DT HOT TIPS

1. What is the remedy in case of adverse decision of the MTC/MCTC in the exercise of its delegated
jurisdiction over land registration and cadastral cases?

A: The remedy is appeal via Rule 41. Decisions and final orders of the MTC and MCTC in the
exercise of its delegated jurisdiction over land registration and cadastral cases is appealable to the Court
of Appeals because BP 129 provides that decisions of the MTC/MCTC involving these cases shall be
appealable in the same manner as decision of the RTC.

2. What is the remedy in case of adverse decision/final order of the Shari’ah District Court?

A: The remedy is to file an appeal under Rule 41 to the Court of Appeals within 15/30 days from
the notice of judgment/final order or notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration.
As enunciated by the Supreme Court in one case, in the absence of station of the Shari’ah Appellate
Court the proper remedy is to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

3. What is the remedy in case of judgment or final order of the RTC in case of violation of Intellectual
Property Code?

A: The remedy is Appeal via Petition for Review. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court in relation to Rules
of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases provides that all decisions and final orders rendered by
the RTC in case of violation of IPC shall be appealable to the CA through a petition for review.

4. What is the remedy in case of decision or final order of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative cases?

A: The remedy is appeal via Petition for Review. According to several cases decided by the
Supreme Court, decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be
appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 because it is exercising quasi-judicial functions
in resolving administrative cases of public officials and employees.

5. What is the remedy in case of decision of the Ombudsman if the imposed penalty is merely a fine,
or censure or one month suspension?

A: The remedy is petition for certiorari under Rule 65 because there is no plain, adequate, speedy
remedy or appeal available in the ordinary course of law. If the imposed penalty is merely a fine, or censure
or one month suspension, the decision is already final and immediately executory, therefore not appealable
under Section 1 of Rule 41.

6. What is the remedy in case of adverse judgment/final order in intra corporate dispute by the RTC?

A: The proper remedy is to file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Consistent
with the ruling in the case of POTC v. Victor Africa, the Court held that the proper mode of appeal in intra-
corporate controversies is via Petition for Review under Rule 43.

7. What is the remedy in case of adverse decision of the MTC/MCTC in cadastral and land registration
cases in the exercise of its delegated jurisdiction?

A: The remedy is appeal under Rule 41 of Rules of Court with regard to appeals from decisions of
the RTC to the CA in the exercise of its original jurisdiction by way of notice of appeal within 15 days
because BP 129, as amended provides that the decisions of the MTC in cadastral and land registration
cases shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the regional trial courts.

8. What is your remedy in case of failure to comply with the requirement of barangay referral?
 A: The defendant may file a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground of failure to comply with
the condition precedent as provided by Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court in relation to pertinent
provision of the Local government Code which mandates that barangay conciliation is a condition precedent
that must be complied with before filing the case before the court.

9. If you were the counsel for the plaintiff, what is your legal recourse?

A: The legal recourse would be is to re-file the action considering that the dismissal is without
prejudice to the re-filing of the complaint under Section5, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court since it does not fall
under paragraphs (f) (h) and (i) which bars the re-filing of the case, and Order of dismissal without prejudice
is not appealable under Section 1, Rule 41.

10. As counsel for the defendant, what is your legal recourse in case of splitting of cause of action?

A: in case of splitting of cause of action, the defendant may file a motion to dismiss on the ground
of litis pendentia or barred by prior judgment under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

11. What is the legal remedy of the defendant in case of improper venue?

A: the remedy is to file a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the ground that the venue is
improperly laid under Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

12. As for the plaintiff, what is your legal remedy in case of dismissal of action on the ground of improper
venue?

A: I will re-file the case since the dismissal is without prejudice to the refiling of the action under
Sec.5 of Rule and an Order of dismissal without prejudice is not appealable under Section 1 of Rule 41.

13. What is the remedy of the aggrieved party in case there is already a judgment on the counter-
claim, or cross-claim or third party complaint while the main case is pending?

