Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Only answered Samplex for the years 2000, 2006, 2007 and 2008. Bakit un lang?

See below kung bakit un lang. Some items were not answered, because some have insufficient facts (pages are missing), or the problem is too long, or the question requires one to draft a pleading Please refer to your samplex for the question (if not provided) DISCLAIMER: this is based on Chas interpretation of what is going onIf may mali, please correct ASAP with notification to all concerned. Thanks. FAVORITE TOPICS NI SIR ADR Katarungang Pambarangay Summons MTD In default vs. as in default Discovery Proceedings Relevant periods for appeal MTD vs. MJP vs. MSJ Some rules on Execution of Judgment Preliminary Attachment Preliminary Injunction Certiorari R45 vs. Certiorari R65 Expropriation (R67) Ejectment Proceedings (R70)

SAMPLEX for 2000

Problem Set Number One 1. A. metropolitan/municipal trial court Why? Because the location of the property was not stated to determine WON the assessed value of the property would determine the jurisdiction of the action (for RTC: outside MM exceeds 20k, MM exceeds 50k) and since the problem provides that the action was for recovery of possession of real property (therefore ejectment proceedings in general), MTC has jurisdiction. Since JURISDICTION IS BEING ASKED and not venue, location of property is not relevant to the answer venue may be waived so need not include in answering the jurisdiction as jurisdiction cannot be waived 2. A. since forcible entry expressly provided under R70 and BP129, and even on the amended rules on Summary Procedure 3. D. Court of Appeals: expressly provided in R65.4 that review of QJA actions on certiorari is under jurisdiction of CA ONLY Problem Set Number Two

samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to

Proposed answers: Group Study April 1, 2009 Attendance: Cha Tito Anton Da Aida Giulia Rach Ajang Mini Javi

Problem Set Number Three (kulang pages 5 and 10 sa copies naming so not all items were answered) 8. E. QC because it is where the real property is found. The contract does not provide for EXCLUSIVE VENUE (emphasize EXCLUSIVE: w/o w/c, the stipulation would not provide for exclusive venue and so the rules on venue on RULE 4 would govern). Not A because the contract does not provide for exclusive venue and general rule for venue is where the real property is located. Besides, even if this seems right, no option providing for A and E. 9. A. The Metropolitan Trial Court. Unlawful detainer actions are w/n jurisdiction of MTC as expressly provided in BP129, R70 and Rules on Summary Procedure

samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to

4. A. valid. It is a product of conciliation (sabi ni sir conciliation daw proceedings under Katarungang Pambarangay) w/c is sanctioned under the LGC WHY? By elimination! Not B. presence of punong barangay makes it conciliation proceedings, resulting to amicable settlement AND NOT A CONTRACT w/c is a result of the voluntary act of the parties Not C. the punong barangay is the lupon chairman, which initially conducts the conciliation proceedings so not true that it MUST be facilitated and mediated by lupong tagapamayapa (the label for the whole team) Not D. The pangkat ng tagapagkasundo only comes in if the lupong chair/punong barangay was not able to make the parties reconcile Not E. Under Section 417, BOTH ARBITRAL AWARD (if ever the parties decide to undergo arbitration pending Katarungang Pambarangay proceedings) and AMICABLE SETTLEMENT may be enforced before the barangay (through the lupon) w/n 6m from the date of settlement. Not f nor g. Please refer above 5. G. A and B A correct. Affidavit of Atty will not repudiate the amicable settlement because the PARTY who entered the amicable settlement, i.e. Pele, should repudiate the amicable settlement and it was filed beyond the required period of 10 days (I think this applies to both amicable settlement and arbitral award [SECTION 416 upon expiration of 10 days]. The 5 day period mentioned in the arbitration provision I think is the period to repudiate the agreement to arbitrate). In this case, 15 days already lapsed. B also correct. The grounds for repudiating an amicable settlement are only FVI Fraud, Violence and Intimidation (vs grounds for vacating DOMESTIC ARB AWARD: award procured by corruption or fraud, theres evident partialityarbitrators guilty of misconduct, arbitrators exceeded powers [SECTION 24]) 6. Hmmm here Atty. Matahimik filed an ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF CONTRACT (the amicable settlement). This is wrong because the amicable settlement should be REPUDIATED (amicable settlement: repudiate :: arbitration award: petition to nullify arbitral award [SECTION 416]). Now the problem is what is the proper remedy if one files a wrong pleadingI cannot remember eh My initial answer is B. File an MTD based on insufficiency of COA. However, this is not a ground under R16.1. Either mali lang term ni sir (Hello Hohfeld???) or trick question to. So, insufficiency of COA not being a ground under R16.1 , and the enumeration there being exclusive, di pede letter B. The suggested answer is letter D. File an Answer. Why? Eh talo na sha eh. Answer with affirmative defense (not limited by enumeration under R6.5) that the proper remedy for the parties is to repudiate the action w/n 10 days from date of settlement. 7. The suggested answer is C. the lawyer may not be present. As in bawal sya. Yun daw sabi ni sir. My answer is B. The provision [SECTION 415] does not prohibit naman the appearance of lawyerspede sila nandun basta they wont represent the parties. (Okay, just consulted my November 27 notes. Sabi ni sir Lawyers MAY BE PRESENT BUT THEY DONT SPEAK FOR THE PARTIES) so B un!

