You are on page 1of 66

Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.

com Page 1 of 66

ANSWERS TO BAR

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
IN
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 2 of 66

FORWARD
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is
freeware. It may be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily
intended for all those who desire to have a deeper understanding of
the issues touched by the Philippine Bar Examinations and its trend.
It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who,
very often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other
unscrupulous law schools and students. Share to others this work
and you will be richly rewarded by God in heaven. It is also very
good karma.

REMEDIAL LAW
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
We would like (1997 2006)
to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar
Questions which are improperly classified under a topic and for
some topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased, for the
authors are just Bar Reviewees
Edited and who have
Arranged by: prepared this work while
reviewing for the Bar Exams under
version time constraints and within their
1987-2003
Silliman University
limited knowledge of the law. We would like to seek the readers
College of Law Batch
indulgence for a lot of typographical
2005 errors in this work.
UPDATED BY:
Dondee
The RE-Take 2007
The
FromAuthors
the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION
July 26, 2005
QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & Philippine Law
Schools Association 2006
Updated by Dondee
July 22, 2007 July 22, 2007
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 3 of 66

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................ 8
Bar by Prior Judgment vs. Conclusiveness of Judgment (1997)
.............................................................................. 8 Cause of action vs. Action (1997)
............................................................................................................................ 8 Civil Actions vs.
Special Proceedings (1998) ........................................................................................................... 8
Conciliation Proceedings; Katarungang Pambarangay vs. Pre-Trial Conference
(1999) ........................................... 8 Family Courts Act (2001)
......................................................................................................................................... 8 Interlocutory
Order (2006) ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Judgment vs. Opinion of the Court
(2006)................................................................................................................ 8 Judicial Autonomy &
Impartiality (2003) .................................................................................................................. 8
Katarungang Pambarangay; Objective (1999)
.......................................................................................................... 9 Liberal Construction; Rules of
Court (1998)............................................................................................................. 9 Remedial Law in
Phil. System of Govt (2006) .......................................................................................................... 9
JURISDICTION.......................................................................................................................................................
Remedial Law vs. Substantive Law (2006) 10
Jurisdiction
............................................................................................................... 9 Remedial Law; Concept
(2006) ................................................................................................................................ 9 Rights of the
(1997)................................................................................................................................................. 10
Accused;
Jurisdiction Validity; HIV
vs. Test (2005)
Venue
...................................................................................................... 9
(2006)................................................................................................................................. 10 Jurisdiction;
CTA Division vs. CTA En Banc (2006) ...............................................................................................
10 Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
(2000).......................................................................................... 10 Jurisdiction; Incapable of
Pecuniary Estimation (2000).......................................................................................... 11
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
(2003).......................................................................................... 11 Jurisdiction; MTC
(2002)........................................................................................................................................
Actions; Cause of Action vs. Action (1999) 11
Jurisdiction; Office of the Solicitor
............................................................................................................ 13 Actions; Cause of Action; General
(2006)................................................................................................. 11 Jurisdiction; Ombudsman
Joinder & Splitting (1998)............................................................................................. 13 Actions;
Case
Cause Decisions of (2006)..................................................................................................
Action; Joinder of Action 12
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Jurisdiction; ..............................................................................................................................................
Probate 13
(1999)................................................................................................ 13 Actions; Cause of Action;
(2001)...................................................................................................................................
Joinder of Action (2005)................................................................................................ 12 Jurisdiction;
13 Actions;
RTC
Cause (2002) ........................................................................................................................................
of Action; Splitting (1999) 12
Jurisdiction; Subdivision
............................................................................................................. 14 Actions; Cause of Action; Homeowner
(2006).........................................................................................................
Splitting (2005) ............................................................................................................. 12 Katarungang
14 Actions;
Pambarangay; Lupon;
Cause of Actions; Motion to Dismiss; bar by prior judgment Extent of Authority;
(2002)
(2001)............................................................................
......................................................... 14 13
Actions; Counterclaim (2002)
................................................................................................................................ 14 Actions;
Counterclaim vs. Crossclaim
(1999)......................................................................................................... 15 Actions; Cross-Claims;
Third Party Claims (1997) ................................................................................................. 15
Actions; Derivative Suit vs. Class Suit
(2005)......................................................................................................... 16 Actions; Filing; Civil
Actions & Criminal Action (2005)........................................................................................... 16
Actions; Intervention; Requisites (2000)
................................................................................................................ 16 Actions; Real Actions &
Personal Actions (2006)................................................................................................... 16 Actions;
Survives Death of the Defendant (2000)
................................................................................................... 16 Appeals; Period of Appeal; Fresh
Period Rule (2003)............................................................................................. 17 Certiorari; Mode
of Certiorari (2006) ...................................................................................................................... 17
Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (1998)
..................................................................................................................... 17 Certiorari; Rule 45 vs.
Rule 65 (2005) ..................................................................................................................... 18
Contempt; Death of a Party; Effect (1998)
.............................................................................................................. 18 Default (2000)
........................................................................................................................................................ 18 Default
(2001) ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
Default; Order of Default; Effects (1999)
................................................................................................................ 18 Default; Remedies; Party
Declared in Default (1998) .............................................................................................. 19
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 4 of 66
Default; Remedies; Party Declared in Default (2006)
Default; Remedies;
.............................................................................................. 19 Substantial Compliance
Demurrer to
(2000)................................................................................................ Evidence
20 (2001)
Demurrer to Evidence; Civil Case vs. 20 Criminal
................................................................................................................................. Case
Discovery; Modes
(2003).................................................................................... 20 of Discovery
Discovery; Modes; Subpoena Duces
(2000)................................................................................................................... 20 Tecum (1997)
Discovery; Production and
............................................................................................... 21Inspection of Documents
Dismissal; Motion to
(2002).................................................................................. Dismiss;
21 Res Judicata
Evidence; Admissibility;
(2000)................................................................................................ Photocopies
21 (2000)
Forum Shopping;
......................................................................................................... 22Definition (2006)
Forum Shopping; Effects; Lack of
........................................................................................................................ 22 Certification (2006)
Gen. Principles; Questions of Law22 vs. Questions of Fact (2004)
...........................................................................................
Judgment; Annulment
............................................................................ 22 of Judgment; Grounds
Judgment; Enforcement; 5-year22
(1998)............................................................................................. period (1997)
Judgment; Enforcement; Foreign
....................................................................................................... 22 Judgment (2005)
Judgment; Execution
............................................................................................... 22 pending Appeal
Judgment; Interlocutory Order; Partial Summary
(2002)......................................................................................................... 23 Judgments (2004)
Judgment; Judgment
...................................................................... 23 on the Pleadings (1999)
Judgment; Judgment on the
....................................................................................................... 23 Pleadings (2005)
Judgment; Mandamus vs. 24
....................................................................................................... Quo Warranto
Judgment; Soundness;
(2001)..................................................................................................... Attachment
24 (2002)
Judgments; Enforcement; Examination
............................................................................................................ 24 of Defendant
Jurisdiction; Habeas Corpus;
(2002).................................................................................. Custody
24 of Minors (2005)
Jurisdiction; Lack of Jurisdiction; Proper
........................................................................................ 25 Action of the Court (2004)
Parties; Death of 25
..................................................................... a Party; Effect (1998)
Parties; Death of a Party;
.................................................................................................................. 25 Effect (1999)
Parties; Death of a Party;
.................................................................................................................. 25 Effect (1999)
Parties; Third Party
.................................................................................................................. 26 Claim (2000)
Parties; Third-Party Claim
........................................................................................................................... 26 (2005)
Petition for Certiorari26
........................................................................................................................... (2000)
Petition for Relief & Action
.................................................................................................................................. 26for Annulment
Petition for Relief;
(2002)................................................................................................... 27 Injunction
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint; By Leave 27
(2002)....................................................................................................................... of Court (2003)
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint;
............................................................................ 27 By Leave of Court; Prescriptive Period
Pleadings; Amendment 27 of
(2000)............................................. Complaint; Matter of Right (2005)
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint;
................................................................................. 28 To Conform w/ Evidence (2004)
Pleadings; Answer;
.................................................................. 28Defense; Specific Denial (2004)
Pleadings; Certification Against 28
.............................................................................................. Forum Shopping (2000)
Pleadings; Counterclaim against the
....................................................................................... 29 Counsel of the Plaintiff (2004)
Pleadings; Motions; 29
...................................................................... Bill of Particulars
Pleadings; Reply; Effect of Non-Filing 29 of
(2003)......................................................................................................... Reply (2000)
Prejudicial Question; Ejectment
...........................................................................................vs.
29 Specific Performance (2000)
Pre-Trial;
.......................................................................... 30Requirements (2001)
Provisional Remedies
.............................................................................................................................. 30 (1999)
Provisional Remedies; Attachment
................................................................................................................................. 30 (1999)
Provisional Remedies;
.............................................................................................................Attachment
30 (1999)
Provisional Remedies;
.............................................................................................................Attachment
30 (2001)
Provisional Remedies;
.............................................................................................................Attachment
30 (2005)
Provisional Remedies; Attachment vs.
............................................................................................................. 30 Garnishment (1999)
Provisional Remedies;
................................................................................... 31 Injunction
Provisional Remedies;
(2001)................................................................................................................ 31 Injunction
Provisional Remedies; Injunctions; Ancillary Remedy
(2003)................................................................................................................ 31 vs. Main Action
Provisional Remedies;
(2006)........................................................ Injunctions;
31 Issuance w/out Bond (2006)
Provisional Remedies; 31
........................................................................... Injunctions; Requisites
Provisional Remedies;
(2006)............................................................................................ Receivership
31 (2001)
Provisional Remedies; 32
........................................................................................................... Replevin
Provisional Remedies; Support
(1999).................................................................................................................. Pendente
32 Lite
Provisional Remedies; Support 32
(1999)............................................................................................. Pendente Lite
Provisional Remedies;
(2001)............................................................................................. 32 TRO (2001)
Provisional Remedies;
........................................................................................................................ TRO
32 (2006)
........................................................................................................................ 33
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 5 of 66 Provisional
Remedies; TRO vs. Status Quo Order (2006) .......................................................................................
33 Provisional Remedies; TRO; CA Justice Dept.
(2006)............................................................................................. 33 Provisional Remedies; TRO;
Duration (2006) ......................................................................................................... 33 Reglementary
Period; Supplemental Pleadings (2000) ........................................................................................... 33
Remedies; Appeal to SC; Appeals to CA (2002)
..................................................................................................... 33 Remedies; Appeal; RTC to CA
(1999)..................................................................................................................... 33 Remedies; Appeal;
Rule 45 vs. Rule 65 (1999) ....................................................................................................... 34
Remedies; Void Decision; Proper Remedy (2004)
.................................................................................................. 34 Special Civil Action; Ejectment (1997)
Acquittal; Effect
................................................................................................................... 35 Special Civil (2002)
Action;
Ejectment (1998) ................................................................................................................... 35 SpecialBP22;
.......................................................................................................................................... 38 Actions; Civil
Action; Civil Foreclosure
Action deemed (2003) included (2001)..............................................................................................
................................................................................................................ 35
Special 39 Actions;
Civil BP22;
Action; Demurrer
Petition for to Evidence
Certiorari (2003)
(2002)
.........................................................................................................
.................................................................................................. 35 Special 39 Actions;
Civil Action; Commencement Quo Warranto of an
Action; Double Jeopardy (2004)............................................................................
(2001) ............................................................................................................. 36 Special Civil Actions; 39 Actions;
Mandamus Discretionary (2006) Power of
................................................................................................................ Fiscal 36
(1999)........................................................................................................ 39 Actions;
Summons.............................................................................................................................................................. 36Injunction
Summons (1999)...................................................................................................................................... 39 Arrest;
(1999) ...................................................................................................................................................
37 Warrantless Summons; Arrest;Substituted PreliminaryService Investigation (2004)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE....................................................................................................................................
(2004).................................................................................. 40 37 Arrest; Warrantless Arrests 38
&
................................................................................................................... Summons; Validity of Service;
Effects Searches (1997) ......................................................................................................
(2006)......................................................................................................... 37 Venue;40 Improper Arrest;
Venue; Warrantless
Compulsory Counterclaim Arrests (1998)....................................................................................
& Seizures (2003) 38
Venue; .......................................................................................................
Personal 40 Arrest; Warrantless Arrests;
Actions
Objection (2000)........................................................................................................
(1997)............................................................................................................................. 38 41 Bail (2002)
............................................................................................................................................................. 41 Bail;
Appeal (1998) ................................................................................................................................................
41 Bail; Application; Venue
(2002).............................................................................................................................. 41 Bail; Forms of
Bail (1999) ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Bail;
Matter of Right (1999)
.................................................................................................................................... 41 Bail; Matter of
Right vs. Matter of Discretion (1999) ...............................................................................................
41 Bail; Matter of Right vs. Matter of Discretion (2006)
............................................................................................... 42 Bail; Witness Posting Bail (1999)
........................................................................................................................... 42 Complaint vs.
Information (1999) ........................................................................................................................... 42
Demurrer to Evidence; Contract of Carriage
(2004)................................................................................................ 42 Demurrer to Evidence; w/o
Leave of Court (1998) .................................................................................................. 42 Demurrer
to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (2001)
.................................................................................................. 43 Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave
of Court (2004) .................................................................................................. 43 Dismissal;
Failure to Prosecute (2003)...................................................................................................................
43 Dismissal; Provisional Dismissal (2003)
................................................................................................................ 43 Double Jeopardy
(2002)......................................................................................................................................... 44 Double
Jeopardy; Upgrading; Original Charges (2005)
.......................................................................................... 44 Extradition (2004)
.................................................................................................................................................. 44 Information
(2001) ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Information; Amendment (2001)
............................................................................................................................ 45 Information;
Amendment; Double Jeopardy; Bail (2002)
........................................................................................ 45 Information; Amendment;
Supervening Events (1997) ........................................................................................... 45
Information; Bail (2003)
......................................................................................................................................... 45 Information;
Motion to Quash (2000)...................................................................................................................... 46
Information; Motion to Quash
(2005)...................................................................................................................... 46 Information;
Motion to Quash; Grounds (1998) ......................................................................................................
46 Judgment; Promulgation of Judgment (1997)
........................................................................................................ 46 Jurisdiction; Complex Crimes
(2003) ..................................................................................................................... 47
Admissibility
(1998)............................................................................................................................................... 50
Admissibility
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 6 of 66 Jurisdiction;
Finality (2002)...............................................................................................................................................
of a Judgment (2005) ............................................................................................................ 50 47
Parties; Admissibility Prosecution of Offenses
(2004)...............................................................................................................................................
(2000)................................................................................................................. 47 Plea of Guilty; to 50 a
Lesser Admissibility;
Offense (2002) Admission of Guilt; Requirements (2006)
.............................................................................................................. 47
........................................................................................ 51 Admissibility; Document; Not
Prejudicial raised
Question
in the Pleading (2004) ...................................................................................
(1999).................................................................................................................................... 5147 Admissibility;
Prejudicial
Question Electronic Evidence (2003) .............................................................................................................. 51
(2000).................................................................................................................................... 47
Admissibility;
Prejudicial Question; Object
Suspension or
of Criminal Real Action Evidence (1999)
(1994)........................................................................................................
.................................................................................. 48 Pre-Trial 51
Agreement Admissibility; (2004)
Objections (1997) ............................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................... 48 Pre-Trial; Criminal 51
CaseAdmissibility;
vs. Civil Case Offer to Marry; Circumstantial
(1997) ........................................................................................................ Evidence 48
(1998)................................................................................
Provisional Dismissal52 Admissibility; Offer to(2002) Pay
Expenses (1997) ..........................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................. 48 Remedies; Void52
Admissibility; Private Document
Judgment (2004) .......................................................................................................................... 48 Search (2005)
EVIDENCE
Warrant; ................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
Motion 52 Admissibility; Proof of
to Quash (2005) ............................................................................................................... 50
49 Trial; Filiation; TrialAction in of Partition
Absentia; (2000).....................................................................................
Automatic Review of Conviction (1998) 52
Admissibility;
............................................................................. Rules 49 of Venue Evidence
(1997)
(1997)................................................................................................................. 53 Best49Evidence Rule
.........................................................................................................................................................
(1997) ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Burden of
Proof vs. Burden of Evidence (2004)
..................................................................................................... 54 Character Evidence
(2002)..................................................................................................................................... 54
Confession; Affidavit of Recantation
(1998)........................................................................................................... 54 Facts; Legislative
Facts vs. Adjudicative Facts (2004) ........................................................................................... 54
Hearsay Evidence (2002)
....................................................................................................................................... 54 Hearsay
Evidence vs. Opinion Evidence (2004)
..................................................................................................... 54 Hearsay; Exception; Dead Man
Statute (2001)........................................................................................................ 54 Hearsay;
Exception; Dying Declaration (1998)
....................................................................................................... 55 Hearsay; Exception; Res
Gestae; Opinion of Ordinary Witness (2005) ................................................................... 55
Hearsay; Exceptions (1999)
................................................................................................................................... 55 Hearsay;
Exceptions; Dying Declaration (1999)
..................................................................................................... 55 Hearsay; Inapplicable
(2003).................................................................................................................................. 55 Judicial
Notice; Evidence (2005)............................................................................................................................
56 Judicial Notice; Evidence; Foreign Law
(1997)....................................................................................................... 56 Memorandum
(1996).............................................................................................................................................. 57 Offer
of Evidence (1997) ........................................................................................................................................
57 Offer of Evidence; res inter alios acta
(2003).......................................................................................................... 57 Offer of Evidence;
Testimonial & Documentary (1994) ........................................................................................... 57
Opinion Rule
(1994)............................................................................................................................................... 57 Parol
Evidence Rule (2001)....................................................................................................................................
58 Preponderance vs. Substantial Evidence (2003)
.................................................................................................... 58 Privilege Communication (1998)
............................................................................................................................ 58 Privilege
Communication; Marital Privilege (1989)
................................................................................................. 58 Privilege Communication; Marital
Privilege (2000) ................................................................................................. 59 Privilege
Communication; Marital Privilege (2004)
................................................................................................. 59 Privilege Communication; Marital
Privilege (2006) ................................................................................................. 59 Remedy; Lost
Documents; Secondary Evidence (1992)
......................................................................................... 60 Testimony; Independent Relevant
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
Statement (1999) .............................................................................................. 60 Witness;
Competency of the Witness vs. Credibility of the Witness
(2004)............................................................. 60 Witness; Examination of a Child Witness;
via Live-Link TV (2005) ......................................................................... 60 Witness;
Examination of Witnesses (1997)
............................................................................................................ 60
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 7 of 66 Witness;
Examination of Witnesses (2002) ............................................................................................................ 60
Witness; Utilized as State Witness; Procedure (2006)
............................................................................................ 60
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 61
Cancellation or Correction; Entries Civil Registry
(2005)........................................................................................ 61 Escheat Proceedings (2002)
.................................................................................................................................. 61 Extra-judicial
Settlement of Estate (2005) .............................................................................................................. 61
Habeas Corpus (1993)
........................................................................................................................................... 61 Habeas Corpus
(1998) ........................................................................................................................................... 61 Habeas
Corpus (2003) ........................................................................................................................................... 62
Intestate Proceedings (2002)
................................................................................................................................. 62 Intestate
Proceedings; Debts of the Estate
(2002).................................................................................................. 62 Judicial Settlement of
Estate (2005)....................................................................................................................... 62 Probate of
Lost Wills (1999)................................................................................................................................... 62
Probate of Will (2003)
............................................................................................................................................ 63 Probate of Will
(2005) ............................................................................................................................................ 63
Probate of Will (2006)
SUMMARY PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................ 63 Probate 65 of
Will;
Prohibited Mandatory Pleadings
Nature
(2002)............................................................................................................... 63 Settlement
(2004)................................................................................................................................... 65 of Estate
MISCELLANEOUS.................................................................................................................................................
(2001).................................................................................................................................... 64 Settlement 65
of Estate;
Administrative Administrator (1998).............................................................................................................
Proceedings (2005)
64 Venue; Special
........................................................................................................................ 65 Congress; Proceedings Law
(1997)........................................................................................................................
Expropriating Property (2006) ....................................................................................................... 64 65
RA 3019; Mandatory Suspension (2001)
................................................................................................................ 66
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 8 of 66

P.D. No. 1508; Sec. 415, Local Government Code


GENERAL PRINCIPLES of 1991, R.A. 7160.) No such prohibition
Bar by Prior Judgment vs. exists in the pre-trial negotiations under
Conclusiveness of Judgment (1997) the Rules of Court.
Distinguish Bar by prior judgment from Family Courts
conclusiveness of judgment ActHow
a) (2001)
should the records of child and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: family cases in the Family Courts or RTC
Bar by prior-judgment is the doctrine of designated by the Supreme Court to
res judicata, which bars a second action handle Family Court cases be treated and
when there is identity of parties, subject dealt with? (3%) b) Under what conditions
former
matterRule
and 39; Sec,of47
cause [b] of(Sec.
action. new49[b] of
Rule 39).
may the identity of parties in child and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
family cases be divulged (2%)
Conclusiveness of judgment precludes the a) The records of child and family cases
relitigation of a particular issue in another in the Family Code to handle Family Court
action between the same parties on a cases shall be dealt with utmost
different cause of action. (Sec. 49 [c] of confidentiality. (Sec. 12, Family Courts Act of
former Rule 39; sec. 47 [c] of new Rule 39). b) The identity of parties in child and
1997)
Cause of action vs. family cases shall not be divulged unless
Action (1997)
Distinguish Cause of action from necessary and with authority of the judge.
action
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Id.)
A CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission Interlocutory
of one party in violation of the legal right Order (2006)
What is an interlocutory order?
or rights of the other (Maao Sugar Central (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 606; Sec. 2 of new Rule An interlocutory order refers to an order
2), causing damage to another. issued between the commencement and
An ACTION is an ordinary suit in a court of the end of the suit which is not a final
Justice by which one party prosecutes decision of the whole controversy and
another for the enforcement or protection (Gallardo et al. v. People,
leaves something more toG.R.
be No.
done142030,
on its
of a right, or the prevention or redress of a April
merits21, 2005; Investments Inc. v. Court of
2).
wrong.(Section 1 of former Rule Appeals, G.R. No. 60036, January 27, 1987
cited in Denso Phils, v. /AC, G.R. No. 75000,
Civil Actions vs. Special Feb. 27, 1987).
Proceedings civil
Distinguish (1998)
actions from special Judgment vs. Opinion of the
proceedings. [3%] Court (2006)
What is the difference between a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: judgment and an opinion of the court?
A CIVIL ACTION is one by which a party (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
sues another for the enforcement or The judgment or fallo is the final disposition
protection of a right, or the prevention or of the Court which is reflected in the
redress of a wrong. (See. 3[a], Rule 1, 1997 dispositive portion of the decision. A
Rules of Civil Procedure), while a SPECIAL
decision is directly prepared by a judge and
signed by him, containing clearly and
PROCEEDING is a remedy by which a party
3[C]. distinctly a statement of the facts proved
seeks Rule 1,1997 Rules
to establish of Civil
a status, a right or a
Procedure.) and the law
Singson, uponMatter
Adm. which No.
the judgment
RTJ-91-758,is
particular fact. (Sec. based (Etoya
Conciliation Proceedings; Katarungang September 26,
v. 1994).
Abraham
Pambarangay vs. Pre-Trial Conference
(1999)
What is the difference, if any, between the An opinion of the court is the informal
conciliation proceedings under the expression of the views of the court and
Katarungang Pambarangay Law and the cannot prevail against its final order. The
negotiations for an amicable settlement opinion of the court is contained in the
during the pre-trial conference under the body of the decision that serves as a guide
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rules of Court? (2%) or enlightenment to determine the ratio
The difference between the conciliation decidendi of the decision. The opinion
proceedings under the Katarungang forms no part of the judgment even if
Pambarangay Law and the negotiations combined in one instrument, but may be
for an amicable settlement during the pre- 1947).
referred to for the purpose of construing
trial conference under the Rules of Court the judgment (Contreras v. Felix, G.R. No.
is that in the former, lawyers are L-477, June 30,
Judicial Autonomy &
prohibited from appearing for the parties. Impartiality (2003)
Parties must appear in person only except
minors or incompetents who may be
assisted by their next of kin who are not
lawyers. (Formerly Sec. 9,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 9 of 66 affairs. This is
In rendering a decision, should a court distinguished from REMEDIAL LAW which
take into consideration the possible effect prescribes the method of enforcing rights or
of its verdict upon the political stability obtaining redress for their invasion (Bustos v.
and economic welfare of the nation? 4% Lucero,
G.R. No. L-2068, October 20,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1948).
No, because a court is required to take Remedial Law;
into consideration only the legal issues Concept
What (2006)
is the concept of remedial law?
and the evidence admitted in the case. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The political stability and economic The concept of Remedial Law lies at the very
welfare of the nation are extraneous to the core of procedural due process, which
means a law which hears before it
case. They can have persuasive influence
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
but they are not the main factors that
renders judgment only after trial, and
should be considered in deciding a case. A
contemplates an opportunity to be heard
decision should be based on the law, rules beforeNo.judgment
G.R. L-19118,is January
rendered
30,(Albert v.
of procedure, justice and equity. However, University Publishing,
1965).
in exceptional cases the court may Remedial Law is that branch of law which
consider the political stability and prescribes the method of enforcing the
economic welfare of the nation when these rights or obtaining redress for their
Katarungang Pambarangay;
are capable
Objective is
of being taken into judicial
(1999)the invasion October
L-2068, 20,
(Bustos v. 1948;G.R.
Lucero, First
No. Lepanto
What object of the
notice of and are relevant to the case. Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110571,
Katarungang Pambarangay Law? (2%) March 10, 1994).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rights of the Accused; Validity;
The object of the Katarungang HIV Test
Under (2005)Act No. 8353, one may be
Republic
Pambarangay Law is to effect an amicable charged with and found guilty of qualified rape
settlement of disputes among family and if he knew on or before the commission of the
barangay members at the barangay level crime that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-
without judicial recourse and consequently Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune
No.
help1508, the former
relieve the and the first
courts of Katarungang
docket Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other
Pambarangay Law.) sexually transmissible disease and the virus or
congestion. (Preamble of P.D.
Liberal Construction; Rules of disease is transmitted to the victim. Under
Courtshall
How (1998)
the Rules of Court be construed? [2%] Section 17(a) of Republic Act No. 8504 the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: court may compel the accused to submit
The Rules of Court should be liberally himself to a blood test where blood samples
construed in order to promote their would be extracted from his veins to determine
objective of securing a just, speedy and whether he has HIV. (8%)
inexpensive disposition of every action a) Are the rights of the accused to be
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:(Sec. 6, Rule 1 1997 Rules of
and proceeding. presumed innocent of the crime charged,
However, strict observance of the rules is
Civil Procedure.) to privacy, and against self-incrimination
an imperative necessity when they are violated by such compulsory testing?
considered indispensable to the prevention SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Explain.
of needless delays and to the orderly and No. The court may compel the accused to
speedy dispatch of Judicial business. submit himself to a blood test to
(Alvero vs. Judge de la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428) determine whether he has HIV under Sec.
Remedial Law in Phil. System 17(a) of R.A. No, 8054. His rights to be
of Govt
How are (2006)
remedial laws implemented in presumed innocent of the crime charged,
our system of government? (2%) to privacy and against self-incrimination
SUGGESTED ANSWER: are not violated by such compulsory
Remedial laws are implemented in our testing. In an action in which the physical
system of government through the pillars condition of a party is in controversy, the
of the judicial system, including the (Look for citation of latest case, in
court may order the accused to submit to
2004)
prosecutory service, our courts of justice a physical examination. (Sec. 1, Rule 28,
and quasi judicial agencies. b) If the
1997 Rules result
of Civil of such test shows that
Procedure)
Remedial Law vs. he is HIV positive, and the prosecution
Substantive Law (2006)
Distinguish between substantive law and offers such result in evidence to prove the
remedial law. (2%) qualifying circumstance under the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Information for qualified rape, should the
SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that part of the law court reject such result on the ground that
which creates, defines and regulates it is the fruit
SUGGESTED of a poisonous tree? Explain.
ANSWER:
Since the rights of the accused are not
rights concerning life, liberty, or property,
violated because the compulsory testing is
or the powers of agencies or
authorized by the
instrumentalities for the administration of
public
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
law, the result of the testing cannot be
considered to be the fruit of a poisonous tree
and can be offered in evidence to prove the
qualifying circumstance under the information
for qualified rape under R.A. No. 8353. The
fruit, of the poisonous tree doctrine refers to
that rule of evidence that excludes any
evidence which may have been derived or
acquired from a tainted or polluted source.
Such evidence is inadmissible for having
emanated from spurious origins. The doctrine,
however, does not apply to the results obtained
pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 28, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as it does not contemplate a search
within the moaning
Montilla, G.R. No.of the law. (People
123872, January
v.
30,1998)

JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
(1997)
What courts have jurisdiction over the
following cases filed in Metro Manila? a)
An action for specific performance or, in
the alternative, for damages in the amount of
P180,000.00 b) An action for a writ of
injunction. c) An action for replevin of a
motorcycle valued at
P150,000.00. d) An action for interpleader
to determine who
between the defendants is entitled to receive
amount
the of P190,000.00 from the plaintiff.
e) A petition for the probate of a will
estatean
involving valued at
P200,000.00.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) An action for specific performance or, in
the alternative, for damages in the amount
of 180,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila.
Although an action for specific performance
is not capable of pecuniary estimation, since
the alternative demand for damages is
capable of pecuniary estimation, it is within
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial
Courts
Cruz us.inTan,
Metro
87 Manila. (Sec. 33 of BP 129 as
Phil. 627].
amended by RA No. 7691:
(b) An action for injunction is not capable
of pecuniary estimation and hence falls
within the jurisdiction of the RTCs.