A: The remedy is petition for certiorari under Rule 65, unless the court will allow appeal because
the judgment is not appealable under Section 1, Rule 41.

14. What is the remedy of the court when no complete relief cannot be granted in counterclaim or cross
claim?

A: the court may bring in new parties to the action. Section 12, Rule 6 explicitly provides that 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.

15. What is the remedy in case of dismissal based on forum shopping?

A: Forum shopping may constitute either as litis pendentia or barred by prior judgment, and the
dismissal of the action under the above-cited grounds is with prejudice of the action under Section 5, Rule
16, and considered as an adjudication upon the merits and therefore appealable under Section 1, Rule 41.

16. What is the remedy of the defendant in case of failure to comply with the certification against forum
shopping?

A: Certification against forum shopping is a condition precedent in all initiatory pleadings as

mandated by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, and failure therefore to comply with the
said requirement is a ground for a motion to dismiss under Section 1, Rule 16.
 17. What is the remedy of the plaintiff in case of dismissal of the case for failure to comply with
certification against forum shopping?

A: The remedy of the plaintiff is to re0file the action since the nature of the dismissal for failure to
comply with the condition precedent of certification of non-forum shopping is without prejudice to the refiling
of the action under Section 5, Rule 16 since it is not one of the grounds mentioned which bars the refiling
of the action. Moreover, an order of dismissal without prejudice is not appealable under Section 1, Rule 41.

18. What are the remedies available in case of order of declaration of default?

A: The remedy of a party declared in default is to file a verified Motion to lift Order of default on the
grounds of FAME pursuant to Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure; or

According to prevailing jurisprudence a Motion to Admit Answer with attached answer is also an
available remedy which must be done before the renditionof judgment by default.

19. What are the possible remedy/ies in case of judgment by default?

I will qualify my answer.

If before finality of the judgment, the remedies are:

1. Motion to set aside judgment by default or Motion for New Trial under Rule 37;
2. Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 37;

If after the finality of the judgment, the remedies are:

1. Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38);
2. Petition for annulment of judgment (Rule 47);
3. Petition for certiorari (Rule 65);
4. Collateral Attack

20. The register of deed denied the Notice of Lis Pendens, if you were the counsel for the
aggrieved party, what is your legal remedy?

A: The remedy is to appeal the Order to the Land Registration Authority En Consulta within 5 days
as provided by Sec. 117 of the Property Registration Decree.

21. What is the remedy of the plaintiff in case of dismissal of the action under Sec.1 (f)(h)(i) of Rule
16?

A: The remedy is appeal since the order of dismissal is a final order and an adjudication upon the
merits pursuant to Section 1, Rule 41, which bars the refiling of the action under Section 5, Rule 16 of the
Rules on Civil Procedure.

22. What is the remedy of the plaintiff in case of dismissal of the action is without prejudice?

A: The proper remedy in case of dismissal of the action on grounds other than paragraphs (f)(h)(i)
of Rule 16 is the refiling of the action or amendment of the pleading depending on the grounds.

23. What is the remedy of the defendant in a SLAPP case?

A: The remedy is to file an answer and raise the issue of SLAPP as one of the affirmative defenses
under the Rules on Environmental Cases.

24. What is the remedy of the plaintiff in case of adverse decision?

 A: The remedy is to appeal being a final order and an adjudication upon the merits which is
appealable under Section 1, Rule 41 in relation to Section 4 of Rules on Procedure of Environmental Cases.

25. What is the remedy in case of denial of the Motion for Leave or Complaint in intervention?

A: The Order of denial of the Motion for Leave to intervene is considered as an adjudication upon
the merits and therefore appealable under Section 1, Rule 41, or the intervenor may file a separate claim.

26. What is the remedy of the opposing party in case the officer who will take deposition is
disqualified?

A: The opposing party should make an objection to the qualification of the officer and shall be made
before the taking of deposition or as soon as the disqualification is known or discovered, otherwise it is
deemed waived, (Sec. 29 b, Rule 23)

27. What is the remedy of the deponent if the examination tends to harass, annoy, disrepute the
deponent?

A: The proponent may file a Motion to Terminate or Limit the Examination, and shall only resume
upon Order of the court.

