Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Q1: DISCUSS THE DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS AND THE EXCEPTIONS
THERETO
A1: The doctrine states that where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter, a case must
be filed before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction. The principle of hierarchy of
courts requires that recourse should be made to the lower courts before they are made to the higher
courts. The exceptions to this doctrine are as follows:
1) Where there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
2) When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
3) When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
4) When the challenged orders are patent nullities;
5) When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances call for and justify the immediate
and direct handling by the Court [Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385 (2013)]
Page 1 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
JURISDICTION
Q3: FOR HIS SUPPOSED INVOLVEMENT IN THE DRUG TRADE IN THEIR PROVINCE,
GOVERNOR R W AS CHARGED IN THE RTC W ITH ILLEGAL DRUG TRADING, A VIOLATION
OF RA 9165. GOVERNOR R’S COUNSEL FILED A MOTION TO QUASH, ALLEGING THAT
SINCE HE IS AMONG THE OFFICIALS ENUMERATED IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN LAW ,
AND THAT THE OFFENSE W AS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE,
IT IS THE SANDIGANBAYAN THAT HAS JURISDICTION, NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS. DECIDE THE MOTION.
A3: His motion to quash should be denied, as it is the RTC which has jurisdiction in this case.
In Morales v. Court of Appeals, this Court categorically named the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over
drug related-cases. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the
Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of
whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. Public officials were never considered
excluded from the scope of RA 9165
Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their
office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations
of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. [De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. 229781 (2017)]
Page 2 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q5: W HAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN A CIVIL ACTION AND A SPECIAL
PROCEEDING?
A5: Unlike a civil action which has definite adverse parties, a special proceeding has no definite adverse
parties. The definitions of a civil action and a special proceeding, respectively, in the Rules illustrate this
difference. A civil action, in which “a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong” necessarily has definite adverse parties, who are either the plaintiff or
defendant. On the other hand, a special proceeding, “by which a party seeks to establish a status, right,
or a particular fact,” has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, right, or
particular fact, but no definite adverse party. [Montañer v. Sharia District Court, G.R. No. 174975 (2009)]
Page 3 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
A9: An element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the
question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must consider [MVRS
Publications v. Islamic Dawah Council, G.R. No. 135306 (2003)]:
(5) Whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of
the class;
(6) The proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total membership of the class; and
(7) Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class.
Where the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class they seek to represent are
diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper.
Q10: DISTINGUISH BETW EEN REAL PARTY AND INTEREST AND LOCUS STANDI
A10: A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit,
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. [Sec. 2, Rule 3; David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396
(2006)]
Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. Thus, as a general rule, a party is allowed to “raise a constitutional question” when:
(1) He can show that he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the government;
(2) The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
(3) The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. [Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978
(2012)]
Q12: W HAT IS THE VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS W HERE (A) THE
ACTION AFFECTS THE PERSONAL STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF OR (B) ANY PROPERTY
OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE PHILIPPINES?
A12: Either (a) the residence of the plaintiff or (b) where the non-resident’s property may be found.
Q13: W HAT ARE THE RULES ON VENUE W HEN THE PARTIES STIPULATE ON THE SAME?
A13: The rules on venue finds no application where the parties, before the filing of the action, have
validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. But note that the mere stipulation on the venue of an
action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. It must be shown that such
stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as “exclusively” and
“waiving for this purpose any other venue,” “shall only” preceding the designation of venue, “to the
exclusion of the other courts,” or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an
agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. [Auction in Malinta v.
Luyaben, G.R. No. 173979 (2007)]
Page 4 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Q15: W HAT TESTS HAVE BEEN USED BY THE COURT IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF
A COUNTERCLAIM?
A15: In determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, the following tests have been
used:
(1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
(2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
(3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the
defendant’s counterclaim?
(4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication
of effort and tim e by the parties and the court? This test is the “compelling test of
compulsoriness.” [Metropolitan Bank and Trust v. CPR Promotions and Marketing, G.R. No.
200567 (2015)]
Page 5 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
The requirement specific to petitions filed with the appellate court simply provides as a penalty that the
failure of the petitioner to comply with the listed requirements, among them the need for a certification
against forum shopping, “shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.” [Heirs of Juan
Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163208 (2008)]
effect of a denial. [Sec. 10, Rule 8; PBC v. Go, G.R. No. 175514 (2011)]
Page 7 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
is to recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, Joe Bomb. Indeed, where the ultimate
purpose of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession, partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such an action must be deemed a real action and must
perforce be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.” [Paderanga
vs Buissan, G.R. No. 49475 (1993)]
Q26: YOU ARE SEEKING TO HAVE YOUR CLIENT DECLARED AS AN INDIGENT LITIGANT.
HOW EVER, YOU DISCOVER THAT HE OWNS A PARCEL OF LAND W ITH A FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF PHP 400,000. W OULD IT STILL BE POSSIBLE FOR YOUR CLIENT TO BE
CONSIDERED AN INDIGENT PARTY?
A26: Yes, but it would be subject to the discretion of the court using the indigency test.
If the applicant meets BOTH the salary (gross income and that of their immediate family’s do not exceed
an amount double the monthly minimum wage) and property requirements (does not own real
property with a fair market value of more than PHP 300,000) under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant
of the application is mandatory. Since my client owns real property with FMV of above PHP 300,000,
s/he cannot be mandatorily considered an indigent.