20. B. complaint alleged an action in personam and thus personal service must first be attempted. Ejectment case is a real action (involves title to or possession of property or any interest therein) and an action in personam (the only parties that would be affected are the parties in the action the only parties contesting the right to possession) okay, dahil kulang information, we skipped the rest Problem Set Number Four 32. b. upon the lapse of the reglementary period for taking any mode of appeal. NOT C. since recording of the lapse is not needed for determining entry of judgment. In fact, it is not even done. What is recorded is the judgment being final and executor. 33.E. C or D. C is correct because the court of origin is initially the court which could allow an execution of the judgment pending appeal, as long as it has the records of the case. D is also correct because as soon as the records of the case is transmitted to the appellate court when it is appealed, the court of origin loses jurisdiction over the case and then the court which could grant the execution pending appeal is already the appellate court. 34.E. DOES NOT EXIST Why? Normally, the period to appeal is 15 days from NOTICE of the judgment. If there is a record on appeal required, the period is 30 days from NOTICE of judgment. However, the judgment approving a compromise agreement cannot be appealed. Why appeal something you agreed to in the first place? If you want to assail the compromise agreement, maybe file a motion to set aside the compromise agreement. (note: this is not an amicable settlement which is a result of the LGC provs, nor an arbitral award based on ADR law or Domestic Arb Law) 35.D. Notice on Appeal + Record on Appeal. Record on Appeal is the summary of the proceedings in the court of origin. It is generally not required in the rules anymore, as the whole records of the case are now required to be brought to the appellate court. However, it is still required for appeals from Special Proceedings and when multiple appeals are allowed. Multiple appeals happen when there are several issues involved in the action. Examples of this are Expropriation (involves the issues of WON plaintiff has right to expropriate for public use or purpose AND WON just compensation is proper) and Partition (WON plaintiff and parties are proper for partition and WON partition of the properties apportionment proper).

Samplex for 2006

First Problem 1. RTC has jurisdiction. Brgy San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor provides that Expropriation proceedings are incapable of pecuniary estimation so regardless of the assessed value of

samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to

10.B. applies since the case is a SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER. Not A. not all actions w/n jurisdiction of MTC are subject to Summary Procedure. For civil actions to be under the Rules on Summary Procedure, it should either be an SCA for Forcible entry or unlawful detainer irrespective of amt of damages or unpaid rentals OR other cases where the TOTAL AMT claimed DOES NOT EXCEED P100k (outside MM) or P50k (w/n MM) Not C. No ORDINARY ACTION for Unlawful detainer 11.Incomplete information 12.Incomplete information 13.Incomplete information 14.Incomplete information