28. What is the remedy of the defendant in case if denial of Motion for demurrer to evidence?

A: The plaintiff may file an appeal since the order of granting the motion for demurrer to evidence
thereby dismissing the case is a final order which completely disposes of the action in its entirety and
considered as an adjudication on the merits as provided by Section 1, Rule 41.

29. What is the remedy of the defendant in case of denial of Motion for demurrer to evidence?

A: the defendant may present his evidence, unless the denial is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and the order being an interlocutory which is not
appealable under Section 1 of Ruel 41, hence, petition for certiorari is the proper remedy under Rule 65.

30. What is the remedy in case of denial of Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial?

A: File an appeal from the judgment and Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration or New Trial
being a final order therefore appealable under Section 1, Rule 41, as amended by AM 07-07-12-SC.

31. What is the remedy in case of denial of Petition for relief?

A: The remedy is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, since the order denying a petition for
relief or other motion seeking relief from judgment is not appealable under Section 1, Rule 41.

32. Remedy in case of adverse decision in a petition for presumptive death?

A: The judgment in a petition for presumptive death is final and immediately executory as mandated
by the family code, and there is no more plain adequate remedy or appeal in the ordinary course of law,
therefore, petition for certiorari is an available remedy under Rule 65.

33. Will the fresh period to appeal be given retroactive application?

A: Yes, since procedural laws can be given retroactive application provided no right shall be
prejudiced. (UP v. Hon. Dizon)

34. What is the remedy in case of Resolution of the Ombudsman in administrative cases?
 A: The remedy is appeal from the resolution of the office of the ombudsman to the Court of Appeals
via Petition for Review under Rule 43, since it is exercising quasi-judicial functions.

35. What is the remedy in case of denial of the petition for annulment of judgment?

A: The remedy is Appeal either under Rule 41 or 45 since the court is exercising original jurisdiction,
and the judgment is appealable.

36. What are the remedies in case of issuance of Order and writ of attachment?

A:
1. Motion to discharge plus the bond. (Section 12)
2. Motion to Quash grounded on the impropriety in the issuance, insufficient bond, and properties
attached are exempt from execution. (Section 13)

37. What is the remedy in case of wrongful attachment?

A: The remedy is to file a claim for damages before the trial court, before appeal is perfected, or
before the judgment becomes executory.

38. What is the remedy in case of issuance of writ of injunction?

A:
1. Motion to discharge plus bond; or
2. Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since the order is an interlocutory order and not appealable
under Section 1, Rule 41.

*Under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. An
interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided
upon. An order granting or denying an application for preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature and,
hence, not appealable. Instead, the proper remedy is to file a Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under
Rule 65.

39. What are the remedies of the adverse party against whom a replevin was issued and
implemented?

A: The adverse party against whom a writ of replevin has been issued and implemented, may:
1. Object to the sufficiency of the applicant’s bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot
immediately require the return of the property;
2. If he does not so object, at any time before the delivery of the property to the applicant, require
the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a bond executed to the applicant, in
double the value of the property as stated in the applicant’s affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant,
if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the
adverse party, and by serving a copy of such bond on the applicant. (Section 5)

40. What is the remedy in case of an Order of Support pendente lite?

A: The order of support pendente lite is an interlocutory order which is not appealable under
Section1 of Rule 41, and therefore can be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Calderon
v. CA)

41. What is the remedy in case of denial of the motion to dismiss for complaint for interpleader?
 A: The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, the movant may file his
answer within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five days in any event, reckoned from
notice of denial.

42. What are the remedies available under Rule 63?

A: The remedies available under Rule 63 are the following:

1. Declaratory relief;
2. Reformation of instrument;
3. Quieting of title or removal of clouds; and
4. Consolidation of ownership.