On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application
should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the "indigency test" under Section 21 of
Rule 3 (no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities) and use its
sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption. [Spouses Algura v. LGU of the
City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135 (2006)]
Q27: BRYAN IS LEASING ONE OF THE UNITS IN THE APARTMENT BUILDIN G THAT
ADAM OW NS. BRYAN’S GIRLFRIEND CATHY FREQUENTLY VISITS AND SPENDS THE
NIGHT THERE. THEY W ENT TO HOSPITAL ONE DAY BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN
FEELING W ELL FOR SEVERAL DAYS. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE DOCTOR TOLD THEM
THAT THE MOLD IN THE CEILING OF BRYAN’S APARTMENT CAUSED THEM A SERIOUS
ILLNESS. THEY HAD TO TAKE MEDICINE AND W AS FORCED TO TAKE A LEAVE FROM
W ORK. BRYAN REFUSED TO PAY THE RENT FOR THAT MONTH. ADAM SUED BRYAN
FOR A MONTH’S W ORTH OF RENT. BRYAN ALLEGED IN HIS ANSW ER W ITH
COUNTERCLAIM, INTER ALIA, THAT THERE W AS MOLD IN THE APARTMENT W HICH
MADE HIM AND CATHY SERIOUSLY ILL, CAUSED THEM TO TAKE LEAVE FROM W ORK,
COST THEM MEDICAL EXPENSES AND BROUGHT ANGUISH TO THEIR LIVES. BRYAN
ASKED THE COURT TO ORDER ADAM TO REIMBURSE HIM THE MEDICAL EXPENSES
AND LOST SALARIES AS ACTUAL DAMAGES AND TO PAY HIM MORAL DAMAGES. THE
TRIAL COURT ORDERED CATHY TO BE BROUGHT IN AS A DEFENDANT. CAN IT DO SO?
A27: Yes. According to Rule 6, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, “When the presence of parties other than
those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over
them can be obtained.” The relief asked in Bryan’s counter-claim consists of actual and moral damages
brought about by the mold in the apartment that Adam leased to him. Both Bryan and Cathy suffered the
actual and moral damages alleged, and they suffered due to the same exposure to the mold. Hence,
granting of complete relief to the determination of the counter-claim requires Cathy’s presence.
Therefore, provided that jurisdiction over the person of Cathy can be obtained, the court shall order him
to be brought in as a defendant.
Q28: W HILE ON A DINNER DATE, CATHY BLAMED BRYAN FOR GETTING HER EXPOSED
TO THE MOLD AND THE RESULTING FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL COSTS SHE
INCURRED. SHE TOLD BRYAN THAT SHE COULD HAVE AVOIDED GETTING SICK IF
BRYAN HAD ONLY AGREED FOR THEM TO SPEND MORE TIME IN HER APARTMENT.
Page 8 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
THEY BROKE UP AFTER THE ARGUMENT. BRYAN SUED ADAM BEFORE THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT FOR ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS AND CLAIMED DAMAGES. ADAM DID
NOT FILE AN ANSW ER WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM SERVICE OF SUMMONS. BRYAN,
PREOCCUPIED W ITH THE BREAK-UP, DID NOT MOVE TO DECLARE ADAM IN DEFAULT.
NEVERTHELESS, THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ORDER DECLARING HIM IN DEFAULT.
W HAT IS ADAM’S REMEDY?
A28: Adam’s remedy is to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the
RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing an Order declaring him in default.
Section 3, Rule 9, allows the court to declare the defending party in default only upon motion of the
claiming party with notice to such defending party and proof of such failure. In ordinary proceedings, the
RTC cannot declare parties in default motu proprio. Moreover, Section 1, Rule 11 allows the defendant 15
days after service of summons to file his Answer. The facts state that Adam failed to file within 10 days
from service. Therefore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding these two
provisions of the Rules of Court.
Adam has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Order is an
interlocutory order that cannot be appealed under Rule 41, Section 1 because the RTC still has to decide
on the merits of Bryan’s complaint. A motion to set aside the order of default under Rule 9, Section 3(b) is
not a remedy as well because Adam’s ground in challenging the Order does not consist of failure to
answer due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and existence of a meritorious defense.
His ground is the trial court’s disregard of Rule 9, Section 3 and Rule 11, Section 1. Thus, the petition for
certiorari is the proper remedy.
Q29: IN THE QUESTION ABOVE, SUPPOSE ADAM W AS ABLE TO FILE HIS ANSW ER
W ITHIN THE ALLOW ED PERIOD, BUT NEITHER BRYAN NOR HIS COUNSEL APPEARED
ON THE DATE OF THE PRESENTATION OF HIS EVIDENCE IN CHIEF BECAUSE THEY
W ERE PREOCCUPIED W ITH BRYAN’S BREAK-UP. THE TRIAL COURT MOTU PROPRIO
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. BRYAN FILED ANOTHER COMPLAINT AGAINST ADAM ON
THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION OF ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS. IF YOU W ERE ADAM’S
COUNSEL, W HAT W OULD YOU DO?
A29: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment (res
judicata). Section 3, Rule 17, states that the court may dismiss the complaint if, for no justifiable cause,
the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief. The provision also says
that such dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by
the court. Bryan failed to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief because he was
preoccupied with his break-up, which is not a justifiable cause, thereby allowing the court to dismiss his
complaint. Since this dismissal is on the merits, that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment is a
ground to dismiss Bryan’s subsequent complaint.
Page 9 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Page 10 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Page 11 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
If grave abuse of discretion attended the grant of Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
order of default
Q37: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS?
A37:
(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the defendant’s person
(2) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim
(3) Improper venue
(4) Plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue
(5) Litis pendentia
(6) Res judicata
(7) Prescription
(8) Failure to state a cause of action
(9) Extinguished claim
(10) Unenforceable claim under the Statute of Frauds
(11) Non-compliance with a condition precedent
Q39: JUAN IS A PLAINTIFF IN A CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGES. AFTER THE LAST
PLEADING W AS SERVED AND FILED, JUAN FAILED TO MOVE THAT THE CASE BE SET
FOR PRE-TRIAL. PEDRO, THE DEFENDANT, FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS STATING
THAT PRE-TRIAL IS MANDATORY AND THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS THE PLAINTIFF
W HO HAS THE DUTY TO MOVE FOR PRE-TRIAL AFTER THE LAST PLEADING IS FILED.