(c) An action for replevin of a motorcycle


valued at 150,000.00 falls within the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts
in Metro Manila (Sec. 33 of
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 10 of 66
under the jurisdiction of the RTCs. (Russell (e) A petition for the probate of a will
v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738,[1999]). involving an estate valued at 200.000.00
falls within the Jurisdiction of the
However, the action for annulment is a Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila
personal action and the venue depends on ADDITIONAL
(Sec. 19[4]ANSWER:
of BP 129, as amended).
the residence of either A or B. Hence, it (b) An application for a writ of preliminary
should be brought in the RTC of the place injunction may be granted by a Municipal
where either of the parties resides. Court in an action of forcible entry and
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary unlawful
Day vs. detainer.
RTC of (Sec.33
Zamboanga, 191
of BP 129;
Estimation
A files an (2000)
action in the Municipal Trial SCRA610.
Court against B, the natural son of As Jurisdiction vs.
father, for the partition of a parcel of land Venue (2006)
Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?
located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
JURISDICTION treats of the power of the
value of P20,000.00. B moves to dismiss Court to decide a case on the merits, while
the action on the ground that the case VENUE refers to the place where the suit
should have been brought in the RTC may be filed. In criminal actions, however,
because the action is one that is not venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a
capable of pecuniary estimation as it matter of substantive law; venue, of
involves primarily a determination of procedural law. Jurisdiction may be not be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hereditary
The motionrights
shouldand
benot merelyThe
granted. theaction
bare conferred by consent through waiver upon a
right to real property. Resolve the motion.
for partition depends on a determination of court, No.
G.R. but venue maySeptember
145022, be waived, 23,except in
2005;
(2%) criminal III
Santos cases (Nocum et al.
v. Northwest v. Tan, G.R. No.
Airlines,
the hereditary rights of A and B, which is
101538, June 23, 1992).
not capable of pecuniary estimation. Jurisdiction; CTA Division vs. CTA
Hence, even though the assessed value of En Banc
Mark (2006)
filed with the Bureau of Internal
the land is P20,000.00, the Municipal Trial Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes
Vestil, supra)
Court has no jurisdiction. (Russell v. paid, but it was not acted upon. So, he
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary filed a similar complaint with the Court of
Estimation
A filed with (2003)
the MTC of Manila an action Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions.
for specific performance against B, a Mark's complaint was dismissed. Thus, he
resident of Quezon City, to compel the filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
latter to execute a deed of conveyance for certiorari under Rule 65. Does the
covering a parcel of land situated in Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Quezon City having an assessed value of Mark's
No. Thepetition? (2.5%)
procedure is governed by Sec. 11
p19,000.00. B received the summons and of R. A. 9282. Decisions of a division of the
a copy of the Complaint on 02 January Court of Tax Appeals must be appealed to
2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a the Court of Tax Appeals en banc. Further,
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the the CTA now has the same rank as the
ground of lack of jurisdiction contending Court of Appeals and is no longer
that the subject matter of the suit was considered a quasi-judicial agency. It is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The likewise provided in the said law that the
court denied the motion. In due time, B decisions of the CTA en bane are
filed with the RTC a Petition for Certiorari cognizable by the Supreme Court under
praying that the said Order be set aside Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
because the MTC had no jurisdiction over Estimation
A brings an(2000)
action in the MTC of Manila
Procedure.
the against B for the annulment of an
(a) case.
Was 6% theOndenial
13 February
of the2003, A filed
Motion to
with the MTC a motion to declare B in extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real
Dismiss the Complaint correct?
default. The motion was opposed by Btheon property with an assessed value of
(b) Resolve the Motion to Declare
the ground that his Petition for Certiorari P50,000.00 located in Laguna. The
Defendant in Default.
was129.
BP still pending.
as amended by RA No. complaint alleged prematurity of the sale
7691). for the reason that the mortgage was not
(d) An action for interpleader to determine yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
who between the defendants is entitled to case on the ground that the action should
The motion should be granted. The MTC of
receive the amount of P190,000.00 falls have been brought in the RTC of Laguna.
Manila has no jurisdiction because the
within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Decide with reason. (3%)
action for the annulment of the
(Makati Dev in
Trial Courts Corp.
Metrov. Manila.
Tanjuatco 27 SCRA
401)
extrajudicial foreclosure is not capable of
pecuniary estimation and is therefore
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 11 12
of 66of 66 Was the
billion. He announced to the public that municipal estimation circuit
and,trial court correct
therefore, the action in was its
the VRIS project has been set aside. Two ruling? Why?
within the(5%) jurisdiction of RTC. (Russel v.
Commissioners sided with Chairman Go, Vestil,
SUGGESTED 304 SCRA 738 [1999]; Copioso v.
ANSWER:
but the majority voted to uphold the Yes, the G.R.
Copioso, Municipal Circuit October
No. 149243, Trial Court was
28,2002;
Cabutihan
correct in v. Landcenter
proceeding to Construction,
hear the case. 383 It
contract. SCRA 353 [2002]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Meanwhile, Fotokina filed with the RTC a has exclusive jurisdiction in all matters of
If the action affects title to or possession
petition for mandamus compel the COMELEC probate, both testate and intestate, where
of real property then it is a real action and
to implement the contract. The Office of the the value of the estate does not exceed
jurisdiction is determined by the assessed
Solicitor General (OSG), representing P100,000.00 (now P200,000.00). The value
value of the property. It is within the
Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the in this case of P95,000.00 is within its
ground that mandamus does not lie to jurisdiction therefore of the Metropolitan
jurisdiction. In determining the
enforce contractual obligations. During the Trial Court.
jurisdictional
SUGGESTED ANSWER: amount, excluded are
proceedings, the majority Commissioners filed (B.P.Blg. 129, Sec. 33, as
attorneys
(b) The Court fees,could litigation
declare expenses
B in defaultand
a manifestation that Chairman Go was not amended)
because these
costs; B did not are obtain a writ of preliminary
considered only for
authorized by the COMELEC En BancGoto Jurisdiction; RTC
May the OSG represent Chairman injunction or the
determining a temporary
filing fees. restraining order
oppose the (2002)
P sued A in the RTC-Manila to recover the
before the petition.
RTC notwithstanding that his from the RTC prohibiting the judge from
position is contrary to that of the following
proceedingsums: in the (1) caseP200,000.00 on an
during the pendency
SUGGESTED ANSWER: overdue promissory
of the7petition note, (2) P80,000.00
majority? (5%) (Sec. of Rulefor 65; certiorari.
Diaz v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302
Yes, the OSG may represent the COMELEC on the purchase
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:price of a computer, (3)
[2002].
Chairman before the RTC notwithstanding (4)
The P100,000.00
P150,000.00
Court should for
not attorneys
for damages declare
to hisBcarfees
in and and
default
that his position is contrary to that of a litigation expenses. Can
inasmuch as the jurisdiction of MTC was A move to dismiss
majority of the Commission members in the the
put case on the
in issue in theground that the
Petition For court has
Certiorari
COMELEC because the OSG is an no jurisdiction over the
filed with the RTC. The MTC should defer subject matter?
independent office; it's hands are not SUGGESTED
Explain. ANSWER:
(2%)
further proceedings pending the result of
shackled to the cause of its client agency. No, because
Corporation v. Court
theof Appeals,
RTC-Manila has
such petition. (Eternal Gardens164 SCRA 421
Memorial
The primordial concern of the OSG is to see jurisdiction
[1988]).
Park
over the subject matter. P may
to itQuyano-Padilla,
v. that the best interest of the government
September 18, sue A in one complaint
Jurisdiction; MTC asserting as many
is upheld (COMELEC
2002). causes
(2002) of action as
P sued A and B in one complaint he may have andinsince the
Jurisdiction; Ombudsman Case all the claims are
RTC-Manila, the cause of action principally foragainst
recovery A
Decisions
Does the(2006)Court of Appeals have of money,
being on an the aggregate
overdue amount note
promissory claimed for
jurisdiction to review the Decisions in shall be the test
P300,000.00 andofthat jurisdiction.
against B[Rule being on
2, sec.
criminal and administrative cases of the The aggregate
an alleged
5(d)]. amount claimed
balance of P300,000.00 on the is
SUGGESTED
Ombudsman? ANSWER:(2.5%) P450,000.00,
purchase price exclusive
of goods of sold
the amount
on credit. of
The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate
P100,000.00
Does the RTC-Manila for attorneys fees and
have jurisdiction
jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman Jurisdiction;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Subdivision
in criminal cases (Sec. 14, R.A. 6770). In expenses
over the of
case? litigation.
Explain. Hence,
(3%) the RTC-
Homeowner
What
No, thecourt (2006)
has
RTC-Manila jurisdiction over an action
has no jurisdiction over
administrative and disciplinary cases, Manila has jurisdiction.
for specific
the case. A and performance
B could not filed be joinedby as a
appeals from the Ombudsman must be taken subdivision
defendants in homeowner one complaint because against the a
to the Court
(Lanting of Appeals under
v. Ombudsman, G.R.Rule
No.43 141426, subdivision
right to relief developer?
against both Choose the correct
defendants do
May 6, 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 1The Housing and
answer.
not arise Explain.
out of theLandsameUse Regulatory
transaction or
129742, September 16, 1998; Sec. 14, RA. Board
6770). series of transactions and there is no
Jurisdiction; 2The
common questionSecuritiesof law andor factExchange
common
Probate
Josefa (2001)
filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Commission
to both. (Rule 3, sec. 6). Hence, separate
Court of Alicia and Mabini, a petition for 3The Regional
complaints willTrial
have Court
to be files and they
144
4The
would SCRA fall377
Commercial (1986)].
under Court
the or the Regional
jurisdiction of the
the probate of the will of her husband,
Martin, who died in the Municipality of Trial Court
Metropolitan designated
Trial Court.
Jurisdiction; Office of the Solicitor by the
[Flores Supreme
v. Mallare-
Alicia, the residence of the spouses. The Court
Philipps,
General
In 1996, toCongress
hear and
(2006) decide
passed "commercial
Republic Act No.
probable value of the estate which cases."
8189, otherwise known as the Voter's
consisted mainly of a house and lot was Registration Act of 1996, providing for
placed at P95,000.00 and in the petition computerization of elections. Pursuant
for the allowance
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of the will, attorneys thereto, the COMELEC approved the
fees
(a) Theindenial
the of amount
the Motion ofto P10,000.00,
Dismiss the Voter's Registration and Identification
litigation
Complaint expenses in the Although
was not correct. amount the of System (VRIS) Project. It issued invitations
P5,000.00
assessed and valuecosts of were
the included.
parcel ofPedro, land to pre-qualify and bid for the project. After
the next was
involved of kin of Martin,within
P19,000.00, filed thean the public bidding, Fotokina was declared
opposition to the probate
jurisdiction of the MTC of Manila, of the will on the the winning bidder with a bid of P6 billion
ground that the total amount
action filed by A for Specific Performance included in and was issued a Notice of Award. But
the relief of the petition is
against B to compel the latter to execute amore than COMELEC Chairman Gener Go objected to
P100,000.00,
Deed of Conveyance the maximum jurisdictional
of said parcel of land the award on the ground that under the
amount for municipal
was not capable circuit trial courts.
of pecuniary Appropriations Act, the budget for the
The court overruled the opposition and COMELEC's modernization is only P1
proceeded to hear the case.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
Katarungang Pambarangay; Lupon;
Extent of Authority; (2001)
An amicable settlement was signed before
a Lupon Tagapamayapa on January 3, 2001.
On July 6, 2001, the prevailing party asked
the Lupon to execute the amicable
settlement because of the non-compliance
by the other party of the terms of the
agreement. The Lupon concerned refused
to execute the settlement/agreement. a) Is
settlement/agreement? (3%)
the Lupon correct in refusing b) What
to execute the
should be the course of action of the
prevailing party in such a case?
(2%) ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
a) Yes, the Lupon is correct in refusing to
execute the settlement/agreement
because the execution sought is already
beyond the period of six months from the
date of the settlement within which the
1991)
Lupon is authorized to execute. (Sec. 417,
Local Government Code of
b) After the six-month period, the
prevailing party should move to execute
the settlement/agreement in the
appropriate city or municipal trial court.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
(Id.)

Actions; Cause of Action vs.


Action (1999)
Distinguish action from cause of action.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An ACTION is one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection
of a right, or the prevention or redress of
a wrong. (Sec. 3(A), Rule )
A CAUSE OF ACTION is the act or omission
by which a party violates a right of
another. (Sec. 2, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules) An
action must be based on a cause of
action. (Sec. 1, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules)
Actions; Cause of Action; Joinder &
Splitting
Give (1998)
the effects of the following:
1Splitting a single cause of action: and (3%|
2Non-joinder of a necessary party. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The effect of splitting a single cause of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
action is found in the rule as follows: If An action for specific performance by a
two or more suits are instituted on the subdivision homeowner against a subdivision
basis of the same cause of action, the developer is within the jurisdiction of the
filing of one or a judgment on the merits Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
in any one is available as a ground for the Sec. 1 of P.D. 1344 provides that the HLURB
2. The effect
dismissal of the (Sec.
of the others. non-joinder
4 of Rule 2)of a has jurisdiction over cases involving specific
necessary party may be stated as follows: performance of contractual and statutory
The court may order the inclusion of an obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots
omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over and condominium units against the owner,
his person may be obtained. The failure to developer, Corp.
Insurance dealer,v.broker
Eddy or
Ngsalesman
Kok Wei,(Manila
G.R.
Bankers
No. Life December 12, 2003; Kakilala v.
139791,
comply with the order for his inclusion
without justifiable cause to a waiver of the Faraon, G.R. No. 143233, October 18, 2004;
Sec. 1, P.D. 1344).
claim against such party. The court may
proceed with the action but the judgment
rendered shall be without
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) Page 13
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 14ofof66
66 Raphael filed
It was not proper for Ricky to join his a complaint
prejudice against
to the rights X Corporation
of each necessary for the
causes of action against Perry in his payment
party.of P100,000.00
(Sec. 9 of Rule 3) for storage charges
complaint for partition against Perry and and other advances for the goods. X
Marvin. The causes of action may be Actions; filed
Corporation Cause a of Action;
motion to Joinder
dismiss the
between the same parties, Ricky and of
a) ActionWhat (1999) is
complaint on the ground of res the rule on judicata.
joinder ofX
Perry, with respect to the loan but not with causes of action? (2%)
Corporation alleged that Raphael should have
respect to the partition which includes b)
incorporated A secured two loansfor
in his complaint from B? one for
interpleader
Marvin. The joinder is between a partition P500,000.00 and
his claim for storage fees and advances and the other for
and a sum of money, but PARTITION is a P1,000,000.00, payable
that for his failure he was barred from on different dates.
special civil action under Rule 69, which Both have
interposing fallen due.
his claim. Raphael Is Breplied
obligedthat to hefile
cannot be joined with other causes of couldonly one claimed
not have complaint against
storage feesAand forotherthe
SUGGESTED
recovery ANSWER:
of both loans? Explain. (2%)
action. (See. 5[b], Rule 2,) Also, the causes of advances
a. in his
The rule complaint
on JOINDERfor OFinterpleader
CAUSES OF
action pertain to different venues and because
ACTION he was
is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not
that yet a certain
party asmayto whoin wasone
jurisdictions. The case for a sum of money
City. (Sec. 5, Rule 2,)
liable therefor.
pleading assert,Resolve in the
the
The motion to dismiss should be granted. motion
alternative with or
pertains to the municipal court and cannot reasons.
Raphael(4%) should have incorporated
otherwise join as many causes of action as in his
be filed in Cause
Actions; Pasay Cityof because
Action; the plaintiff complaint
he may have for interpleader
against an hisopposing
claim for storage
party,
is from
Splitting
a) Manila
What(1999)while Ricky and Marvin
is the rule against splittingare
a fees and advances, the
provided that the rule on joinder amounts of which were
of parties
from Batangas obviously
1.] determinable
the
is complied with; joinder at the
shall time of
not the filing
include
cause of action and its effect on the
of the complaint.
special civil actionsThey are part of governed
or actions Raphael's
respective rights of the parties for failure cause of action which he may not be split.
to comply with the same? (2%) by special rules, but may include
Hence, when the warehouseman asks the court
b) A purchased a lot from B for causes ofwho
to ascertain action among pertaining to different
the defendants are
Pl,500,000.00. He gave a down payment venues
entitled to the orgoods,
jurisdictions
he also has provided
the rightone to
of P500,000, signed a promissory note ask cause
who should of pay actionfor the fallsstoragewithinfees and the
payable thirty days after date, and as a jurisdiction
other related expenses.of a RTCThe andfilingvenue of lies
the
security for the settlement of the 2.]
therein;the
interpleader is aggregate
and available as amounta ground claimed for
obligation, mortgaged the same lot to B. shall of
dismissal bethe the test case.
second of jurisdiction
(Sec. 4, Rule where
2,) It is
When the note fell due and A failed to pay, akinthe
to aclaims
compulsory in allcounterclaim
the causeswhich, of action
if not
B commenced suit to recover from A the set are
No. up,133113,
shall be barred.
principally August for the
30,
(Sec. recovery
2, Rule 9, ; Arreza of
v. Diaz, G.R.
2001)
balance of P1,000,000.00. After securing money. (Sec. 5, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules)
Actions; Cause of Actions; Motion to
a favorable judgment on his claim, B Dismiss;
b. No. bar by prior
Joinder is onlyjudgment
permissive (2002)since
brought another action against A before Rolando filed a petition
the loans are separate loans which may for declaration of
the same court to foreclose the mortgage. the nullity of his marriage to Carmela
be governed by the different terms and
A now files a motion to dismiss the second
SUGGESTED ANSWER: because
conditions.ofThethe twoalleged
loans give psychological
rise to two
action
a. The on rule the ground
against of bar
splitting by prior
a cause of incapacity of the of latter.
separate causes action and may be the
judgment. Rule on the motion. (2%)
action and its effect are that if two or After
basis oftrial,
twothe court complaints.
separate rendered judgment
more suits are instituted on the basis of Actions; Cause
dismissing the petition of Action;
on theJoinderground that
the same cause of action, the filing of one of Action
Perry
Rolando a(2005)
is failed
residentto prove of Manila, while Ricky
the psychological
or a judgment upon the merits in any one and Marvin are
incapacity of his residents
wife. ofThe Batangas
judgment City.
2)
is available as a ground for the dismissal They arebecome
having the coowners final, of Rolandoa parcel filedof
of the others. (Sec. 4, Rule residential
another land located
petition, this time in Pasay
on theCity groundwith
b. The motion to dismiss should be an assessed value of
that his marriage to Carmela had been P100,000.00. Perry
granted. When B commenced suit to borrowed
celebratedP100,000.00
without afrom Ricky which
license. Is the he
collect on the promissory note, he waived SUGGESTED ANSWER:
promised
second action barred by the judgment in1,
to pay on or before December
his right to foreclose the mortgage. B No, the second action is not barred by the
2004.
the first? However,
Why? (2%) Perry failed to pay his
split his cause of action. judgment in the first because they are
loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin's
Actions; Cause of Action; different causes of action. The first is for
proposal to partition the property. Ricky
Splitting (2005)
Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a annulment of marriage on the ground of
filed a complaint against Perry and Marvin
complaint against V Corporation, X psychological incapacity under Article 36
in the RTC of Pasay City for the partition of
Corporation and Y Corporation to compel of the Family Code, while the second is for
the property. He also incorporated in his
them to interplead. He alleged therein declaration of nullity of the marriage in
complaint his action against Perry for the
that the three corporations claimed title view of the absence of a basic
collection of the latter's P100,000.00 loan,
and right of possession over the goods State with reasons
requirement, which whether
is a marriage it was license.
proper
plus interests and attorney's fees.
deposited in his warehouse and that he for
[Arts, 9 & 35(3), Family Code]. Theyin are
Ricky to join his causes of action his
was uncertain which of them was entitled (1980)
complaint and other
for cases].
partition
different causes of action because the against Perry and
to the goods. After due proceedings, Marvin in the
evidence RTC oftoPasay
required proveCity. them (5%)are not
Actions;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
judgment was rendered by the court the same. [Pagsisihan
Counterclaim (2002) v. Court of Appeals,
declaring that X Corporation was entitled 95 SCRA 540
to the goods. The decision became final
and executory.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 15 of 66 case. Is the
The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC stand of EE Industries sustainable? Explain.
for damages allegedly caused by the [2%]
latters encroachment on the plaintiffs lot. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In his answer, the defendant denied the a) A COUNTERCLAIM is any claim
plaintiffs claim and alleged that it was the which a defending party may have against
plaintiff who in fact had encroached on his an opposing party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6)
(defendants) land. Accordingly, the b) A counterclaim is distinguished
defendant counterclaimed against the from a CROSSCLAIM in that a cross-claim
plaintiff for damages resulting from the is any claim by one party against a co-
alleged encroachment on his lot. The party arising out of the transaction or
plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for occurrence that is the subject matter
extension of time to answer the either of the original action or of a
defendants counterclaim, but the court counterclaim therein. A counterclaim is
denied the motion on the ground that it against an opposing party while a cross-
should have been set for hearing. On the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: claim is against a co-party. (Sec. 8, Rule 6)
defendants
No, the plaintiffmotion,
was not therefore, the court
validly declared in c) No, because if no motion to dismiss
declared the plaintiff in default
default. A motion for extension of time to on the has been filed, any of the grounds for
counterclaim. Was the plaintiff
file an answer may be filed ex parte and validly dismissal provided in the Rules may be
declared
need not be
[Amante in default?
vs. set Why?
for hearing.
Sunga, (5%)
64 SCRA 192 pleaded as an affirmative defense in the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(1975)]. answer which may include a counterclaim.
The general rule is that a counterclaim This is what A did by filing an Answer
must be answered within ten (10) days alleging the lack of legal capacity of EE
from service. (Rule 11, sec. 4). However, a Industries to sue because it is not a duly
counterclaim that raises issues which are registered corporation with a counterclaim
deemed automatically joined by the for damages. The dismissal of the
[Gojo v. Goyala,
allegations 35 SCRA need
of the Complaint 557 not be
complaint on this ground is without
(1970)].
answered.
In this case, the defendants counterclaim prejudice to the prosecution of the
is a compulsory counterclaim which arises counterclaim in the same action because
Actions; Cross-Claims; Third Party
out or is connected with the transaction it is a compulsory counterclaim. (Sec. 6 of
Claims
B and C(1997)
Rule 16.)
borrowed P400,000.00 from A. The
and occurrence constituting the subject promissory note was executed by B and C
matter of the plaintiffs claim. It raises the in a Joint and several capacity. B, who
same issue of who encroached on whose received the money from A, gave C
land. Hence, there was no need to answer P200,000.00. C, in turn, loaned
the counterclaim. P100,000.00 out of the P200,000.00 he
Actions; Counterclaim vs. RTC of Quezon City, canaction
B file filed
a cross-
received to D. a) In an by A
Crossclaim
a) What is(1999) a counterclaim? (2%) b) claim against C for the amount of
against B and C with the
Distinguish a counterclaim from a P200,000.00? b) Can C file a third party
crossclaim. (2%) complaint against D for the amount of P
c) A, who is engaged in tile SUGGESTED
100,000.00? ANSWER:
installation business, was sued by EE
Industries for breach of contract for (a) Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C
installing different marble tiles in its for the amount of 200,000.00 given to C.
offices as provided in their contract. A cross-claim is a claim filed by one party
Without filing any motion to dismiss, A against a co-party arising out of the
filed its Answer with Counterclaim transaction or occurrence that is the
theorizing that EE Industries has no legal subject matter of the original action or a
capacity to sue because it is not a duly counterclaim therein and may include a
registered corporation. By way of claim that the party against whom it is
counterclaim, A asked for moral and asserted is or may be liable to the cross-
actual damages as her business depleted (b) No, for
claimant C allcannot
or partfile a third-party
of a claim asserted
as a result of the withdrawal and complaint
against the against D because
cross-claimant. the
(Sec. 8 loan
Rule 6) of
cancellation by her clients of their P100,000 has no connection with the
contracts due to the filing of the case. The opponent's claim. C could have loaned
case was dismissed after the trial court the money out of other funds in his
found that EE Industries is not a registered possession.
corporation and therefore has no legal
capacity to sue. However, it set a date for
the reception of evidence on A's
counterclaim. EE Industries opposed on
the ground that the counterclaim could no
longer be prosecuted in view of the
dismissal of the main
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 16 of 66
contribution in respect to his opponent's 1Legal interest against both; or
claim. (Sec. 11 of Rule 6) 2So situated as to be adversely affected
by a distribution or other disposition or
Actions; Derivative Suit vs. property in the custody of the court or of
Class Suit (2005)
Distinguish a derivative suit from a class an officer thereof.
suit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3Intervention will not unduly delay or
A DERIVATIVE SUIT is a suit in equity that
is filed by a minority shareholder in behalf prejudice the adjudication of the rights or
of a corporation to redress wrongs original parties;
(Acenas II v. Court
4Intervenors rightsof may
Appeals,
not 247
be SCRA
fully
committed against it, for which the 773 [1995]; Sec. 1, Rule 19, 1997 Rules of
directors refuse to sue, the real party in protected in a separate proceedings.
Civil Procedure.)
interest being the corporation itself (Lint v. Actions; Real Actions & Personal
Lim-Yu, G.IL No. 138343, February 19, Actions
What do (2006)
you mean by a) real actions; and
2001), while a CLASS SUIT is filed b) personal action? (2%)
regarding a controversy of common or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
general interest in behalf of many persons a. REAL ACTIONS are actions affecting
so numerous that it is impracticable to join title to or possession of real property or an
all as parties, a number which the court interest therein
(Fortune Motors, Inc. v. CA, G. R. No.
76431, October 16, 1989; Rule 4, Sec. 1).
finds sufficiently representative who may
sue or defend for the benefit of all. (Sec. 12, b. All other actions are PERSONAL
Actions; Filing; Civil Actions &
Rule 3) It is worth noting that a derivative ACTIONS (Rule 4, Section I) which include
Criminal
While Actionon(2005)
suit is cruising a highway,
a representative a taxicab
suit, just like a those arising from privity of contract.
driven by
class suit. Mans hit an electric post. As a
result thereof, its passenger, Jovy,
Actions; Survives Death of the
suffered serious injuries. Mans was Defendant
PJ engaged(2000)
the services of Atty. ST to
subsequently charged before the
represent him in a civil case filed by OP
Municipal Trial Court with reckless
against him which was docketed as Civil
imprudence resulting in serious physical
Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against Case No. 123. A retainership agreement
injuries.
Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for was executed between PJ and Atty. ST
breach of contract, and Mans for quasi- whereby PJ promised to pay Atty. ST a
delict. Lourdes and Mans filed a motion to retainer sum of P24,000.00 a year and to
dismiss the civil action on the ground of transfer the ownership of a parcel of land
litis pendentia, that is, the pendency of to Atty. ST after presentation of PJs
the civil action impliedly instituted in the evidence. PJ did not comply with his
criminal action for reckless imprudence undertaking. Atty. ST filed a case against
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1Is the death
PJ which of PJ a as
was docketed valid
Civilground to
Case No.
resulting in serious physical injuries. dismiss the money claim of Atty. ST in
The motion to dismiss should be denied. 456. During the trial of Civil Case No. 456,
Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%) Civil Case No. 456? Explain. (2%)
The action for breach of contract against PJ died.
the taxicab owner cannot be barred by the 2Will your answer be the same with
criminal action against the taxicab driver, respect to the real property being claimed
although the taxicab owner can be held by Atty. ST in Civil Case No. 456? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
subsidiarily liable in the criminal case, if (2%)
1No. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of
the driver is insolvent. On the other hand, Civil Procedure, when the action is for
the civil action for quasi-delict against the recovery of money arising from contract,
driver is an independent civil action under express or implied, and the defendant dies
Article 33 of the Civil Code and Sec. 3, before entry of final judgment in the court
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which can in which the action is pending at the time
be filed separately and can proceed of such death, it shall not be dismissed but
2004)
independently of the criminal action and shall instead be allowed to continue until
regardless
Actions; of Intervention;
the result of the latter. entry of final judgment. A favorable
(Samson
Requisites v. Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55,
What are (2000)
the requisites for an judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be
July 21,
intervention by a nonparty in an action enforced in the manner especially
pending inANSWER:
SUGGESTED court? (5%) provided in the Rules for prosecuting
The requisites for intervention ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
claims against the estate of a deceased
1Legal interest in the matter in a controversy;
are: Yes,
person. C can file a third-party complaint
or against D answer
becauseisthe
2Yes, my theloan
same.of An
100,000.00
action to
2Legal interest in the success of either of the was
recover real property in any eventreceived
taken out of the P200,000 survives
parties; or from B andofhence the loan seeks
the death the defendant. (Sec. 1, Rule
87, Rules of Court). However, a favorable
judgment may be enforced
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
in accordance with Sec. 7(b) Rule 39
(1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) against
the executor or administrator or
successor in interest of the deceased.