43. What is the remedy in case of judgment or final order of COMELEC and COA?

A: Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution states that unless otherwise provided by the
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof. For this reason, the Rules of
Court contains a separate rule (Rule 64) on the review of the decisions of the COMELEC and the COA.
Rule 64 is generally identical with certiorari under Rule 65, except as to the period of the filing of the petition
for certiorari, that is, in the former, the period is 30 days from the notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution sought to be reviewed but, in the latter, not later than 60 days from the notice of the judgment,
order or resolution assailed. (Causing v. COMELEC)

44. What is the remedy in case of denial of the motion?

A: If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but
which shall not be less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial. (Section 3)

45. What is the remedy in case of decision in an action for declaration of presumptive death?

A: RTC’s decision of a petition for declaration of presumptive death pursuant to Article 41 of the
Family Code is immediately final and executory. Thus, the CA has no jurisdiction to entertain a notice of
appeal pertaining to such judgment. Concurring in the result, Justice Panganiban further therein pointed
out that the correct remedy to challenge the RTC decision was to institute a petition for certiorari under Rule
65, and not a petition for review under Rule 45. (Republic v. Sareñogon,Jr.)

46. What is the remedy in case of decision of the NLRC or Secretary of Labor?

A: Decision and final order of the NLRC or Sec. of Labor in case of bailable offense except tax
evasion cases is reviewable thru a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, since there is no appeal, plain
adequate, speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.

47. What is the remedy of the owner of the land when the case of expropriation was
discontinued?

A: Owner of the land is entitled to be paid reasonable compensation during the period of possession
though the action for expropriation was discontinued.

The expropriator who has taken possession of the property subject of expropriation is obliged to pay
reasonable compensation to the landowner for the period of such possession although the proceedings
had been discontinued on the ground that the public purpose for the expropriation had meanwhile ceased.
(Republic v. Heirs of Borbon and CA)

48. What are the remedies of the creditor in case of death of the mortgagor-debtor?
 A:
1. Abandon the security and prosecute his claim in the manner provided in this rule and share in
the general distribution of the assets of the estate;
2. He may foreclose his mortgage or realize upon his security, by action in court, making the
executor or administrator a party defendant;
3. If there is a judgment for a deficiency, after the sale of the mortgaged premises, or the property
pledged, in the foreclosure or other proceeding to realize upon the security, he may claim his deficiency
judgment in the manner provided in the preceding section; or
4. He may rely upon his mortgage or other security alone, and foreclose the same at any time within
the period of the statute of limitations, and in that event he shall not be admitted as a creditor, and shall
receive no share in the distribution of the other assets of the estate (Sec.7, Rule 86)

49. What is the remedy of the mortgagee to gain possession of the property?

A: To gain possession, a petition for issuance of writ of possession may be filed.

50. How it will be issued?

A: it can be issued Ex- parte and it is ministerial to issue the same, except if it is the possession of
another person claiming right over it.

51. What is the remedy of the estate on the property mortgaged to the deceased?

A: A mortgage belonging to the estate of a deceased person, as mortgagee or assignee of the right
of a mortgagee, may be foreclosed by the executor or administrator. (Section 5, Rule 87)

52. How to appeal in case of judgment or final order in an action for partition?

A: Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with
accounting, in actions for partition of property with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain
and foreclosure of mortgage. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to
enable the rest of the case to proceed in the vent that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court
and held to be final.

53. How to perfect an appeal in an action for forcible entry and unlawful detainer?

A: The remedy in case of adverse judgement: Appeal within 15 days: Notice of appeal plus appeal
docket and other lawful fees plus supersedes bond in case of unpaid rentals or reasonable compensation
for the use of the premises, and after transmittal of the records to the RTC, deposit of periodic monthly
rental.

54. What is the remedy in case of adverse decision in contempt?

A:
1. in case of direct contempt: Petition for certiorari and/or prohibition (Sec.2, Rule 71)
2. in case of indirect contempt: Appeal plus bond

55. What is continuing mandamus?

A: Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency
or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.