PEDRO CONTENDS THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY W ITH SUCH DUTY W ARRANTS
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. RULE ON THIS CONTENTION.
A39: The Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Although Section 1, Rule 18, states that “After the last
pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the
case be set for pre-trial,” the Supreme Court has issued an administrative rule that if the plaintiff fails to
file said motion within the given period, the branch clerk shall issue a Notice of Pre-Trial [AM No. 03-1-
09-SC]. Furthermore, failing to move for pre-trial is not one of the grounds in a motion to dismiss.
Page 12 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Q42: JUAN IS A PLAINTIFF IN A CIVIL CASE AGAINST PEDRO. AFTER JUAN PRESENTED
HIS EVIDENCE, PEDRO FILED A DEMURRER W HICH W AS GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
Page 13 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
COURT. UPON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPEAL W AS GRANTED AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST PEDRO. PEDRO FILES A
PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CONTENDING THAT THE PROPER ORDER
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR PEDRO TO
PRESENT HIS OW N EVIDENCE. IF YOU W ERE THE COURT, HOW W OULD YOU RULE ON
PEDRO’S ARGUMENT?
A42: Pedro’s argument has no merit. If a demurrer is granted but later reversed on appeal, the appellate
court should not remand the case for further proceedings but should render judgment on the basis of the
evidence submitted by the plaintiff. [Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc.,
G.R. No. 143338 (2005)]. If the order granting the demurrer is reversed on appeal, the defendant loses his
right to present evidence. [Sec. 1, Rule 33; Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246 (2007)].
Page 14 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Exceptions to the final judgment rule are as Exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of
follows: [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the judgment as seen in jurisprudence:
Philippines (2000) p. 120]
1) Correction of clerical errors [Filipinas
1) Statutory exception Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa, G.R.
No. 167332 (2011)]
a. Partial judgment for or against
one or more of several parties 2) Nunc Pro Tunc entries [Filipinas
Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa, G.R.
b. Partial judgment for or against
No. 167332 (2011)]
one or more separate claims
3) Whenever circumstances transpire
c. Cases under Sec. 1, Rule 109
after finality of the decision, rendering
(special proceedings):
its execution unjust and
2) Discretionary exception inequitable. [Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land
Bank of the Phils., G.R. No. 164195
a. Supreme Court’s plenary
(2010)]
discretion to accept or refuse
invocations of its appellate 4) In cases of special and exceptional
jurisdiction nature, when it is necessary in the
interest of justice to direct
Page 16 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Q52: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, AND HOW MAY THEIR
ENFORCEMENT BE REPELLED?
A52: In case of judgment or final order upon a specific thing, it is conclusive upon the thing. In case of
judgment or final order against a person, it is presumptive evidence of a right as between parties and
successors in interest
Foreign judgments in either case may be repelled by the following grounds:
(1) Want of jurisdiction
(2) Want of notice
(3) Collusion
(4) Fraud
(5) Clear mistake of law or fact
Q53: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES AND GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A W RIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND A FINAL W RIT OF INJUNCTION?
A53: For a writ of preliminary injunction:
Page 17 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
(c) An attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such; or
(d) Any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(3) Action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or
converted,
(i) When the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of
(ii) To prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;
NOTE: The rule makes no distinction between real and personal property [Riano]
(4) Action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
obligation upon which the action is brought, OR in the performance thereof;
NOTE: The delivery of counterfeit money or knowingly issuing a bounced check are considered as
grounds under this rule [Riano]
(5) Action against a party who:
(i) has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so,
(ii) with intent to defraud his creditors
(6) Action against a party who:
(a) Does not reside and is not found in the Philippines; or
(b) On whom summons may be served by publication.
NOTE: The persons on whom summons may be served by publication are:
(a) Resident defendants whose identity or whose whereabouts are unknown [Sec. 14, Rule
14]
(b) Resident defendants who are temporarily out of the country [Sec. 16, Rule 14
Page 19 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
A58: A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the
date of its entry.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations (ten (10) years from entry
[Art. 1144(3)]), a judgment may be enforced by action.
The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and
thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. Once the judgment is revived, the 10-
year prescriptive period commences to run from the date of finality of the revived judgment and not the
original judgment. [PNB v. Bondoc, G.R. No. L-20236 (1965)]
Q59: W HAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION IS A PREREQUISITE TO A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI?
A59:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by
the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. [Abacan vs.
Northwestern University, Inc. G.R. No. 140777, (2005)]
Q61: W HAT IS THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF QUO
W ARRANTO?
A61: Generally, it should be filed with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the RTC
exercising jurisdiction over the area where the respondent or any of the respondents reside. If
filed by the Solicitor General, it should be in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or an RTC in the
City of Manila [Sec. 7, Rule 65].
Note: If the quo warranto under Sec. 1(c), Rule 66 (An association which acts as a corporation within the
Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act), original and
exclusive jurisdiction is vested on the special commercial courts. Hence, in these cases, the venue
should be the special commercial court having jurisdiction over the area where respondent or any of the
respondents reside.
Page 20 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Q63: DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF, THE ISSUANCE
AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE W RIT OF ATTACHMENT.
A63: The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his person. In
short, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary only in the implementation of the writ,
hence the requirement of service of summons prior or contemporaneous to the implementation of the
writ.
Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the commencement of the
action or at any time before entry of judgment.” This phrase refers to the date of the filing of the
complaint, which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the action." The reference plainly is
to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues.
In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (1991), the Court clarified that whatever be the acts
done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant do not and cannot
bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the
court. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of
attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the
applicant’s affidavit and attachm ent bond, and of the order of attachment, as explicitly
required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of
the complaint.
In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals (1992), the Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of
attachment involves three stages:
(1) the court issues the order granting the application;
(2) the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ;
(3) the writ is implemented.
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
obtained. However, once the im plem entation of the writ com m ences, the court m ust have
acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and
authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the
defendant. Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him
and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that prior or
contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of
the complaint, the application for attachment, the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be
served upon him. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of
jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service. [Torres v.
Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759 (2009)]
Page 21 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Page 22 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety of
different acts. [Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP, G.R. No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]
Q66: COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE TW O KINDS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT.
A66: Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed in the presence of
or so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or indirect
contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the court.
The punishment for the first is generally summary and immediate, and no process or evidence is
necessary because the act is committed in facie curiae. In contrast, the second usually requires
proceedings less summary than the first. The proceedings for the punishment of the contumacious act
committed outside the personal knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the
elements of due process of law, that is, notice, written charges, and an opportunity to deny and to defend
such charges before guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed. [Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP, G.R.
No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]
(8) Failure of appellant to appear at preliminary conference under Rule 48 or comply with orders,
circulars, directives of the court without justifiable cause
(9) Fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable
Other Grounds
(1) Appeal under Rule 41 from the RTC, raising only questions of law;
(2) Appeal by notice of appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction;
(3) Appeals erroneously taken to the CA
(4) By agreement of the parties (i.e. amicable settlement)
(5) Where appealed case has become moot or academic
(6) Where appeal is frivolous or dilatory
Q69: W HEN MAY APPEALS BE W ITHDRAW N AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AND W HEN MAY
IT BE W ITHDRAW N UPON DISCRETION OF THE COURT?
A69: In civil cases, an appeal may be withdrawn as a matter of right at any time before the filing of the
appellee’s brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the appellate court. [Sec.
3, Rule 50]
In criminal cases, withdrawal of appeal shall be subject to the following rules:
(1) Before the record has been forwarded to the clerk of court of the appellate court, the MTC or RTC,
withdrawal may be allowed
(2) After the records have already been received by the RTC from the MTC, the RTC in its discretion
may allow withdrawal provided a motion is filed before judgment on the appeal is rendered
[Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 252, citing Sec. 12, Rule 122]
Page 24 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
We have likewise followed the harmless error rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly
admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant.
If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the
properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. [People v. Teehankee, G.R. Nos. 111206-08
(1995)]
Page 25 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Q73: DIFFERENTIATE W RIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND W RIT OF AMPARO AND THE
W RIT OF HABEAS DATA AS TO THE INSTANCES COVERED BY EACH RULE, W HO MAY
APPLY, AND W HERE THE PETITION MAY BE FILED
A73: [Note: Comprehensive comparative table is attached as Annex]
Writ of Habeas Corpus Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas Data
Coverage All cases of illegal confinement Involves right to life, Involves the right to
and detention which any person liberty and security privacy in life, liberty or
is deprived of his liberty. violated or threatened security violated or
with violation by an threatened by an unlawful
Deprivation of rightful custody
unlawful act or omission act or omission of a public
of any person from the person
of a public official or official or employee, or of
entitled thereto.
employee or a private a private individual or
[Sec. 1] individual or entity. Covers entity engaged in the
extralegal killings gathering, collecting or
storing of data or
and enforced
information regarding the
disappearances or threats
person, family, home and
thereof. [Sec. 1]
correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
[Sec. 1]
Who may By the party for whose relief it is The aggrieved party or by Any aggrieved party may
file intended, or by some person on any qualified person or
file a petition.
his behalf [Sec. 3] entity in the following
order:
(1) Any member of the However, in cases of
immediate family extralegal killings and
(2) Any ascendant, enforced disappearances,
descendant or collateral the petition may be filed
relative of the aggrieved by (also successive):
within the 4th civil degree
(1) Any member of the
of affinity or
consanguinity immediate family of the
aggrieved
(3) Any concerned citizen,
(2) Any ascendant,
organization, association
descendant or collateral
or institution
relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth
civil degree of
Filing by the aggrieved
consanguinity or affinity
suspends the right of all [Sec. 2]
others [Sec. 2
Where filed (1) SC or any member (1) SB, CA, SC, or any (1) At the option of
thereof, on any day and justice of such courts petitioner, RTC
Page 26 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Q75: RESPONDENTS MAPUSOK AND APKA, IN THEIR RETURN FILED W ITH THE CA,
RAISED AS THEIR DEFENSE THAT THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE
GROUND THAT ALMA CAN NOT FILE THE PETITION BECAUSE OF THE EARLIER
PETITION FILED BY MAYUMI W ITH THE RTC. ARE RESPONDENTS CORRECT IN RAISING
THEIR DEFENSE?
A75: Yes. Under Sec. 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a petition by the aggrieved
party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions.
Those who may file under the rule are: a) the aggrieved party; or, b) qualified persons or entities, in the
following order: any member of the immediately family (i.e. spouse, children, parents of the aggrieved
party), any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consagunity or affinity, in default of the former, or any concerned citizen, organization,
association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
In this case, Mayumi, the aggrieved party’s wife, had already filed a petititon. ALMA may no longer file the
same petition.
Q76: MAYUMI LATER FILED SEPARATE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST
MAPUSOK. HOW W ILL THE CASES AFFECT THE AMPARO PETITITON SHE EARLIER
FILED?