the property, the jurisdiction is still conferred with the RTC. (sidenote: in expropriation, the amount paid is the value determined at the date of the taking (when the plaintiff already occupied the property) or the date of the filing of the complaint, whichever comes first) 2. NO. Based on the rule on joinder of COA (R2.5), can join COA iff there is no special civil action involved or there is not other action governed by special rules. Since this is an action for expropriation a special civil action then an ordinary civil action for damages may not be joined here! Second Problem 3. No. First, the action sought to be enjoined (Im guessing the act of detaining them and filing charges against them) has already happened. Second, Da raised that the executive/presiding judge should only issue a 72-hour TRO and not a 20-day TRO so the executive judge is wrong here. 4. YES. Correct because the RTC could only issue a writ of preliminary injunction which is valid for a maximum of 20 days. For CA, the TRO is valid for 60 days from service and for SC, TRO is unlimited! Since in this case, there was already a 20-day TRO issued and Rule 58.5 par2 last sentence provides that the total period of effectivity of TRO should not exceed 20d including the original 72hrs TRO if ever granted, then another TRO should not be allowed. 5. YES. The grounds for issuing a writ of preliminary attachment are limited to those provided under Rule 57.1. Here, no such grounds exist. This is an action for damages and there is no shown intent on the part of the defendants to depart from the RP with intent to defraud 6. No. Laus vs. CA. No personal service and substituted service should only be resorted to after reasonable diligent earnest efforts (para sure! Hehe) were exerted within reasonable time but to no avail. Here, the sheriff did not even ask where the mayor was. 7. No. First, failure to include other parties in the case is not a proper ground for MTD under Rule 16.1. Second, if indispensable parties are not impleaded, the rule is that the reason why they are not impleaded should be stated in the complaint and then when the court finds that the reasons stated are UNMERITORIOUS, the court would order the inclusion of the said parties. The noncompliance with this order would be a waiver of the right to claim against that party. 8. NO. Katarungang Pambarangay does not apply when one of the parties involved is a public official or employee and the action relates to the official function of the said official or employee, which is the case here. 9. No. In Laus vs. CA, it was held that when there is improper service of summons, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint is null and void as to that defendant. Therefore, as the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the defendant Chief of PNP, there being improper service of summons to OSG AND NOT TO THE CHIEF OF PNP, the court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the Chief of PNP and so he is not yet required to file his answer, and his failure to file an answer does not allow an order declaring him in default. 10.Best remedy is to file a MTD. Laus vs. CA. Not motion to set aside order declaring him in default because jurisdiction over him not acquired yet in the first place. No judgment yet so cannot avail of the remedies of MNT, MFR, appeal, nor petition for relief. Third Problem 11.Yes. MTD on the ground of litis pendentia. According to Visayan Packing vs. Reparations, the remedies to the plaintiff when the defendant files a separate action (instead of a compulsory counterclaim) is to assail 2nd action based on Litis pendentia (if still pending) or res judicata (if the 1st action already adjudicated on the merits) Fourth Problem 12.MTD vs MSJ (3 points to compare) A Motion to Dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the plaintiffs pleading but raises new matters which would bar the recovery of the plaintiff while in a samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to 4

Motion for Summary Judgment, the movant alleges that there is no genuine issue, it being that the allegations in the pleading of the opposite party is not supported by evidence. A Motion to Dismiss is filed ONLY by the defendant while a Motion for Summary Judgment is available both to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant. A Motion to dismiss should be filed w/n the time and before filing an answer while a Motion for summary judgment may be filed by the defendant even before filing an answer, and by the plaintiff answer the answer was filed. Fifth Problem 13.Interrogatories to parties. Depositions require that it be done by persons authorized to take oaths, and may only be taken either pending action, before action, or pending appeal (the latter meant to perpetualize the statement made). Request for Admissions would be limited to yes or no questions and it could only be requested from the opposing parties. The Motion for Inspection of documents would require one to know what specific document one needs or else the other party may give many documents, thus, it would be time consuming to search for the specific document helpful to the case. Physical and mental examinations are limited only to cases where the physical and mental condition of one party is involved. Interrogatories to parties would be the most inexpensive, as a party could just send the set of questions to the other party or the person concerned, and the most effective in finding out evidentiary documents as one can ask open-ended questions through interrogatories. It was even dubbed in the case of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan as a valid fishing-expedition Sixth Problem 14.No. Under R41.1, an order granting a writ of execution is not appealable. 15.Yes. Rule 65 provides that a party may file a petition for writ of certiorari when the respondent court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has not jurisdiction, or has acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. As there was no showing that there were good reasons to grant the writ of execution when there was still the remedy of appeal available to the defendant, then the court acted in grave abuse of its discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment. Seventh Problem 16.Draft an arbitration clause. Can stipulate (1) who would be the arbitrators; (2) exclusive venue for actions arising out of the interpretation of the contract; (3) governing law; (4) who would represent them see sirs checklist, also in Das reviewer (4th to the last page) Eight Problem 17.Draft a Complaint. So parts, title, caption, opening statement, allegations regarding parties, then COA UF, no need to cite law (make sure all UF cited), then prayer, then date plus place where made, then signature of lawyer (then under the signature: Roll of Atty #, PTR # + date and place, IBP # + date and place, MCLE compliance # (pero sa June pa), email ad and cellphone # (if before SC)), then CNFS (if initiatory pleading), then proof of service and explanation if not registered service samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to 5