56. What is the remedy in case of adverse decision in a petition for continuing mandamus?
 A: The remedy is Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 within 15 days raising question of
law and of facts.

DT 2018 LMT How to Answer the Bar Questions:

1. A filed an unlawful detainer complaint B and his wife D before the MTC. In the said complaint, A averred
that sometime in 1999, he, through an undated contract of lease, leased to B a portion of a 541 square-
meter property situated in Manila, which the latter intended to use as a lottery outlet. The lease contract
had a term of 5 years and contained a stipulation “that any case arising from the same shall be filed in
the courts of Davao City only”. A claimed that B and D failed to pay his rental arrears to him and refused
to vacate the subject property, despite repeated demands. Defendants however posited that the
aforementioned lease contract was simulated and, hence, not binding on the parties. The MTC
dismissed the first ejectment complaint finding that the same was simulated as evidence by failure of
A to collect payment and on the ground of improper venue. Notwithstanding the dismissal, A filed a
second complaint for unlawful detainer, damages, and attorney’s fees against B and his wife D also
grounded on their failure to pay rent under the undated lease contract, but this time, before the MTC in
City of Davao. In their answer, B and D raised the defense of res judicata, particularly averring that the
second ejectment complaint should be dismissed given that it was already barred by prior judgment.

a) Is the contention of B and D tenable?

b) In case of adverse decision, what is the remedy of the aggrieved party? How? Requirements?

Answer:
a) Yes. B and D is correct that the second case for unlawful detainer is already barred by prior
judgment since the first ejectment case was dismissed based in simulated contract and improper
venue. The judgment as to simulated contract is a final judgment which should have been appealed
by A being an adjudication upon the merits. Hence, it bars the second ejectment since there was
already a final judgment involving the same parties and cause of action.

b) Appeal the judgment to the RTC within 15 days by notice of appeal under Rule 40 of the Rules of
Court plus the payment of appeal docket and other lawful fees.

2. A filed a suit against B for recovery of possession of real property. B filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court denied the motion.
B filed a petition for certiorari. During the pendency of the petition A filed a motion to declare B in
default which was granted by the court.

a) is the order of default proper? Why? Basis?

Answer:
a) Yes, the issuance of the order of default is valid. Under Section 7 of Rule 65 it is clearly provided
that the mere filing of a petition for certiorari does not stop the proceedings below, unless the court issues
a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction. B has not filed his Answer to the complaint which is mandatorily
required under Rule 11, otherwise he shall be declared in default under Sec. 3 of Rule 9.

3. In case of an action for the revival of judgment, which court has jurisdiction?

A: As an action to revive judgment raises issues of whether the petitioner has a right to have the
final and executory judgment revived and to have the judgment enforced and does not involve recovery of
a sum of money, we rule that the jurisdiction over a petition to revive judgment is properly with the RTCs.
Thus, the CA is correct in holding that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide Anama’s action for
revivial of judgment.
4. In an unlawful detainer case, defendant failed to file an answer, the court rendered a
judgment dismissing the case on the ground that the plaintiff did not submit proof of ownership. Is
the dismissal correct?

A: No. As expressly provided under the Rules on Summary Procedure it is clear that in case the
defendant failed to file his answer, the court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon the plaintiff’s
motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. In this case, the
dismissal is not valid because judgment in Summary Procedure for failure of the defendant to file answer
shall be based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and relief prayed for.

5. A was served B a copy of written interrogatories to obtain material facts, V failed to file his
Answer. B moved for the declaration of default and judgment by the default, if you were the judge,
how would you rule?

A: I will grant the motion. Failure to file an Answer to an interrogatories under Rule 25, a judgment
by default maybe rendered under Section 5 of Rule 29 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.

6. Alternate Trial vis-à-vis Face to Face trial:

Alternate trial is one where parties take turns in presenting their witnesses respecting the first
factual issue or related stated in the order of trial. The party who bears the burden of proving the affirmative
of the issue under consideration shall be the first to present a witness.