Appeals; Period of Appeal; Fresh


Period Rule
Defendant X (2003)
received an adverse Decision
of the RTC in an ordinary civil case on 02
January 2003. He filed a Notice of Appeal
on 10 January 2003. On the other hand,
plaintiff A received the same Decision on
06 January 2003 and, on 19 January 2003,
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision. On 13 January 2003, defendant X
filed a Motion withdrawing his notice of
appeal in order to file a Motion for New
Trial which he attached. On 20 January
2003, the court denied As Motion for
Reconsideration and Xs Motion to
Withdraw Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff A
received the Order denying his Motion for
Reconsideration on 03 February 2003 and
filed
(a) Ishis
theNotice
courtsofdenial
Appealof on
Xs05 February
Motion to
2003.
Withdraw Notice of Appeal proper? to As
The court denied due course
Notice of courts
(b) Is the Appeal denial
on theof ground that to
due course he
period to appeal
As appeal correct?had already lapsed. 6%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the courts denial of Xs Motion to
Withdraw Notice of Appeal is not proper,
because the period of appeal of X has not
yet expired. From January 2, 2003 when X
received a copy of the adverse decision
up to January 13, 2003 when he filed his
withdrawal of appeal and Motion for New
Trial, only ten (10) days had elapsed and
he had fifteen (15) days to do so.
(b) No, the courts denial of due course to
As appeal is not correct because the
appeal was taken on time. From January
6, 2003 when A received a copy of the
decision up to January 19, 2003 when he
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, only
twelve (12) days had elapsed.
Consequently, he had three (3) days from
receipt on February 3, 2003 of the Order
denying his Motion for Reconsideration
within which to appeal. He filed is notice
of appeal on February 5, 2003, or only two
(2) days later.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 17 of 66 allow a
to the Supreme Court from the Court of FRESH PERIOD of 15 days within which to
Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the RTC file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted
45.
under Rule from receipt of the order dismissing a motion
1The first can be filed only on the grounds for of
a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse ofCA, et.
[Neypes G.R.al.No.
vs. 141524, September 14,
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of2005]
jurisdiction, while the second is based on theCertiorari; Mode of
errors of law of the lower court. Certiorari
Explain each (2006)
mode of certiorari:
2The first should be filed within sixty (60) days1. As a mode of appeal from the
Regional Trial Court or the Court of
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution
Appeals to the Supreme Court. (2.5%)
sought to be assailed (Sec. 4. Rule 65), while theSUGGESTED ANSWER:
second should be filed within fifteen (15) daysCertiorari as a mode of appeal is governed
from notice of the judgment or final order orby Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which
resolution appealed from, or of the denial of theallows appeal from judgment, final order
petitioner's motion for new trial orof resolution of the Court of Appeals,
reconsideration filed in due time after notice ofSandiganbayan, the RTC or other courts
the judgment. (Sec. 2, Rule 45) whenever authorized by law to the
3The first cannot generally be availed of as aSupreme Court by verified petition for
substitute for a lost appeal under Rules 40, 41,review raising only questions of law
42, 43 and 45. 2. As set
distinctly a special
forth. civil action from the
4Under the first, the lower court is impleaded as Regional Trial Court or the Court of
Appeals to the Supreme Court. (2.5%)
a party respondent (Sec. 5 of Rule 65), whileSUGGESTED ANSWER:
under the second, the lower court is not impCertiorari as a Special Civil Action is
leaded. governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
when an aggrieved party may file a
verified petition against a decision, final
order or resolution of a tribunal, body or
board that has acted without or in excess
of its jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, when there is no appeal or
any other plain, speedy and adequate
3.
remedyAsin thea mode
ordinaryofcourse
review of the
of law.
decisions of the National Labor
Relations Commission and the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Constitutional Commissions. (2.5%)
Certiorari as a mode of review of the
decision of the NLRC is elevated to the
Court of Appeals under Rule 65, as held in
the case of St. Martin's Funeral Home v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16,
1998. Certiorari as a mode of review from
the Commission on Audit (COA) and
COMELEC is elevated to the Supreme
Court within 30 days from notice of the
judgment, decision or final order or
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: resolution sought to be reviewed, as
Since As Motion for Reconsideration was
provided for under the Rule 64 of the
filed on January 19, 2003 and it was
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In the case
denied on January 20, 2003, it was clearly
of the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
not set for hearing with at least three Certiorari; Rule 45 vs.
review of its judgments is through
days notice. Therefore, the motion was Rule 65 (1998)certiorari as an original
Differentiate
petitions for review under Sec. 5 of Rule
pro forma and did not interrupt the period action from certiorari asCivil
a mode of appeal.
43 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure.
of appeal which expired on January 21, |3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2003 or fifteen (15) days after notice of Certiorari as an original action and
NOTE: To standardize
the decision on Januarythe appeal periods
6, 2003. certiorari as a mode of appeal may be
provided in the Rules and to afford 1. The first
distinguished is a special civil action
as follows:
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, while
cases, the Court deems it practical to the second is an appeal
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 19 18ofof6666defense
was issued (Sec.
1When may a party be declared in default? against
3[b], RuleC, 9); who
and ifbeing it is denied,
B's soleheheir, mayacquired
move to
(2%) the property.
reconsider, andDid if reconsideration
the failure of counsel is denied, X he to
2What is the effect of an Order of Default? (2%) inform
may filethethecourtspecial of B's
civildeath
actionconstitute
of certiorari direct
for
3For failure to seasonably file his Answer contempt?
grave abuse (2%)of discretion tantamount to lack or
despite due notice, A was declared in default in SUGGESTED
excess of the ANSWER:
lower court's jurisdiction. (Sec. 1,
a case instituted against him by B. Rule The No.
65) or It is not direct contempt under Sec. 1
following day, A's mistress who is working as a of Rule 71, but it is indirect contempt
clerk in the sala of the Judge before whom his within (b)thehe may purview file aofpetition
Sec 3 for of certiorari
Rule 71.
case is pending, informed him of the The if he has been illegally declared of
lawyer can also be the subject in
declaration of default. On the same day, A Default disciplinary
default, action.
e.g. (Sec. 16,
during the Rule 3)
pendency of
presented a motion under oath to set aside the (2000) his motion to dismiss or before the
Defendant (Matute wasofdeclared
vs. timeinto
theCourt default
of Appeals,by the 26
order of default on the ground that his failure RTC expiration (RTC). Plaintiff
answer.
SCRA 768;was Acosta-Ofalia
allowed to present vs.
to answer was due to fraud and he has a evidence in support
Sundiam, 85 SCRA of 412.)
his complaint.
meritorious defense. Thereafter, he went Photocopies of official receipts and original
abroad. After his return a week later, with the 2. copiesAFTER JUDGMENTwere
of affidavits BUT presented
BEFORE ITS in
case still undecided, he received the order FINALITY, court, identified by plaintiff on for
he may file a motion thenewwitnesstrial
declaring him in default. The motion to set on standthe grounds
and marked of fraud,asaccident, exhibits. mistake,
Said
aside default was opposed by B on the ground excusable negligence,
documents were offered by plaintiff and or a motion for
that it was filed before A received notice of his reconsideration on the
admitted in evidence by the court on the ground of excessive
having been declared in default, citing the rule damages, basis of which insufficient
the RTC rendered evidencejudgment or the
that the motion
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to set aside may be made at decision
in favor of or the finalplaintiff,
order being pursuant contraryto the to
anytime
1. after may
A party notice but before
be declared judgment. relief
in default law (Sec. prayed2, Rulefor. 37): Uponand thereafter.
receipt ofIf the the
Resolve
when(Sec.hethe
4fails
ofMotion.
to of
Rule answer
(2%) within the time
45) motion
judgment, is defendant
denied, appeal appeals to to theavailable
Court
allowed therefor, and upon motion of the 3.
under AFTER FINALITY OF41, THEwhichever
JUDGMENT,
of Appeals claiming that the judgment to
Rules 40 or is
Certiorari; party
claiming Rule with 45 vs. notice to the there
applicable. are three ways to assail the
not valid because the RTC based its
May(Sec.
Rule 65 3,
the
defending Rule
(2005)
aggrieved
party, 9) and party
prooffile
of a
suchpetition
failure.for SUGGESTED
judgment,
a)
judgment
ANSWER:
awhich
on
petitionare: for relief under Rule
mere photocopies and
certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule The 38 claim
on the of defendant
grounds of fraud, is not valid
accident,
The 1997
effect Rules
of an Order affidavits
because of
under persons
the 1997 not presented
Rules, reception in
2.
65 of the of Civilof Procedure,
Default is
court.
mistake or excusable negligence;
Is the claim of defendant valid?
that
instead theofcourtfiling may proceed
a petition for to render
review on of b) evidence
annulment is ofnot required.
judgment under AfterRule a
judgment granting the claimant such relief Explain.
defendant (3%) is declared in default, the court
certiorari under Rule 45 thereof for the 47 for extrinsic fraud or lack of
as his pleading may warrant
nullification of a decision of the Court of unless the shall proceed
jurisdiction; to render
or c) judgment
certiorari granting
if the
court
Appealsin in itsthediscretion exercise requires
either of the its thejudgment
claimant
or by the tosuch relief
judicial
void on its as
facehis(Balangcad
record. pleading
claimant
SUGGESTED to submit
ANSWER: evidence
original or appellate jurisdiction? Explain. (Id.) The may warrant,
vs. Justices unless
of thethe Court court in its
of Appeals,
To NULLIFY
party in default A DECISION
cannot take of the partCourt
in the of discretion G.R.requires
No. 83888. February to
the claimant 12, 1992,
submit
3[A]) ALTERNATIVE 206 ANSWER:
8CRA 171).
Appeals
trial but theshallaggrieved
be entitledparty to should
notice fileofa evidence, which may be delegated to the
The
Default;claimRemedies;of defendant Party is valid, because
PETITION FOR
subsequent REVIEW ON(Sec.
proceedings. CERTIORARI in clerk of court. (Sec. 3, Rule 9) Declared
3. Assuming that the Rule
motion the court received evidence which it can
the Supreme Court under 45 to of set
the in Default
Jojie filed with (2006) the Regional Trial Court of
aside complies with the other order
Laguna in a its own
complaint discretion,
for in
damages which case
against
Rules of Court instead of filing a petition
requirements of the rule, the evidence of pretrial,
the plaintiff Jojiemust
(sic) pass the
for certiorari under Rule 65 it should
except underbe Joe. During the and her
granted. Although such a motion may be basic requirements
(sic) counsel failed of admissibility.
to appear despite
very exceptional circumstances. A long Default
made after notice
line of decisions of thebutSupreme
before Court,judgment too notice to both of them. Upon oral motion
(2001)
Mario
(Sec. 3[B] of Rule 9) , with more
numerous to mention, holds that certiorari reason may of Jojie,was Joe declared
was declared in default but before
as in default and
it be filed after discovery even before judgment
Jojie was was
allowed rendered,
to present he decided
her to file
evidence
is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It a
receipt
should of the
be noted,order of default.
however, exmotion
parte. to set aside the
Thereafter, theordercourtofrendered
default.
Default; Remedies; Partywhen Declaredthe Court a)
its What
Decision should Mario
insetting
favor of state in
Jojie.ofJoe his motion
of
in Appeals
Default
What are imposes
(1998)
the availablethe death penalty,
remedies oforaa to
in justify
order
SUGGESTED the
ANSWER: aside thehired
orderJose of
lesser penalty In fordefault:
offenses committed on as his counsel. What are the remedies
party declared default?
The remedies(3%) b) available
In what to forma party
should against
such
such occasion, appeal by petition available to (2%)
him? decision
Explain. (5%)
1Before the rendition of judgment; [1%] for motion abe?
whom default is rendered are
review or ordinary appeal. In
2After judgment but before its finality; and 1.cases when BEFORE the judgment in default
SUGGESTED
as follows: ANSWER:
the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion a) In order
becomes final to and
justify the setting aside of
executory:
[2%1
perpetua, life the order of default, Mario should state underin
SUGGESTED
3After
Contempt; ANSWER:
finality ofimprisonment
Death judgment?
of a Party; [2%] or a lesser Motion for Reconsideration
The
penalty, available remedies of a party his motion that his failure to answer was
Effect aappeal
A filed(1998) complaintis by notice
for theofrecovery
appeal filed of Rule 37;
declared
with in
the Court default are as follows: due Motion for New Trial under Rule 37;or
to fraud, accident, mistake
ownership of of Appeals.
land against B who was
1. BEFORE THE RENDITION OF excusable
and negligence and that he has a
represented by her counsel X. In the
JUDGMENT
(a) he may file a motion under oath to meritorious
2. AFTER
Appeal under defense.
the Rule judgment
41. 3(b) ofinRuledefault
[Sec. 9,].
course of the trial, B died. However, X b) The motion should be under oath.
set aside the order of default on the becomes final and executory:
failed to notify the court of B's death. The (Id.)Petition for Relief under Rule 38;
grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or
court proceeded to hear the case and Default; OrderofofJudgment Default; under Rule
excusable negligence and that he has Annulment
rendered judgment against B. After the Effects (1999)
a meritorious 47; and
Judgment became final, a writ of
execution
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 20 of 66 Demurrer to
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
c. Certiorari under Rule 65. Evidence; Civil Case vs. Criminal Case
(2003) Compare the effects of a denial of
(See Talsan Enterprises, Inc. v. Baliwag Transit,
G.R. No.
Inc., 126258, July 8, demurrer to evidence in a civil case with those
1999) of a denial of demurrer to evidence in a
Default; Remedies; Substantial
criminal case. 4%
Compliance
For failure of(2000)
K.J. to file an answer within SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the reglementary period, the Court, upon In a civil case, the defendant has the right
motion of LM, declared KJ in default. In to file a demurrer to evidence without
due time, KJ filed an unverified motion to leave of court. If his demurrer is denied,
lift the order of default without an affidavit he has the right to present evidence. If his
of merit attached to it. KJ however demurrer is granted and on appeal by the
attached to the motion his answer under plaintiff, the appellate court reverses the
oath, stating in said answer his reasons order and renders judgment for the
for his failure to file an answer on time, as plaintiff, the defendant loses his right to
well as his defenses. Will the motion to lift In a criminal
present case,
evidence. the33).
(Rule accused has to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the obtain leave of court to file a demurrer to
Yes,order
there of
is default prosper?
substantial Explain.
compliance (3%)
with the evidence. If he obtains leave of court and
rule. Although the motion is unverified, the his demurrer to evidence is denied, he
answer attached to the motion is verified.
has the right to present evidence in his
The answer contains what the motion to lift
defense. If his demurrer to evidence is
the order of default and the affidavit of merit
should contain, which are the reasons of granted, he is acquitted and the
If the accused
prosecution does
cannot not obtain leave of
appeal.
movants failure to answer as well as his court and his demurrer to evidence is
defenses. (Sec.
Procedure; Cf. 3Citibank,
[b] of Rule 9, 1997
N.A. Rules of
v. Court of
Civil
denied, he waives his right to present
Appeals, 304 SCRA 679, [1999]; Consul v.
Consul, 17 SCRA 667, 671 [1966]; Tolentino
evidence and the case is decided on the
v. Carlos, 66 Phil, 1450, 143-144 [1938], basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
Nasser v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 783 The court may also dismiss the action on
Demurrer
[1992]). to the ground of insufficiency of the
Evidence
Carlos filed(2001)
a complaint against Pedro in evidence on its own initiative after giving
the RTC of Ozamis City for the recovery of the prosecution the opportunity to be
the ownership of a car. Pedro filed his heard. (Sec. 23 of Rule 119)
answer within the reglementary period. Discovery; Modes of
After the pre-trial and actual trial, and after Discovery (2000)
Describe briefly at least five (5) modes of
Carlos has completed the presentation of discovery under the Rules of Court. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his evidence, Pedro moved for the Five modes of discovery under the Rules
dismissal of the complaint on the ground of Court are:
that under the facts proven and the law 1DEPOSITION. By leave of court after
applicable to the case, Carlos is not jurisdiction has been obtained over any
entitled to the ownership of the car. The defendant or over property which is the
RTC granted the motion for dismissal. subject of the action, or without such
Carlos appealed the order of dismissal and leave after an answer has been served,
the appellate court reversed the order of the testimony of any person, whether a
the trial court. Thereafter, Pedro filed a party or not, may be taken, at the
motion with the RTC asking the latter to instance of any party, by deposition upon
allow himANSWER:
SUGGESTED to present his evidence. Carlos oral examination or written
objected to
No. Pedros motionthe presentation
should be of evidence
denied. He interrogatories. (Sec. 1, Rule 23, 1997 Rules of
by
can no longer present evidence. ThePedros
Pedro. Should the RTC grant Rules Civil Procedure.)
motion that
provide to present his evidence?
if the motion Why?
for dismissal is 2INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES. Under
(5%)
granted by the trial court but on appeal the same conditions specified in section 1
the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall of Rule 23, any party shall file and serve
be deemed to have waived the right to upon any adverse party written
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
present evidence. (Sec. 1 of Rule 33, Rules of interrogatories regarding material and
No, because when the appellate court
Civil Procedure)
reversed the order of the trial court it relevant facts to be answered by the party
should have rendered judgment in favor of served. (Sec. 1, Rule 25, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.)
Carlos. (Quebral v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA
353, 1996) 3ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY. At any
time after issues have been joined, a party
may file and serve upon any other party a
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
written request for the admission by the
latter of the genuineness of any material
and relevant document or of the truth of
any material and relevant matter of fact.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 21 of 66
4. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS. Upon motion of any
(1) Yes, because upon motion of any party
party showing good cause therefore, a court
showing good cause, the court in which
may order any party to produce and permit
the action is pending may order any party
the inspection and copying or photographing
to produce and permit the inspection of
of any designated documents, etc. or order
designated documents. (Rule 27). The
any party to permit entry upon designated
defendant has the right to inspect and
land or property for inspecting, measuring,
verify the original of the promissory note
surveying, or photographing the property or
(2) The defendant
so that is not required
he could intelligently to deny
prepare his
any designated relevant object or operation
27, 1997 under
answer. oath the genuineness and due
thereon. (Sec. Rule
1, Rule27 Rules of Civil
Procedure.) execution of the promissory note,
Discovery; Modes; Subpoena because of the non-compliance by the
Duces
In Tecum (1997)
an admiralty case filed by A against Y plaintiff with the order for production and
Shipping Lines (whose principal offices are ALTERNATIVE
inspection ANSWER:
of the original thereof. (Rule 8,
in Manila) in the RTC, Davao City, the (2) The defendant may file a motion to
sec. 8).
court issued a subpoena duces tecum dismiss the complaint because of the
directing Y, the president of the shipping refusal of the plaintiff to obey the order of
company, to appear and testify at the trial the court for the production and
(a)
andOn what with
to bring validhim
ground candocuments.
several Y refuse to inspection of the promissory note. [Rule 29
Dismissal;
Sec. 3(c)]. Motion to Dismiss; Res
comply with the subpoena duces tecum?
Judicata
AB, as (2000)
mother and in her capacity as legal
(b) How can A take the testimony of Y and
present the documents as exhibits other guardian of her legitimate minor son, CD,
than through the subpoena from the RTC? brought action for support against EF, as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: father of CD and ABs lawfully wedded
(a) Y can refuse to comply with the husband. EF filed his answer denying his
subpoena duces tecum on the ground paternity with counterclaim for damages.
that he resides more than 50 (now 100) Subsequently, AB filed a manifestation in
kilometers from the place where he is to court that in view of the denial made by
testify, (Sec. 9 of former Rule 23; Sec. 10 of EF, it would be futile to pursue the case
(b) Rule
new A can21). take the testimony of Y and against EF. AB agreed to move for the
present the documents as exhibits by dismissal of the complaint, subject to the
taking his deposition through oral condition that EF will withdraw his counter
examination or written interrogatories. claim for damages. AB and EF filed a joint
(Rule 24; new Rule 23) He may also file a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the
ALTERNATIVE
motion for ANSWER:
the production or inspection of
(a) The witness can also refuse to comply case with prejudice. Later on, minor son
documents. (Rule 27). CD, represented by AB, filed another
with the subpoena duces tecum on the second complaint? Explain your answer
ground that the documents are not complaint for support against EF. EF filed a
(3%) b) What are the essential requisite of
relevant and there was no tender of fees motion to dismiss on the ground of res
res judicata? (2%)
for one day's attendance and the judicata. a)
SUGGESTED Is res judicata a valid ground
ANSWER:
kilometrage allowed by the rules. for
(a) dismissal
No, res of the is not a defense in an
judicata
Discovery; Production and Inspection action for support even if the first case
of Documents (2002) was dismissed with prejudice on a joint
The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs mother
to collect on a promissory note, the terms agreed to the dismissal of the complaint
of which were stated in the complaint and for support in view of the defendants
a photocopy attached to the complaint as answer denying his paternity with a
an annex. Before answering, the counterclaim for damages. This was in the
defendant filed a motion for an order Asis
naturev. Court of Appeals, 303
of a compromise SCRA
of the 176of
right
[1999]).
directing the plaintiff to produce the support which is prohibited by law. (Art,
(b) The Essential Requisites of Res Judicata
original of the note so that the defendant 2035, Civil Code; De
1Should the it judge grant his
the signature
defendants are:1the judgment or order rendered must
could inspect and verify
motion be final;
and the for productionentries
handwritten and inspection
of the datesof the
original of the promissory note? Why? (2%) 2the court rendering the same must
and amounts.
2Assuming that an order for production and have jurisdiction of the subject matter
inspection was issued but the plaintiff failed to and of the parties;
comply with it, how should the defendant plead 3it must be a judgment or order on the
to the alleged execution of the note? (3%) merits;
(Sec. 1, and
Rule 26, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 22 of 66
4. there must be between the two
cases identity of parties, identity of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
subject matter, and identity of causes A QUESTION OF LAW is when the doubt or
of action.
Cardona, 70
(San Diego Phil,
v. 281 difference arises as to what the law is on a
[1940]) certain set of facts, while a QUESTION OF
Evidence; Admissibility; FACT is when the doubt or difference
Photocopies (2000)of official receipts and
If the photocopies arises as to the truth or falsehood of
photocopies of affidavits were attached to alleged
SCRA facts.
289, [19670]).
(Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling
the position paper submitted by plaintiff in Co., 19
an action for unlawful detainer filed with Judgment; Annulment of Judgment;
Municipal Trial Court on which basis the Grounds
What are (1998)
the grounds for the annulment
court rendered judgment in favor of of a judgment of the RTC (RTC)? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
plaintiff? Explain. (2%)
The claim of defendant is valid, because The grounds for annulment of judgment
although summary procedure requires of the RTC are Extrinsic Fraud and Lack of
merely the submission of position papers, Jurisdiction. (Sec, 2, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of
the evidence submitted with the position Civil Procedure.)
paper must be admissible in evidence. Judgment; Enforcement; 5-year
(Sec. 9 of the Revised Rule on Summary period (1997)of Dagupan City, secured a
A, a resident
Procedure). Photocopies of official receipts favorable judgment in an ejectment case
and affidavits are not admissible without against X, a resident of Quezon City, from
Forum
proof of loss ofShopping;
the originals. (Sec. 3 of Rule the MTCof Manila. The judgment, entered
Definition
What
130) (2006)
is forum shopping? (2.5%) on 15 June 1991, had not as yet been
SUGGESTED ANSWER: executed. a) In July 1996, A decided to
Forum shopping is the act of a party of the MTCof
enforce Manila. What is the procedure
the judgment
which consists of filing multiple suits, to be followed by A in enforcing the
simultaneously or successively, for the judgment? b) With what court should A
purpose v. of
(Leyson Officeobtaining a favorable
of the Ombudsman, G.R. institute the proceedings?
No. 134990, April 27, 2000; Yulienco v. CA,
judgment SUGGESTED ANSWER:
G.R. No. 131692, June 10,1999; Chemphil (a) A can enforce the judgment by
Export & Import Corp. v. CA, G.R. Nos. another action reviving the Judgment
112438-39, December 12, 1995).
Forum Shopping; Effects; Lack of because it can no longer be enforced by
Certification
Honey (2006)
filed with the Regional Trial Court, motion as the five-year period within
Taal, Batangas a complaint for specific which a judgment may be enforced by
performance against Bernie. For lack of motion has already expired. (Sec. 6 of
(b) A may
former and institute
new Rulethe39).proceedings in the
certification against forum shopping, the RTC in accordance with the rules of venue
judge dismissed the complaint. Honey's because the enforcement of the Judgment
lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration, is a personal action incapable of pecuniary
attaching thereto an amended complaint estimation.
with the certification against forum
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shopping. If you were the judge, how will
If I were the judge, the motion should be
you
denied after the
resolve motion?
hearing (5%) as expressly
because,
provided in the Rules, failure to comply with
the requirement of forum shopping is not
curable by mere amendment of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading, but shall be cause
for the dismissal of the case, without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided (Sec. 5, Rule 7, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure). However, the trial court
in the exercise of its sound discretion, may
choose to be liberal and consider the
(Great
amendmentSouthern Maritime
as substantial Services Corp. v.
compliance
Acuna, G.R. No. 140189, February 28,2005;
Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga del Norte, G.R.
No. 149253, April 15, 2004; Uy v. Land Bank,
G.R. 136100, July 24, 2000).
Gen. Principles; Questions of Law vs.
Questions of Fact (2004)
Distinguish Questions of law from Questions of
fact.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 23 of 66 Judgment;
foreign judgments. A local judgment may Interlocutory Order; Partial Summary
be enforced by motion within five years Judgments (2004) After defendant has served
and by action within the next five years. and filed his answer to plaintiffs complaint for
(Rule 39) That is not the case with respect damages before the proper RTC, plaintiff
to foreign judgments which cannot be served and filed a motion (with supporting
ALTERNATIVE
enforced byANSWER:
mere motion. affidavits) for a summary judgment in his favor
Article 1144 of the Civil Code requires that upon all of his claims. Defendant served and
an action upon a judgment (though filed his opposition (with supporting affidavits)
without distinction) must be brought to the motion. After due hearing, the court
within 10 years from the time the right of (1)an
issued stating
order that the court has found no
action accrues. There seems no cogent genuine issue as to any material fact and
reason to exclude foreign judgments from thus concluded that plaintiff is entitled to
the operation of this rule, subject to the judgment in his favor as a matter of law
requirements of Rule 39, Sec. 48 of the except as to the amount of damages
Rules of Court which establishes certain recoverable, and (2) accordingly ordering
requisites for proving the foreign that plaintiff shall have judgment
judgment. Pursuant to these provisions, summarily against defendant for such
an action for the enforcement of the amount as may be found due plaintiff for
foreign judgment may be brought at any damages, to be ascertained by trial on
Judgment; Execution pending
time within
Appealtrial
10 years from the time the
(2002) October 7, 2004, at 8:30 o'clock in the
The court rendered judgment
right of action accrues. morning. May defendant properly take an
ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff SUGGESTED ANSWER:
moral and exemplary damages. The appeal frommay
No, plaintiff said
not order?
properly Or,
takemay
an
judgment was served on the plaintiff on defendant properly challenge said
appeal from said order because it is order
an
October 1, 2001 and on the defendant on thru a special order,
interlocutory civil action
not for certiorari?
a final and
October 5, 2001. On October 8, 2001, the Reason. (5%)
appealable order (Sec. 4 of Rule 35). It does
defendant filed a notice of appeal from the not dispose of the action or proceeding
judgment, but the following day, October PARTIAL
(Sec. 1 of RuleSUMMARY
39). JUDGMENTS are
9, 2001, the plaintiff moved for the interlocutory. There is still something to be
execution of the judgment pending done, which is the trial for the adjudication
appeal. The trial court granted the motion of damagesof Pangasinan v. Court of
(Province
Appeals, 220 SCRA 726 [1993J; Guevarra v.
upon the posting by the plaintiff of a bond
Court of Appeals, 209 Phil. 241 [1983]), but
to indemnify the defendant for damages it orderdefendant
thru a special civil action for
the may properly challenge
may suffer as a result of the execution. certiorari. (Sec. 1 [c] and last par. of Rule 41)
said
The court gave as a special reason for its
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
order the imminent
No, because awards insolvency
for moral of and
the Judgment; Judgment on the
defendant. Is the order of execution
exemplary damages cannot be the subject of Pleadings
a) What(1999)
are the grounds for judgment
pending
executionappeal
pending correct? Why?
appeal. The (5%)
execution of on the pleadings? (2%)
any award for moral and exemplary b) A's ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE Answer admits the material
damages is dependent on the outcome of
(b) A may institute
allegations the proceeding
of B's Complaint. May inthe a
the main case. Liabilities for moral and MTCwhich has jurisdiction
court motu proprio render judgment on over the area
exemplary damages, as well as the exact where
c) A the real
brought
the pleadings? property
an
Explain. (2%) involved
action against her is
amounts remain uncertain and indefinite situated. (Sec. 1 of Rule 4).
husband B for annulment of their marriage
Judgment; Enforcement; Foreign
pending
134 SCRAresolution
395 (1985);by International
the Court of Appeals
School, on the ground of psychological incapacity,
Judgment
Under (2005)
Article 1144 of the New Civil Code,
or Supreme
Inc. v. CourtCourt. [RCPI v. Lantin,
of Appeals, 309 SCRA 474 B filed his Answer to the Complaint
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: an action upon a judgment must be
(1999)]. admitting all the allegations therein
Yes, because only moral and exemplary brought within 10 years from the time the
contained. May A move for judgment on
damages are awarded in the judgment right of action
SUGGESTED ANSWER:accrues. Is this provision
the pleadings? Explain. (2%)
and they are not dependent on other a) The grounds
applicable to an for judgment
action filed on in the
the
types of damages. pleadings
Philippines are where aanforeign
to enforce answer fails to
judgment?
Moreover, the motion for execution was ALTERNATIVE
tender ANSWER:
Explain.an issue, or otherwise admits the
(10%)
filed while the court had jurisdiction over Article 1144 of the Civil Code which
material allegations of the adverse party's
the case and was in possession of the requires
b) No,that an action
a motion must upon a judgment
be filed by the
pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 34).
original record. (though without distinction)
adverse party. (Sec. 1, Rule 34) The mustcourtbe
It is based on good reason which is the brought within 10 years from
cannot motu proprio render judgment on the time the
imminent insolvency of the defendant. right
c) ofNo,
action
the pleadings. becauseaccrues,
evendoes if B'snot apply to
answer to
(Rule 39, sec. 2) an action filed in the Philippines
A's complaint for annulment of their to enforce
a foreign judgment.
marriage admits While all the we can say that
allegations
where the law does not
therein contained, the material facts distinguish, we
should not distinguish,
Version by Dondee
still
1997-2006 Updated the law does
not evidently contemplate the inclusion of
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 24 of 66 which is
alleged in the complaint must always tantamount
be to removal without cause, contrary
(Sec. 1 of Rule 34.)
proved. to the fundamental guarantee on non-removal
ANOTHER ANSWER: except for cause. Considering that Pedro
c. No. The court shall order the prosecutor to
continued to occupy the disputed position and
investigate whether or not a collusion
between the parties exists, and if there is no
exercise his functions therein, the proper
collusion, to intervene for the State in order remedy is quo warranto, not mandamus.
Appeals,
{Garces 259of
v. Court SCRA 99 (1996)]
to see to it that the evidence submitted is ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
not fabricated. (Sec. 3[E], Rule 9) Evidence Yes, the court is correct in its ruling.
must have to be presented in accordance Mandamus lies when the respondent
with the vs.
Republic requirements set down
Court of Appeals and by the
Molina unlawfully excludes another from the use
Supreme
(268 SCRACourt
198.)in and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled. (Sec. 2, Rule 65). In
Judgment; Judgment on the
this case, Pablo has not unlawfully
Pleadings
In (2005) for recovery of real
a complaint
excluded Fabian from the Office of
property, the plaintiff averred, among
Election Registrar. The remedy of Fabian
others, that he is the owner of the said 66)
is to file an action of quo warranto in his
property by virtue of a deed of sale
name against Pablo for usurping the
executed by the defendant in his favor. Judgment; Soundness;
office. (Sec. 5, Rule
Attachment (2002) a writ of preliminary
Copy of the deed of sale was appended to The plaintiff obtained
the complaint as Annex "A" thereof. In his attachment upon a bond of P1 million. The
unverified answer, the defendant denied writ was levied on the defendants
the allegation concerning the sale of the property, but it was discharged upon the
property in question, as well as the posting by the defendant of a counterbond
appended deed of sale, for lack of in the same amount of P1 million. After
knowledge or information sufficient to trial, the court rendered judgment finding
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
form a belief as to the truth
Defendant cannot deny the sale of the thereof. Is it that the plaintiff had no cause of action
proper
property for the
for court
lack to
of render judgment
knowledge or against the defendant and that he had
without trial? Explain. (4%)
information sufficient to form a belief as to sued out the writ of attachment
the truth thereof. The answer amounts to an maliciously. Accordingly, the court
admission. The defendant must aver or state dismissed the complaint and ordered the
positively how it is that he is ignorant of the plaintiff and its surety to pay jointly to the
factsNo.
G.R. alleged.
L-31869, (Phil, Advertising
August Sec. 10, Rule 8) defendant P1.5 million as actual damages,
8, 1973;Counselors,
Inc. v. Revilla,the genuineness and due
Moreover, P0.5 million as moral damages and P0.5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
execution of the deed of sale can only be million
The as exemplary
judgment against damages.
the suretyEvaluate
is not
denied by the defendant under oath and the soundness
sound if due noticeof the
wasjudgment
not givenfrom the
to him
failure to do so is also an admission of the point
of theofapplicant
view of procedure.
for damages.(5%)
(Rule 57, sec.
deed. (Sec. 8, Rule 8) Hence, a judgment on 20) Moreover, the judgment against the
the pleadings can be rendered by the surety cannot exceed the amount of its
court without need of a trial. counterbond of P1 million.
Judgment; Mandamus vs. Quo Judgments; Enforcement; Examination
Warranto (2001)
Petitioner Fabian was appointed Election of Defendant (2002)
Registrar of the Municipality of Sevilla The plaintiff, a Manila resident, sued the
supposedly to replace the respondent defendant, a resident of Malolos Bulacan,
Election Registrar Pablo who was in the RTC-Manila for a sum of money.
transferred to another municipality without When the sheriff tried to serve the
his consent and who refused to accept his summons with a copy of the complaint on
aforesaid transfer, much less to vacate his the defendant at his Bulacan residence,
position in Bogo town as election registrar, the sheriff was told that the defendant
as in fact he continued to occupy his had gone to Manila for business and would
aforesaid position and exercise his not be back until the evening of that day.
functions thereto. Petitioner Fabian then So, the sheriff served the summons,
filed a petition for mandamus against together with a copy of the complaint, on
Pablo but the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
trial court dismissed Fabians the defendants 18year-old daughter, who
petition contending that quo
Yes, the court is correct in its ruling. warranto is was a college student. For the defendants
the proper remedy. Is the
Mandamus will not lie. This remedy court correct in failure to answer the complaint within the
its ruling? Why? (5%)
applies only where petitioners right is reglementary period, the trial court, on
founded clearly in law, not when it is motion of the plaintiff, declared the
doubtful. Pablo was transferred without defendant in default. A month later, the
his consent trial court rendered judgment holding the
defendant liable for the entire amount
prayed for in the complaint.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 25 of 66 Yes. The
A. After the judgment had become final, a MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case
writ of execution was issued by the court. because the total amount of the demand
As the writ was returned unsatisfied, the exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
plaintiff filed a motion for an order kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and
requiring the defendant to appear before costs, was P1M. Its jurisdictional amount at this
it and to be examined regarding his time should not exceed P400.000.00 (Sec. 33 of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
property and income. How should the R.A.129,
B.P. Big. No. 7691).
as amended by
court resolve the motion? (2%)
Jurisdiction; Habeas Corpus; Custody The court's order to forward the case to
of Minors
While (2005)
Marietta was in her place of work in the RTC is not proper. It should merely
Makati City, her estranged husband Carlo dismiss the complaint. Under Sec. 3 of
barged into her house in Paranaque City, Rule 16, the court may dismiss the action
abducted their six-year old son, Percival, or claim, deny the motion or order the
and brought the child to his hometown in amendment of the pleading but not to
Baguio City. Despite Marietta's pleas, forward the case to another court.
Carlo refused to return their child. Parties; Death of a Party;
Marietta, through counsel, filed a petition Effect
A filed(1998)
a complaint for the recovery of
for habeas corpus against Carlo in the ownership of land against B who was
Court of Appeals in Manila to compel him represented by her counsel X. In the
to produce their son, before the court and course of the trial, B died. However, X
for her to regain custody. She alleged in failed to notify the court of B's death. The
In his comment, Carlo alleged that the court proceeded to hear the case and
the petition that despite her efforts, she
petition
could nowas erroneously
longer locate herfiled
son.in the Court rendered judgment against B. After the
of Appeals as the same should have been Judgment became final, a writ of
filed in the Family Court in Baguio City execution was issued against C, who being
which, under Republic Act No. 8369, has B's sole heir, acquired the property. If you
exclusive jurisdiction, over the petition. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
were counsel
As counsel of IC,
of C, whatmove
would course of action
to set aside
Marietta replied that under Rule 102 of the would you take? [3%]
the writ of execution and the judgment for
Rules of Court, as amended, the petition
lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process
may be filed in the Court of Appeals and if
in the same court because the judgment is
granted, the writ of habeas corpus shall be void. If X had notified the court of B's death,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
enforceable anywhereis in
Marietta's contention the Philippines.
correct. The Court the court would have ordered the
Whose contention is correct? Explain. (5%)
of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction with substitution of the deceased by C, the sole
the family courts and the Supreme Court heir of B. (Sec. 16 of Rule 3) The court
in petitions for habeas corpus where the acquired no
(Ferreira us. jurisdiction
Ibarra Vda.over C upon whom
de Gonzales, 104
custody of minors is at issue, the trial
Phil. andVda.
143; the judgment are not
de la Cruz vs. binding.
Court of
notwithstanding the provision in the Appeals, 88 SCRA 695; Lawas us. Court of
Family Courts AH. (R.A. No. 8369) that family Appeals, 146 SCRA 173.) I could also file an
No. 154598,
courts haveAugust, 2004)
exclusive jurisdiction in such action to annul the judgment for lack of
cases. (Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. jurisdiction because C, as the successor of
Jurisdiction; Lack of Jurisdiction; (Rule
B, was47)deprived of due process and should
Proper Action of the Court (2004) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
have
Whilebeen
thereheard before judgment.
are decisions of the Supreme
Plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of
money against defendant with the MeTC- Court which hold that if the lawyer failed
Makati, the total amount of the demand, to notify the court of his client's death, the
exclusive of interest, damages of whatever court may proceed even without
kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, substitution of heirs and the judgment is
and costs, being P1,000,000. In due time, valid and binding on the heirs of the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the deceased (Florendo vs. Coloma, 129 SCRA
complaint on the ground of the MeTC's 30.), as counsel of C, I will assail the
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. judgment and execution for lack of due
Parties; Death of a Party;
process.
After due hearing, the MeTC (1) ruled that Effectis(1999)
What the effect of the death of a party
the court indeed lacked jurisdiction over upon a pending action? (2%)
the subject matter of the complaint; and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) ordered that the case therefore should 1. When the claim in a pending action
be forwarded to the proper RTC is purely personal, the death of either of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
immediately. Was the court's ruling the parties extinguishes the claim and the
concerning jurisdiction correct? Was the action is dismissed.
court's order to forward the case proper?
Explain briefly. (5%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)