Samplex for 2007 (April 3, 2007)

First Problem 1. No if the sales representative is not considered an agent of Apple Computers Ltd in the Philippines, but YES if considered so. In summons for Foreign Private Juridical Entity, summons should first be made on the appointed agent to receive summons. If none, then on the government official assigned to receive such. If none appointed, then service of summons may be made on any agent of the FPJE in the Philippines. 2. Yes. Its international in a sense that one of the parties involved is not a Filipino-owned corporation nor incorporated under the laws of the Philippines. It involves a commercial contract, which is defined in the ADR law as matters arising from relationships of a commercial nature.

Second Problem 6. Yes, court could deny the Motion requesting that the grounds he raised in the affirmative defense be heard as if a motion to dismiss because the ground he raised (malicious acts designed to harass) is not a ground for MTD under R16.1 which could be heard as if there was a MTD. Also, under 16.5, if ever the grounds raised for affirmative defense are also those under Rule 16.1, the court has discretion to conduct a preliminary hearing, as opposed to the case in R16.1 wherein the court is required to conduct a hearing. 7. No. Under R67.3, it is expressly prohibited to file a counterclaim in expropriation proceedings. 8. No. It is not compulsory when it is not allowed in the first place. Granted that it is allowed, it is still not compulsory, applying the logical-relations test: his COA is based on malicious acts of the government vs. COA in expropriation. Different set of evidence would be presented to prove the maliciousness of the acts of the government on one hand, and the right to expropriate and amount of just compensation on the part of expropriation. 9. 9. No. Based on the rules on joinder of parties, cannot file an ordinary civil action with a special civil action. Here, the action for expropriation is a special civil action, and the action for damages for abuse of right is an ordinary civil action. 10.No. Brgy San Roque vs. heirs of Pastor ruled that expropriation actions are under the jurisdiction of RTC, it being incapable of pecuniary estimation. 11.No. Lack of jurisdiction over the res cannot be waived. Agreement of the parties does not confer jurisdiction, jurisdiction is conferred only by law. Only venue may be waived. Third Problem 12.Yes. Oral motions may be allowed when it is made in the course of the hearing or in open court. Although general rule is that motions should be made in writing. 13.Yes. Under Rule 18.6, failure to file a pre-trial brief would be deemed as if non-appearance in Rule 18.5, which carries with it the effects of Rule 18.5. Under Rule 18.5, when the defendant failed to appear during pre-trial, he would be deemed as in default. Also, Marcy Mining Corporation failed to appear before the court for Pre-trial. Nothing was stated that Atty. Basilio was authorized by the said corporation to represent their interests during pretrial. Therefore, under Rule 18.5, defendant may also be declared as in default. 14.No. Not w/n the groundsunless indirect contempt of the court when its improper conduct of submitting a pre-trial brief on the day of the pretrial itself and not 3 days before tended to impede, obstruct, or degrade administration of justice. 15.Yes. When a defendant is declared as in default for failure to appear during pre-trial, the defendant is also prohibited from participating in the trial. He would only be entitled to receive notices and copies of substantial amendments in the complaint. The plaintiff, on the other hand, would be allowed to present evidence ex parte. The only difference is that when the defendant is declared as in default, the award that may be granted to him would not be limited by the prayer in the pleading but would depend on the evidence that the plaintiff would be able to present. Hence, the plaintiff may resort to interrogatories to party to recover more evidence that may be used by the plaintiff to support and bolster his claim. Fourth Problem (skipped kasi gahol na sa oras and mahaba problem)

samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to

3. Yes. An action for specific performance and damages is incapable of pecuniary estimation (if in the alternative, then damages may determine jurisdiction) so under the jurisdiction of the RTC. 4. Tama ung note. File a MTD based on failure to comply with a condition precedent since the parties agreed to undergo arbitration proceedings first before initiating an action before the courts. 5. Yes. It is an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines (granting that the sales rep are not agents of Apple) so under Rule 57.1(f), a writ of preliminary attachment may be issued by the court.

Sixth Problem 26.Petition for Review by Certiorari under Rule 45 as it only involves questions of law 27.No. A Motion for Reconsideration is only mandatory, if still available, when the party wants to file a petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 as the rule requires that there is no PSA (plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the regular course of justice) 28.Third Party Complaint is filed by the defendant against another person for CRIS purposes (contribution, reimbursement, indemnity, or subrogation). A Third Party claim is the claim of a third party on the property levied for execution of judgment. 29.Action in rem are actions, the judgment of which affect not only the parties to the case but the whole world. Real actions involves title to or possession of real property, or any interest therein. 30.Motion for summary judgment concerns the genuineness of the issue: WON the allegations in the complaint are supported by sufficient evidence. Motion for judgment on the pleadings on the other hand entails that there is not issue tendered: either the defendant admits the material facts in the plaintiffs pleading or fails to tender an issue in the answer. The Motion for summary judgment may be filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant while a Motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed only by the plaintiff. MSJ may be filed even w/o an answer on the part of the defendant, or after the answer has been filed in the case of the defendant. MJP may only be filed after an answer has been filed.

Samplex for 2008

First Problem 1. RTC has jurisdiction over expropriation case. Brgy San Roque vs. Heirs of Pastor. + RTC may be special agrarian courts which shall have exclusive and original jurisdiction over all petitions for determination of just compensation. 2. No. only a necessary party. The only indispensable party is the owner, Pedro Penduko, who would necessarily have to protect his rights over his property in the action. Plus, under R67, or ung ginamit so if wala si owner, saka lang pede is occupant of the property. 3. None if provisional remedies as defined under ROC. But if under Rule 67, DAR may take property before filing action, or pending determination of amount of just compensation. Second Problem (nawawala ung Annex A) Skip to third Problem 19.Petition for Relief from judgment after 60d from discovery but w/n 6m from entry of judgment 20.R45. Questions of law. Fourth Problem

samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to

Fifth Problem 24.Under Rule 39.9, for money judgments, first step is to demand the payment in cash first. If insufficient funds and cannot pay all, levy property and may also garnish debts and credits. If writ still remains unsatisfied, may examine obligor under R39.36. But since obligor cannot be required to appear before a court outside the place where he is found, and he is found in Vanuatu, the second option is to examine the obligor of judgment obligor to determine WON the losing party still has property that may be levied for execution. 25.Depositions sabi ni sir sa superfast lecture. Was not answered but it was clarified by sir (through text to Giulia! Kamusta naman?!) that discovery procedures may still be availed to aid execution (not only pending an action or an appeal).

21.Yes. Unlawful detainer. Real action as involves possession of real property. Action in personam as it would only bind those who are parties to the case Fifth Problem 22.No. The separation of their properties would affect the distribution of legitimes of their children, and this is not covered by the rules on ADR. 23.Recognition and Enforcement if NY Convention state member: petition for recognition and enforcement. File original or authenticated copy of the award and the agreement then prove that country is a member state. If foreign arbitral award is not entered into by 1 party which is not a state member, enforce following RTC 24.Draft

samplex)Chas notes: McDo Katips Group Study Session for Civil Procedure, April 1, 2009 (proposed answers to