A76: The Writ of Amparo shall be consolidated with the criminal action. Under Sec. 23 of the Rule of
Amparo, “when a criminal and separate civil action are filed subsequent to the Writ of Amparo, the latter
shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.”
Q79: W HAT IS THE PERIOD AND THE MODE TO APPEAL A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER
IN A HABEAS CORPUS CASE?
A79: The appeal should be within 48 hours from notice of the judgment or the final order, by ordinary
appeal/notice of appeal. [See Sec. 19, Rule 102, and Sec. 3, Rule 41]
Note: By virtue of Sec. 1, Rule 22, the day of the act or event from which the period begins to run is
excluded and the day of the performance included. Hence, the 48-hour period starts to run on the day
after the notice was received [Riguera, citing Kabigting v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-15548 (1962) and
1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium (4th ed), p. 303]
Q80: N FILED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS INVOLVING HIS 9-YEAR OLD CHILD A,
W HO W AS TAKEN BY HIS EX-HUSBAND T. AFTER PRODUCING THE MINOR CHILD IN
COURT, THE RTC DISMISSED THE CASE, RATIOCINATING THAT THERE THE CASE W AS
MOOT AND ACADEMIC AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT TO BE DONE IN THE HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE MINOR W AS ALREADY PRODUCED, W ITHOUT
PREJUDICE ON THE PETITIONERS TO FILE PROPER ACTION FOR CUSTODY OF THE
MINOR. THE CA AFFIRM ED THIS. ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE COURTS A QUO PROPER?
A80: No. The rulings of the RTC and CA were improper. In cases involving minors, the purpose of a
petition for habeas corpus is not limited to the production of the child before the court. The main purpose
of the petition for habeas corpus is to determine who has the rightful custody over the child. The RTC
should then conduct a trial to determine who has rightful custody over the minor. [Bagtas v. Santos, G.R.
No. 166682 (2009)]
Q81: W HAT ARE THE INTERIM RELIEFS AVAILABLE TO PARTIES IN CASES FOR W RIT OF
AMPARO, AND W HEN MAY THEY BE AVAILED OF?
A81: The interim reliefs are available upon the filing of the petition and anytime thereafter until final
judgment.
For petitioners: the interim reliefs for the petitioners are the following: Temporary Protection Order (TPO),
Inspection Order (IO), Production Order (PO), and Witness Protection Order (WPO). The TPO and WPO
may be granted upon motion or by the court motu proprio, while the IO and PO are upon motion.
For respondents: IO and PO are available upon motion.
Temporary Protection Inspection Order (IO) Production Order (PO) Witness Protection
Order (TPO) Order (WPO)
Petitioner or the Direct any person in Direct any person in Refer the witnesses to
aggrieved party and any possession or possession,
(a) The Department of
member of the
control of a designated custody or control of any Justice for admission to
immediate family shall
land or other designated the Witness Protection,
be protected in a
property, to permit entry documents, papers, Security and Benefit
government agency or
Page 29 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
Q82: W HAT IS THE PERIOD AND MODE TO APPEAL W RIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS
DATA CASES?
A82: Any party may appeal the final judgment or order within 5 working days from notice of the final
judgment or order (or MR/MNT denying it) to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact and law, or both. [Sec. 19 and 25, Rule on Writ of
Amparo; Sec. 19 and 24, Rule on Writ of Habeas Data]
Q83: W HEN MAY THE PETITION FOR HABEAS DATA BE HEARD IN THE CHAMBERS OF
THE COURT W HERE IT IS FILED?
A83:
(1) Where the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in question shall
compromise national security or state secrets, or
(2) When the data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged
character. [Sec. 12]
Q84: A, B, AND C, STUDENTS, FILED A PETITION FOR W RIT OF HABEAS DATA AGAINST
THEIR SCHOOL, K-12 MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, A PRIVATE INSTITUTION, FOR
ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING THEIR RIGHT TO SECURITY IN COLLECTING COMPROMISING
PHOTOS ONLINE AND STORING THEM IN SCHOOL COMPUTERS. COUNSEL FOR
SCHOOL X ARGUES THAT SINCE THE SCHOOL IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GATHERING,
COLLECTING OR STORING DATA, IT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE ON A W RIT OF HABEAS
DATA, AS THE RULES REQUIRE THAT THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL BE “ENGAGED IN THE
GATHERING, COLLECTING OR STORING OF DATA OR INFORMATION.” IS THIS
CONTENTION CORRECT?
A84.: No. To "engage" means "to do or take part in something." It does not necessarily mean that the
activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering,
collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such
undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a
personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not
prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. Thus, the defense that the respondent is not
Page 30 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
engaged in the business of gathering, storing and collecting data is erroneous [Vivares v. St. Theresa’s
College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)].
Page 31 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Q85: DISTINGUISH AMENDM ENT OF AN INFORMATION FROM SUBSTITUTION.
A85: The 1st paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110 provides the rules for amendment of the information or
complaint, while the 2nd paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint. Both
amendment and substitution of the information may be made before or after the defendant pleads,
but they differ in the following respects:
Amendment Substitution
May involve either formal or substantial changes Necessarily involves a substantial change from
the original charge
If before plea, may be effected without leave of Must be with leave of court as the original
court information has to be dismissed
If only as to form, there is no need for another Another preliminary investigation is entailed and
preliminary investigation and the retaking of plea the accused has to plead anew to the new
of the accused information
An amended information refers to the same Substitution requires or presupposes that the new
offense charged in the original information or to information involves a different offense which
an offense which necessarily includes or is does not include or is not necessarily included in
necessarily included in the original charge, hence the original charge, hence the accused cannot
substantial amendments to the information after claim double jeopardy. [Teehankee v. Madayag,
the plea has been taken cannot be made over the G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992]
objection of the accused, for if the original
information would be withdrawn, the accused
could invoke double jeopardy.