1When the claim is not purely personal and is


not thereby extinguished, the party should be
substituted by his heirs or his executor or
administrator. (Sec. 16, Rule 3)
2If the action is for recovery of money arising
from contract, express or implied, and the
defendant dies before entry of final judgment in
the court in which the action was pending at
the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed
but shall instead be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the
manner provided in the rules for prosecuting
claims against the estate of a deceased person.
(Sec.Rule
20, 3)

Parties; Death of a Party;


Effect A(1999)
When (buyer) failed to pay the remaining
balance of the contract price after it
became due and demandable, B (seller)
sued him for collection before the RTC.
After both parties submitted their
respective evidence, A perished in a plane
accident. Consequently, his heirs brought
an action for the settlement of his estate
1Will
and you grantfor
moved the motion? Explain. of
the dismissal (2%)the
2Will your answer
collection suit. be the same if A died while
the case is already on appeal to the Court of
Appeals? Explain. (2%)
3In the same case, what is the effect if B died
before the RTC has rendered judgment? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1No, because the action will not be dismissed
but shall instead be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. (Id.)
2No. If A died while the case was already on
appeal in the Court of Appeals, the case will
continue because there is no entry yet of final
judgment. (Id.)
3The effect is the same. The action will not be
dismissed but will be allowed to continue until
entry of final judgment. (Id.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 27 26 of 66of 66 attached,
not from date of receipt of the Order. The stating the grounds
judgment, even ifofthe hisdismissal
title thereto, is notand yet final.
court denied his motion on the ground serve such
[Golez
v. affidavit107
Leonidas, uponSCRA the sheriff187 while the
that the Order had already become final latter (1981)].
has possession of the attached property,
and can no longer be amended to and Pleadings; a copy thereof Amendment
upon the attaching of Complaint; party.
By Leave
conform with Section 2, Rule 68. (Sec. 14, Rule 57) The third-party claimant may of Court (2003)
Aggrieved, AB files a petition for certiorari also After intervenean answer or filehas a been separate filed,action
can the to
plaintiff amend
against the Court and CD. Will the petition vindicate his claim to the property involved his complaint, with leave
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for certiorari prosper? Explain. (5%) and of court, by
secure the changing
necessary entirely the nature
reliefs, such as of
Yes. The court erred in issuing an Order SUGGESTED
the action? ANSWER:
4%
preliminary
Yes, the presentinjunction, rules which will not be
allow amendments
granting CDs prayer for foreclosure of (Ong v. asTating, 149 SCRA 265,
considered
substantially interference
altering the withnature a courtof the of
mortgage and ordering AB to pay CD the [1987])
coordinate
cause
Parties;
jurisdiction.
of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 10, 1977 Rules
Third-Party
full amount of the mortgage debt including
v.
of Court
Civil
Claim of Appeals,
Procedure;
(2005) Heirs of 280 SCRA Pagobo
Marcelino 870
interest and other charges not later than A obtained a money judgment against B.
[1997]).
120 days from receipt of the Order. The After the finality of the
This should only be true, however, when decision, the court
court should have rendered a judgment issued
the substantiala writchange of executionor alteration forin thethe
which is appealable. Since no appeal was enforcement
cause of action or defense shall servewith
thereof. Conformably the
taken, the judgment became final on the
higher said writ, the
interests sheriff levied
of substantial justiceupon and
August 25, 1999, which is the date of entry certain properties
prevent delay and equally promote under B's name. C filed
the
of judgment. (Sec 2, Rule 36) Hence, AB had a third-party
laudable objective claimof over the rulessaid whichpropertiesis to
up to December 24, 1999 within which to claiming
secure a that just,B speedy
had already transferred
and inexpensive
pay the amount due. (Sec. 2, Rule 68) The the same to him. A moved
disposition of every action and proceeding. to deny the
court gravely abused its discretion third-party
(Valenzuela claim v. Court and to hold 363
of Appeals, B and SCRA C
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction jointly
Pleadings;
779 [2001]).and severally
Amendment liable ofto him for
Complaint; the
Petition for Relief & Action for
in denying ABs motion praying that CD money
By Leave judgment
of Court;alleging Prescriptive that B Periodhad
Annulment
May an order (2002)
denying the probate of bea After due hearing, theofcourt
directed to receive the amount tendered. (2000)
X, an illegitimate
transferred child
said properties Y, to Cdenied
celebrated
to defraud the
her
will still be overturned after the period to third-party claim and rendered an
18th
him (A). birthday on May 2, 1996. A month
appeal therefrom has lapsed? Why? (3%) amended decision Ydeclaring
SUGGESTED ANSWER: before her birthday, died. The Blegitimate and C
jointly
family of Y refused to recognize X asthe
and severally liable to A for an
Yes, an order denying the probate of a will
money
illegitimate judgment. child IsoftheY.ruling After of countless
the court
may be overturned after the period to SUGGESTED ANSWER: (4%)
correct?
efforts toExplain.
convince
appeal therefrom has lapsed. A PETITION NO. C has not been them, properly X impleaded
filed on April as
FOR RELIEF may be filed on the grounds Y.
25, After
2000 Z anfiled her
action
a party defendant. He cannot be held answer
for on
recognition Augustagainst14,
of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable 2000,
Z, Xoffiled
wifefor
liable a motion against
the judgment for leave to file an
A without a
negligence within a period of sixty (60) amended complaint and
trial. In fact, since no bond was filed a motion to admit
by B,
days after the petitioner learns of the the said amended
the sheriff is liable complaint
to C for damages. impleading C
judgment or final order and not more than the three (3) legitimate
can file a separate action to enforce children of Y. The his
Asi,
six 100
(6) Phil.
months 785 (1957)].
after such judgment or trial
third-party courtclaim. admitted
It is in that the suit amended
that B
final order was entered [Rule 38, secs. 1 & complaint on August
can raise the ground of fraud against 22, 2000. What is the
C.
An ACTION
3; Soriano v.
FOR ANNULMENT may also be effect
(Tanongan of the
v. admission
Samson, G.R. of
No. the amended
140889, May 9,
However,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the execution may proceed
filed on the ground of extrinsic fraud within complaint?
2002) Has a the actionthat of25,Xtheprescribed?
where
No. Thethereactionisfiled finding
on April 2000 claim
is stillis
four (4) years from its discovery, and if Petition
Explain. (5%) for
fraudulent.
within
Certiorari the four-year
(2000) prescriptive period
based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is AB mortgaged his property to CD. AB
(Rule 47, secs. 2 & 3) which started to run on May 2, 1996. The
barred by laches or estoppel. failed to pay his obligation and CD filed an
amended complaint impleading the three
action
legitimate for foreclosure
children, though of mortgage.
admittedAfter on
Petition for Relief; trial, the court issued an Order granting
Injunction (2002)
A default judgment was rendered by the August 22, 2000 beyond the four-year
CDs prayerperiod,
prescriptive for foreclosure
retroacts toofthe mortgage
date of
RTC ordering D to pay P a sum of money. and ordering AB to pay CD the full amount
The judgment became filing of the original complaint. Amendments
Parties; Third Partyfinal, but D filed a of the mortgage
impleading debt including
new defendants retroactinterest
to the
petition
JKs real property isand
Claim for
(2000) relief beingobtained
attached a writ
by the of and other charges not later than 120 days
date of the filing of the
(Verzosa v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA complaint because 100
preliminary
sheriff in a injunction
civil action staying
for damages the from date of receipt of the Order. AB
they
(Note:
[1998]). do
The not
four-year constitute
period is a
based new
on cause
Article 285 ofofthe Civil
enforcement
against LM. JK claims of the thatjudgment. After
he is not a party Code)
ALTERNATIVE
received the
action. ANSWER:
Order on August 10, 1999. No
hearing,
to the case; the RTC thatdismissed Ds petition,
his property is not Under the 1997 Rules
other proceeding took of Civilthereafter.
place Procedure,On if
whereupon
involved P immediately moved
in said case; and that he is the for the an additional defendant
December 20, 1999, AB tendered the full is impleaded in a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
execution
sole of the
registeredmotion judgment in
ownerforofexecution his favor.
said property. later pleading, the action
amount adjudged by the court to CD but is commenced
Ps immediate of the
Should
Under Ps Rules
the motionofbe granted?
Court, what Why?
must (3%)
JK do with regard refused
the latter to him ontothe date ofitthe
accept onfiling
the
judgment in his favor should be granted
SUGGESTED ANSER:
to prevent the Sheriff from attaching his of
ground such later
that pleading,
the amount irrespective
was tendered of
because
If the real theproperty
dismissalhas of been
Ds petition
attached, for
property? whether the motion for its admission, if
relief also (5%)
the remedy dissolves
is to file thea writ of preliminary
third-party claim. beyond the 120-day period granted by the
necessary, is denied by
court. AB filed a motion in the same court the court. (Sec. 5
injunction staying
The third-party the enforcement
claimant should make of the an of Rule 1).
affidavit of his title to the property praying that CD be directed to receive the
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
amount tendered by him on the ground
that the Order does not comply with the
provisions of Section 2, Rule 68 of the
Rules of Court which give AB 120 days
from entry of judgment, and
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 28 of 66 The motion to
Consequently, the action of X has dismiss should be granted. Jurisdiction must be
prescribed with respect to the three (3) conferred by the contents of the original
legitimate children of Y who are complaint. Amendments are not proper and
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE
indispensable ANSWER:
parties. should be denied where the court has no
Under Article 175 of the Family Code, the jurisdiction over the original complaint and the
action must be brought within the lifetime purpose of the amendment is to confer
of X if the action is based on a record of (Rosarioon
jurisdiction v.the
Carandang,
court. G.R. No. L-7076, April 28,
birth or an admission of filiation in a public While a plaintiff is entitled to amend the
1955)
document or a private handwritten complaint before a responsive pleading is
instrument signed by Y. In such case, the 1997
servedRules of Rule
(Sec. 2, Civil
10,Procedure; Remington
action of X has not prescribed. Industrial Sales Corporation v. Court of
However, if the action is based on the Appeals, G.R. No. 133657, May 29, 2002),
open and continuous possession of the still, a complaint cannot be amended to
status of an illegitimate child, the action confer jurisdiction on a court where there
should have been brought during the was none to begin with.
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint;
lifetime of Y. In such case, the action of X
To Conform w/ Evidence (2004)
has prescribed.
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint; During trial, plaintiff was able to present,
Matter of Right (2005) without objection on the part of defendant
On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a in an ejectment case, evidence showing
complaint in the RTC of Quezon City for the that plaintiff served on defendant a
collection of P250,000.00. The defendant written demand to vacate the subject
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on property before the commencement of the
the ground that the court had no suit, a matter not alleged or otherwise set
jurisdiction over the action since the forth in the pleadings on file. May the
claimed amount of P250,000.00 is within corresponding pleading still be amended
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the exclusive jurisdiction of the to conform to the evidence? Explain. (5%)
Yes. The corresponding pleading may still
Metropolitan Trial Court, of Quezon City. be amended to conform to the evidence,
Before the court could resolve the motion, because the written demand to vacate,
the plaintiff, without leave of court, made prior to the commencement of the
amended his complaint to allege a new ejectment suit, was presented by the
cause of action consisting in the inclusion plaintiff in evidence without objection on
of an additional amount of P200,000.00, the part of the defendant. Even if the
thereby increasing his total claim to demand to vacate was jurisdictional, still,
P450,000.000. The plaintiff thereafter filed the amendment proposed was to conform
his opposition
SUGGESTED ANSWER:to the motion to dismiss, to the evidence that was already in the
claiming that the
The motion to dismissRTCshould
had jurisdiction, over
be denied. Basic record and not to confer jurisdiction on the
histheaction.
is Rule
rule that on the
a motion motion isofnotthe
to dismiss a court, which is not allowed. Failure to
responsive pleading. Under
defendant with reasons. (4%) the Rules, a
amend, however, does not affect the result
pleader may amend his pleading as a ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: It depends. In
matter of right before the other party has of the trial on these issues. (Sec. 5 of Rule
forcible entry, the motion may be allowed
served his responsive pleading. (Sec. 2, 10).
at the discretion of the court, the demand
Rule 10, Rules of Court) The court, in allowing having been presented at the trial without
the amendment, would not be acting without
objection on the part of the defendant. In
jurisdiction because allowing an amendment
as a matter of right does not require the unlawful detainer, however, the demand
exercise of discretion. The court therefore to vacate is jurisdictional and since the
would not be "acting" and thus, could not have court did not acquire jurisdiction from the
acted without jurisdiction. It would have been very beginning, the motion to conform to
different had the amendments been made the evidence cannot be entertained. The
after a responsive pleading had been served. amendment cannot be allowed because it
The court then would have been exercising its will in effect confer jurisdiction when there
discretion in allowing or disallowing the is otherwise no jurisdiction.
amendment. It cannot do so however, because
it would be then acting on an amendment of a Pleadings; Answer; Defense;
complaint
May over Gumabay
30, 1963; which it v.
has no jurisdiction.
Baralin, G.R. No. Specific
In his Denial (2004)
complaint for foreclosure of
(Soledad v. Mamangun, G.R. No. L-17983,
L-30683, May 31, 1977; Prudence Realty v. mortgage to which was duly attached a
CA, G.R. No. 110274, March 21, 1994) copy of the mortgage deed, plaintiff PP
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
alleged inter alia as follows: (1) that
defendant DD duly executed the
mortgage deed,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 29 of 66 he being
copy of which is Annex "A" of the merely plaintiffs counsel. Is the counterclaim
complaint and made an integral part of DY compulsory or not? Should AC's motion
thereof; and (2) that to prosecute his to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or
complaint, plaintiff contracted a lawyer, not? Reason. (5%)
CC, for a fee of P50.000. In his answer, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
defendant alleged, inter alia, that he had Yes. The counterclaim of DY is compulsory
no knowledge of the mortgage deed, and because it is one which arises out of or is
he also denied any liability for plaintiffs connected with the transaction or
Does defendant's
contracting answerfor
with a lawyer asato plaintiffs
fee. occurrence constituting the subject matter
allegation no. 1 as well as no. 2 of the opposing party's claim and does not
sufficiently raise an issue of fact? Reason require for its adjudication the presence of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
briefly. (5%) third parties of whom the court cannot
As to plaintiffs allegation no. 1, defendant acquire jurisdiction.(Sec. 7 of Rule 6).
does not sufficiently raise an issue of fact, The motion to dismiss of plaintiffs counsel
because he cannot allege lack of should not be granted because bringing in
knowledge of the mortgage deed since he plaintiffs counsel as a defendant in the
should have personal knowledge as to counterclaim is authorized by the Rules.
whether he signed it or not and because Where it is required for the grant of
he did not deny under oath the complete relief in the determination of the
genuineness and due execution of the counterclaim, the court shall order the
mortgage deed, which is an actionable defendant's counsel to be brought in since
document. As to plaintiffs allegation no. jurisdiction over him can be obtained. (Sec.
2, defendant did not properly deny liability 12 of Rule 6; Aurelio v. Court of Appeals, 196
as to plaintiffs contracting with a lawyer SCRA 674 [1994]). Here, the counterclaim
Pleadings; Certification Against Forum was against both the plaintiff and his
for a fee. He did not even deny for lack of
Shopping
As counsel(2000)
for A, B, C and D, Atty. XY ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
lawyer who allegedly maliciously induced
knowledge. (Sec. 10 of Rule 8). The counterclaim should be dismissed
prepared a complaint for recovery of the plaintiff to file the suit.
possession of a parcel of land against Z. because it is not a compulsory
Before filling the complaint, XY discovered counterclaim. When a lawyer files a case
that his clients were not available to sign for a client, he should not be sued on a
the certification of non-forum shopping. To counterclaim in the very same case he
avoid further delays in the filing of the has filed as counsel. It should be filed in a
[1991])
separate and distinct civil action. (Chavez
complaint, XY signed the certification and
immediately filed the complaint in court. v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pleadings; Motions; Bill of
Is XY justified in signing the certification? Particulars
1When can a (2003)
bill of particulars be availed
NO, counsel cannot sign the anti-forum
Why? (5%)certification because it must be
shopping of?
executed by the plaintiff or principal 2What is the effect of non-compliance
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with the order of a bill of particulars? 4%
party himself (Sec. 5, Rule 7; Excorpizo v.
University of Baguio, 306 SCRA 497, [1999]),
1Before responding to a pleading, a party
since the rule requires personal knowledge may move for a bill or particulars of any
by the party executing the certification, matter which is not averred with sufficient
UNLESS counsel gives a good reason why definiteness or particularity to enable him
he is not able to secure his clients properly to prepare his responsive
signatures and shows that his clients will pleading. If the pleading is a reply, the
be deprived of substantial justice (Ortiz v. motion must be filed within ten (10) days
Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708, [1998]) or from service thereof. (Sec. 1 of Rule 12)
unless he is authorized to sign it by his 2If the order is not complied with, the
Pleadings; Counterclaim against the court may order the striking out of the
clients through a special power of attorney.
Counsel of the Plaintiff (2004) pleading or the portions thereof to which
PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In the order was directed or make such other
his answer, DY incorporated a order as it deems just. (Sec. 4 of Rule 12)
counterclaim for damages against PX and
AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit,
alleging in said counterclaim, inter alia,
that AC, as such counsel, maliciously
induced PX to bring the suit against DY
despite AC's knowledge of its utter lack of
factual and legal basis. In due time, AC
filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim
as against him on the ground that he is
not a proper party to the case,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 30 of 66
executed and signed by X and Y two Provisional Remedies;
weeks after the contract of sale was Attachment
In a case, the(1999)
property of an incompetent
executed. The contract of lease was under guardianship was in custodia legis.
attached to the answer. X does not file a Can it be attached? Explain. (2%)
reply. What is the effect of the non-filing SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of a reply? Explain. (3%) Although the property of an incompetent
A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, under guardianship is in custodia legis, it
the new matters alleged in the answer are may be attached as in fact it is provided
deemed controverted. (Sec. 10 of Rule 6). that in such case, a copy of the writ of
However, since the contract of lease attached attachment shall be filed with the proper
to the answer is the basis of the defense, by court and notice of the attachment served
not filing a reply denying under oath the upon the custodian of such property. (Sec.
genuineness and due execution of said Provisional
7, last par., Rule 57) Remedies;
contract, the plaintiff is deemed to have Attachment
May damages (1999)
be claimed by a party
admitted the genuineness and due
Rule 8; Toribio v. Bidin, 132 SCRA 162 execution prejudiced by a wrongful attachment
thereof. (Secs. 7 and 8
[1985]). even if the judgment is adverse to him?
Prejudicial Question; Ejectment vs. SUGGESTED
Explain. (2%)ANSWER:
Specific Performance (2000) Yes, damages may be claimed by a party
BB files a complaint for ejectment in the prejudiced by a wrongful attachment even
MTCon the ground of non-payment of if the judgment is adverse to him. This is
rentals against JJ. After two days, JJ files in authorized by the Rules. A claim, for
the RTC a complaint against BB for damages may be made on account of
specific performance to enforce the option improper, irregular or excessive
to purchase the parcel of land subject of attachment, which shall be heard with
the ejectment case. What is the effect of Plaza
notice Enterprises
to the adverse Inc., 32 and
party SCRAhis surety
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 281.)
JJs action on BBs complaint? Explain. or sureties.
Provisional (Sec. 20, Rule
Remedies;57; Javellana v.
There is no effect. The ejectment case D. O.
(5%) Attachment
May a writ of(2001)
preliminary attachment be
involves possession de facto only. The
action to enforce the option to purchase issued ex-parte? Briefly state the
will not suspend the action of ejectment reason(s) for your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Supply Corp. v. Court
for non-payment of Appeals,
of rentals. 208Auto
(Willman SCRA 108
[1992]). Yes, an order of attachment may be
Pre-Trial; issued ex-parte or upon motion with
Requirements (2001) in the Municipal
Lilio filed a complaint notice and hearing. (Sec. 2 of Rule 57) The
Trial Court of Lanuza for the recovery of a reason why the order may be issued ex
sum against Juan. The latter filed his parte is: that requiring notice to the
answer to the complaint serving a copy adverse party and a hearing would defeat
thereof on Lilio. After the filing of the the purpose of the provisional remedy and
answer of Juan, whose duty is it to have enable the adverse party to abscond or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Court
disposeofofAppeals,
his property 172 before
SCRA a writ of
the case set for pre-trial? Why? (5%) 480).
After the filing of the answer of Juan, the attachment issues. (Mindanao Savings and
PLAINTIFF has the duty to promptly move Provisional Remedies;
Loan Association, Inc. v.
ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial. Attachment
Katy filed an (2005)
action against Tyrone for
(Sec. 1, Rule18). The reason is that it is the collection of the sum of P1 Million in the
plaintiff who knows when the last pleading RTC, with an ex-parte application for a writ
has been filed and it is the plaintiff who of preliminary attachment. Upon posting of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
has the duty to prosecute. an attachment bond, the court granted the
In the event the plaintiff files a reply, his application and issued a writ of preliminary
duty to move that the case be set for pre- attachment. Apprehensive that Tyrone
trial arises after the reply has been served might withdraw his savings deposit with
and filed. the bank, the sheriff immediately served a
Provisional notice of garnishment on the bank to
Remedies
What (1999)
are the provisional remedies under Pleadings; Reply; Effect
implement the writ of ofpreliminary
Non-
the rules? (2%) Filing
X filesofaReply
attachment. The(2000)
complaint in the
following day,RTCthefor the
sheriff
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The provisional remedies under the rules recovery of to
proceeded a sum of money
Tyrone's house with damages
and served
are preliminary attachment, preliminary against
him the Y.summons,
Y files his withanswercopies denying
of the
injunction, receivership, replevin, and liability under
complaint the contract
containing of sale and
the application for
57 to 61, Rules
support of Court).
pendente lite. (Rules praying
writ of for the dismissal
preliminary of the complaint
attachment, Katy's
Within fifteen (15) days from service of the
on the ground
affidavit, of lack of cause of action
summons, order Tyroneof attachment,
filed a motion to writ of
dismiss
because the
preliminary contract and
attachment of attachment
sale was
and to Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
superseded by a contract of lease,
bond.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 31 of 66 preliminary
dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment injunction may cause grave and irreparable
on the following grounds: (i) the court did injury to the party enjoined.
not acquire jurisdiction over his person
because the writ was served ahead of the Provisional Remedies;
summons; (ii) the writ was improperly Injunction
Can (2003)
a suit for injunction be aptly filed with
implemented; and (iii) said writ was the Supreme Court to stop the President of
improvidently issued because the the Philippines from entering into a peace
obligation in question was already fully agreement with the National Democratic
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED
Front? (4%) ANSWER:
paid. Resolve the motion with reasons.
The motion to dismiss and to dissolve the No, a suit for injunction cannot aptly be
(4%)
writ of preliminary attachment should be filed with the Supreme Court to stop the
(1) The fact that the writ of attachment
denied. President of the Philippines from entering
was served ahead of the summons did not into a peace agreement with the National
affect the jurisdiction of the court over his Democratic Front, which is a purely
person. It makes the writ, unenforceable. political question. (Madarang v. Santamaria,
(Sec. 5, Rule. 57) However, all that is needed 37 Phil. 304 [1917]). The President of the
Abrogar,
to be done GM. is No. 197393, the
to re-serve February 23,
writ. (Onate Philippines is immune from suit.
1985)
v. Provisional Remedies; Injunctions;
(2) The writ was improperly implemented. Ancillary Remedy vs. Main Action
Serving a notice of garnishment, (2006)
Distinguish between injunction as an
particularly before summons is served, is ancillary remedy and injunction as a main
not proper. It should be a copy of the writ action. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of attachment that should be served on Injunction as an ancillary remedy refers to
the defendant, and a notice that the bank the preliminary injunction which requires
deposits are attached pursuant to the writ. the existence of a pending principal case;
(3) The
(Sec. 7[d], writ was improvidently issued if
Rule 57) while injunction as a main action refers to
indeed it can be shown that the obligation the principal case itself that prays for the
was already fully paid. The writ is only remedy of permanently restraining the
ancillary to the main action. (Sec. 13, Rule adverse party from doing or not doing the
57) The alleged payment of the account
Provisional
act complained Remedies;
of. Injunctions;
Issuance w/out Bond (2006)
cannot, serve as a ground for resolving
the improvident issuance of the writ, May a Regional Trial Court issue
injunction without bond? (2%)
because this matter delves into the merits SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the case, and requires full-blown trial. Yes, if the injunction that is issued is a final
Payment, however, serves as a ground for injunction. Generally, however, preliminary
Provisional Remedies; Attachment vs.
a motion to dismiss. injunction cannot issue without bond unless
Garnishment (1999)
Distinguish attachment from garnishment. exempted by the trial court (Sec. 4[b] of Rule
58).
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Attachment and garnishment are Provisional Remedies; Injunctions;
distinguished from each other as follows: Requisites
What are the(2006)
requisites for the issuance of
ATTACHMENT is a provisional remedy that (a) a writ of preliminary injunction; and (b)
effects a levy on property of a party as a final writ of injunction? Requisites for
security for the satisfaction of any the issuance of a:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
judgment that may be recovered, while a. Writ of Preliminary Injunction (Sec. 4,
GARNISHMENT is a levy on debts due the Rule 58 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) are
judgment obligor or defendant and other (1) A verified complaint
credits, including bank deposits, royalties (2) The existence of a right
showing;
and other personal property not capable of (3) Violation or threat of violation of
in esse;
manual delivery under a writ of execution (4)
such Damages
right; or injuries sustained or
Provisional Remedies;
or a writ of attachment. that will be sustained by reason of such
Injunction
May a writ(2001)
of preliminary injunction be
issued ex-parte? Why? (3%) (5) Notice
violation; to all parties of raffle and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (6) Hearing on the
of hearing;
No, a writ of preliminary injunction may (7) Filing of an appropriate bond and
application;
not be issued ex parte. As provided in the service thereof.
Rules, no preliminary injunction shall be
granted without hearing and prior notice
to the party or person sought to be
enjoined. (Sec. 5 of Rule 58) The reason is
that a
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 32 of 66 waived,
reserved or instituted prior to its filing, the
Provisional Remedies; accused may be ordered to provide support
Receivership
Joaquin filed a(2001)
complaint against Jose for pendente lite to the child born to the offended
the foreclosure of a mortgage of a party allegedly because of the crime. (Sec. 6 of
furniture factory with a large number of Rule 61.)
machinery and equipment. During the Provisional Remedies; Support
pendency of the foreclosure suit, Joaquin Pendentewas
Modesto Lite (2001)
accused of seduction by
learned from reliable sources that Jose was Virginia, a poor, unemployed young girl,
quietly and gradually disposing of some of who has a child by Modesto. Virginia was
his machinery and equipment to a in dire need of pecuniary assistance to
businessman friend who was also engaged keep her child, not to say of herself, alive.
in furniture manufacturing such that from The criminal case is still pending in court
confirmed reports Joaquin gathered, the and although the civil liability aspect of
machinery and equipment left with Jose the crime has not been waived or
were no longer sufficient to answer for the reserved for a separate civil action, the
latters mortgage indebtedness. In the trial for the case was foreseen to take two
meantime judgment was rendered by the long years because of the heavily clogged
Knowing what Jose has been doing. If you court calendar before the judgment may
court in favor of Joaquin but the same is
were Joaquins lawyer, what action would be rendered. If you were the lawyer of
not yet final.
you take to preserve whatever remaining SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Virginia,
machinery and equipment are left with To help what action
Virginia should
in the you takeher
meantime, to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
help
lawyer Virginia
should in the
apply meantime
for Support especially
Pendente
Jose? Why? (5%) with theprovided
problemin of
To preserve whatever remaining Lite as thefeeding
Rules. Inthecriminal
child?
machinery and equipment are left with (5%)
actions where the civil liability included
Jose, Joaquins lawyer should file a verified support for the offspring as a
application for the appointment by the consequence of the crime and the civil
court of one or more receivers. The Rules aspect thereof has not been waived or
provide that receivership is proper in an reserved for a separate civil action, the
action by the mortgagee for the Rule 61)
accused may be ordered to provide
foreclosure of a mortgage when it appears support pendent elite to the child born to
Provisional Remedies;
that the property is in danger of being the
(Sec. 1 of Rule 59). TROoffended
An (2001) party.
application
(Sec. 6 of
for a writ of preliminary
wasted or dissipated or materially injured
injunction with a prayer for a temporary
and that its valueRemedies;
Provisional is probably insufficient
restraining order is included in a
to discharge
Replevin
What the mortgage
(1999)
is Replevin? (2%) debt.
complaint and filed in a multi-sala RTC
SUGGESTED ANSWER: consisting of Branches 1,2,3 and 4. Being
Replevin or delivery of personal property urgent in nature, the Executive Judge, who
consists in the delivery, by order of the was sitting in Branch 1, upon the filing of
court, of personal property by the the aforesaid application immediately
defendant to the plaintiff, upon the filing raffled the case in the presence of the
of a bond. (Calo v. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 judges of Branches 2,3 and 4. The case
Provisional
[1946]) Remedies; Support
Pendente
Before the Lite
RTC,(1999)
A was charged with rape was raffled to Branch 4 and judge thereof
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of his 16year old daughter. During the immediately
No. It is only theissued
Executivea Judge temporary
who can
pendency of the case, the daughter gave restraining order. Is the
issue immediately a temporary restrainingtemporary
birth to a child allegedly as a consequence restraining
order effectiveorderonly
valid?forWhy? (5%)
seventy-two (72)
of the rape. Thereafter, she asked the hours from issuance. No other Judge has
accused to support the child, and when he the right or power to issue a temporary
refused, the former filed a petition for restraining order ex parte. The Judge to
support pendente lite. The accused, whom the case is assigned will then
however, insists that he cannot be made conduct a summary hearing to determine
to give such support arguing that there is whether the temporary restraining order
as yet no finding as to his guilt. Would you shall be extended, but in no case beyond
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
agree
No. Thewithprovisional
the trial court if it of
remedy denied the
support 20
The days, including
temporary the original
restraining 72hour
order is not
application for support pendente
pendente lite may be granted by the RTC lite? period. (Sec. 5 of Rule 58)
valid because the question does not state
Explain. (2%) action for rape. In criminal
in the criminal SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that the matter is of extreme urgency and
b. While a final writ of injunction may be
actions where the civil liability includes the applicant will suffer grave injustice
rendered by judgment after trial, showing
support for the offspring as a and irreparable injury. (Sec. 5 of Rule 58)
applicant to be entitled to the writ (Sec. 9,
consequence of the crime and the civil Rule 58 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
aspect thereof has not been
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 33 of 66 Was the
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
Provisional Remedies; motion for Reconsideration filed within the
TRO (2006)
Define a temporary restraining order (TRO).
reglementary period? Explain. (5%)
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A temporary restraining order is an order Yes, because the last day of filing a
issued to restrain the opposite party and motion for reconsideration was March 15 if
to maintain the status quo until a hearing February had 28 days or March 16 if
for determining the propriety of granting February had 29 days. Although the
a preliminary injunction (Sec. 4[c] and [d], original motion for reconsideration was
Rule 58,1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). defective because it lacked a notice of
Provisional Remedies; TRO vs. Status
hearing, the defect was cured on time by
Quo Order (2006)
Differentiate a TRO from a status quo order.
its filing on March 15 of a supplemental
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A status quo order (SQO) is more in the pleading, provided that motion was set for
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
nature of a cease and desist order, since hearing
Since the and served on the
supplemental adverse
pleading wasparty
not
it does not direct the doing or undoing of at least three (3) days before the date of
set for hearing, it did not cure the defect
acts, as in the case of prohibitory or hearing. (Sec. 4, Rule 15).
of the original motion.
mandatory injunctive relief. A TRO is only
good for 20 days if issued by the RTC; 60 Remedies; Appeal to SC;
days if issued by the CA; until further Appeals
a) Whatto CA
are(2002)
the modes of appeal to
notice if issued by the SC. The SQO is the Supreme Court? (2%)
without any prescriptive period and may b) Comment on a proposal to amend
be issued without a bond. A TRO dies a Rule 122, Section 2(b), in relation to
natural death after the allowable period; Section 3(c), of the Revised Rules of
the SQO does not. A TRO is provisional. Criminal Procedure to provide for appeal
SQO lasts until revoked. A TRO is not to the Court of Appeals from the decisions
Provisional Remedies; TRO; CA
extendible, but the SQO may be subject of the RTC in criminal cases, where the
Justice
May Dept. of
a justice (2006)
a Division of the Court of
