogenized the procedural rule with respect
to administrative cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman — first enunciated in Fabian v.
Desierto — that is, all remedies involving the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases, whether by an appeal under Rule 43 or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, must
be filed with the Court of Appeals.

CRIMINAL CASES

153Q. In case there is a finding of probable cause in criminal cases filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman, what is the proper remedy of the adverse party? Explain.

153A. The remedy against the Ombudsman's decisions in criminal cases is to file a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.178

154Q. When can the Supreme Court interfere with the findings of probable cause by the Office of the
Ombudsman?

154A. The Supreme Court, generally, does not interfere with the Ombudsman's findings as to whether
probable cause exists,179 except:

(a) to afford protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;

(b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;

(c) when there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;

(d) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;

(e) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

(f) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

(g) where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;

(h) where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; and

(i) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance.180 (Macasil vs. Fraud
Audit and Investigation Office et al., G.R. No. 226898, 11 May 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez, M., J.]

155Q. What are the three kinds of remedies available against a public officer for impropriety in the
performance of his powers and the discharge of his duties? Explain.

155A. The three kinds of remedies against a public officer who committed impropriety are as follows:

(1) civil;

178 Gatchalian v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 229288, August 1, 2018, 876 SCRA 148, 157.
179 Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, 687 Phil. 468, 475-476 (2012)
180 Vergara v. Hon. Ombudsman, 600 Phil. 26, 42 (2009).
 51

(2) criminal, and

(3) administrative.

These remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively. Sometimes, the same
offense may be the subject of all three kinds of remedies.181 (Pahkiat et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman-
Mindanao, G.R. No. 223972, 3 November 2020)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

156Q. If criminal and administrative cases are filed against a public officer or employee, does the
absolution in one preclude the other? Explain

156A. No. An absolution from an administrative case does not necessarily bar a criminal case from
proceeding, and vice versa.182 An offense, for instance, may have been committed but the evidence adduced to prove
liability failed to obtain the threshold required by law in one case - substantial evidence in administrative cases or
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases which would have established that the actor is either
administratively or criminally liable. For this reason, the parallel case should not be dismissed ipso facto without a
showing that its own threshold of evidence has not been reached as well. (Pahkiat et al. vs. Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao, supra).

157Q. Is there an exception that the absolution of the respondent in the administrative case will also
abate the criminal case? Explain.

157A. Yes. If the criminal case will be prosecuted based on the same facts and evidence as that in the
administrative case, and the court trying the administrative case already squarely ruled on the absence of
facts and/or circumstances sufficient to negate the basis of the criminal indictment, then to still burden the
accused to present controverting evidence despite the failure of the prosecution to present sufficient and competent
evidence, will be a futile and useless exercise.183 (Pahkiat et al. vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, supra).

APPEALS FROM THE SANDIGANBAYAN

158Q. What is the proper mode of appeal from the conviction of the Sandiganbayan in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction?

158A. The proper mode of appeal from the Sandiganbayan 's judgment of conviction in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court is via a Notice of Appeal under Section l(a), Rule XI of the Sandiganbayan
Rules. (People vs. Azurin, G.R. No. 249322, 14 September 2021) (First Division)[Caguioa, J.];(In Azurin, the
accused was convicted for grave threats under Art. 282 (par. 2) of the RPC. He was the Regional Director of Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Regional Office No. 2, Camo Addurn, Barangay Caggay, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
After conviction, he filed a Notice of Appeal); See People v. Talaue, G.R. No. 248652, January 12, 2021 (Talaue
instructs that the procedural rules provided in P.D. 1606 cannot prevail over those provided in the Sandiganbayan
Rules by the Court, which has the exclusive constitutional power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and
procedure184).

181 Villaseñor v. Sandiganbayan (5th Division), G.R. No. 180700, March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 658, 665.
182 Paredes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169534, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 577, 587.
183 People v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. No. 164577, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 147.
184 Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431, 505; also see CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5.
 52

PROCEDURE IN TAX CASES [TAX REMEDIES UNDER THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997, AS
AMENDED]

159Q. What is the effect of the assessment made by the BIR after the prescriptive period to collect
internal revenue taxes?

159A. The assessments issued after the expiration of such period are no longer valid and effective. (CIR vs.
Systems Technology Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 220835, 26 July 2017)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.].

160Q. Can the appeal from the CIR to the CTA suspend the collection of tax? Explain.

160A. As a general rule, No. An appeal to the CTA from the decision of the CIR will not suspend the
payment, levy, distraint, and/or sale of any property of the taxpayer for the satisfaction of his tax liability as provided
by existing law. Except, when, in the view of the CTA, the collection may jeopardize the interest of the Government
and/or the taxpayer, it may suspend the said collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount
claimed or to file a surety bond.185 (Sps. Pacquiao vs. The CTA First Division and CIR, G.R. No. 213394, 6 April 2016)
(Second Division)[Mendoza, J.].

THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (R.A. 1125, AS AMENDED, AND THE REVISED RULES OF THE COURT OF TAX
APPEALS)

JURISDICTION

161Q. What is the jurisdiction of the CTA?

161A. Section 7, of R.A. No. 9282 as amended, grants the Court of Tax Appeals the exclusive jurisdiction to
resolve all tax-related issues:

Section 7. Jurisdiction. — The CTA shall exercise:

(a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:

1) Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed

assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto,
or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue;

2) Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed

assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto,
or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of
action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;

3) Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases
originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;

4) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs

duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines,

185 Section 11 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282, Entitled "An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court Of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating its Rank
to the Level of a Collegiate Court with Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging its Membership, Amending for the Purpose Certain Sections Or Republic Act No.
1125, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The-Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other Purposes."
 53

forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or
other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs;

5) Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by
the provincial or city board of assessment appeals;

6) Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically

for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government
under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code;

7) Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural

product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product,
commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302,
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800,
where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. (Confederation
for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees [COURAGE] vs. CIR, G.R.
No. 213446, 3 July 2018)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.].

162Q. Does the CTA have jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality of or validity of a tax or
regulation?

162A. Yes. The CTA has jurisdiction when raised by the taxpayer as a defense in disputing or contesting an
assessment or claiming a refund. It is only in the lawful exercise of its power to pass upon all matters brought before
it, as sanctioned by Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, as amended.

R.A. No. 9282, a special and later law than B.P. Blg. 129 provides an exception to the original jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Courts over actions questioning the constitutionality or validity of tax laws or regulations. Except
for local tax cases, actions directly challenging the constitutionality or validity of tax law or regulation or
administrative issuance may be filed directly before the Court of Tax Appeals. (Confederation for Unity,
Recognition, and Advancement of Government Employees [COURAGE] vs. CIR, supra).

PROCEDURE

163Q. Who has jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in tax cases decided by the
RTC? Explain.

163A. It is the CTA. While there is no express grant of such power, with respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides, nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.186

APPEAL TO THE CTA EN BANC

164Q. What is required before an appeal to the CTA En Banc should be made? Explain.

186 The City of Manila v. Hon. Grecia-Cuerdo, 726 Phil. 9 (2014)

 54

164A. In order for the CTA En Banc to take cognizance of an appeal via a petition for review, a timely
motion for reconsideration or new trial must first, be filed with the CTA Division that issued the assailed decision
or resolution. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal as the word "must" indicates that the
filing of a prior motion is mandatory, and not merely directory.

The same is true in the case of an amended decision. Section 3, Rule 14 of the same rules defines an amended
decision as "any action modifying or reversing a decision of the Court en banc or in Division." As Luzon Geothermal
Power Company, Inc. v. CIR, an amended decision is a different decision, and thus, is a proper subject of a motion for
reconsideration.187 (CIR VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 244155 and G.R. No. 247508, 11 May 2021)(En Banc)[Lopez,
M., J.].

PROCEDURE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [RULE 44 - ORDINARY APPEALED CASES]

165Q. Is the failure to submit a memorandum a ground for the dismissal of the appeal? Explain.

165Q. Yes. Failure to comply with the Rules or with any order of the court is a ground to dismiss the
action. Specifically, on the appellant’s failure to file a memorandum with the Court of Appeals, as provided
188

for in Rule 44, Section 10 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 50, Section 1 reiterates that the appellant’s failure to file the required memorandum within the
reglementary period is a ground for the CA to dismiss the appeal. (Buena, Jr. vs. Benito, G.R. No. 181760, 14
October 2014)(En Banc)[Leonen, J.].

PROBLEM:

166Q. Appellant CSC represented by the OSG and the appellee was ordered by the CA to submit their
respective Memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Resolution. The OSG filed a Motion for an Extension
of another thirty (30) days. However, despite the lapse of the extension, the OSG failed to comply. Thus, the CA
dismissed the appeal. On Motion for Reconsideration, the OSG reasoned that the case was not properly calendared
in the list of due dates of the Associate Solicitor handling the case and the Associate Solicitor’s overwhelming
workload.

Is the justification made by the OSG meritorious? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

166A. No. The OSG’s excuses cannot be used to justify its failure to file the memorandum on behalf of the
Regional Office of the CSC. It has been held that a heavy workload cannot be used as an excuse for failure to comply
with the reglementary periods under the Rules.189 The CA did not err in dismissing the CSC’s appeal for failure to file
the required memorandum.