Page 32 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 33 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q89: DURING TRIAL OF A CASE FOR ROBBERY W ITH HOMICIDE, THE ONLY
EYEW ITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY BECAUSE
HE CANNOT BE CONTACTED OR LOCATED. AFTER A YEAR OF POSTPONEMENTS,
THE W ITNESS REAPPEARED, SAYING THAT HIS CONSCIENCE W OULD NOT LET HIM
REST AND SO HE IS READY TO TESTIFY. THE ACCUSED MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL
OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL. IF
YOU W ERE THE PROSECUTION, HOW W ILL YOU OPPOSE THE MOTION?
A89: Under Sec. 3(b), Rule 119, any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of a
witness shall be excluded in computing the time for trial. The absent witness must be essential and his
whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined with due diligence.
Q90: W HAT IS A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (IN CRIMINAL CASES) AND W HAT ARE
ITS EFFECTS?
A90: A demurrer to evidence is an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to
the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or
not) to make out his case or sustain the issue” [Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 (2007). It can be
filed by the accused after the prosecution rests its case with or without leave of court.
If filed with leave and the court denies the demurrer the accused can present evidence in his defense.
On the other hand, if filed without leave the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present
evidence and the court will render judgment based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. If
the court grants the demurrer it will dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. This
amounts to an acquittal for the accused [Sec. 23, Rule 119]
Page 34 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
However, the Supreme Court’s constitutionally granted judicial power to correct grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure.
Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the
demurrer to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the
remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
[Macapagal-Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 220598 (2016), Bersamin, J.]
if the conviction is for a light Judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or
offense representative
If the accused is confined or Judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the
detained in another province or city RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or
detention upon request of the court which rendered
the judgment.
If the accused fails to attend the Judgment may be validly promulgated in absentia by recording
promulgation even if he was the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy
notified thereof, or if he jumped thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel
bail, or if he escaped from prison
Page 35 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
(3) The search is confined to the person arrested, but as an incident of an arrest, the place or
premises where the arrest was made can also be searched without a search warrant. The
extent and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
Assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within
which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property
found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be
used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing
violence. [Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 204589 (2014)]
Page 36 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q97: W HAT IS THE RULE ON THE IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF THE CIVIL ACTION IN
THE CRIMINAL ACTION?
A97: [Rule 111, Sec. 1]
General rule: The civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed
instituted with the criminal action.
Exception: The civil action is not deemed so instituted if the offended party:
(1) Waives the civil action;
(2) Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or
(3) Reserves the right to institute it separately.
Instances where reservation to file the civil action separately shall not be allowed:
(1) B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1 [b], Rule 111]
(2) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan [P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249, Sec. 4]
(3) Tax cases [R.A. 9282, Sec. 7 [b][1]]
Q99: C PREVIOUSLY HAD A CASE FILED AGAINST HIM. SAID CASE W AS SCHEDULED
FOR ARRAIGNMENT, HE W AS ALREADY BONDED AND READY TO ENTER A PLEA.
THE RTC, HOW EVER, DISMISSED THE CASE EVEN BEFORE HE W AS ABLE TO ENTER
A PLEA BECAUSE OF A DEFECT IN THE INFORMATION. IN A SUBSEQUENT
Page 37 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME ACTS AND THE SAME CRIME, CAN C INVOKE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY?
A99: To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy
must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only
(a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having
been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of
the accused.
Here legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he never entered a valid plea. He himself admitted that he
was just about to enter a plea, but the first case was dismissed even before he was able to do so.
Second, there was no unconditional dismissal of the complaint. The case was not terminated by
reason of acquittal nor conviction but simply because he posted bail. Absent these two elements,
there can be no double jeopardy. [Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442 (2015), applying Rule 117 Sec. 7]
Q100: W HAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF A VALID W ARRANTLESS ARREST?
A100: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. [Rule 113, Sec. 5, Sec. 14]
Q102: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS CITED FOR THE GRANT OF BAIL IN ENRILE V.
SANDIGANBAYAN?
A102: [Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847 (2015, MR in 2016), Bersamin, J.]
(1) The detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2) There exist special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances.
Page 38 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q104: R AND E W ERE CHARGED W ITH FOR THE SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS. HOW EVER,
THEY W ERE CONVICTED ONLY OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED DRUGS. IS
THEIR CONVICTION PROPER?
A104: Yes. Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides for the “variance doctrine” which allows
conviction for an offense that is different from the one charged in the Information when the offense
proved is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, R and E can properly be
convicted of possession of drugs.
Page 39 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
A106: Yes, although the rule on prejudicial question only pertains to civil cases, the rules on
prejudicial question may be applied in analogous situations where an issue in an administrative case
was considered a prejudicial question to the resolution of a civil case which, consequently, warranted
the suspension of the latter until after termination of the administrative proceedings. [Quiambao v.
Osorio (1988)] Here, the action for specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial question that
sufficed to suspend the proceedings determining the criminal charge. The action for specific
performance in the HLURB would determine whether or not S, the buyer, was legally entitled to
demand the delivery of the TCTs, while the criminal action would decide whether or not B’s directors
and officers were criminally liable for withholding the TCTs. This is true simply because the action for
specific performance was an action civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the
HLURB, whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. [San Miguel Properties, Inc. v.
Perez (2013)].
Note: Section 7 of Rule 111 clearly states that in the elements of a prejudicial question, the previous
action instituted is a civil action.
Page 40 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
EVIDENCE
Q107: W HEN IS JUDICIAL N OTICE MANDATORY?