to agreement of the parties. penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
Appeals issue a TRO? (2%) life imprisonment, subject to the right of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a justice of a division of the Court of the accused to appeal to the Supreme
A. The modes of appeal to the Supreme
Appeals may issue a TRO, as authorized Court. (3%)
Court are: (a) APPEAL BY CERTIORARI on
under Rule 58 and by Section 5, Rule IV of pure questions of law under Rule 45
the IRCA which additionally requires that the through a petition for review on certiorari;
action shall be submitted on the next
and (b) ORDINARY APPEAL in criminal
working day to the absent members of the
cases through a notice of appeal from
division
late for the
Justice Joseratification,
B.L. Reyes modification
v. Court or of
recall (Heirs
convictions imposing reclusion perpetua
Appeals, G.R. Nos. 135425-26, November
of the
14, 2000). or life imprisonment or where a lesser
Provisional Remedies; TRO; penalty is involved but for offenses
Duration (2006)
What is the duration of a TRO issued by committed on the same occasion or which
the Executive Judge of a Regional Trial arose out of the same occurrence that
Court? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: gave rise to the more serious offense.
In cases of extreme urgency, when the (Rule 122, sec. 3) Convictions imposing the
applicant will suffer grave injustice and B. There is no constitutional objection to
death penalty are elevated through
irreparable injury, the duration of a TRO providing in the Rules of Court for an
automatic review.
issued ex parte by an Executive Judge of a appeal to the Court of Appeals from the
Regional Trial Court is 72 hours (2nd par. of decisions of the RTC in criminal cases
Sec. 5, Rule 58 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) . In where the penalty imposed is reclusion
the exercise of his regular functions over perpetua or life imprisonment subject to
cases assigned to his sala, an Executive the right of the accused to appeal to the
Judge may issue a TRO for a duration not Supreme Court, because it does not
Reglementary Period;
exceeding a total of 20 days. Supplemental deprive the Supreme Court of the right to
Pleadings
The (2000) judgment against ST,
RTC rendered exercise ultimate review of the judgments
copy of which was received by his counsel Remedies; Appeal; RTC
in such cases.
on February 28, 2000. On March 10, 2000, tW
tohen
CA (1999)
is an appeal from the RTC to the
ST, through counsel, filed a motion for Court of Appeals deemed perfected?
reconsideration of the decision with notice (
(2%}
to the Clerk of Court submitting the XXX received a copy of the RTC decision
motion for the consideration of the court. on June 9, 1999; YYY received it on the
On March 15, 2000, realizing that the next day, June 10, 1999. XXX filed a
Motion lacked a notice of hearing, STs Notice of Appeal on June 15, 1999. The
counsel filed a supplemental pleading. parties entered into a compromise on
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
June 16, 1999. On June 13, 1999, YYY,
who did not appeal, filed with the RTC a
motion for approval of the Compromise
Agreement. XXX changed his mind and
opposed the motion on the ground that
the RTC has no more jurisdiction. Rule
on the motion assuming that the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
records have not yet been forwarded to
theAn
CA.appeal
(2%) from the RTC to the Court of
Appeals is deemed perfected as to the
appellant upon the filing of a notice of appeal in
the RTC in due time or within the reglementary
period of appeal. An appeal by record on
appeal is deemed perfected as to the appellant
with respect to the subject matter thereof upon
the approval of the record on appeal filed in
due time. (Sec. 9, Rule 41)
The contention of XXX that the RTC has no
more jurisdiction over the case is not correct
because at the time that the motion to approve
the compromise had been filed, the period of
appeal of YYY had not yet expired. Besides,
even if that period had already expired, the
records of the case had not yet been forwarded
to the Court of Appeals. The rules provide that
in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of
the appeals filed in due time and the expiration
of the time to appeal of the other parties.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 3435ofof6666there summary is no
on appeal, the plaintiff is deemed to have appeal procedure norand anysinceplain,the speedy
counterclaim
and adequate is only
waived his right to present evidence. (Id.) permissive, remedy in the it cannot
ordinarybecourse entertained
of law,by to thebe
filed within Court.
Municipal sixty (60) days from
(Revised Rule noticeon Summary of the
Special Civil Action; Procedure.)
judgment, order or resolution subject of the
Ejectment
On 10 January (1997) 1990, X leased the petition. Special (Secs. 1Civil and 4.) Action;
warehouse of A under a lease contract Foreclosure
A borrowed
ADDITIONAL (2003)
from
ANSWER: the Development Bank of
with a period of five years. On 08 June 1)
theInPhilippines
appeal by (DBP) certiorari theunderamount Ruleof45, P1
1996, A filed an unlawful detainer case the petitioner and
million secured by the titled land respondent areofthe his
against X without a prior demand for X to original
friend B partieswho, however, to the action did notand assume the
(a)
vacateCanthe X premises.
contest his ejectment on the lower court is not impleaded.
personal liability for the loan. A defaulted In certiorari,
ground that there was no prior demand under
and DBP Rulefiled 65, antheaction lower forcourt judicial is
for him to vacate the premises? 2) In appeal
impleaded. by certiorari,
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage the filing of a
(b) In case the Municipal Trial Court motion for reconsideration
impleading A and B as defendants. In due is not required,
renders judgment in favor of A, is the while
course, in the the courtspecial civil action
rendered judgment of
judgment immediately executory? certiorari, such a motion
directing A to pay the outstanding account is generally
SUGGESTED ANSWER: required.
of P1.5 million (principal plus interest) to
(a) Yes. X can contest his ejectment on the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ground that there was no prior demand to the bank. No appeal
b. NO, because as a general was taken rule,bycertiorari
A on the
vacate the premises. (Sec. 2 of Rule 70; is proper if there is no appeal (Sec. 1 of RuleA
Decision within the reglementary period.
Casilan vs.Tomassi l0 SCRA 261; Iesaca failed However,
65.) to pay theifjudgment appeal isdebt not within
a speedy the
vs.Cuevas. 125 SCRA 335). period
and adequate specifiedremedy, in certiorari
the decision.
may be
(b) Yes, because the judgment of the Consequently,
resorted to. (Echaus the v. court
Courtorderedof Appeals, the
Municipal Trial Court against the foreclosure
199 SCRA 381.) sale ofCertiorari
the mortgaged land. In
is sanctioned,
defendant X is immediately executory that foreclosure
even if appeal is sale, the land
available, on the wasbasis sold of to
upon motion unless an appeal has been athe DBP
patent, for P1.2
capricious million.
On 10 January 2003, the bank filed an ex- and The sale
whimsical was
perfected, a supersedeas bond has been subsequently
exercise
parte motion confirmed
of discretion
with the byby the
trialcourt,
acourt judge
for the and
as
(Vasquez
the
when an ofvs.
confirmation
appealRobilla-Alenio,
of the sale 271
was SCRA
registered
filed and the periodic deposits of current issuance
67)
a writwill not promptly
of possession to relieve
oust B
with the
petitioner Registry of Deeds on 05 January
rentals. If any, as determined by the
(Sec. 9, thirdANSWER:
par., Rule 41) Remedies; Void Decision; Proper of the
from the from
land. the
It injurious
also filed effects
a deficiency
ALTERNATIVE
judgment will be made with the appellate 2002.
disputed
claim fororder
P800,000.00 against civil A and B.
(a) Yes, X can contest his ejectment on Remedy
After (2004)
plaintiff in an ordinary action
court. (Sec. 8 of former Rule 70; Sec. 19 of new the deficiency claim
before the RTC; ZZ has completed was opposed by A
The rules
the ground alsothatprovide since thatheprior to the
continued
Rule 70). (a)
and Resolve
B. the motion
presentation of his evidence, defendant for the issuance of
transmittal
enjoying theofthing
the record,
leased the court may,
for fifteen days (b)
a Resolve
writ the deficiency claim of
of possession.
among others, approve
after the termination of the lease on compromises. without prior leave of court moved for
the bank. ANSWER:
SUGGESTED 6%
January
(Sec. 9, par.,
9, fifth 1995Rule with (Note:
41)the June 13, the
acquiescence of dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for
date of the filing of the
the lessor without a notice to the contrary, motion for (a) In judicial foreclosure
insufficiency of plaintiffsbyevidence. banks such Afteras
approval of the Compromise
there was an IMPLIED NEW LEASE. (Art. Agreement, DBP,
due the
hearingmortgagor of theor debtor
motion whoseand real
the
Special
appears
1670. Civilto Civil
be
Code). a clerical Action;
error) property
opposition hasthereto,
been sold theoncourtforeclosure
issuedhas an
Remedies;
Ejectment
In an action Appeal;
(1998)
for unlawful Rule detainer
45 vs. in the the
order, right
reading to redeem
as follows: theThe property
Court hereby sold
Rule 65
a)
Municipal (1999)
Distinguish
Trial Court a petition
(MTC), for certiorari
defendant X within one year motion
grants defendant's after the to dismisssale and (or
as a mode
raised in his of appeal
Answerfrom the adefense
special civil
that registration of the
accordingly orders the dismissal of sale). However, the
action forAcertiorari.
plaintiff is not the (2%) real owner of the purchaser at the auction
plaintiffs complaint, withsale thehas coststhe taxed
right
b)
house May
subject a party of the resort
suit.to Xcertiorari
filed a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to
when appeal against is still Aavailable? Explain. Theobtain
againstorder him. aorwrit of ordered."
Itdecision
is so possession
is void Isbecause after
the order the it
counterclaim for the collection finality
of of
dismissal the order
valid? confirming
May plaintiff the sale.
properly
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: does not state findings of fact and of law,
of a debt of P80,000 plus accrued interest (Sec.
take 3 of
an Rule 68;
appeal? Sec. 47
Reason. of RA 8791. The
a.
1. A
Is PETITION
X's defense FORtenable?
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI as required by Sec. 14, (5%)
Article VIII of the
of P15,000 and attorney's fees of P20,000. General Banking Law of 2000). The motion for
as
2.
[3%] a mode
Does the of MTC
appeal have mayjurisdiction
be distinguished
over Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36. Being
(b)
writThe of deficiency
possession,claim of the cannot
however, bank may be
from
the a special
counterclaim? civil action[2%] for certiorari
SUGGESTED in void, appeal is not available. The proper
be
filedenforced
ANOTHER ex parte. against
There the
must mortgage
be a debtor
notice of
that
ANSWER:the: petition for certiorari as a mode of remedy ANSWER:
is certiorari under Rule 65.
A, but
hearing. it cannot be enforced
Either certiorari or ordinary appeal may against B, the
appeal
1. No. isX'sgoverned
defense by is Rule 45 and isif filed
not tenable the owner
be resortedof the mortgaged
to on the property, ground that whothe did
from a isjudgment
action filed by aorlessor final order
against of athe RTC,
lessee. not assume personal liability
judgment is void. Appeal, in fact, may be for the loan.
the Sandiganbayan
However, if the right oforpossession the Court of
of the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: remedy.
Appeals, within fifteen the more expedient
plaintiff depends on his (15) days from
ownership then Yes. The order of dismissal for
notice of theisjudgment
the defense tenable. appealed from or of insufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence is
2. The counterclaim
the denial of the motion is withintrialthe
for new or valid upon defendant's motion to dismiss
jurisdiction
reconsideration of the filedMunicipal
in dueTrial timeCourton even without prior leave of court. (Sec. 1 of
which
questionsdoes of notlawexceed onlyP100,000,
(Secs. 1 because
and 2); Rule 33). Yes, plaintiff may properly take
the principal
SPECIAL CIVILdemand
ACTIONisFOR P80,000, exclusive
CERTIORARI is an appeal because the dismissal of the
of interest by
governed and attorney's
Rule 65 andfees. is filed to33,
(Sec. annul
B.P. complaint is a final and appealable order.
or modify
Big. amended.) However,
129, as judgments, orders orinasmuch
resolutionsas However, if the order of dismissal is
all actionsorofissued
rendered forcible entryorand
without unlawful
in excess of reversed
detainer
jurisdiction are subject
or with to grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, when
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 36 of 66 claiming that
order of default and to set aside the its main office and operations are in Cebu City
judgment. In his motion, the defendant and not in Manila. Is the contention of Cars
alleged that, immediately upon receipt of Co. correct? Why? (5%)
the summon, he saw the plaintiff and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
confronted him with his receipt evidencing No. As expressly provided in the Rules,
his payment and that the plaintiff assured when the Solicitor General commences
him that he would instruct his lawyer to the action for quo warranto, it may be
withdraw the complaint. The trial court brought in a RTC in the City of Manila, as
denied the defendants motion because it in this case, in the Court of Appeals or in
was not accompanied by an affidavit of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 7 of Rule 66)
A. Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper Special Civil Actions;
merit. The defendant filed a special civil Mandamus
In 1996, (2006)
Congress passed Republic Act No.
remedy?
action for Why?certiorari
(2%) under Rule 65
B. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or 8189, otherwise known as the Voter's
challenging the denial order. Registration Act of 1996, providing for
act without or in excess of its jurisdiction
in denying the defendants motion to lift computerization of elections. Pursuant
the order of default judgment? Why? (3%) thereto, the COMELEC approved the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Voter's Registration and Identification
A. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 System (VRIS) Project. It issued invitations
filed by the defendant is the proper to pre-qualify and bid for the project. After
remedy because appeal is not a plain, the public bidding, Fotokina was declared
speedy and adequate remedy in the the winning bidder with a bid of P6 billion
ordinary course of law. In appeal, the and was issued a Notice of Award. But
defendant in default can only question the COMELEC Chairman Gener Go objected to
decision in the light of the evidence of the the award on the ground that under the
plaintiff. The defendant cannot invoke the Appropriations Act, the budget for the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
receipt to prove payment of his obligation COMELEC's modernization is only P1
A. Under ordinary circumstances, the
to the plaintiff. billion. He announced to the public that
proper remedy of a party wrongly
declared in default is either to appeal the VRIS project
Meanwhile, has filed
Fotokina been with
set aside. Twoa
the RTC
from the judgment by default or file a Commissioners sided with Chairman
petition for mandamus compel the COMELEC Go,
251 SCRA 391 (1995)
petition for relief from judgment. [Jao, Inc. but
to implement the contract. The Office ofthe
the majority voted to uphold the
v. Court of Appeals, contract.
Solicitor General (OSG), representing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the
B. Yes, the trial court gravely abused its
discretion or acted without or in excess of
ground that mandamus does not lie to
jurisdiction in denying the defendants motion enforce contractual obligations. During the
because it was not accompanied by a separate proceedings, the majority Commissioners filed
affidavit of merit. In his verified motion to lift a manifestation that Chairman Go was not
the order of default and to set aside the authorized
Is by the for
a petition COMELEC En Bancanto
mandamus
judgment, the defendant alleged that oppose the
appropriate petition.
remedy to enforce
immediately upon the receipt of the summons, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
contractual obligations? (5%)
he saw the plaintiff and confronted him with his No, the petition for mandamus is not an
receipt showing payment and that the plaintiff appropriate remedy because it is not
assured him that he would instruct his lawyer to available to enforce a contractual
withdraw the complaint. Since the good obligation. Mandamus is directed only to
defense of the defendant was already ministerial acts, directing or commanding
incorporated in the verified motion, there was No. 151992,
a person to September
do a legal 18,
duty2002; Sec. 3,
(COMELEC v.
notCourt
v. needoffor a separate
Appeals, affidavit
233 SCRA 471 of merit.
(1994); Rule 65).
Quijano-Padilla, G.R.
Mago
[Capuz v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 600 Summ
(1999)]. ons
Seven years after the entry of judgment,
Special Civil Action; Quo
the plaintiff filed an action for its revival.
Warranto
A group (2001)
of businessmen formed an
Can the defendant successfully oppose
association in Cebu City calling itself Cars
the revival
Special of the
Civil judgment
Action; by contending
Petition for
C. to distribute / sell cars in said city. It
that it is
Certiorari
The null
defendant and
(2002) void because
was declared in default the RTC-
in
did not incorporate itself under the law
Manila
the RTC did
fornot
hisacquire
failure jurisdiction
to file an over his
answer to
nor did it have any government permit or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
person?
a complaintWhy?for (3%)
ashould
sum of money. On the
license to conduct its business as such. The RTC-Manila deny the motion
The Solicitor General filed before a RTC in basis
because it is in violation of the ruleparte
of the plaintiffs ex that
Manila a verified petition for quo warranto presentation of evidence,
no judgment obligor shall be judgment
required byto
questioning and seeking to stop the default
appear beforewas a rendered
court, for the against
purposetheof
operations of Cars Co. The latter filed a defendant.
examination The defaulthisjudgment
concerning property andwas
motion to dismiss the petition on the served on the defendant on October 1,
ground of improper venue 2001. On October 10, 2001, he files a
verified motion to lift the
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 37 of 66 the ground
income, outside the province or city in that the court had no jurisdiction over his
which such obligor resides. In this case person as there was no valid service of
the judgment obligor resides in Bulacan. summons on him because the sheriffs return or
(Rule 39, sec.36). proof of service does not show that the sheriff
Summons first made a genuine attempt to serve the
(1999)
a) What is the effect of absence of summons on defendant personally before
summons on the judgment rendered in serving it thru his wife. Is the motion to dismiss
b)
the case?When (2%)additional defendant is meritorious? What is the purpose of summons
impleaded in the action, is it necessary and by whom may it be served? Explain. (5%)
that summons be served upon him? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c)
Explain. Is (2%)
summons required to be served The motion to dismiss is not meritorious
upon a defendant who was substituted for because the defendant actually received
the deceased? Explain. (2%) the summons on time from his wife.
d) A sued XX Corporation (XXC), a Service on the wife was sufficient.
corporation organized under Philippine (Boticano v. Chu, 148 SCRA 541 [1987]). It is
laws, for specific performance when the the duty of the court to look into the
latter failed to deliver T-shirts to the sufficiency of the service. The sheriffs
former as stipulated in their contract of negligence in not stating in his return that
sale. Summons was served on the he first made a genuine effort to serve the
corporation's cashier and director. Would summons on the defendant, should not
you consider service of summons on either prejudice the plaintiff. (Mapa v. Court of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
officer sufficient? Explain. (2%) Appeals, 214 SCRA 417/1992). The purpose
a) The effect of the absence of
of the summons is to inform the defendant
summons on a judgment would make the
of the complaint filed against him and to
judgment null and void because the court ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
enable
Yes. Thethe courtto to
motion acquire
dismiss jurisdiction
is meritorious.
would not have jurisdiction over the person
over his person. It maybe served
Substituted service cannot be effected by the
of the defendant, but if the defendant
sheriff or his deputy or
unless the sheriffs return shows that any person
he
voluntarily appeared before the court, his
authorized
made a by
genuinethe court.
attempt to effect personal
appearance is equivalent to the service of
summons. (Sec. 20, Rule 14) service on the husband.
b) Yes. Summons must be served on Summons; Validity of Service;
an additional defendant impleaded in the Effects
Tina (2006)
Guerrero filed with filed the Regional Trial
Court of Binan, Laguna, a complaint for sum of
action so that the court can acquire
money amounting to P1 Million against Carlos
jurisdiction over him, unless he makes a Corro. The complaint alleges, among others,
voluntary appearance. that Carlos borrowed from Tina the said amount
c) No. A defendant who was as evidenced by a promissory note signed by
substituted for the deceased need not be Carlos and his wife, jointly and severally. Carlos
served with summons because it is the was served with summons which was received
court which orders him as the legal by Linda, his secretary. However, Carlos failed
representative of the deceased to appear to file an answer to the complaint within the 15-
and substitute the deceased. (Sec. 16 of day reglementary period. Hence, Tina filed with
d)
Rule 3.) Summons on a domestic the court a motion to declare Carlos in default
corporation through its cashier and and to allow her to present evidence ex parte.
director are not valid under the present Five days thereafter, Carlos filed his verified
rules. (Sec. 11, Rule 14) They have been answer to the complaint, denying under oath
the genuineness and due execution of the
removed from those who can be served
promissory note and contending that he has
with summons for a domestic corporation. fully paid his loan with interest at 12% per
Cashier was substituted by treasurer. (Id.) annum.Was the summons validly served
Summons; Substituted 1.
Service (2004)
Summons was issued by the MM RTC and on Carlos? (2.5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
actually received on time by defendant The summons was not validly served on
from his wife at their residence. The sheriff Carlos because it was served on his
earlier that day had delivered the secretary and the requirements for
summons to her at said residence because substituted service have not been followed,
defendant was not home at the time. The such as a showing that efforts have been
sheriffs return or proof of service filed with exerted to serve the same on Carlos and
the court in sum states that the summons, such130974,
No. attempt has 16,
August failed
2006;despite
AngPingdue v.
with attached copy of the complaint, was diligence
CA, G.R. No. 126947,
(Manotoc July G.R.
v. CA, 15, 1999).
served on defendant at his residence thru ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
his wife, a person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein.
Defendant moved to dismiss on
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 38 of 66
Service of Summons on Carlos was validly 2. The motion to dismiss on the ground of
served upon him if the Return will show lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
that it was done through Substituted should be denied. The counterclaim for
Service because the defendant can not be attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is
served personally within a reasonable a compulsory counterclaim because it
time despite diligent efforts made to serve necessarily arose out of and is connected
the summons personally. Linda, the with the complaint. In an original action
secretary of defendant Carlos, must before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
likewise be shown to be a competent considered compulsory regardless of the
person in charge of defendant's office Venue;
amount. (Sec. 7Personal
of Rule 6)
2. Actions (1997)of Angeles City, borrowed
X, a resident
where Ifsummons
you were wasthe judge,
served will
(Sec. you
7, Rule
grant
14). Tina's motion to declare Carlos in P300,000.00 from A, a resident of Pasay
ALTERNATIVE
default? ANSWER:
(2.5%) City. In the loan agreement, the parties
If I were the judge, I will not grant Tina's stipulated that "the parties agree to sue
motion to declare Carlos in default and be sued in the City of Manila." a) In
because summons was not properly casehis
ofcomplaint
non-paymentto collect
of thethe loan
loan, from
can X
A file
served and anyway, a verified answer to in Angeles City?
the complaint had already been filed. b) Suppose the parties did not
Moreover, it is better to decide a case on stipulate in the loan agreement as to the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the merits rather than on technicality. venue, where can A file his complaint
Yes. If it was shown that summons was
c)
againstSuppose
X? the parties stipulated in
validly served, and that the motion to
their loan agreement that "venue for all
declare Carlos in default was duly
suits arising from this contract shall be the
furnished on Carlos, and after conducting
courts in Quezon City," can A file his
a hearing on the same motion. SUGGESTED
Venue; Improper Venue; Compulsory complaint ANSWER:
against X in Pasay City?
(a) Yes, because the stipulation in the loan
Counterclaim (1998) agreement that "the parties agree to sue
A, a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan and be sued in the City of Manila" does
sued X, a resident of San Fernando La not make Manila the "exclusive venue
Union in the RTC (RTC) of Quezon City for 95: Sec. 4 (Sec,
thereof." of new4 Rule 4) Hence,
of Rule A can file
4, as amended by
the collection of a debt of P1 million. X did his complaint
Circular No. 13 in Angeles City where he
not file a motion to dismiss for improper resides, (Sec, 2 of Rule 4).
venue but filed his answer raising therein (b) If the parties did not stipulate on the
improper venue as an affirmative defense. venue, A can file his complaint either in
He also filed a counterclaim for P80,000 Angeles City where he resides or in Pasay
against A for attorney's fees and expenses City where X resides, (Id).
for litigation. X moved for a preliminary (c) Yes, because the wording of the
hearing on said affirmative defense. For stipulation does not make Quezon City the
his part, A filed a motion to dismiss the exclusive venue.
1Rule on the for
counterclaim affirmative defense of improper
lack of jurisdiction.
venue. [3%]
2Rule on the motion to dismiss the
counterclaim on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. There is improper venue. The case for
a sum of money, which was filed in
Quezon City, is a personal action. It must
be filed in the residence of either the
plaintiff, which is in Pangasinan, or of the
defendant, which is in San Fernando, La
Union. (Sec. 2 of Rule 4) The fact that it was
not raised in a motion to dismiss does not
matter because the rule that if improper
venue is not raised in a motion to dismiss
it is deemed waived was removed from
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The new
Rules provide that if no motion to dismiss
has been filed, any of the grounds for
dismissal may be pleaded as an
affirmative defense in the answer. (Sec. 6
of Rule 16.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
If the judgment of acquittal in the criminal
case finds that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise does not
exist, the court may receive it in evidence
last
overparagraph].
the objection by Delia. [Rule 111, sec.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2,
If the judgment of acquittal is based on
reasonable doubt, the court may receive it
in evidence because in such case, the civil
action for damages which may be
instituted requires only a preponderance
of the evidence. (Art. 29, Civil Code).
Actions; BP22; Civil Action deemed
included (2001)
Saturnino filed a criminal action against
Alex for the latters bouncing check. On
the date of the hearing after the
arraignment, Saturnino manifested to the
court that he is reserving his right to file a
separate civil action. The court allowed
Saturnino to file a civil action separately
and proceeded to hear the criminal case.
Alex filed a motion for reconsideration
contending that the civil action is deemed
included in the criminal case. The court
reconsidered its order and ruled that
Saturnino could not file a separate action.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is the courts
Yes, the courtsorder granting
order grantingthethe
motion for
motion
reconsideration correct? Why? (5%)
for reconsideration is correct. The Rules
provide that the criminal action for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action, and
that no reservation to file such civil action
Procedure]
separately shall be allowed. [Sec. 1(b), Rule
111, Revised Rules of Criminal
Actions; BP22; Demurrer to
Evidence (2003)for violation of
In an action Batas
Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the
accuseds demurrer to evidence which he
(Philbanking v. Tensuan. 230 SCRA 413;
filed without leave of court. Although he Unimasters Conglomeration, Inc. v. CA. CR-
was acquitted of the crime charged, he, ALTERNATIVE
119657, Feb.ANSWER:
7, 1997)
however, was required by the court to pay (c) No. If the parties stipulated that the
the private complainant the face value of venue "shall be in the courts in Quezon
the check. The accused filed a Motion of City", A cannot file his complaint in Pasay
Reconsideration regarding the order to City because the use of the word "shall"
criminal
pay the aspect of the
face value ofcase; and b)on
the check at the
the makes Quezon City the exclusive venue
very least, he was entitled to adduce
following grounds: a) the demurrer to thereof. (Hoechst Philippines vs. Torres, 83
controverting evidence
only tooon
thethe civil CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
evidence applied SCRA 297).
liability. Resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (6%)
(a) The Motion for Reconsideration should Acquittal;
be denied. The ground that the demurrer to Effect sued
Delia (2002)Victor for personal injuries
evidence applied only to the criminal which she allegedly sustained when she
aspect of the case was not correct because was struck by a car driven by Victor. May
the criminal action for violation of Batas the court receive in evidence, over proper
Pambansa Blg. 22 included the and timely objection by Delia, a certified
corresponding civil action. (Sec. 1(b) of Rule true copy of a judgment of acquittal in a
(b)
111). The accused was not entitled to criminal prosecution charging Victor with
adduce controverting evidence on the civil SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hit-and-run driving in connection with
liability, because Delias injuries? Why? (3%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 39 40 ofof6666hewithout filed his a
a) To afford adequate protection to the demurrerofto arrest
warrant evidence andwithout
searched leavehis of house
court.
constitutional rights of the accused; b) without (Sec. 23 of
a Rule
search119). warrant. a) Can the gun used
When necessary for the orderly by B in shooting A, which was seized during
justice or toof avoid oppression or multiplicity
administration Actions;
the search of Commencement
the house of B, be ofadmitted
an Action; in
actions;
of c) When double jeopardy is clearly evidence? Double b)Jeopardy
Is the arrest (2004) of B legal? c) Under
apparent; d) Where the charges are the SPO1 CNC filed can
circumstances, with Bthe beMTC in Quezon
convicted of
manifestly false and City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement
homicide?
motivated by the lust for vengeance; e) duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an
Where there is clearly no prima facie case actual resident
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Cebu City) with the
(a)
the accused and a motion to quash on that offense of slight
against No. The gun seized
physical during
injuries theallegedly
search
ground has been denied. of the house of B without
inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of a search warrant
(See cases cited in Roberts, Jr., vs. is not admissible
Quezon City). The in Judge
evidence. of the (Secs.
branch2 and to
Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 307 [1996] 3[2], Art. III of Constitution).
which the case was raffled thereupon Moreover, the
and Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 search wasorder not an incidentthat to a
[1990].)
issued an declaring thelawful
case
arrest
shall be of a person
governed byunder
the Sec.
Rule on12 of Rule
Summary
Arrest; Warrantless Arrest; Preliminary (b) No. A warrantless arrest requires that
126.
Procedure in criminal cases. Soon
Investigation (2004) the crime has in fact just been committed
AX swindled RY in the amount of P10,000 thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal
and the police arresting has personal
sometime in mid-2003. On the strength of of the case for the reason that it was not
knowledge
Sometime later, of facts based thaton the theperson
same to be
facts
the sworn statement given by RY commenced by information, as required by
arrested
giving rise has to committed
the slight physical it. (Sec. injuries
5, Rule
personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime said Rule.
case, Here,
113). the City the Prosecutor
crime has filed not just withbeen the
in mid-2004, and without securing a committed
same MeTC-QC since a period of two days had
an information for
warrant, the police officer arrested AX. already
attempted lapsed,homicide and the policethe
against arresting
same
Forthwith the police officer filed with the has
RGR.noInsuch duepersonaltime, before knowledge because
arraignment,
City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for (c)
he
RGR Yes.
was The
moved notgun to is not indispensable
present
quash when the incident
the information in the
on
estafa supported by RY"s sworn statement conviction
happened.
the ground(Go of A because
of vs.
double the
Court jeopardy court
of Appeals.and may
206 afterrely
SCRA
and other documentary evidence. After on
duetestimonial
138). hearing, orthe otherJudgeevidence. granted his
due inquest, the prosecutor filed the motion. Was the dismissal of the
requisite information with the MM RTC. No Arrest; Warrantless Arrests &
complaint
Seizures
In for
(2003)
a buy-bust slight physical the injuries
preliminary investigation was conducted SUGGESTED ANSWER: operation, police
proper?
Yes, the
operatives Was the
dismissal
arrested grant
of of
the
the the motionand
complaint
accused to
for
either before or after the filing of the quash the attempted homicide
information and the accused at no time slight physical
seized from himinjuries a sachet is of
propershabubecauseand an
information
in Metropolitan
unlicensed correct?
firearm.Manila Reasonand
The (5%)
in
accused chartered was
asked for such an investigation. However,
before arraignment, the accused moved to cities,
charged the case
in two has to be commenced
Informations, one only
for
quash the information on the ground that by information.
violation of the Dangerous
(Sec. 11, Drug
Revised Act,
Rule as
on
No, the grant
Summary
amended, Procedure).
andof theanother
motion tofor quash the
illegal
the prosecutor suffered from a want of attempted homicide information on the
The accused
possession of filed an action
firearms. for recovery of
authority to file the information because of ground of double jeopardy was not
the firearm in another court against the
his failure
SUGGESTED to conduct a preliminary
ANSWER: correct, because
police officers with there was noforvalid
an application the
investigation
No. The warrantless
before filing
arrest
the isinformation,
not valid prosecution
issuance of a writ of replevin.injuries.
for slight physical He alleged
as required
because the byalleged
the Rules
offense
of Court.
has notIs just
the Actions; Discretionary
in his Complaint that he Power was a military
warrantless
been committed. arrestTheofcrime
AX wasvalid?
allegedly
Is he of filed
A Fiscalwith
(1999)
informer who had Officethe of the aFiscal
been issued written a
entitled to one
committed a preliminary
year before investigation
the arrest. Complaint for estafa against B. After the
(Sec. authority to carry said firearm. The police
before5 (b)the
of Rule 113). of the information?
filing preliminary investigation, thecomplaint
Fiscal
Yes, he(5%)is entitled to a preliminary officers moved to dismiss the
Explain. dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit.
investigation because he was not lawfully on the ground that the subject firearm
May
was in the
custodia Fiscal
legis. be compelled
The court denied the by
arrested without a warrant (See Sec. 7 of SUGGESTED
mandamus
(a) Was ANSWER:
the to file
seizure the of casethe in court?
Rule 112). He can move for a motion
No. Theand public instead issued may
prosecutor the writ not to of
be
(b) Was
Explain.
firearm
replevin. the denial
(2%)
valid? of the motion
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
reinvestigation. compelled
dismiss proper? by mandamus
6% to file the case in
He is not entitled to a preliminary court because the determination of
investigation because the penalty for probable cause is within the discretion of
estafa is the sum of P10,000 does not the prosecutor. The remedy is an appeal to
exceed 4 years and 2 months. Under Sec. the Secretary of Justice. (Sec. 4 Rule 112.)
1, second par., Rule 112, a preliminary Actions;
investigation is not required. (Note: The Injunction
Will (1999) lie to restrain the
injunction
Arrest;is not
penalty Warrantless
stated in the Arrests
question.) & commencement of a criminal action?
Searches
A was killed (1997)
by B during a quarrel over a Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hostess in a nightclub. Two days after the As a general rule, injunction will not lie to
incident, and upon complaint of the widow restrain a criminal prosecution except:
of A, the police arrested B
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
or not. The motion to recover the firearm
should be filed in the court where the
criminal action is pending.