187 Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 201350 and 201680-81, 19 April 2017)(First Division)[Del Castillo, J.].
188 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17, Sec. 3 provides:
Section 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his or her
evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the
court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his or her counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise
declared by the court.
189 Bacarra vs. NLRC, 510 Phil. 353 (2005)[Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division].
 55

Failure to comply with the Rules or with any order of the court is a ground to dismiss the action.190
Specifically on the appellant’s failure to file a memorandum with the CA, Rule 44, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure is explicit in this respect.

Furthermore, Rule 50, Section 1 reiterates that the appellant’s failure to file the required memorandum
within the reglementary period is a ground for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. (Buena vs. Benito, supra).

RULE 46 - ORIGINAL CASES (IN RELATION TO RULE 32-TRIAL BY COMMISSIONER)[TO WHAT ACTIONS
APPLICABLE (SEC. 2)]

167Q. What is the rationale for remanding the case to the CA by the Supreme Court for the
determination of the factual issue? Explain.

167A. Under Section 6 of Rule 46, which is applicable to original cases for certiorari, the Supreme Court
may, whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its
members or to an appropriate court, agency, or office. The delegate need not be the body that rendered the assailed
decision.191

The CA generally has the authority to review findings of fact. Its conclusions as to findings of fact are
generally accorded great respect by the High Court. It is a body that is fully capacitated and has a surfeit of
experience in appreciating factual matters, including documentary evidence.

The provisions of Rule 32 should also be considered as governing the grant of authority to the CA to receive
evidence in the present case. Under Section 2, Rule 32 of the Rules of Court, a court may, motu proprio, direct a
reference to a commissioner when a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise,
in any stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. The order of reference can be limited exclusively
to receive and report evidence only, and the commissioner may likewise rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The
commissioner is likewise mandated to submit a report in writing to the court on the matters submitted to him by
the order of reference.192 (Cabuguas vs. Nery, G.R. No. 219915, 3 April 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].

CONTENTS AND FILING OF PETITION; EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS (SEC.

3)[MATERIAL DATA RULE]

168Q. What are the material dates to be stated in an original action of Certiorari Petition under Rule
65 in the Court of Appeals?

168A. The second paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 provides that the following material dates must be stated
in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65:

(a) the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received,

(b) the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed, and

(c) the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.

190 Sec. 3, Rule 17, Rules of Civil Procedure, provides: See amended provision in Volume I, Part I of this opus.
191 Manotok IV v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque 595 Phil. 87 (2008).
192 Citing Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., 565 Phil. 59, 98-100 (2007). See also IVQ Landholdings, Inc. v. Barbosa, 803 Phil. 419, 440
(2017); Republic v. Banal na Pag-aaral, Inc., G.R. No. 193305, February 5, 2018.
 56

The same provision states that the petitioner's failure to comply with said requirements shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Mercado, et al. vs. Lopena, et al., G.R. no. 230170, 6 June 2018)(Second
Division)[Caguioa, J.].

Rule 47 - Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions

169Q. What is annulment of judgment?

169A. Annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of
only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be
annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.193 (The Heirs Cullado vs.
Gutierrez (G.R. No. 212938, 30 July 2019)(En Banc)[Caguioa, J.]; [Sps. Hofer vs. Yu (G.R. No. 231452, 1 July
2020)(Third Division)[Carandang, J.].

The same extends only to a party in whose favor the remedies of new trial, reconsideration, appeal, and
petition for relief from judgment are no longer available through no fault of said party. (Palma vs. Petro
Corporation, G.R. No. 231826, 16 September 2020)(Second Division)[Inting, J.].

An action for annulment of judgment is an independent action where the judgment or resolution sought to be
annulled is rendered and is not an appeal of the judgment or resolution therein. [Calubad vs. Aceron (G.R. No.
188029, 2 September 2020)(Second Division)[Hernando, J.]. See also Castro, et al. vs. Gregorio (G.R. No. 188801, 15
October 2014)(Second Division)[Leonen, J.]; City of Taguig vs. City of Makati (G.R. No. 208393, 15 June 2016)(Second
Division)[Leonen, J.].]

170Q. What is the prescriptive period for a petition for annulment of judgment? Explain.

170A. According to Section 3 of Rule 47, if based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four
(4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
(Fernando, et al. vs. Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 237871, 18 September 2019)(Second Division)[Caguioa, J.].194

RULE 50 - DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

171Q. How should the compliance of the period on appeal be interpreted? Explain.

171A. It must be liberally interpreted. Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the Rules of Court expressly uses the
permissive term "may" to emphasize that while compliance with the prescribed periods is mandatory, the rules
should not be construed so strictly as to defeat the ends of justice. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Villacorta (G.R.
No. 249953, 23 June 2021)(First Division)[Caguioa, J.

RULE 51 - JUDGMENT; [HARMLESS ERROR]

172Q. What is the settled rule on the issuance of Writ of Execution by the CA?