A107: A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the:
(1) existence and territorial extent of states,
(2) their political history,
(3) forms of government and
(4) symbols of nationality;
(5) the law of nations,
(6) the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
(7) the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
(8) the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
(9) the laws of nature,
(10) the measure of time, and
(11) the geographical divisions [Sec. 1, Rule 129]
Page 41 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 42 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
When the original is a public record Certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof
in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office
Q113: DIFFERENTIATE THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE FROM THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
A113:
Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule
Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless Can be invoked only when the controversy is
of WON such party participated in the writing between the parties to the written agreement,
involved their privies or any party directly affected thereby
Q114: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE ATTORN EY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO
APPLY?
A114:
(1) There must be a communication made by the client to the attorney or an advice given by the
attorney to his client;
(2) The communication must have been given in confidence;
(3) The communication or advice must have been given either in the course of the professional
employment or with a view to professional employment; and
(4) The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony thereon.
Page 43 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk are also covered by the rule and cannot be examined
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity without the consent of
the client AND their employer.
Q116: W HAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE?
A116:
(1) Adm ission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the
party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency,
may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.
(2) Adm ission of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with
the party.
(3) Adm ission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after
the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
(4) Adm ission by privies. Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. [Sections 29-31, Rule 130]
Q118: W HAT IS THE HEARSAY RULE? DIFFERENTIATE BETW EEN HEARSAY EVIDENCE
AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
A118: The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence to the effect that a witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his own knowledge or derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in the Rules of Court [Sec. 36, Rule 130]
Page 44 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q120: LETICIA W AS SEPARATED IN FACT FROM HER HUSBAND ANTONIO FOR OVER
A YEAR. SINCE THEIR ESTRANGEMENT, SHE STAYED W ITH HER BEST FRIEND, GINA,
IN THE LATTER’S CONDOMINIUM UNIT IN QUEZON CITY. THEREAFTER, THEY
DISCOVERED THAT ANTONIO W AS IN FACT HAVING AN AFFAIR W ITH ANOTHER
W OMAN. GINA CONTINUED INVESTIGATING AND FOUND OUT THAT ANTONIO HAD
FATHERED A CHILD W ITH THE SAID OTHER WOM AN. GINA CONFRONTED ANTONIO
ABOUT THE AFFAIR, INDICATING THAT LETICIA HAD BEEN STAYING WITH HER
SINCE THEIR SEPARATION. ONE W EEK LATER, GINA’S CONDOMINIUM UNIT W AS
SET ON FIRE, AND AS A RESULT, GINA DIED. LETICIA, W HO SURVIVED BECAUSE
SHE W AS AS A MERE MATTER OF CHANCE, NOT IN THE UNIT W HEN THE FIRE
BROKE OUT, CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN ANTONIO IN THE LOBBY OF THE
CONDOMINIUM UNIT MINUTES BEFORE THE FIRE W AS FOUND TO HAVE STARTED.
IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR ARSON AGAINST ANTONIO, THE PROSECUTOR SOUGHT
TO ELICIT THE SAID TESTIMONY FROM LETICIA. ANTONIO IMMEDIATELY OBJECTS
TO THIS, CITING MARITAL PRIVILEGE AND ARGUING THAT THE DECEASED GINA
Page 45 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q121: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE DEAD MAN’S
STATUTE OR SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE?
A121: [Sec. 23, Rule 130]
(1) Defendant is the executor or administrator or a representative of the deceased or of the person
of unsound mind;
(2) Suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or person of unsound
mind;
(3) Witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted; and
(4) Subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
(5) Applicable only in civil cases
Page 46 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 47 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q127: MR. B W AS STABBED NEAR THE DEL PAN SPORTS COMPLEX IN BINONDO,
MANILA. HE W AS STILL ABLE TO W ALK TO THE HOUSE OF HIS UNCLE TO W HOM HE
TOLD THAT IT W AS MR. S W HO STABBED HIM. M R. B DIED SHORTLY AFTER BEING
ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL. CAN MR. B’S STATEMENT TO HIS UNCLE BE
ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE? IF YES, AS W HAT? IF NO, W HY NOT?
A127: Yes, it can be admitted both as a dying declaration and as part of res gestae.
As a dying declaration:
A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may
nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely:
(1) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death;
(2) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an
impending death;
(3) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(4) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which
the declarant is a victim.
In this case, Mr. B communicated his ante-mortem statement to his uncle, identifying Mr. S as the
person who had stabbed him. There is ample authority for the view that the declarant’s belief in the
imminence of his death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from circumstantial
evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of his
physician.
Page 48 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q128: LATE IN THE NIGHT, X SENT A TEXT MESSAGE TO HIS MOTHER NARRATING
THAT HE SUFFERED A FATAL STAB W OUND DUE TO HIS CONFRONTATION W ITH HIS
DRINKING BUDDIES, NAMING Y AND Z AS THE PERSONS CAUSING SAID W OUNDS.
HE LIKEW ISE. BODE FAREW ELL TO HIS MOTHER, THANKED HER FOR EVERYTHING
SHE HAS DONE FOR HIM, AND TOLD HER THAT SHE LOVES HER SO MUCH. X DIED
SHORTLY THEREAFTER. IS THIS TEXT MESSAGE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN A
MURDER CASE AGAINST THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS? IS THE MOTHER COMPETENT
TO TESTIFY ON THE MESSAGES?
A128: Yes, the text message is admissible as a dying declaration since it came from X who died
shortly thereafter and it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death. His belief
that he is dying is evident from his statement that the wound was fatal, the other contents of the
message, and the fact that he died shortly after he sent the text message.
