I

Filtex’s contention is incorrect

The supreme court held in a similar case that a party who fails to specifically who fails to deny
under oath a written instrument or document subject of the action also waives his right to
question the absence of documentary stamps

In this case since Filtex failed to specifically deny under oath the letters of credit he waives the right to
question the lack of documentary stamp in the document hence it may be offered in evidence

II

The trial court should overrule the contention

According to the Rules of court, the implied admission of the genuiness and the due execution to a
document for failure to specifically deny it under oath only applies to parties to the document or
written instrument

In the present case the deed of sale was executed by the defendant’s father. The defendant is not a
party to the document hence he cannot impliedly admit its due execution for failure to deny
under oath.

III

IV

The motion should be denied

The supreme Court held in a case that the filing of a false certification against forum shopping is not a
ground for the dismissal of a case but only for disciplinary action if it was done willfully and with
malice

Hence Metrobank’s filing of a false certification against forum shopping will not be a ground for
dismissal of the case/

Hence the motion should be denied

I would advice Dencio to challenge the judgement by filing an action to annul the judgement award of
5%
According to the Rules of court a court may render judgement based on the pleading against a party in
default only based on the amount stated in the pleading and without regard to any unliquidated
damages

In this case the 5% interest are unliquidated damages which may not be awarded by the court against
the party in default.

VI

Yes, I would object on the ground that defendant had already impliedly admitted the due execution and
genuiness of the document

According to the Rules of Court, when an action is based on a written instrument or document the
defendant must specifically deny such under oath and failure otherwise admits the genuiness
and due execution of the document

In this case since defendant textile mills failed to specifically deny under oath the promissory note he
now impliedly admits its genuiness and due execution, hence may not introduce evidence
denying such.

Yes, the court may grant the motion

Under the Rules of Court the court which rendered judgment may order for its execution while such
judgement is subject to appeal provided that the party moving for execution files a supersedeas
bond or bond double the judgement award before such court where it would be held liable
incase of reversal of judgment.

VII

The order was not proper

According to the Rules of Court an action for indirect contempt may only be rendered only upon filing of
a complaint and hearing and trial.

In this case the action for indirect contempt was only initiated by motion and not through a complaint
hence the judgement is void.

B.
VIII

I would advice him to file a case for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Pinas
City.

According to the Rules of Court an action for Unlawful Detainer may be filed against any person who
under a written or implied contract had a prior right to possession over any land or building and
unlawfully detains or withholds possession over such land or building upon expiry of such right
against the owner or person who has legal right to possession

Metropolitan Trial Courts has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer regardless of amount

In this case Dong’s possession over the property was merely by tolerance of the client subject to the
condition to leave once the client is in need of the property. Dong’s right to the property was
lost when he was served notice and he still unlawfully withheld possession of the land from the
client. The action for unlawful detainer may be filed within 1 year from date of last demand
which was October 1, 2018

IX

No, it is not Prohibited

Under the rules on Summary Procedure a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter is not a prohibited motion

B.

I will raise the issue that since the deprivation was made through stealth it is impossible for the client to
indicate how it was made but what is essential is the fact that he was deprived of his property
by overt means.

XI

I would sustain the motion

Under the rules on Evidence, evidence showing or tending to probe the moral character of a person is
inadmissible as evidence unless such character is essential to prove a crime

In this case the judicial affidavit to prove the moral character of Subas is irrelevant to his violation of the
anti-bouncing checks law hence it is inadmissible as evidence

Hence the court should sustain the motion

XII
A

I will sustain the mpotion

Under the Rules of Court, the Best evidence rule only applies to documentary evidence. In this case
since what is being offered in evidence is the testimony of Fred the best evidence rule does not
apply.

I will overrule the motion

Under the Rules of Court, one exception to hearsay are independently relevant statements wherein
such statements are offered to not prove the truthfulness or veracity of a statement in issue but
to prove that such statement was in fact made.

In this case the testimony of Fred is given to prove that Lothario made a statement that he was writing
his escapades with Flirta and not to prove the truthfulness of whether or not lothario had an
affair with flirta.

Hence the motion should be overruled

XIII

The judge should deny the motion to dismiss

According to the Rules of Court a counterclaim for damages is not allowed in criminal cases

Hence it was proper for D to file a separate civil case for damages against O since it is not allowed in a
criminal case

D should file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals

Under Rule 65 section 1 of the rules of court, a petition for certiorari is available against any act of a
court who with or without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or
excess jurisdiction and that there is no other speedy or adequate remedy in law.

In this case the court which rendered the order of the dismissal of the case cimmited a grave abuse of
discretion which should be properly remedied by a petition for certiorari before the court of
appeals

XIV

XV

XVI
The court should sustain the motion

According to the rules of court any deposition being offered in evidence must be authenticated by the
witness offering such testimony

In this case since the deposition were offered to the court without being authenticated by the witness it
is inadmissible for evidence for being hearsay

XVII

A.

I would file an action for declaratory relief before the regional trial court of Imus, Cavite

Under the Rules of Court, an action for Declaratory relief may be assailed by the persons who may be
prejudiced by an executive order, statue regulation or ordinance in order to determine the
rights of the party under such law.

An action for declaratory relief is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation hence within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

XVIII