Arrest; Warrantless Arrests;


Objection
FG (2000) without a warrant by
was arrested
policemen while he was walking in a busy
street. After preliminary investigation, he
was charged with rape and the
corresponding information was filed in the
RTC. On arraignment, he pleaded not
guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. The
court rendered judgment convicting him.
On appeal, FG claims that the judgment is
void because he was illegally arrested. If
you were the Solicitor General, counsel for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the
Any People of to
objection thethePhilippines,
illegality ofhow would
the arrest
you refute said claim? (5%)
of the accused without a warrant is
deemed waived when he pleaded not
guilty at the arraignment without raising
the question. T is too late to complain
about a warrantless arrest after trial is
commenced and completed and a
[1999])
judgment of conviction rendered against
the accused. (People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA
Bail
199,
(2002)
D was charged with murder, a capital
offense. After arraignment, he applied for
bail. The trial court ordered the
prosecution to present its evidence in full
on the ground that only on the basis of
such presentation could it determine
whether the evidence of Ds guilt was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
strong for purposes of bail. Is the ruling
No, the prosecution is only required to
correct? Why? (3%)
present as much evidence as is necessary
to determine whether the evidence of Ds
guilt is strong for purposes of bail.(Rule
114, sec. 8).
Bail; Appeal
(1998)
In an information charging them of Murder,
policemen A, B and C were convicted of
Homicide. A appealed from the decision
but B and C did not. B started serving his
sentence but C escaped and is at large. In
the Court of Appeals, A applied for bail but
was denied. Finally, the Court of Appeals
rendered a decision acquitting A on the
1Was the Court
ground that of Appeal's
the evidence denial
pointed of A's SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to the
application for bail proper? [2%]
NPA as the killers of the victim. (a) Yes, the seizure of the firearm was
2Can B and C be benefited by the decision of valid because it was seized in the course
the Court of Appeals? [3%] of a valid arrest in a buy-bust operation.
(Sec. 12 and 13 of Rule 126) A search warrant
[1997]).
was not necessary. (People v. Salazar, 266
SCRA 607
(b) The denial of the motion to dismiss
was not proper. The court had no
authority to issue the writ of replevin
whether the firearm
Version 1997-2006was inbycustodia
Updated Dondee legis
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 42 41 of 66
When bail is a matter of he could ANSWER:
SUGGESTED be convicted of the capital
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense
discretion: In criminal
offense. (Obosa procedure,
vs. Courta of complaint
Appeals, 266 is a
not punishable by death, reclusion sworn
ALTERNATIVE
SCRA 281.) written statement
ANSWER: charging a person
perpetua or life imprisonment, on Under an
with Circular No. 2-92,
offense, A is entitled
subscribed by the to
application of the accused. If the penalty of bail because he was
offended party, any peace officer or other convicted of
imprisonment exceeds six years but not homicide
peace and
officer hence the
charged evidence with of guilt
the
more than 20 years, bail shall be denied of murder is not
enforcement of strong.
the law violated. (Sec. 3,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
upon a showing by the prosecution, with Rule
2. B, 110,
who did 1985 not Rules of Criminal
appeal, Procedure);
can be benefited
notice to the accused, of the following or while
by theandecision information of theis Court an accusation
of Appealsin
1That the accused
other similar writing charging
is a recidivist, quasi-re-which is favorable and applicable
circumstances: a person with an to offense
him.
Demurrer
subscribed toby Evidence;
cidivist or habitual delinquent, or has committed(Sec. 11 [a]. Rule 122, Rules of Criminal the Contract
prosecutor andof filed
the crime aggravated by the circumstance ofProcedure.) Carriage
AX, a
with the court (2004)
Makati-bound paying passenger of
The. (Sec.
benefit 4, Id.)
will also apply to C
reiteration; PBU, a public utility bus, died instantly on
even if his appeal is dismissed because of
2That the accused is found to have previouslyboard Bail; the Application;
his escape. bus on account of the fatal head
escaped from legal confinement, evadedIf wounds
Venue he
(2002)
an information sustained was as fileda result
in theofRTC- the
strong impact
sentence, or has violated the conditions of hisManila charging D with homicide and he of the collision between the
bail without valid justification; bus and a dump
was arrested in Quezon truck City,that happened
in what court
3That the accused committed the offense whileor courts may he apply for bail? on
while the bus was still travelling EDSA
Explain.
on probation, parole, or under conditionalSUGGESTED towards
(3%) Makati. The foregoing facts,
ANSWER:
pardon; D may
among apply
others, for
were baildulyin the RTC-Manila
established on
4That the circumstances of the accused or his where the
evidence-in-chief information by the was filed
plaintiff orTY,in the
sole
case indicate the probability of flight if releasedheir RTC-Quezon
of AX, City in TYs where he was
action arrested,
against the
on bail; or or if
subject no judge,
common thereof
carrier is available,
for breach withof
5That there is undue risk that during thecontract any metropolitan trial judge,
of carriage. After TY had rested municipal
114,
trial sec.
judge 17).or municipal circuit trial judge
pendency of the appeal, the accused may his case, the common carrier filed a
commit another therein.
demurrer (Rule to evidence, contending that
Bail; Matter of crime.
Right (Sec. 1, Id.) of
vs. Matter Bail; Forms of
plaintiffs evidence is insufficient because
Discretion
When is bail(2006)
a matter of right and when is Bailwhat
In (1999) forms may bail be given?
it did not show (1) that defendant was
it a matter of discretion? (5%) (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
negligent
No.
Bail The
may beand
court (2) by
should
given that
not such defendant's
grant
a corporate negligence
surety,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bail is a matter of right (a) before or after was
demurrer
or the
through proximate
to a evidence
property causebecause
bond, of the
cashthe collision.
case is
deposit
conviction by the inferior courts; (b) Should
for breach
or recognizance. the
of court
contract of grant
carriage. or
Proof deny
that
before conviction by the RTC of an the defendant
defendant's
Bail; Matter was negligent
demurrer
of toand that
evidence? such
negligence
Right (1999)
When
Reason the was (5%)
briefly.
accused the is proximate
entitled as cause of the
a matter
offense not punishable by death,
collision
of
Civilright
Code; is not
to bail, required.
(Mendoza may the
v. Court
(Articles
Phil. refuse
1170 Inc.,
Airlines, to
and
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment., 2201,
90
grant Phil. bail 836
him on the [1952];
ground Batangas
that there
when the evidence of guilt is not strong Transportation Co. ofv.probability
Caguimbal, 22
(Sec. 4, Rule 114, 2000 Rules of Criminal exists a high degree that he
SCRA171
SUGGESTED U 968];
ANSWER: Abeto v. PAL, 115 SCRA
Bail is discretionary: Upon conviction by
Procedure). will abscond or escape? Explain. (2%)
489
If bail[1982];
is a Aboitiz
matter v.ofCourt right,ofitAppeals,
cannot 129 be
the RTC of an offense not punishable by Demurrer
SCRA 95on to Evidence; w/o Leave
[1984]).
death, reclusion perpetua or life denied the ground that there exists a
of Courta(1998)
Facing charge of Murder, X filed a
of Criminal Procedure).
imprisonment (Sec. 5, Rule 114, 2000 Rules high degree of probability that the
petition for bail. The petition was opposed
accused will abscond or escape. What the
Bail; Witness Posting by the prosecution but after hearing the
court can do is to increase the amount of
Bail (1999)
May the Court require a witness to post court granted bail to X. On the first
the bail. One of the guidelines that the
bail? Explain your answer. (2%) scheduled hearing on the merits, the
judge may use in fixing a reasonable
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prosecution manifested that it was not
amount of bail is the probability of the
Yes. The court may require a witness to adducing
Bail; Matter additional
of Right evidence
vs. Matter and of that it
accused appearing in trial.
post bail if he is a material witness and was resting
Discretion
When its
is bail(1999)a matter of right and when isto
case. X filed a demurrer
bail is needed to secure his appearance. evidence
it a matterwithout leave of(2%)
of discretion? court but it was
The rules provide that when the court is 1. Did by
denied
SUGGESTED the the court
ANSWER: court.have the discretion to
satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a deny theBail
When demurreris a tomatter evidence ofunder the
2.
All Ifpersons
right: the answer
circumstances in to the preceding
mentioned
custody shallabove?
(a) question
(2%) or
before
material witness will not testify when
is
after in conviction
the affirmative, by the can X adduce
metropolitan and
required, it may, upon motion of either
SUGGESTED ANSWER: evidence
municipal intrial
his defense
courts, after
and the (b)denial
before of
party, order the witness to post bail in
1, Yes, the Court of Appeals properly 3.
his Withoutby
demurrer
conviction further
tothe proceeding
evidence?
RTC of [1%]
an and on the
offense not
such sum as may be deemed proper.
denied A's application for bail. The court sole
punishablebasis byof death, the reclusion
evidence perpetua of the
Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall
had the him
discretion to until
do so. Although or A prosecution,
or life imprisonment, be admitted convict
can the court legally to bail
commit to prison he complies
Complaint
was convicted of vs.
homicide only, since he X
as foraMurder?
matter (2%)of right, with sufficient
is legally discharged after his testimony is Rule 114, Rules
Information
Distinguish
was
taken.charged a(1999)
Complaint
with
(Sec. 6, Rule 119)
a capital from Information.
offense, on sureties, or beof released
Court, as amended by Circular
on recognizance
No. 12-94.)
(2%)
appeal as prescribed by law or Rule 114. (Sec. 4,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 43 of 66 The trial court
evidence presented by the prosecution at denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed
the hearing for bail was not strong, the accused as having waived his right to
without any evidence for the defense, it present evidence and submitted the case for
could be sufficient for conviction. judgment on the basis of the prosecution
2. No. Because he filed the demurrer to evidence. In due time, the court rendered
the evidence without leave. (Sec. 15, Rule judgment finding the accused guilty of the
119, Rules of Criminal Procedure.) However, theoffense charged beyond reasonable doubt and
trial court should inquire as to why the accordingly imposing on him the penalty
accused filed the demurrer without leave prescribed therefor. Is the judgment of the
and whether his lawyer knew that the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
trial court valid and proper? Reason. (5%)
effect of filing it without leave is to waive Yes. The judgment of the trial court is
62.)
the presentation of the evidence for the valid. The accused did not ask for leave to
accused. (People vs. Fores, 269 SCRA file the demurrer to evidence. He is
3. Yes. Without any evidence from the deemed to have waived his right to
accused, the prima facie evidence of the 269 SCRAevidence.
present 62 [1997]; Bernardo
(Sec. 23 of v. Court
Rule of
119;
prosecution has been converted to proof Appeals,
People v. 278
Flores, SCRA 782 [1997]. However,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: doubt.
beyond reasonable the judgment is not proper or is erroneous
If the evidence of guilt is not strong and because there was no showing from the
beyond reasonable doubt then the court proper office like the Firearms Explosive
cannot legally convict X for murder. Unit of the Philippine National Police that
the accused has a permit to own or
Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave
possess the firearm, which is fatal to the
of Court
Carlos, (2001)
the accused in a theft case, filed a
conviction
Dismissal;of the accused.to
Failure (Mallari v. Court
demurrer to evidence without leave of of Appeals &People,265 SCRA 456[1996]).
court. The court denied the demurrer to Prosecute
When (2003) case is dismissed on
a criminal
evidence and Carlos moved to present his nolle prosequi, can it later be refilled?
evidence. The court denied Carlos motion (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, when a criminal case is
to present evidence and instead judgment dismissed on nolle prosequi before the
on the basis of the evidence for the accused is placed on trial and before he is
prosecution. Was the court correct in called on to plead, this is not equivalent to
preventing Carlos from presenting his an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent
evidence and rendering judgment on the prosecution
v. Court of for the same
Appeals, offense.
237 SCRA(Galvez
685
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
basis of the evidence for the
Yes, because the demurrer to the prosecution? [1994]).
Why? (5%)was filed without leave of court.
evidence Dismissal; Provisional
Dismissal
Before the (2003)
arraignment for the crime of
The Rules provide that when the demurrer
to evidence is filed without leave of court, murder, the private complainant executed
the accused waives the right to present an Affidavit of Desistance stating that she
evidence and submits the case for was not sure if the accused was the man
119, Revised Rules of Criminal
judgment on the basis of the evidence for who killed her husband. The public
Procedure)
the prosecution. (Sec. 23 of Rule prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the
Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave Information on the ground that with private
of Court
The (2004) for illegal possession of
information complainants desistance, he did not have
firearm filed against the accused evidence sufficient to convict the accused.
specifically alleged that he had no license On 02 January 2001, the court without
or permit to possess the caliber .45 pistol further proceedings granted the motion
mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, and provisionally dismissed the case. The
the prosecution established the fact that accused gave his express consent to the
the subject firearm was lawfully seized by provisional dismissal of the case. The
the police from the possession of the Subsequently, the private complainant
offended party was notified of the
accused, that is, while the pistol was urged the public prosecutor to refile the
dismissal but she refused to give her
tucked at his waist in plain view, without murder charge because the accused failed
consent.
the accused being able to present any to pay the consideration which he had
license or permit to possess the firearm. promised for the execution of the Affidavit
The prosecution on such evidence rested of Desistance. The public prosecutor
its case and within a period of five days obliged and refiled the murder charge
therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to against the accused on 01 February 2003,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
evidence, in sum contending that the the
1. accused
Yes. Thefiled Courta Motion
had thetodiscretion
Quash theto
prosecution evidence has not established Information on the
deny the demurrer to the evidence,ground that the
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable provisional
because although dismissal of bythe
theUpdated
Version 1997-2006
case had
Dondee
doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted already become permanent. (6%)
of the offense charged.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
a) Was the provisional dismissal of the
case proper? b) Resolve the Motion to
Quash. ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
(a) The provisional dismissal of the case
was proper because the accused gave his
express consent thereto and the offended
party was notified. It was not necessary
for the offended party to give her consent
thereto. (Sec. 8 of Rule 117).
(b) The motion to quash the information
should be denied because, while the
provisional dismissal had already become
permanent, the prescriptive period for
filing the murder charge had not
prescribed. There was no double jeopardy
because the first case was dismissed
before the accused had pleaded to the
charge. (Sec. 7 of Rule 117).
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) Page4544
sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com of 66
of 66 was aware
Information that B.
theYes,
victim
thehad died two can
prosecution days re-file
earlier the
on
(2001)
The prosecution filed an information account of his stab
information wounds.in Because
for murder of his
substitution of
against Jose for slight physical injuries guilty
theplea, Noel was
information forconvicted
homicide ofbecausefrustratedno
alleging the acts constituting the offense homicide
double and jeopardymeted has the as yet corresponding
attached.
but without anymore alleging that it was SCRA
penalty.
[Galvez685
Whenv. (1994)].
the of
Court prosecution
Appeals, 237 learned of the
committed after Joses unlawful entry in victim's death, it filed within fifteen (15) days
Information;
the complainants abode. Was the therefrom a motion to amendAmendment; the information
Supervening Events (1997)for the killing
information correctly prepared by the to upgrade accused
A was the charge of from
homicidefrustrated homicide
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prosecution? Why? (5%) of B. During
to consummated the trial,
homicide. the public
Noel opposed the
No. The aggravating circumstance of
motion claiming that the admissionofof the
prosecutor received a copy the
unlawful entry in the complainants abode marriage certificate of A andplaceB.
amended information would him in
has to be specified in the information; (a) Can the
SUGGESTED public prosecutor move for the
ANSWER:
double jeopardy. Resolve
The amendedofinformation the motion
to consummated with
otherwise, it cannot be considered as amendment the information to charge A
Procedure) reasons. (4%)
homicide frominstead
aggravating. (Sec. 8 of Rule 110, Revised (b)
with Suppose
the crime offrustrated homicide
of moving
parricide? for does
the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Rules of Criminal not place theofaccused
amendment the in information,
double jeopardy. the
The information prepared by the
As provided
public in the presented
prosecutor second paragraph
in evidence of
prosecutor is not correct because the Sec. 7, Rule certificate
117,2000 withoutRules ofobjection
Criminal
the marriage
accused should have been charged with
Double Jeopardy Procedure , the ofconviction of the accused
on the part the defense, could Abe
qualified
(2002) trespass
D was charged with to dwelling.
slight physical injuries shall not be a bar to another prosecution
Information; convicted of parricide?
in the MTC. He pleaded not guilty and went for an offense which necessarily includes
Amendment
Amando was(2001) charged with frustrated
to trial. After the prosecution had the offense charged in the former
homicide. Before he entered his plea and
presented its evidence, the trial court set complaint or information when: (a) the
upon the advice of his counsel, he
the continuation of the hearing on another graver offense developed due to
manifested his willingness to admit having
date. On the date scheduled for hearing, supervening facts arising from the same
committed the offense of serious physical
the prosecutor failed to appear, act or omission constituting the former
injuries. The prosecution then filed an
whereupon the court, on motion of D, charge; or (b) the facts constituting the
amended information for serious physical
dismissed the case. A few minutes later, graver charge became known or were
injuries against Amando. What steps or
the prosecutor arrived and opposed the discovered only after a plea was entered in
action should the prosecution take so that
dismissal of the case. The court the former complaint or information. Here,
the amended information against Amando
reconsidered its order and directed D to when the plea to frustrated homicide was
which downgrades the nature of the Extradition
present his
SUGGESTED evidence. Before the next date
ANSWER: made, neither the court nor the
offense could (2004)
RP and State XX have a subsisting
In order
of trial thatbe
came, thevalidly
however,
made? Why?
amended D moved
(5%)
information
that the prosecution was aware that the victim had
which downgrades the nature of that
the Extradition Treaty. Pursuant thereto RP's
last order be set aside on the ground died two days earlier on account of his
offense could beof the validly Secretary of Justice (SOJ) filed a Petition
the reinstatement case made,
had placed the stab wounds.
prosecution should file a motion to ask for for Extradition before the MM RTC alleging
him twice in jeopardy. Acceding to this
leave of court with notice to the offended that Juan Kwan is the subject of an arrest
motion, the court again dismissed the
party. warrant duly issued by the proper criminal
case. (Sec.14
The prosecutor
of Rule 110, then Revisedfiled Rules an of
The new rule is for the court of State XX in connection with a
information in the RTC, charging D with
Criminal Procedure).
protection of the interest of the offended criminal case for tax evasion and fraud
direct assault based on the same facts
party andin to prevent possible abuse before his return to RP as a balikbayan.
alleged the information for by the
slight
Information;
prosecution. Amendment; Double Petitioner prays that Juan be extradited
physical injuries but with the added
Jeopardy;
A. D and Bail (2002)
E were charged with and delivered to the proper authorities of
allegation that D inflicted the injuries out
homicide in one information. Before they State XX for trial, and that to prevent
of resentment
SUGGESTED ANSWER: for what the complainant
could
Ds be arraigned, thebeprosecution Juan's flight in the interim, a warrant for
had motion
done intothe quash should
performance ofgranted
his duties on
moved
the to amend
ground of ofdouble the information
jeopardy to his immediate arrest be issued. Before the
as chairman the board of because
election
exclude
the E therefrom.
first offense Can
charged the court
is necessarilygrant RTC could act on the petition for
inspectors.
B. On the D moved
facts above to quash stated,thesuppose
second
the motion
included intotheamend?
second Why? (2%) charged.
offense extradition, Juan filed before it an urgent
information
the prosecution, on the ground
instead that
of filing its filing
a motion
ALTERNATIVE
[Draculan v.ANSWER:
Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)]. motion, in sum praying (1) that SoJ's
had
to placed him in double jeopardy. How
Ds amend,
motion tomoved quash should to withdraw be denied the application for an arrest warrant be set for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
should Ds
information motion
altogether to quash
and itsbe resolved?
motion was
because the two dismissals of the case hearingthe
Under and (2) that Treaty
Extradition Juan beand allowed
Law, theto
(4%)
granted. Canwere the on prosecution re-file the
against him his motion (hence post bail in
application of the event theofcourt
the Secretary Justicewould
for a
information
with his express although this time
consent) and his for right
murder? to issue anofarrest
warrant arrest warrant.
need not Shouldbe set forthe court
hearing,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Explain
a speedy (3%)
trial was not violated. and
grantJuanorcannot
deny be allowed
Juan's to post bail
prayers? if the
Reason.
A. Yes, Jeopardy;
Double provided notice Upgrading; is given to the
Original court
(5%) would issue a warrant of arrest. The
offended
Charges
For (2005) stab wounds sustained its
party
the multiple and the court states by provisions in the Rules of Court on arrest and
reasons
the victim,granting
for Noel was the same. charged (Rule 110,
with bail are not basically
(Government applicable.
of the United States of America
sec. 14).
frustrated homicide in the RTC. Upon v. Puruganan, 389 SCRA 623 [2002])
arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty
to said crime. Neither the court nor the
prosecution
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 46 of 66 possession of
a. Yes, there is a legal basis for the court an unlicensed .32 caliber gun, punishable by
to deny the motion to quash the warrant prision correctional in its maximum period and
of arrest and to withdraw the information. a fine of not less than P15.000.00. It is the MTC
The court is not bound by the Resolution that has exclusive and original jurisdiction over
Mogul, 151
of the Secretary SCRA 462
of Justice. (Crespo v. all offenses punishable by imprisonment not
[1987]). exceeding six years. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7691,
b. If I were the counsel for the accused, I amending 129) B.P. Blg.
would surrender the accused and apply
for bail because the offense is merely Information; Motion to Quash;
homicide, a non-capital offense. At the Grounds
1Give (1998)
two (2) grounds to quash an
pre-trial, I would make a stipulation of Information.[2%]
facts with the prosecution which would 2If the Information is not accompanied by a
show that no offense was committed. certification that a preliminary investigation
Information; Motion to has been conducted. Is the Information
Quash
BC (2000) with illegal possession of
is charged SUGGESTED
void? [3%]ANSWER:
firearms under an Information signed by a 1. Two grounds to quash an
Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment Information are: a) That the facts charged
but before pre-trial, BC found out that the do not constitute an offense; and
Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to b)
SUGGESTED That the court trying the case
ANSWER:
sign and file the information as it was the (a) hasNo. no The Information
jurisdiction over the cannot offense be
City Prosecutor who has such authority. amended
charged to orchange
the personthe offense
of the charged
accused.
from c) homicide
That the toofficer parricide.who Firstly,
filed the the
During the pre-trial, BC moves that the
information
marriage is not had
a no authorityfact
supervening to do so;
arising
case against him be dismissed on the
from d) theThat it
act constituting does not
the chargeconform of
ground that the Information is defective
substantially
homicide. (Sec. 7[a] to the prescribed
of Rule form;
117). Secondly,
because the officer signing it lacked the e)plea,That more than one
authority to do so. The Provincial after amendments may be offense
done only is
as charged
to matters except
of in those
form. The cases
amendment in which is
Prosecutor opposes the motion on the us. existing
Dacuycuy. laws
108 SCRA prescribe
736). a single
ground of estoppel as BC did not move to substantial because it will change the
punishment
nature of the offense. for various (Sec.offenses;
14 of Rule 110;
quash the Information before arraignment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) f)No. A That canthe be criminal
convictedaction only or of
Dionaldo
IIf would
you are counsel
argue that for BC, the
since what is your
Provincial homicide not of parricide
liability has been extinguished; which is a graver
argument tohad
Prosecutor refute
no the opposition
authority of the
to file the offense.
g) ThatTheit accused contains has averments the
Provincial Prosecutor? (5%)
information, the court did not acquire constitutional rights of due
which, if true, would constitute a legal process and to
jurisdiction over the person of the accused be informed of the
excuse or justification; nature and the cause of
Constitution),
the h) That
accusation the
against accused
him. has been
and over the subject matter of the offense (Secs. 1, 14 (1)
charged. (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 and previously
(2} Art. III. 1987convicted or in jeopardy of
Information;
SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is not being convicted, or acquitted of the
Bail (2003)
After
waived if not raised in a motion to quash offense charged. (Sec.proceedings,
the
Rule requisite
117. Rules of Criminal
3,
the
Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information
Procedure.)
and could be raised at the pretrial. (Sec. 8, X. The latter,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: however, timely filed a
Information; for homicide against
Rule 117, Rules ofMotion
Court). to
2. No. The certification which is provided in
Quash (2005)
Rodolfo is charged with possession of Petition for Review of the Resolution of the
Sec. 4, Rule 112. Rules
Provincial Prosecutor with the Secretary of of Criminal
unlicensed firearms in an Information filed
Procedure,
Justice who, is not in andue indispensable
time, issued part ofa
in the RTC. It was alleged therein that
the information.
Lapura, 255 SCRA(People 85.)
Resolution reversing the resolution of thevs.
Rodolfo was in possession of two
unlicensed firearms: a .45 caliber and-a . Provincial
Judgment;Prosecutor Promulgation and directing of him to
32 caliber. Under Republic Act No. 8294, withdraw
Judgment
X, the accusedthe Information.
(1997) in a homicide case before
Before the Provincial Prosecutor could
possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber the RTC. Dagupan Cay, was personally
comply with the directive of the Secretary
gun is punishable by prision mayor in its notified of the
of Justice, the promulgation
court issued of a judgment
warrant of in
minimum period and a fine of P30.000.00, his case set for 10 December 1996. On
arrest against X.
while possession of an unlicensed .32 said
The date.
PublicX Prosecutor
was not present filed aasMotion he had to to
caliber gun is punishable by prision attend to the trial of
Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to another criminal case
correctional in its maximum period and a against
Withdrawhim the in Tarlac, Tarlac.
Information, attaching The totrial it
fine of not less than P15,000.00. As court
the denied
Resolution the of motion
the of
Secretary the counsel
of Justice. of
counsel of the accused, you intend to file a (a)
X to How shall the
postpone thepromulgation.
court promulgate the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The court denied the motion. (6%) a) Was
motion to quash the Information. judgment b)inIfthe absence of the accused?
The ground for the motion to quash is What
that motion?
there aCanlegal you
basis were for the
thecounsel
courtorder tofordeny
the
ground or grounds should you invoke? (b) the trial court also the
more than one offense is charged in the accused,
the what remedies, if any, would
Explain. (4%)(Sec. 3[f], Rule 117, 2000 Rules of arrest of X?
information. you pursue?
Criminal Procedure) Likewise, the RTC has no SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisdiction over the second offense of
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 47 of 66
criminal docket and a copy thereof served Parties; Prosecution of
upon the accused or counsel. (Sec. 6. third Offenses
Your (2000)
friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old,
par., Rule 120) seeks your legal advice. She tells you that
(b) No, the trial court cannot order the ZZ, her uncle, subjected her to acts of
arrest of X if the judgment is one of lasciviousness; that when she told her
acquittal and, in any event, his failure to grandparents, they told her to just keep
appear was with justifiable cause since he quiet and not to file charges against ZZ,
had to attend to another criminal case their son. Feeling very much aggrieved,
Jurisdiction;
against him. Complex she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be
Crimes (2003)
In complex crimes, how is the jurisdiction made to answer for his crime. a) What
of a court determined? 4% uncle
would ZZ advice
your is rape, witnessed
be? Explain. by
(3%)your
b)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: mutual friend XX. But this time,
Suppose the crime committed against YY YY was
In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the prevailed upon by her grandparents
whole complex crime must be lodged with by her
not to file charges. XX asks you if she
the trial court having jurisdiction to can initiate the complaint against ZZ.
impose the maximum and most serious SUGGESTED
Would ANSWER:
your answer be the same?
penalty imposable on an offense forming Explain. (2%). the minor, an orphan of
[1988]).
part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v. (a) I would advise
Garcia, 160 SCRA 302 16 years of age, to file the complaint
Jurisdiction; Finality of a herself independently of her
Judgment
Mariano was(2005)
convicted by the RTC for raping grandparents, because she is not
Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion incompetent or incapable to doing so
perpetua. While serving sentence at the upon
(b) grounds
Since rape isother than herasminority.
now classified a Crime
National Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
Against Persons under the Anti-Rape Law
were married. Mariano filed a motion in said
court for his release from the penitentiary on of 1997 (RA 8353), I would advise XX to
his claim that under Republic Act No. 8353, his initiate the complaint against ZZ.
marriage to Victoria extinguished the criminal
action against him for rape, as well as the
penalty imposed on him. However, the court
denied the motion on the ground that it had
lost jurisdiction over the case after its decision
had become final and executory. (7%)
a) Is the filing of the court correct?
SUGGESTED
Explain. ANSWER:
No. The court can never lose jurisdiction so
long as its decision has not yet been fully
implemented and satisfied. Finality of a
judgment cannot operate to divest a court
of its jurisdiction. The court retains an
interest in seeing the proper execution and
implementation of its judgments, and to
that extent, may issue such orders
No. 13205, and
necessary January 19,
appropriate for these
1999)
purposes. (Echegaray v. Secretary of
b) What
Justice, G.R.remedy/remedies should the
counsel of Mariano take to secure his
proper and most expeditious release
from the National Penitentiary? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
To secure the proper and most expeditious
release of Mariano from the National
Penitentiary, his counsel should file: (a) a
petition for habeas corpus for the illegal
confinement of Mariano (Rule 102), or (b)
a motion in the court which convicted him,
to nullify the execution of his sentence or
the order of his commitment on the
ground that a supervening development SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) In the absence of the accused, the
had occurred (Melo v. People, G.R. No. L-
promulgation shall be made by recording
3580, March 22, 1950) despite the finality
the Judgment
Versionin the Updated by Dondee
1997-2006
of the judgment.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
depositing the amounts in his (CXs)
personal bank account. CX files a motion
to suspend proceedings pending
resolution of a civil case earlier filed in
court by CX against MM for accounting
and damages involving the amounts
subject of the criminal case. As the
prosecutor in the criminal case, briefly
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
discuss your grounds in support of your
As the prosecutor, I will argue that the
opposition to the motion to suspend
motion to suspend is not in order for the
proceedings. (5%).
1The civilreasons:
case filed by CX against MM for
following
accounting and damages does not involve an
issue similar to or intimately related to the
issue of estafa raised in the criminal action.
2The resolution of the issue in the civil case for
accounting will not determine whether or not
the criminal action for estafa may proceed.
(Sec. 5, Rule