172A. It is a settled rule that a writ of execution should strictly conform to every essential particular
of the promulgated judgment — as indicated in the dispositive portion (fallo) thereto195 — since it is a
portion of the decision that actually constitutes the resolution of the court.196 Consequently, even if there is

193 Aquino vs. Tangkengco, 793 Phil. 715 (2016), citing Dare Adventure Farm Corporation vs. CA, 695 Phil. 681 (2012); Heirs of So vs. Obliosca, 566 Phil. 397
(2008), citing Orbeta vs. Sendiong, 501 Phil. 478 (2005).
194 Citing Dr. Orbeta vs. Sendiong, 501 Phil. 478 (2005).
195 Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, 320 Phil. 517 (1995); Banquerigo vs. CA, 529 Phil. 826 (2006).
196 Olac vs. CA, 213 SCRA 321 (15 September 1992); Riano, W.B. Civil Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, 494 (2009), citing Sec. 8, Rule 9, Rules of Court.
 57

a conflict between the dispositive portion and the opinion of a court contained in the body of the decision, it
would be the dispositive portion.197 This principle is based on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final
order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing.198 A writ of execution would be rendered void if it
is in excess of and beyond the original judgment or award spelled out in the dispositive portion of the decision. 199
[Re: Complaint Filed by (Ret.) MCTC Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia Against 18 th Division Clerk of Court Atty. May
Faith L. Trumata-Rebotiaco, Court of Appeals, Cebu City, 668 SCRA 459, 20 March 2012](En Banc)[Sereno,
J.].

PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT [RULE 56-A - ORIGINAL CASES]

173Q. Explain the power of Judicial Review.

173A. The power of judicial review specially refers to both the authority and the duty of the Supreme Court
to determine whether a branch or an instrumentality of government has acted beyond the scope of the latter's
constitutional powers. As articulated in Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, the power of judicial review
involves the power to resolve cases in which the questions concern the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation.200 (Saguisag vs. Ochoa, 779 SCRA 241, 12 January 2016)(En Banc)[Sereno, C.J.].

RULE 56-B - APPEALED CASES

174Q. Is a second motion for reconsideration allowed in the Supreme Court? Explain.

174A. No. As a general rule, second and subsequent motions for reconsideration are forbidden.201 Section
2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides that "no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final
resolution by the same party shall be entertained." The rule rests on the basic tenet of the immutability of
judgments. "At some point, a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must
come to an end." (Laya Jr. vs. PVB, G.R. No. 205813, 10 January 2018)(En Banc)[Bersamin, J.].

175Q. Is there an exception/s to the prohibited second motion for reconsideration to the Supreme
Court? Explain.

175A. Yes. As a rule, a final and executory judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be
modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land. One of the exceptions is provided by Section
3, Rule 15 of the internal rule of the Supreme Court which provides:

Sec. 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court shall not entertain a second motion
for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of
justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is
reconsideration "in the higher interest of justice" when the assailed decision is not only legally
erroneous but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and
irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be
entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the
Court's declaration.

197 Olac vs. CA, supra; Pelejo vs. CA, 201 Phil. 873 (1982), citing Robles vs. Timario, 107 Phil. 809 (1960).
198 Olac vs. CA, supra.
199 Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, supra.
200 The Constitution provides: SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the Government.
201 Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.
 58

The Supreme Court may entertain second and subsequent motions for reconsideration when the assailed
decision is legally erroneous, patently unjust, and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and
irremediable injury or damage to the parties. Under these circumstances, even final and executory judgments
may be set aside because of the existence of compelling reasons. (Laya Jr. vs. PVB, supra).

176Q. Give at least one example of when the Supreme Court (En Banc) can take cognizance of a case
that receives a setback from the Labor Arbiter up the Supreme Court First Division?

176A. In the case of Laya, Jr. vs. PVB, supra, the High Court ruled: It is notable that the retirement program
in question herein was established solely by PVB as the employer. Although PVB could validly impose a retirement
age lower than 65 years for as long as it did so with the employee’s consent,202 the consent must be explicit, voluntary,
free, and uncompelled.203 In dismissing the petition for review on certiorari, the Court's First Division
inadvertently overlooked that the law required the employees' consent to be express and voluntary in order
for them to be bound by the retirement program providing for a retirement age earlier than the age of 65
years. Hence, the Court deems it proper to render a fair adjudication on the merits of the appeal upon the petitioner's
second motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, allowing this case to be reviewed on its merits furnishes the Court
with the opportunity to re-examine the case in order to ascertain whether or not the dismissal produced results
patently unjust to the petitioner. These reasons do justify treating this case as an exception to the general rule
on the immutability of judgments.

202 Jaculbe vs. Silliman University, G.R. No. 156934, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 445, 452.
203 Cercado v. Uniprom, Inc., G.R. No. 188154, October 13, 2010, 633 SCRA 281, 290.