Text messages (which are ephemeral electronic communications) are to be proved by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. As the recipient of
those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in their possession, the parents are parties to the
conversation and was competent to testify on them. [People v. Enojas, G.R. 204894 (2014) citing Sec.2,
Rule 11, Rule on Electronic Evidence]
NOTE: The coverage of the Rule on Electronic Evidence was expanded to include criminal cases in SC
Resolution dated 24 September 2002. [Sec. 2, Rule 1]
Page 49 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 50 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Q134: W HAT ARE LEADING QUESTIONS AND ARE THEY ALLOW ED?
A134: A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. [Sec 10, Rule 132]
General Rule: Not allowed.
Exceptions:
(1) On cross examination;
(2) On preliminary matters;
(3) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(4) Of an unwilling or hostile witness;
(5) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party; [Sec. 10, Rule
132]
(6) In all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice [Sec 20,
Rule on Examination of Child Witness]
Page 51 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 52 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
SPECIAL RULES
Q137: DIFFERENTIATE AND ENUMERATE THE PROHIBITED PLEADINGS UNDER
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS
CASES
A137: The prohibited pleadings are generally identical as to both rules, except that motions to dismiss
are not allowed in Small Claims, no matter the ground, as compared to Summary Procedure which
allows MTD if based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to comply with barangay
conciliation.
Summary Procedure [Sec. 19, Rule on Summary Small Claims [Sec. 16, Rule for Small Claims]
Procedure]
(1) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the (1) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claims
[2016 Revised Rules prohibits any motion to
ground of
dismiss, unlike the previous rules which allowed
(a) Failure to comply with barangay an exception for the ground of lack of jurisdiction]
conciliation proceedings; or (2) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(b) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of
(2) Motion for a bill of particulars; a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration, or (4) Petition for relief from judgment;
for reopening of trial;
(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
(4) Petition for relief from judgment;
affidavits, or any other paper;
(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
(6) Memoranda;
affidavits, or any other paper;
(7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
(6) Memoranda;
prohibition against any interlocutory order
(7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
issued by the court;
prohibition against any interlocutory order
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
issued by the court;
(9) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(10) Reply and Rejoinder;
(9) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(11) Third-party complaints; and
(10) Reply;
(12) Interventions.
(11) Third-party complaints; and
(12) Interventions.
Q138: A FILED A CASE IN THE MTCC (UNDER THE RULE FOR SMALL CLAIM S)
AGAINST ATTY. S, A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING OF THE BAR, FOR A SUM OF
MONEY AMOUNTING TO PHP 199,999.99. S DID NOT FILE A RESPONSE TO THE
CLAIM THINKING THAT HE CAN CONVINCE A TO W ITHDRAW THE CASE AGAINST HIM
AND THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A IS TOTALLY SPURIOUS, AND LIKEW ISE
Page 53 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 54 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
A141: As to damages: No. The only recourse of a party or person who wishes to recover damages for
injury suffered is to file a separate action under Sec. 4, Rule 2. [Annotation to the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases, Supreme Court Sub-Committee]
As to attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses: Yes. [Rule 5, Sec. 1]
Page 55 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
ANNEX
Comparative
Table
of
the
Writs
Of
Habeas
Corpus,
Amparo,
and
Habeas
Data
[De
Leon]
Habeas Corpus Amparo Habeas Data
(1) All cases of illegal
confinement and
detention which any Involves the right to
person is deprived of his Involves right to life, privacy in life,
liberty liberty and security liberty or security
(2) Deprivation of violated or threatened violated or threatened
rightful custody of with violation by an by an unlawful act or
any person from the unlawful act or omission omission of a public
person entitled [Sec. 1] of a public official or official or employee, or
Nature, scope, employee or a private of a private individual or
function individual or entity entity engaged in the
Actual violation before writ gathering, collecting or
issues. storing of data or
Covers extralegal information regarding
killings and enforced the person, family,
NOTE: Villavicencio v. disappearances or home and
Lukban (G.R. No. L-14639, threats thereof. [Sec. 1] correspondence of the
1919) on applicability of the aggrieved party. [Sec. 1]
writ in case of constructive
restraint.
May not be suspended
Shall not diminish, Shall not diminish,
except in cases of invasion
increase or modify increase or modify
Limitations or rebellion when public
substantive rights [Sec. substantive rights [Sec.
safety requires it [Sec. 15,
23] 23]
Art. III, 1987 Const.]
Petition filed by the Any aggrieved party
aggrieved party or by any may file a petition.
qualified person or entity
in the following order:
However, in cases of
extralegal killings and
(1) Any member of the enforced
By a petition signed and immediate family disappearances, the
verified by the party for petition may be filed by
Who may file whose relief it is intended, (also successive):
or by some person on his (2) Any ascendant,
behalf [Sec. 3] descendant or
collateral relative of (1) Any member of the
the aggrieved within immediate family of
the 4th civil degree of the aggrieved
affinity or
consanguinity
(2) Any ascendant,
descendant or
(3) Any concerned citizen, collateral relative of
Page 56 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 57 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Signed and verified either Signed and verified and Verified and written
by the party for whose relief shall allege: petition shall contain:
it is intended or by some
person on his behalf, setting
forth: (1) The personal (1) Personal
Essential circumstances of the circumstances of
allegations/ petitioner petitioner and
Contents of (1) The person in whose respondent
(2) Name or appellation
petition behalf the application and circumstances of (2) Manner the right to
is made is imprisoned the respondent privacy is violated
or restrained of his or threatened and
liberty (3) The right to life,
its effects
liberty, and security
(2) Name of the person violated or (3) Actions and
detaining another or threatened with recourses taken by
Page 58 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 59 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 60 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 61 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 62 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 63 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 64 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
Page 65 of 65