Plea of Guilty; to a Lesser


Offense
D (2002) with theft of an article
was charged
worth p15,000.00. Upon being arraigned,
he pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged. Thereafter, before trial
commenced, he asked the court to allow
him to change his plea of not guilty to a
plea of guilt but only to estafa involving
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to
No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser
change his plea? Why? (2%)
offense may be allowed if the lesser
offense is necessarily included in the
offense charged. (Rule 116, sec. 2). Estafa
involving P5,000.00 is not necessarily
included in theft of an article worth
Prejudicial
P15,000.00
Question
What is (1999)
a prejudicial question?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A prejudicial question is an issue involved
in a civil action which is similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in
the criminal action, the resolution of
which determines whether or not the
ANOTHER
criminalANSWER:
action may proceed. (Sec. 5 of Rule
A prejudicial question is one based on a
111.)
fact distinct and separate from the crime
but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Prejudicial
Question
CX (2000)with estafa in court for
is charged
failure to remit to MM sums of money
collected by him (CX) for MM in payment
for goods purchased from MM, by
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 49
sirdondee@gmail.com Page 48 ofof6666implicated
alia, the
imprisonment of up to 10 years of prision (Mantaring that
statement v. Roman, A.M. admitted
the "Defense No. RTJ-93-904,
all the
mayor under the Revised Penal Code. February 28, 1996),
documentary so long
evidence as the
of the search is
Prosecution,"
After trial, he was convicted of the offense conducted
thus leavinginthethe place little
accused where or the search
no room to
charged, notwithstanding that the material warrant will be and
defend himself, served. Moreover,
violating describing
his right against
facts duly established during the trial the shabu in an Should
self-incrimination. undetermined
the court amount
grant oris
showed that the offense committed was sufficiently
denyNos. particular.
QR's 140546-47,
motion? January
(People
Reason. 20, G.R.
v. Tee,
(5%)
estafa, punishable by imprisonment of up 2003)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The
Trial;court should
Trial in deny QR's motion.
Absentia; If in the
Automatic
to eight years of prision mayor under the
pretrial
Review agreement
of Conviction signed by the accused
(1998)
said Code. No appeal having been taken and his counsel,
1. What are the the accusedof admits
requisites a trial the
in
therefrom, said judgment of conviction documentary
absentia? evidence
[2%] of the prosecution, it
became final. Is the judgment of does notaccused
violate whohis was
right sentenced
against self-
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. If an to
conviction valid? Isof the said judgment incrimination. His lawyer
Yes, the judgment conviction for theft death escapes, is therecannot
still a file
legala
upon an information for civil
reviewable thru a special theftaction for
is valid motion to withdraw.
necessity for the A pre-trial
Supremeorder Courtis not
to
certiorari? Reason. (5%)
because the court had jurisdiction to needed. (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA
review the decision of conviction?
render judgment. However, the judgment 415(2002}).
(Sec.
[3%]2 of Rule The118; admission of
People v. Hernandez, such
was grossly and blatantly erroneous. The documentary
260 evidence is allowed by the
SCRA 25 [1996]).
variance between the evidence and the rule.
111, Rules of Criminal Pre-Trial; Criminal Case vs.
judgment of conviction is substantial since Civil
Procedure.) Give Case
three (1997)
distinctions between a pre-trial
the evidence is one for estafa while the
Prejudicial Question; Suspension of in a criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil
judgment is one for theft. The elements of
Criminal Action (1999) case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the two crimes are not the same. (Lauro Three distinctions between a pre-trial in a
A allegedly
Rule 120). sold to B a parcel of land which
Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487). One criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil case
A later also sold to X. B brought a civil
offense does not necessarily include or is The pre-trial in a criminal case is
are as follows:
1.
The
actionjudgment of conviction
for nullification of theissecond reviewablesale
included in the other. (Sec. 5 of conducted only "where the accused and
by
andcertiorari
asked that eventhe ifsale
no made
appealbyhad A in been
his
taken,
favor bebecause
declaredthe judge
valid. committed
A theorized thata counsel agree" (Rule 118, Sec. 1): while the
grave
he never abuse soldofthe discretion
propertytantamount
to B and his to pre-trial in a civil case is mandatory. (Sec.
1 of 18).
former Rule 20; Sec, 1 of new Rule
lack
purportedor excess
signatures of appearing
his jurisdictionin the first in
convicting
deed of salethe were accused
forgeries. of Thereafter,
theft and an in 2. The pre-trial in a criminal case
violating
Information dueforprocess
estafa and was his filedright to be
against A does not consider the possibility of a
informed
based on of thethe same naturedoubleand salethe thatcause wasof compromise, which is one important
the subject
accusation of theagainstcivil him,
action. which make
A filed a (Sec.of1 the
aspect of former Rulein20;
pre-trial Sec. case.
a civil 2 of new
the judgment
"Motion void. Withof the
for Suspension mistake
Action" in the in Rule 18).
charging
criminal the case,proper offense, the
contending that judgethe 3. In a criminal case, a pre-trial
should
resolution have of directed
the issue the
in filing
the civilof the
case agreement is required to be reduced to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proper
would
Yes. The information
necessarily
suspension
Search Warrant; Motion to be of theand
determinative
criminal thereafter
of his
action writing and signed by the accused and his
dismissed
guilt
is in or
order
Quash operatives
Police (2005) the
innocence. original
because Is
the information.
the
defense suspension
of the Western Police of A(Sec.
in of
19
the counsel (See; Rule 118, Sec. 4); while in a
of
theRule
District,
119). action in order? Explain. (2%)
criminal
civil action,
Philippine that National
he never Police, sold the
applied civil case, the agreement may be
20; See 7inofthe
contained new pre-trial
Rule 78). order. (Sec. 4 of
property
for a search to B and that
warrant in thehisRTC purported
for the
former Rule
signatures
search of the in house
the first deedSantos
of Juan of sale andwerethe Provisional
forgeries,of isana undetermined
seizure prejudicial question amount the of Dismissal
In (2002)for robbery against D, the
a prosecution
resolution
shabu. Theofteam whicharrived
is determinative
at the house of hisof prosecutor moved for the postponement of
guilt or innocence.
Santos but failed Iftothefind first himsale is null
there. the first scheduled hearing on the ground
(Ras
and v.
Instead, Rasul,
void, the 100would
there
team SCRA
found 125.)
beRoberto
no double Co. sale
The that he had lost his records of the case.
and A conducted
team would be innocent a searchofinthe theoffense
house of The court granted the motion but, when
Pre-Trial
estafa.
Santos
Agreement in the presence
(2004) of Roberto Co and the new date of trial arrived, the
Mayor TM was charged of malversation
barangay officials and found
through falsification of official documents. ten (10) prosecutor, alleging that he could not
grams of shabu. Roberto
Assisted by Atty. OP as counsel de parte Co was charged locate his witnesses, moved for the
in court
during with illegal
pre-trial, he signedpossession
together of with
ten provisional dismissal of the case. If Ds
grams of shabu. Before hisTG arraignment, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ombudsman Prosecutor a "Joint counsel
No, does nota object,
because case may the court
cannot be
Roberto Co filed a motion
Stipulation of Facts and Documents," to quash the grant the motion of the prosecutor? Why?
warrant provisionally dismissed except upon the
which onwas the following
presented groundsto (a) it was
the (3%)
express consent of the accused and with
not the
Sandiganbayan.
SUGGESTED accused
ANSWER: Before the court search
named in the could
warrant; andto(b) the should
warrant notice to the offended party. (Rule 117,
The
issuemotion
a pre-trial quash
order but after bedoesdenied.
somenot Remedies; Void
describe the article to be seized with sec. 8).
The name of the
delay caused by Atty. OP, he wasperson in the search Judgment
AX (2004) before the YY RTC with
was charged
sufficient
warrant
substituted isparticularity.
not Atty. Resolve
by important. QRIt as isthe notmotion
even
defense theft of jewelry valued at P20.000,
with reasons.
necessary that (4%)
a particular
counsel. Atty. QR forthwith filed a motion person be punishable with
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
to withdraw the "Joint Stipulation,"
alleging that it is prejudicial to the
accused because it contains, inter
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)

(c) The proper court is the Sandiganbayan


which has jurisdiction over crimes
committed by a consul or higher official in
the diplomatic service. (Sec. 4(c). PD 1606,
as amended by RA. No. 7975). The
Sandiganbayan is a national court. (Nunez
v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 [1982]. It
has only one venue at present, which is in
Metro Manila, until RA. No. 7975, providing
Alternative Answers:
for two information
(b) The other branches
may be in filed
Cebu andinin
either
Cagayan de Oro, is implemented.
Calamba or in Makati City, not in
Tagaytay City where no offense had as SUGGESTED ANSWER:
yet been committed, 1. The requisites of trial in absentia are:
(c) Assuming that the Sandiganbayan has (a) the accused has already been
no jurisdiction, the proper venue is the first arraigned; (b) he has been duly notified of
RTC in which the charge is filed (Sec. 15(d). the trial; and (c) his failure to appear is
Rule 110). Parada vs. Veneracion,
unjustifiable. (Sec. 14269[2],SCRA 371 III.
Article
[1997].)
Constitution;
EVIDENCE 2. Yes, there is still a legal necessity for
the Supreme Court (as of 2004 the Court of
Admissibility Appeals has the jurisdiction to such review)
(1998)
The barangay captain reported to the to review the decision of conviction
police that X was illegally keeping in his sentencing the accused to death, because
house in the barangay an Armalite M16 he is and
3[e] entitled
10, to an automatic
Rule 122, Rulesreview of the
of Criminal
death sentence.
Procedure; People vs. Espargas, 260 SCRA
(Sees.
rifle. On the strength of that information,
539.)
the police conducted a search of the house Venue
of X and indeed found said rifle. The police (1997)
Where is the proper venue for the filing of
raiders seized the rifle and brought X to an information in the following cases? a)
the police station. During the investigation, The theft of a car in Pasig City which was
he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement brought to Obando, Bulacan, where it
that he was possessing said rifle without was cannibalized.
license or authority to possess, and a b) The theft by X, a bill collector of
Waiver of Right to Counsel. During the trial ABC Company, with main offices in Makati
of X for illegal possession of firearm, the City, of his collections from customers in
prosecution submitted in evidence the Tagaytay City. In the contract of
1. Rifle;
rifle. Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right employment, X was detailed to the
2. Sworn Statement; and
[2%]
to Counsel, individually rule on the Calamba branch office, Laguna, where he
3. Waiver of Right to Counsel of
[2%1
admissibility in evidence of the: c)
was to The
turnmalversation of public funds by
in his collections.
X. [1%] ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence a Philippine consul detailed in the
because it was seized without a proper Philippine Embassy in London.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
search warrant. A warrantless search is (a) The proper venue is in Pasig City
not justified. There was time to secure a where the theft of the car was committed,
search warrant. (People us. Encinada G.R. not in Obando where it was cannibalized.
No. 116720, October 2. 1997 and other
2. The sworn statement is not admissible
cases) Theft is not
(People v a continuing
Mercado, 65offense.
Phil
665).
in evidence because it was taken without (b) If the crime charged is theft, the venue
informing him of his custodial rights and is in Calamba where he did not turn in his
without the assistance of counsel which collections. If the crime of X is estafa, the
should be independent and competent essential ingredients of the offense took
and preferably of the choice of the place in Tagaytay City where he received
accused. (People us. Januario, 267 SCRA his collections, in Calamba where he
3. The waiver of his right to counsel is not
608.)
admissible because it was made without should have turned in his collections, and
the assistance of counsel of his choice. in Makati City where the ABC Company was
(People us. Gomez, 270 SCRA 433.) based. The information may therefore be
filed in Tagaytay City or Calamba or Makati
121
whichSCRA 106).
have concurrent territorial
Jurisdiction. (Catingub vs. Court of Appeals,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 50 of 66 Acting on a tip
before whom they signed the statements by an informant, police officers stopped a car
was a lawyer, he was not functioning as a being driven by D and ordered him to open the
lawyer, nor can he be considered as an trunk. The officers found a bag containing
independent counsel. Waiver of the right several kilos of cocaine. They seized the car
to a lawyer must be done in writing and in and the cocaine as evidence and placed D
the presence of independent counsel. under arrest. Without advising him of his right
533 [1999]).
(People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 11999]; to remain silent and to have the assistance of
People v. Espiritu, 302 SCRA an attorney, they questioned him regarding the
Admissibility; Admission of Guilt;
Requirements
What (2006)
are the requirements in order that cocaine. In reply, D said, I dont know
anything about it. It isnt even my car. D was
an admission of guilt of an accused
during a custodial investigation be charged with illegal possession of cocaine, a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prohibited drug. Upon motion of D, the court
admitted in evidence? (2.5%)
1The admission must be voluntary. suppressed the use of cocaine as evidence and
2The admission must be in writing. dismissed the charges against him. D
3The admission must be made with commenced the proceedings against the police for
the recovery of his car. In his direct
assistance of competent, independent counsel.
examination, D testified that he owned the car
but had registered it in the name of a friend for
convenience. On cross-examination, the
attorney representing the police asked, After
yourSUGGESTED
arrest, did you not tell the arresting
ANSWER:
officers
Yes,that it wasnt
because your car? made
his admission If you when
were Ds
he
attorney, would youafter
was questioned object to the
he was question?
placed under
Why? (5%) was in violation of his constitutional
arrest
right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have competent and
independent counsel of his own choice.
R.A. 7438it(1992),
Hence, sec, 2; People
is inadmissible inv. evidence.
Mahinay, 302
SCRA 455]. ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE
[Constitution, Art. III, sec. 12;
Yes, because the question did not lay the
predicate to justify the cross-examination
question.
Admissibility
(2004)
Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA
suspects, Max and Brix, both aged 22, in
the act of robbing a grocery in Ermita. As
he handcuffed them he noted a pistol
tucked in Max's waist and a dagger hidden
under Brix's shirt, which he promptly
confiscated. At the police investigation
room, Max and Brix orally waived their
right to counsel and to remain silent. Then
under oath, they freely answered
questions asked by the police desk officer.
Thereafter they signed their sworn
statements before the police captain, a
lawyer. Max admitted his part in the
robbery, his possession of a pistol and his
ownership of the packet of shabu found in
his pocket. Brix admitted his role in the
robbery and his possession of a dagger.
But they denied being NPA hit men. In due
course, proper charges were filed by the
City Prosecutor
SUGGESTED ANSWER: against both arrestees
before
No. The the
swornMM
written
RTC. statements
May the of written
Max
statements
and Brix may
signednot and be
sworn
admitted
to by Maxin
Admissibility and Brix be
evidence, because
admittedthey
bywere
the trial
not assisted
court as
(2002) evidence
by counsel.for
Even
theif the
prosecution?
police captain
Reason.
(5%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 51 of 66 deemed to
1) Specific objections: Example: parol include an electronic document as defined in
evidence and best evidence rule these Rules. (Sec. 1 of Rule 3, Rules of Electronic
General Objections: Example: continuing Evidence effective August 1, 2001).
objections (Sec. 37 of Rule 132).
An electronic document is admissible in
2) The two kinds of objections are: (1) evidence if it complies with the rules on
objection to a question propounded in the admissibility prescribed by the Rules of
course of the oral examination of the Court and related laws and is
witness and (2) objection to an offer of authenticated in the manner prescribed by
evidence in writing. Objection to a these Rules. (Sec. 2 of Rule 3, Id.). The
question propounded in the course of the authenticity of any private electronic
oral examination of a witness shall be document must be proved by evidence
2 of Rule 5, Id.).
made as soon as the grounds therefor that it had been digitally signed and other
shall become reasonably apparent appropriate security measures have been
(b) An electronic document shall be
otherwise, it is waived. An offer of applied. (Sec.
regarded as the equivalent of an original
objection in writing shall be made within document under the Best Evidence Rule if
three
4. (3)
The days after notice
admission must ofbetheexpress
offer, it is a printout or output readable by sight
unless av.different
(People Prinsipe,periodG.R. No.is allowed
135862, by the
May 2,
or other means, shown to reflect the data
5.
court. In both
2002). case instances
the accused waives for
the grounds his
accurately. (Sec. 1 of Rule 4)
rights
objectionto must
silence be and to counsel,
specified. An example such Admissibility; Object or Real
waiver
of the mustisbe
first in writing,
when the executed
witness is with
being Evidence
At (1994)
the trial of Ace for violation of the
Admissibility; Offer to Marry;
the assistance
cross-examined of competent,
Circumstantial Evidence (1998)and independent
the cross Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution
counsel.
examination
A was accused of is on a matter
having raped not X.relevant.
Rule on offers in evidence a photocopy of the
Admissibility;
An example Document;
of the second Notis raised
that in
the
the marked P100.00 bills used in the buy-
the admissibility
Pleading (2004) of the following pieces of
evidence
evidence: offered is not the best evidence. bust operation. Ace objects to the
In a complaint for a sum of money filed
1an offerthe
of AMM to marry introduction of the photocopy on the
before RTC,X;plaintiff
and (3%]did not
2a pair oforshort
mention evenpants just allegedly
hint at any by A at the ground that the Best Evidence Rule
leftdemand
crime prohibits the introduction of secondary
for payment made on defendant beforeof A, documentary evidence? b) Is the
which the court, over the objection
required him to put on, and when he did, it fit evidence in lieu of the original. a) Is the
commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff photocopy
him well. [2%] photocopy admissible
real (object)inevidence
evidence?
or
duly offered Exh. "A" in evidence for the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
stated purpose of proving the making of a) The photocopy of the marked bills is
extrajudicial demand on defendant to pay real (object) evidence not documentary
P500.000, the subject of the suit. Exh. "A" evidence, because the marked bills are
was a letter of demand for defendant to real evidence.
pay said sum of money within 10 days b) Yes, the photocopy is admissible in
from receipt, addressed to and served on evidence, because the best evidence rule
defendant some two months before suit does not apply to object or real evidence.
was begun. Without objection from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Admissibility;
defendant,
The court'stheadmission
court admitted of Exh. Exh."A""A" in
in
Objections
What are the (1997)two kinds of objections?
evidence.isWas
evidence the court'sIt was
not erroneous. admission
admitted of
Exh. "A" in without
evidence erroneous or not? Explain each briefly. Given an example of
in evidence objection on the part each.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Reason. (5%)
of the defendant. It should be treated as if Two kinds of objections are: (1) the
it had been raised in the pleadings. The evidence being presented is not relevant
complaint may be amended to conform to to the issue; and (2) the evidence is
the evidence, but if it is not so amended, it incompetent or excluded by the law or the
10).
does not affect the result of the trial on rules, (Sec. 3, Rule 138). An example of
this issue. (Sec. 5 of Rule the first is when the prosecution offers as
Admissibility; Electronic
Evidence evidence the alleged offer of an Insurance
a) State (2003)
the rule on the admissibility of an(See 1997 No. 14).
evidence. b) When is an electronic company to pay for the damages suffered
electronic Examples of inthe second case.
are evidence
evidence regarded as being by the victim a homicide
obtained in violation of the Constitutional
the equivalent of an original document under prohibition against unreasonable searches
Best Evidence Rule? 4%
the and seizures and confessions and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Whenever a rule of evidence refers to admissions in violation of the rights of a
ALTERNATIVE
person under ANSWERS:
custodial Investigation.
the term writing, document, record,
instrument, memorandum or any other
form of writing, such term shall be
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 53
52 of 66
property is involved. As counsel for (c) BEST ANSWER:
SUGGESTED EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is
Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue (a)
adopted Thefor offer by A of
the prevention to fraudpay and theis
against the objections of the spouses hospitalization expenses
declared to be essential to the pure of B is not
Ceres so as to convince the court to allow admissible
administration in evidence
of justice. to prove
(Moran, hisVol.guilt
5, inp.
Sec. 27, fourth
both Ifthea civil par.).
andiscriminal cases. (Rule 130,
the partition. Discuss each of the five (5) 12.) party in possession of such
SUGGESTED
argumentsANSWER:
briefly but completely. (10%) evidence and withholds it, the
(1) The baptismal certificate can show (b) No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of
presumption naturally arises that the
filiation or prove pedigree. It is one of the the121,122)
pp, insurance company is based on the
better evidence is withheld for fraudulent
other means allowed under the Rules of contract of insurance and is not
purposes. (Francisco. Rules of Court, vol. VII.
admissible
(d) in evidence against the
Court and special laws to show pedigree. Part I,An illegally obtained extrajudicial
[1998];
(Trinidad Heirs of ILgnacio
v. Court of Appeals,Conti289v.SCRA
Court 188of accused because
confession nullifies it the
was intrinsic
not offered by the
validity of
Appeals, 300 SCRA 345 [1998]). accused
the confessionbut by andthe insurance
renders company
it unreliable as
Admissibility;
which is not
evidence of his truth.Private
the agent. (Moran, vol. 5, p. 257)
(2) Entries in the family bible may be received asMay Document (2005)
it is the fruit of a poisonousbetree.
a private document offered, and
evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, Rule 130, admitted in evidence
(e) The reason for the rule against both as
the
Rules of Court). documentary evidence and as object
admission of an offer of compromise in
SUGGESTED
evidence? ANSWER:
Explain.
(3) The certification by the civil registrar of civil case as an admission of any liability is
Yes, it can be considered as both
the non-availability of records is needed to that parties are encouraged to enter into
documentary and object evidence. A
justify the presentation of secondary compromises. Courts should endeavor to
private document may be offered and
evidence, which is the photocopy of the persuade the litigants in a civil case to
admitted in evidence both as
Ignacio Conti v.
birth certificate Court of(Heirs
of Jocelyn. Appeals, agree upon some fair compromise. (Art.
of documentary evidence and as object
supra.) 2029, Civil Code). During pre-trial, courts
evidence.
former A Sec. document2 [a] of can also be
(4) Declaration of heirship in a settlement should Rule direct 20:
the parties tonew consider the
considered
Rule 16). as an object for purposes of
proceeding is not necessary. It can be possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec.
the case. Evidence
Best Objects as evidence are those
made in the ordinary action for partition 1[a] of
Rule
When (1997)
addressed A loanedto theasenses sum of of money
the court. to B.(Sec.A
wherein the heirs are exercising the right typed
1, Rule a130, single Rulescopy of theDocumentary
of Court) promissory
pertaining to the decedent, their evidence
note, whichconsiststhey both ofsigned
writings A made or two any
predecessor-ininterest, to ask for partition material
photo (xeroxed) containingcopies ofletters,
the promissory
words,
(5) Even if real
as co-owners (Id.)property is involved, no
publication is necessary, because what is numbers,
note, giving figures,
one copy symbols to Borand other retaining
modes
sought is the mere segregation of Lindas of
the written
other expressions,
copy. A offered
entrustedns proof the
of
SUGGESTED
Rule
share 69; Id.)ANSWER: their
typewritten
contents. copy( Sec. to 2, his
Rule counsel
130, Rules for
of
1. A's inoffer
the property.
to marry(Sec. X is1 ofadmissible in Linda
Court) and
safekeeping.
Hence, spouses
The
a private
copy Arnulfo
document
with and
A's Regina
may
counsel be
Admissibility; Proof of Filiation; Action
evidence as an Implied
Admissibility; Rules admission
of of guilt Ceres
presented
was wereas
destroyed co-owners
object
whenevidence of a law
the parcelin of land.
office
order wasto
of Partition
which is deemed (2000) to be the "original" copy
because
Evidence rape cases
(1997) are not
Give the reasons underlying the adoption allowed to be Linda died intestate
'establisha) certain
burned. In an action and
physical without
to collect any
evidence issue.
on the or
compromised.
People vs. Domingo,
of the following (Sec.
rules27 226
ofof RuleSCRA
evidence:13O; for
Ten the(10)purpose
characteristics
promissory persons
note, thatof headed
the
are "Best visiblebyEvidence
Jocelyn,
on the
156.) Rule"? b)toCan the collateral
photocopies in the
(a) Dead Man claiming
paper and be the
writings that comprise relatives theof
2. The pair of short pants, which fit the hands of the parties be considered
(b)
Rule Parol Evidence the deceased Linda, filed an action for
document.
accused
(c) Best well, is circumstantial evidence "duplicate original
Rule Evidence partition with the copies"?
RTC praying c) As counsel
for the
of
(d) his
Rule Theguilt,
rule although
against standing
the admission alone of it for A, how will you prove the loan given to
segregation of Lindas share, submitting
cannot
illegally be the basis
obtained of conviction.
extrajudicial confession The SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A and B? of their petition the baptismal
in
(a) support
The copy that was signed and lost is
accused cannot object
(e) The rule against the admission of an to the court
certificates
the only "original" of sevencopy of the for petitioners,
purposes ofa
requiring him to put the
offer of compromise in civil cases short pants on. It
family
the Best Evidence Rule. (Sec. 4 [b]inofwhich
bible belonging to Linda Rule
is not part
SUGGESTED of his right against self-
ANSWER:
the names of the petitioners have been
130).
The reasons behind the
incrimination because it is a mere following rules are as
Admissibility; entered,
(b) No, They a photocopy
are not duplicate of theoriginal birth
(a) DEAD
follows:
physical act. MAN Offer
RULE: to Pay has closed
if death
Expenses
A, while (1997) certificate
copies of
because Jocelyn, there and a
are certification
photocopies of
the lips ofdriving
one party, his the
car, policy
ran over
of theB.law A
visited B at the the
which local
were civilnot registrar
signed ( that its office had
is to close the hospital
lips of theand other.
offered(Goni
to pay v. Mahilum v. Court of
for his ofAppeals,
Court hospitalization expenses.
L-77434. After the
September 23, been
Appeals, completely
17 SCRA 482 razed ), They by constitute
fire. The
filing 144
1986, of theSCRA criminal
222). This caseis against
to prevent A the
for spouses Ceres refused
secondary evidence. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130). to partition on the
serious physical
temptation injuries
to perjury throughdeath
because reckless
has (c) The
following loan given
grounds: by A to
1) B may
the be proved
baptismal
imprudence.
already sealedA's theinsurance
lips of thecarrier
party. offered by secondary
certificates of the evidence parish through priest are the
to pay
(b) PAROL for the EVIDENCEinjuries andRULE: damages
It is xeroxed
evidence copies
only of
of the
the promissory
administration note.of The
the
suffered to
designed bygiveB. certainty
The offerto was rejected
a transaction rules
sacrament provide that when
of baptism and they the do original
not
becausehas
which B considered
been reduced the amount offered
to writing, document is lost or destroyed,
prove filiation of the alleged collateral or cannot
expenses
as inadequate.
because of B admissible
written a)evidence inisevidence?
Is the offer by A to
much b)
pay
more be produced
relatives of the in deceased;
court, the2)offerer, entry inupon the
Is the offer by
the hospitalization
certain A's insurance carrier
and accurate than that which rests to pay proof
familyofbible its execution
is hearsay; or3) existence and the
the certification
for injuries and damages of B admissible in
on the
fleeting memory only. (Francisco, Rules cause
of the of its unavailability
registrar without bad
on non-availability of faith
the
evidence?
of Court Vol. VII, Part I. p. 154) on his part,
records of birth may doesprovenot its prove contents
filiation:by4)a
copy, or by acases
in partition recital where
of its contents
filiation intosome the
authentic
deceased document,
is in dispute, or bypriortheand separate
judicial declaration of heirship in a
settlement of estate proceedings is
necessary; and 5) there is need for
publication as real
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
testimony of witnesses in the order
stated. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).
Burden of Proof vs. Burden of
Evidence (2004)
Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of
evidence. ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law.
(Sec. 1 of Rule 131), while burden of evidence
is the duty of a party to go forward with the
evidence to overthrow prima facie
evidence established against him. (Bautista
v. Sarmiento, 138 SCRA 587 [1985]).
Character
Evidence
D (2002)
was prosecuted for homicide for
allegedly beating up V to death with an
A. May the prosecution introduce
iron pipe.
evidence that V had a good reputation for
peacefulness and nonviolence? Why?
B.
(2%) May D introduce evidence of
specific violent acts by V? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The prosecution may introduce
evidence of the good or even bad moral
character of the victim if it tends to
establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense
charged. [Rule 130, sec. 51 a (3)]. In this
case, the evidence is not relevant.
B. Yes, D may introduce evidence of
specific violent acts by V. Evidence that
one did or did not do a certain thing at
one time is not admissible to prove that
he did or did not do the same or a similar
thing at another time; but it may be
received to prove a specific intent or
knowledge, identity, plan, system,
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the
Confession; Affidavit of
like. (Rule 130, sec. 34).
Recantation
1If the accused(1998)
on the witness stand repeats his
earlier uncounseled extrajudicial confession
implicating his co-accused in the crime charged,
is that testimony admissible in evidence against
the latter? [3%]
2What is the probative value of a witness'
Affidavit of Recantation? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his
earlier uncounseled extrajudicial confession,
because he can be subjected to cross-
examination.
2. On the probative value of an affidavit of
recantation, courts look with disfavor upon
recantations because they can easily be
secured from witnesses, usually through
intimidation or for a monetary consideration,
Recanted testimony is exceedingly
unreliable. There is always the probability
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page5455 of 66 66 Evidence,
of that it will be
claim or demand against his estate as to repudiated.
expressly provides(Molina vs. thatPeople.
a witness may 138.)
259 SCRA testify
any matter of fact occurring before Juans on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
death. (Sec. 23 of Rule 130) condition or appearance of a person.
Hearsay; Exception; Dying Facts; Legislative Facts vs.
Declaration of
Requisites (1998)
Dying Declaration. Adjudicative
Legislative
Hearsay; Facts
facts (2004)
and adjudicative
[2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: facts.
SUGGESTED
a) DefineANSWER:
Exceptions (1999) evidence? (2%) b)
hearsay
The requisites for the admissibility of a dying Legislative
What are the facts refer to facts
exceptions to thementioned
hearsay
declaration are: (a) the declaration is made in a statute
rule? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:or in an explanatory note,
by the deceased under the consciousness of .while adjudicative
Hearsay evidence facts mayare befacts found in
defined as
his impending death; (b) the deceased was a court decision.
evidence that consists of testimony not
at the time competent as a witness; (c) the Hearsay
coming from personal knowledge (Sec. 36,
declaration concerns the cause and Evidence
Romeo is (2002)
sued for damages for injuries
Rule 130, Rules of Court). Hearsay testimony
surrounding circumstances of the declarant's suffered by
is the testimony theofplaintiff
a witness in as
a tovehicular
what he
death; and (d) the declaration is offered in a accident. Julieta, a witness in court,
has heard other persons say about the
(criminal) case wherein
(People vs. Santos, 270 SCRA the declarant's testifies that Romeo told her (Julieta) that
facts in issue.
death is theANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE
650.) subject of inquiry. he (Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to
The declaration of a dying person, made .the The exceptions to the hearsay rule are:
accident, give an excited account of
under the consciousness of an impending dying declaration, declaration against
the accident immediately after its
death, may be received in any case interest, act or declaration about pedigree,
occurrence. Is Julietas testimony
wherein his death is the subject of Inquiry, family reputation
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or tradition regarding
admissible against Romeo over proper
as evidence of the cause and surrounding No, Julietas testimony is
pedigree, common reputation, part of the not admissible
and timely objection? Why? (5%)
circumstances of such death. (Sec. 37 of against
res gestae,Romeo, because
entries in while
the the excited
course of
Hearsay;
Rule 13O.) Exception; Res Gestae; account of Antonio, a
business, entries in official records, witness to the
Opinion of Ordinary Witness (2005) accident,
commercial waslists told andto Romeo,
the like, it was only
learned
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied Romeo who
treatises, and told Julietaorabout
testimony it, which
deposition at a
her to a chair and robbed her of assorted makes it hearsay. (37 to 47, Rule 13O, Rules
former proceeding.
pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then Hearsay
of Court) Evidence vs. Opinion
brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a Evidence (2004)
Hearsay evidence and opinion
bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could evidence. ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
hear Candida crying and pleading: "Huwag! Hearsay evidence consists of testimony
Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping Candida, that is not based on personal knowledge
Dencio fled from the house with the loot. of the person testifying, (see Sec. 36, Rule
Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to the
130), while opinion evidence is expert
police station about a kilometer away and told
Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had evidence based on the personal
barged into the house of Marcela, tied the knowledge skill, experience or training of
latter to a chair and robbed her of her jewelry the person testifying (Sec. 49, Id.) and
and money. Candida also related to the police evidence of an ordinary witness on limited
officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had Hearsay;
matters (Sec. Exception;
50, Id.). Dead Man
raped her. The policeman noticed that Candida Statute
Maximo (2001)
filed an action against Pedro, the
was hysterical and on the verge of collapse. administrator of the estate of deceased
Dencio was charged with robbery with rape. Juan, for the recovery of a car which is part
During
a) If thethe trial, Candida
prosecution can Police
presents no longer be
Officer of the latters estate. During the trial,
located. (8%)
Roberto Maawa to testify on what Candida Maximo presented witness Mariano who
had told him, would such testimony of the testified that he was present when Maximo
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
policeman be hearsay? Explain.
No. The testimony of the policeman is not and Juan agreed that the latter would pay a
hearsay. It is part of the res gestae. It is rental of P20,000.00 for the use of
also an independently relevant statement. Maximos car for one month after which
The police officer testified of his own Juan should immediately return the car to
personal knowledge, not to the truth of Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission
Candida's statement, i.e., that she told of Marianos testimony. If you were the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. 74065,
him, despite February
her pleas, Dencio had raped judge,
No, the would testimony you is sustain admissible Pedros
in
27,1989)
her. (People v. Gaddi,G.R. objection?
evidence Why?
because (5%) witness Mariano who
b) If the police officer will testify that he testified as to what Maximo and Juan, the
noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the
verge of collapse, would such testimony be
deceased person agreed upon, is not
considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? disqualified to testify on the agreement.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Explain. Those disqualified are parties or assignors
No, it cannot be considered as opinion, of parties to a case, or persons in whose
because he was testifying on what he behalf a case is prosecuted, against the
actually observed. The last paragraph of administrator or Juans estate, upon a
Sec. 50, Rule 130, Revised Rules of
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 56 of 66 The RTC may
stating that X admitted the robbery. It not generally take judicial notice of foreign
likewise presented a certification of the laws (In re Estate of Johnson, G.R. No. 12767,
PNP Firearms and Explosive Office November 16, 1918; Fluemer v. Hix, G.R. No.
attesting that the accused had no license 32636, March 17, 1930), which must be proved
to carry any firearm. The certifying officer, like any other matter of fact (Sy Joe Lieng v. Sy
however, was not presented as a witness. Quia, G.R. No. 4718, March 19, 1910) except in
Both pieces of evidence were objected to a few instances, the court in the exercise of its
against X? b) Is the
by the defense. certification
(6%) of the PNP sound judicial discretion, may take notice of
a) Is the newspaper
Firearm and
clipping admissible in evidence foreign laws when Philippine courts are
Explosive Office without the certifying officerevidently familiar with them, such as the
testifying on it admissible in evidence Spanish Civil Code, which had taken effect in
againstANSWER:
SUGGESTED X? the Philippines, and other allied legislation.
(a) Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible (Pardo v. Republic, G.R. No. L2248 January 23,
in evidence against X. regardless of the truth 1950; Delgado v. Republic, G.R. No. L2546,
or falsity of a statement, the hearsay rule January 4. .28,Rules 1950) and Regulations issued
does not apply and the statement may be by quasi-judicial bodies
shown where the fact that it is made is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
implementing statutes;
relevant. Evidence as to the making of such The RTC may take judicial notice of Rules
statement is not secondary but primary, for and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial
the statement itself may constitute a fact in bodies implementing statutes, because they
issue or be circumstantially relevant as to are capable of unquestionable
the 18
SCRA existence
[1992]) of such fact. (Gotesco demonstration (Chattamal v. Collector of
Investment Corporation vs. Chatto, 210 Customs, G.R. No. 16347, November 3,1920),
(b) Yes, the certification is admissible in unless
Hearsay; the law itself considers
Exceptions; such rules as
Dying
evidence against X because a written an integral
Declaration
The accused part
(1999)
wasof the statute,with
charged in which
robbery case
statement signed by an officer having the judicial notice becomes
and homicide. The victim mandatory.
suffered several
custody of an official record or by his 5. Rape may
stab wounds. be committed
It appears that eleven even in
(11)
deputy that after diligent search no record public
hours places.
after the crime, while the victim was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
or entry of a specified tenor is found to being
The RTC brought
may take to the hospital
judicial noticein a of jeep,
the
exist in the records of his office, with his brother and
fact that rape may be committed even in a policeman as
accompanied by a certificate as above companions, the victim was
public places. The "public setting" of the asked certain
(Sec. 28 of Rule 132).
provided, is admissible as evidence that questions
rape
(People v. which
is not he G.R.
an indication
Tongson, answered,
of
No. pointing
consent.
91261, Februaryto 18,
the records of his office contain no such The
the
1991) Supreme
accused as Court
his has
assailant. takenHis judicial
answers
Judicial Notice;
record
Evidence or entry.
(2005)whether the RTC may, notice
were put of the
down fact in that
writing,a man butovercome
since he was by
Explain briefly
motu proprio, take judicial notice of: (5%) perversity
a in a criticaland beastly
condition, passion
his brother chooses
and the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
neither
policeman the time, place,
Yes. The statement is admissible asthe
signed the occasion
statement. Is nor a
1. The street name of 1990)
victim.
statement
dying (Peopleadmissible
declaration if as thea
v, Barcelona, G.R. dyingNo.
victim
methamphetamine hydro-chloride is 82589, October 31,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: declaration?
subsequently Explain.
died and (2%)his answers were
shabu. Judicial Notice; Evidence;
The RTC may motu proprio take judicial made under the consciousness of
Foreign
a) Lawthree
Give (1997) instances when a Philippine
notice of the street name of impending death (Sec. 37 of Rule 130) . The
take
court judicial
can notice of a foreign law. b)
methamphetamine hydrochloride is shabu, fact
How thatdo you he prove
did not sign the
a written statement
foreign law?
considering the chemical composition of point to the accused as his assailant,
1993) c) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as
shabu. (People v. Macasling, GM, No. because
defense he of
was in criticalbut
defendant condition,
no evidence does
90342, May 27, part of the
Viovicente,
not was affect 286
its SCRA
presented to1)prove the
admissibility as existence
a dying
2. Ordinances approved by
municipalities under its territorial declaration.
of said law, what is the presumptionnot
A dying declaration need to
Hearsay;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisdiction; be in
be writing
Inapplicable taken by
(People
(2003) the
v. court as to the
X was charged with robbery. On the
In the absence of statutory authority, the SUGGESTED
wordings ANSWER:
ofwarrant
said law"?
strength
(a) The three instancesofwhen
of a arresta issued
Philippine by
RTC may not take judicial notice of
ordinances approved by municipalities under the court, X was arrested
court can take judicial notice of a foreign by police
their territorial jurisdiction, except on appeal operatives.
law are: (1) They whenseized from hiscourts
the Philippine personare a
from the municipal trial courts, which took handgun. A charge for
evidently familiar with the foreign law illegal possession
judicial notice of the ordinance in question. of firearm
(Moran. Vol. was
5, p.also 34, filed
1980 against
edition); him.
(2) when In a
(U.S. v. Blanco,
9,1917; U.S. v.G.R, No. 12435,G.R.
Hernandez, November
No. 9699, press conference called by
the foreign law refers to the law of nations the police, X
August 26, 1915) admitted that he had robbed
(Sec. 1 of Rule 129) and (3) when it refers to the victim of
The
jewelry robbery
valued and illegal possession of
attreatise,
P500,000.00.
a published periodical or
3. Foreign laws; firearm cases were tried jointly. The
pamphlet on the subject of law if the court
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prosecution presented in evidence a
takes judicial notice of the fact that the
newspaper clipping of the report to the
writer thereof is recognized in his
reporter who was present during the press
profession or calling as expert on the
conference
subject (Sec. 46. Rule 130).
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 57 of 66
(b) A written foreign law may be evidenced by
an official publication thereof or by a copy Offer of Evidence; res inter
attested by the officer having the legal custody alios
X andacta (2003)
Y were charged with murder. Upon
of the record, or by his deputy, and application of the prosecution, Y was
accompanied. If the record is not kept in the discharged from the Information to be
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor
has the custody, if the office in which the
record is kept is in a foreign country, the presented Y as witness but forgot to state
certificate may be made by a secretary of the the purpose of his testimony much less
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer X conspired to kill the victim but it was X
in the foreign service of the Philippines who actually shot the victim. The
stationed in the foreign country in which the testimony of Y was the only material
record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of evidence establishing the guilt of X. Y was
his office
SCRA 23).(Sec. 24, Rule 132, Zalamea v. CA, 228 thoroughly cross-examined by the defense
(c) The presumption is that the wordings counsel. After the prosecution rested its
case, the defense filed a motion for
of the foreign law are the same as the (a) The testimony of Y should be excluded
local law.
Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 241
(Northwest
demurrer to evidence based on the
because its purpose was not initially
SCRA 192; Moran, Vol. 6. page 34, 1980 following grounds.
stated and it was not formally offered in
edition; Lim v. Collector of Customs, 36
evidence as required by Section 34, Rule
Phil. 472). This is known as the (b)
132Ys testimony
of the is Rules
Revised not admissible against
of Evidence; and
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION. X pursuant to the rule on res inter alios
Memorandum
(1996)
acta. Rule on the motion for demurrer to
X states on direct examination that he
evidence on the above grounds. (6%)
once knew the facts being asked but he
cannot recall them now. When handed a
written record of the facts he testifies that
the facts are correctly stated, but that he
has never seen the writing before. Is the
writing admissible as past recollection
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
recorded? Explain,
No, because for the written record to be
admissible as past recollection recorded. It
must have been written or recorded by X
or under his direction at the time when the
fact occurred, or immediately thereafter,
or at any other time when the fact was
fresh in his memory and he knew that the
same was correctly written or recorded.
(Sec. 16 of Rule 132) But in this case X has
Offer of
never seen the writing before.
Evidence
A (1997)
trial court cannot take into consideration
in deciding a case an evidence that has
not been "formally offered". When are the
following pieces of evidence formally
(a)
offered? Testimonial
(b)
evidence Documentary
(c)
evidence Object
evidence ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
(a) Testimonial evidence is formally
time theatwitness
offered the is called to testify. (Rule
132. Sec. 35, first par.).