While a Face to Face trial is one wherein witnesses from the contending sides appear together
before the court, sit face-to-face around a table in a non-adversarial environment, and answer questions
from the court as well as the parties’ counsels respecting the factual issue under consideration.

7. A was informed by the clerk of court on April 2018 that there was already a decision since
in his case when he made a follow up. On his way home he saw B, the plaintiff and informed him
that he will dismiss the case he filed despite the decision. On December 2018, A received a copy of
the writ of execution from the court. He filed a petition for relief before the court. If you were to
decide, how would rule?

A: I will deny the petition, Section 3, Rule 38 is explicit that the petitions shall be file within 60 days
from knowledge of the judgment, but not exceeding 6 months from entry of judgment. In this case, A filed
his petition 8 months from the time he learns of the decision which beyond the period of 6 months, hence,
filed out of time.

8. Can government funds be the subject of garnishment by virtue of a final judgment event
though there was an implied consent/contract between the government entity and private person?

A: Government funds cannot be the subject of immediate execution because suability did not
necessarily mean liability. It must be adjudicated first by the COA before the execution of the judgment in
accordance with Government Audition Code of the Philippines.

9. Cas the award of moral and exemplary damages by the court be enforced against
government funds which is not included in the appropriation of funds of the government agency?

A: The garnishment of its funds to satisfy the judgment award of actual and moral damages
including attorney’s fees cannot be validly made if there is no special appropriation by Congress to cover
the liability. (UP v Hon. Dizon)

10. The losing bidder in a national government projects filed an application for issuance of writ
of injunction. If you will be the judge, how would you rule on the application?
 A: I will deny the motion. RA 8975 provides for the prohibition to courts from issuing restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions in cases involving infrastructure or National Resources Development
projects of, and public utilities operated by, the government. This law was, in fact, earlier upheld to have
such a mandatory nature by the Supreme Court in an administrative case against a judge. (Nerwin
industries Corp v. PNOC)

11. Aggrieved party after resolution of the Ombudsman applied before the CA for a writ of
injunction to restrain the implementation of the subject Resolution. If you were the judge, how would
you rule on the application?

A: I will deny the application for writ of injunction. The Court of Appeals, even on terms it may deem
just, has no discretion to stay a decision of the Ombudsman as such procedural matter is governed
specifically by the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, (Facura v. CA)

12. Can the execution of a judgment be restrained by an injunction?

A: The general rule is that after a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the ministerial duty of
the court to order its execution. No court should interfere, by injunction or otherwise, to restrain such
execution. The rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as the following:

1. When facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution inequitable or unjust;
or
2. When there is a change in the situation of the parties that may warrant an injunctive relief.

13. A applied before the court for issuance of writ of injunction, but the evidence presented
upon observation of the court would decide the issue in the main action. If you were the judge, how
would you rule on the application?

A: I will deny the application for issuance of writ of injunction. The prevailing rule is that courts
should avoid issuing a writ of preliminary injunction which would in effect dispose of the main case without
trial. (PNB v Castalloy Technology Corp.)

14. Can a preliminary injunction be issued to take out from one party and deliver it to the other?

A: No. Preliminary injunction is not a proper remedy to take property from one party and deliver it
to the other where such right is being disputed. Preliminary Injunction is a preservative remedy. Therefore
it should not create new relations between the parties, but must only maintain the status quo until the merits
of the case is fully heard. Hence, for these reasons, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
other party involved herein. (Spouses Koh v. Optimum Security Services)
15.

WB:

7. Failure to make reference in the appellant’s brief is a ground for dismissal under Section 1, Rule 50.

8. Remedy for imminent danger of destruction in the environment of such magnitude coercing 2 or more
cities may either be:
a. Writ of Kalikasan; or
b. Continuing Mandamus
as provided by the Rules on Environmental Cases
9. Remedy in a pleading containing sham or scandalous matter is to file a Motion to strike out the pleading
or the matter contained therein under Section 12 of Rule 8.