(b) Documentary evidence is formally


the presentation
offered after of the testimonial
evidence. (Rule 132, Sec. 35, second par.).

(c) The same is true with object evidence.


It is also offered after the presentation of
the testimonial evidence.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 58 of 66
SUGGESTED ANSWER: PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means that
No. The testimony of Kim should not be the evidence as a whole adduced by one side
excluded. Even though Kim is not an is superior to that of the other. This is
expert witness, Kim may testify on her applicable in civil cases. (Sec. 1 of Rule 133;
impressions of the emotion, behavior, Municipality of Moncada v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil,
condition or appearance of a person. (Sec. 184 [1912]).
50, last par., Rule 130). SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE is that amount of
Parol Evidence
relevant evidence which a reasonable
Rule
Pedro(2001)
filed a complaint against Lucio for
mind might accept as adequate to justify
the recovery of a sum of money based on
a conclusion. This is applicable in case
a promissory note executed by Lucio. In
filed before administrative or quasi-judicial
his complaint, Pedro alleged that although
bodies. (Sec. 5 of Rule 133)
the promissory note says that it is payable Privilege
within 120 days, the truth is that the note Communication
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H
is payable immediately after 90 days but (1998)
sued his wife W for judicial declaration of
that if Pedro is willing, he may, upon nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 Family Code. In the trial, the following
days to pay the note. During the hearing, testified over the objection of W: C, H and
Pedro testified that the truth is that the D, a doctor of medicine who used to treat
agreement between him and Lucio is for 1.
W. HRulecannot on W'stestify against her
objections because
which are the of
the latter to pay immediately after ninety the
following: rule on marital privilege; [1%]
days time. Also, since the original note 2. C cannot testify against her because of
was with Lucio and the latter would not the doctrine on parental privilege; and
surrender to Pedro the original note which [2%]
SUGGESTED
3. D cannot ANSWER:
testify against her because of
Lucio kept in a place about one days trip
Thethe demurrer to the evidence
doctrine of should
privileged be
from where he received the notice to
denied because:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The testimony of Y
produce the note and in spite of such communication between patient and
1. The not
should rulebe of excluded
marital privilege cannot be
notice to produce the same within six physician. [2%]
because
invoked in the defense
annulment counsel
case did undernot
hours from to
allowed receipt
testify of
as such
to thenotice, Lucio
true agreement orRule object
36 ofto thehisFamily
testimony
Codedespite
because the fact
it is a
failed
contents to doof so.
thePedro presented
promissory note?a copy
Why?of (Sec. 22 the, filed
Rule
civilthat
case by130.
one Rules
prosecutor of the
forgot
against to other,
state its
the
(2%)note whichthe
b) Over was executedofatLucio,
objection the same
can Court.)
purpose or offer it in evidence.
time as
copy the
of
Pedro present a original
the and
promissory with
note identical
and have it
2. Moreover,
The doctrinetheof parental defense privilege
counsel
contents.
as valid
admitted a) evidence
Over the in objection
his favor? of Lucio,
Why? cannotthoroughly cross-examined Ybyand
likewise be invoked Wthus as
will (3%)
Pedro ANSWER:
SUGGESTED be against
b) waived Thethethe testimony
res of C,acta
inter alios
objection. theirrule
child.doesC
a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his may
not applynot bebecause compelled to testifyin but
Y testified open is
complaint that the promissory note does free
courtto and testifywas against her. (Sec.
subjected to 25.cross
Rule
not express the true intent and agreement 130. Rules of Court; Art. 215, Family Code.)
examination.
of the parties. This is an exception to the 3.
OfferD, asofa doctorEvidence; who used to treat W,
Testimonial & is
parol evidence rule. [Sec. 9(b) of Rule 130, disqualified
is the to
Documentary
What testify against
(1994)
difference betweenWan overofferherof
Rules of Court] objection
testimonialas evidence to any adviceand or an treatment
offer of
b) Yes, the copy in the possession of given by him evidence?
or any information which he
documentary
Pedro is a duplicate original and with may haveANSWER:
SUGGESTED acquired in his professional
identical contents. [Sec. 4(b) of Rule 130]. An offer of
capacity. testimonial
(Sec. 24 [c], Rule evidence is Court.)
130. Rules of made
Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce at the time the witness is called to testify,
the original of the note is excusable while an offer of documentary evidence is
because he was not given reasonable made after the presentation of a partys
(Sec.
notice, 6 ofas Rule 130, Rules under
requirement of the Rules
Court) testimonial evidence. (Sec. 35, Rule 132).
before secondary evidence may be Opinion Rule
Note: The promissory note is an actionable (1994)
presented. At Nolans trial for possession and use of
document and the original or a copy thereof
the prohibited drug, known as shabu:, his
should have been attached to the
complaint. (Sec. 7 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil
girlfriend Kim, testified that on a particular
Procedure). In such a case, the genuineness
day, he would see Nolan very prim and
(Sec.
and due8 ofexecution
Rule 9, 1997 Rules
of the of if
note, Civil
not denied proper, alert and sharp, but that three
Procedure)
under oath, would be deemed admitted. days after, he would appear haggard, tired
Preponderance vs. Substantial and overly nervous at the slightest sound
Evidence
Distinguish(2003) preponderance of evidence he would hear. Nolan objects to the
from substantial evidence. 4% admissibility of Kims testimony on the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ground that Kim merely stated her opinion
without having been first qualified as
expert witness. Should you, as judge,
exclude the testimony of Kim?
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
matter which is not confidential in nature.
The trial court ruled in favor of Ody. Was
the ruling proper? Will your answer be the
same if the matters to be testified on
were known to Baby or acquired by her
SUGGESTED
prior to herANSWER:
marriage to Cesar? Explain.
No. Under the Rules on Evidence, a wife
cannot be examined for or against her
husband without his consent, except in
civil cases by one against the other, or in
a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other. Since the case was
filed by Ody against the spouses Cesar
and Baby, Baby cannot be compelled to
testify for or against Cesar without his
The answer
consent. wouldvs.be
(Lezama the same
Rodriguez, 23 ifSCRA
the
matters to be testified on were known to
1166).
Baby or acquired by her prior to her
marriage to Cesar, because the marital
disqualification rule may be invoked with
respect to testimony on any fact. It is
immaterial whether such matters were
known to Baby before or after her
Privilege
marriage toCommunication;
Cesar. Marital
Privilege
Vida and (2000)
Romeo are legally married.
Romeo is charged to court with the crime
of serious physical injuries committed
against Selmo, son of Vida, stepson of
Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the
injuries on Selmo by Romeo. The public
prosecutor called Vida to the witness
stand and offered her testimony as an
eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected
on the ground of the marital
disqualification rule under the Rules of
is offered
Court. a) Is thein objection
a civil case
valid?for(3%)
recovery
b) of
property filed by Selmo against Romeo?
personal
Will your answer be the same if Vidas
(2%) ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
testimony
(a) No. While neither the husband nor the
wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected
spouse, one exception is if the testimony
of the spouse is in a criminal case for a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
crime committed by one against the other
If the doctor's testimony is pursuant to the
or the latters direct descendants or
requirement of establishing the
ascendants. (Sec, 22, Rule 130). The case
psychological incapacity of W, and he is the
falls under this exception because Selma
(b) No. direct
The marital disqualification rule expert called upon to testify for the
is the descendant of the spouse (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina,
applies purpose, then it should be allowed.
Vide. this time. The exception provided 26S SCRA 198.)
by the rules is in a civil case by one
spouse against the other. The case here Privilege Communication; Marital
involves a case by Selmo for the recovery Privilege
Ody sued (1989)
spouses Cesar and Baby for a
of personal property against Vidas sum of money and damages. At the trial,
spouse, Romeo. Ody called Baby as his first witness. Baby
objected, joined by Cesar, on the ground
that she may not be compelled to testify
against her husband. Ody insisted and
contended that after all, she would just be
questioned about a conference they had
with the barangay captain, a
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page5960 of 66 66 Witness;
of being used as
exonerating the innocent, and must have a Examination
center for sex of a Child and
tourism Witness; via Live-
child trafficking.
the right to offer the testimony of Leticia Link TV (2005)
The defense counsel When for may
XYZ the trial to
objected courtthe
over the objection of her husband (Alvarez order testimonythat the
of ABC testimonyat theof trial
a childof be thetaken
child
v. Ramirez,
October 14, G.R. No. 143439,
2005). by live-link television?
prostitution case and Explain. the introduction of the
SUGGESTED
affidavits ANSWER:
she executed against her husband as
Remedy; Lost Documents; Secondary The testimony
a violation of espousalof a child may be takenand
confidentiality by
Evidence
Ajax Power(1992)
Corporation, a utility company, marital live-link television if there is a substantial
privilege rule. It turned out that DEF,
sued in the RTC to enforce a supposed the minor likelihood
daughter that ofthe ABC child
by her would suffer
first husband
right of way over a property owned by who trauma from testifying in the presence of
was a Filipino, was molested by XYZ
Simplicio. At the ensuing trial, Ajax earlier. the Thus,
accused, ABChis hadcounsel
filed fororlegal
the prosecutor
separation
as the case may
presented its retired field auditor who from XYZ since last year. May the court be. The trauma must of a
admit
kind which would impair
testified that he know for a fact that a the testimony and affidavits of the wife, ABC, the completeness
Rule on Examination of a
or truthfulness of the testimony of the Child
certain sum of money was periodically against her husband, XYZ, in the criminal case
Witness).
paid to Simplicio for some time as involving child.child
(See Sec. 25,
Witness; prostitution?
Examination Reason. of (5%)
consideration for a right of way pursuant Witnesses
a) Aside (1997)
from asking a witness to
to a written contract. The original contract SUGGESTED ANSWER:
explain
Yes. Theand court supplement
may admit his the answer
testimony in the
and
was not presented. Instead, a purported cross-examination,
affidavits of the wifecan the proponent
against her husband askin
copy, identified by the retired field auditor the criminal case
in re-direct where it questions
examination involves child on
as such, was formally offered as part of prostitution
matters not of the dealtwife's
with daughter.
during It cross-
is not
Can Ajax validly claim that it had
his testimony. Rejected by the trial court, covered
b) by the
Aside
examination? from marital
asking privilege
the rule. One
witness on
sufficiently met its burden of proving the
it was finally made the subject of an offer exception
matters thereof
stated in is re-direct
his where the crime is
examination,
existence of the contract establishing its
of proof byANSWER:
SUGGESTED Ajax. committed
can the byopponent one against in thehis other or the
re-cross-
right of way? Explain, latter's direct descendants or ascendants.
No. Ajax had not sufficiently met the examination ask questions on matters(Sec. not
22, Rule 130). A crime by the husband against
burden of proving the existence of the c)
dealt After
with during plaintiff
the has
re-direct? formally
the daughter is a crime against the wife and
written contract because. It had not laid submitted his evidence, he realized that he
directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal
the basis for the admission of a purported had
SCRA forgotten
270
relation. [1975]).
(Ordono
to present what he
v. Daquigan, 62
copy thereof as secondary evidence. Ajax considered an important evidence. Can he
should have first proven the execution of Privilege
SUGGESTED Communication; Marital
ANSWER:
recall a witness?
(a) Yes,
Privilege on
(2006)
Leticia was estranged redirect from examination,
her husband
the original document and its loss or
Testimony; Independent Relevant questions on
Paul for more than a yearmatters not dealt
due towith his
destruction. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130)
Statement
A overheard(1999)
B call X a thief. In an action during
suspicion that she was having may
the cross-examination be
an affair
for defamation filed by X against B, is the allowed
with Manuel by the courttheir inneighbor.
its discretion. She (Sec.
was
testimony of A offered to prove the fact of (b)
temporarily living with her sisterre-cross-
7 Yes,
of Rule the
132). opponent in his in Pasig
utterance i.e., that B called X a thief, examination
City. For unknown may also ask questions
reasons, the houseon of
admissible in evidence? Explain. (2%) such
Leticia's sister was burned, allowed
other matters as may be killing theby
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the courtLeticia
latter. in its discretion.
survived. (Sec. She8. Rule
saw132).her
Yes. The testimony of A who overheard B
husband in the vicinity during
(c) Yes, after formally submitting his the incident.
call X a thief is admissible in evidence as
Later
evidence,he thewasplaintiff
charged can with
recallarson in an
a witness
an independently relevant statement. It is
Information filed with the
with leave of court. The court may grant Regional Trial
offered in evidence only to prove the tenor
Court, Pasig City. During
or withhold leave in its discretion as the the trial, the
thereof, not to prove the truth of the facts
prosecutor called Leticia
interests of justice may require. (Sec. 9.to the witness
asserted therein. Independently relevant
stand
Rule and ANSWER:
132). offered her testimony to prove
statements include statements which are ALTERNATIVE
that her husband
No, Leticia cannot testify committed
over the arson. Can
objection
on the very facts in issue or those which
(See People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA Leticia testify over the objection
of her husband, not under marital privilege of her
are circumstantial evidence thereof. The
649) husband
which on the ground
is inapplicable and which of can marital
be
hearsay rule does not apply.
Witness; Competency of the Witness privilege?
waived, but(5%)she would be barred under Sec.
vs. Credibility of the Witness (2004) 22 of Rule 130, which prohibits her from
Distinguish Competency of the witness and testifyingv.and
(Alvarez which cannot
Ramirez, G.R. No.be waivedOctober 14,
143439,
credibility of the witness. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2005).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Leticia may testify over the objection
Competency of the witness refers to a of her husband. The disqualification of a
witness who can perceive, and perceiving, witness by reason of marriage under Sec.
Privilege Communication; Marital
can make
Privilege
known
(2004)
his perception to others 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of
(Sec. 20 of Rule 130), while credibility of the has its exceptions as where the marital
promoting and facilitating child
witness refers to a witness whose relations are so strained that there is no
prostitution and other sexual abuses
testimony is believable. more harmony to be preserved. The acts
under Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal
witness against him was his Filipina wife, of Paul eradicate all major aspects of
ABC. Earlier, she had complained that marital life. On the other hand, the State
XYZ's hotel was has an interest in punishing the guilty and
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 61 of 66 stipulation in
It is the Prosecutor who must recommend a pending action for partition and shall file a
and move for the acceptance of the bond with the register of deeds in an amount
accused as a state witness. The accused equivalent to the value of the personal
may also apply under the Witness property involved as certified to under oath by
Protection Program. the parties concerned. The fact of extra-
judicial settlement shall be published in a
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS newspaper of general circulation once a week
for three consecutive weeks in the province.
Cancellation or Correction; Entries (Sec. 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court)
Civil Registry
Helen (2005) of Eliza, a Filipina,
is the daughter Habeas Corpus
and Tony, a Chinese, who is married to (1993)
Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for
another woman living in China. Her birth habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals
certificate indicates that Helen is the against Major Amor who is allegedly
legitimate child of Tony and Eliza and that detaining her 18-year old son Bong
she is a Chinese citizen. Helen wants her without authority of the law.
birth certificate corrected by changing her After Major Amor had a filed a return
filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" alleging the cause of detention of Bong,
and her citizenship from "Chinese" to the Court of Appeals promulgated a
"Filipino" because her parents were not resolution remanding the case to the RTC
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
married. for a full-blown trial due to the conflicting
A petitionWhat petition
to change the should Helen
record of birthfile
by
and what procedural requirements must facts presented by the parties in their
changing the filiation from "legitimate" to
be observed? Explain. (5%) pleadings. In directing the remand, the
"illegitimate" and petitioner's citizenship
court of Appeals relied on Sec.9(1), in
from "Chinese" to "Filipino" because her
relation to Sec. 21 of BP 129 conferring
parents were not married, does not involve
upon said Court the authority to try and
a simple summary correction, which could
decide habeas corpus cases concurrently
otherwise be done under the authority of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with the RTCs.while
No, because Did the
the Court
CA has of Appeals
original
R.A. No. 9048. A petition has to be filed in
act correctly in remanding the petition to
jurisdiction over habeas corpus concurrent
a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules
the
withRTC?
the Why?
RTCs, it has no authority for
of Court, which has now been interpreted
to be adversarial in nature. (Republic v. remanding to the latter original actions
Valencia, G.R. No. L-32181, March 5, 1986) filed with the former. On the contrary, the
Procedural requirements include: (a) filing CA is specifically given the power to
a verified petition; (b) naming as parties all receive evidence and perform any and all
persons who have or claim any interest acts necessary to resolve factual issues
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
which would be affected; (c) issuance of an raised in cases falling within its original
Yes, because there is no prohibition in the
order fixing the time and place of hearing; jurisdiction.
law against a superior court referring a
(d) giving reasonable notice to the parties
case to a lower court having concurrent
named
Escheatin the petition; and (e) publication jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has
of the order
Proceedings
Suppose once aof week
the (2002)
property D was for three
declared referred to the CA or the RTC cases falling
consecutive seeks in a newspaper
escheated on July 1, 1990 in escheat of
within their concurrent jurisdiction.
general circulation. (Rule 108, Rules of Court)
proceedings brought by the Solicitor Habeas Corpus
Witness;
(1998)
A was arrested Examination of
on the strength of a
General. Now, X, who claims to be an heir Witnesses
Is (2002)
this question
of D, filed an action to recover the warrant of arrest on direct
issued by examination
the RTC in
SUGGESTED objectionable:
connection with What an happened on July
Information for
escheatedANSWER:
property. Is the action viable? 12, 1999?
SUGGESTED Why?
ANSWER: (2%)
No,
Why? the action is not viable. The action to
(2%) Homicide. W, the live-in partner of A filed
The question is objectionable because it
recover escheated property must be filed a petition for unless
habeasbefore
corpustheagainst A's
has no basis, question
within five years from July 1, 1990 or be jailer and police investigators with the
is asked the proper basis is laid.
forever barred. (Rule 91, sec. 4). 1.
CourtDoes W have the personality to file the
of Appeals.
Extra-judicial Settlement of 2.
Witness;petition
Is the
petition for habeas
Utilized tenable?
corpus?
as State [2%]
Witness;
Estate died
Nestor (2005)intestate in 2003, leaving no [3%]
Procedure
As counsel (2006)
of an accused charged with
debts. How may his estate be settled by
homicide, you are convinced that he can
his heirs who are of legal age and have
SUGGESTED ANSWER: be utilized as a state witness. What
legal capacity? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED
If the decedent left no will and no debts, procedureANSWER:
will you take? (2.5%)
As counsel of an accused charged with
and the heirs are all of age, the parties
homicide, the procedure that can be
may, without securing letters of
followed for the accused to be utilized as
administration, divide the estate among
a state witness is to ask the Prosecutor to
themselves by means of a public
recommend that the accused be made a
instrument or by
state witness.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 62 of 66
2. No. The petition is not tenable because (1) No, because since the claim of X was
the warrant of arrest was issued by a disallowed, there is no amount against
court which had Jurisdiction to issue it which to offset the claim of Ds
(Sec. 4, Rule 102 Rules of Court) administrator.
Habeas Corpus (2) Yes, Ds administrator can prosecute
(2003)
Widow A and her two children, both girls, the claim in an independent proceeding
aged 8 and 12 years old, reside in Angeles since the claim of X was disallowed. If X
City, Pampanga. A leaves her two had a valid claim and Ds administrator did
daughters in their house at night because not allege any claim against X by way of
she works in a brothel as a prostitute. offset, his failure to do so would bar his
Realizing the danger to the morals of claim forever. (Rule 86, sec. 10).
these two girls, B, the father of the
deceased husband of A, files a petition for
habeas corpus against A for the custody of
the girls in the Family Court in Angeles
City. In said petition, B alleges that he is
entitled to the custody of the two girls
because their mother is living a
disgraceful life. The court issues the writ
of habeas corpus. When A learns of the
petition and the writ, she brings her two
children to Cebu City. At the expense of B
the
Cebu sheriff
City ofisthe said Family
illegal; and b)Court
B hasgoesnoto
Cebu City and serves the writ on
personality to institute the petition. 6% A. A files
her comment
Resolve on the in
the petition petition raising
the light the
of the
following defenses:
above defenses of A. (6%) a) The enforcement of
the writ ofANSWER:
SUGGESTED habeas corpus in
(a) The writ of habeas corpus issued by the
Family Court in Angeles City may not be
legally enforced in Cebu City, because the
writ is enforceable only within the judicial
region to which the Family Court belongs,
unlike the writ granted by the Supreme
Court or Court of Appeals which is
enforceable
Rule anywhere
on Custody in theand
of Minors Philippines.
Writ of
(Sec. 20 of
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors. (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; see also Sec.
4 of Rule 102, Rules of Court.)
(b) B, the father of the deceased husband
of A, has the personality to institute the
petition for habeas corpus of the two minor
girls, because the grandparent has the
right of custody as against the mother A
who is a prostitute. (Sectioins 2 and 13, Id.)
Intestate
Proceedings
X filed a (2002)
claim in the intestate
proceedings of D. Ds administrator
denied liability and filed a counterclaim
(1) Does
against theclaim
X. Xs probate court still have
was disallowed.
jurisdiction to allow the claim of Ds
administrator by way of offset? Why? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) Suppose Ds administrator did not 1. Yes. W, the live-in partner of A, has
allege any claim against X by way of the personality to file the petition for
offset, can Ds administrator prosecute the habeas corpus because it may be filed by
claim in an independent proceeding/ why/ "some person in his behalf." (Sec. 3. Rule
SUGGESTED
(3%) ANSWER: 102. Rules of Court.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
A's Will was allowed by the Court. No
appeal was taken from its allowance.
Thereafter, Y, who was interested in the
estate of A, discovered that the Will was
not genuine because A's signature was
forged by X. A criminal action for forgery
was instituted against X. May the due
execution of the Will be validly questioned
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in such criminal action? (2%)
a. In order that a lost or destroyed will
may be allowed, the following must be
1the execution
complied with: and validity of the same Intestate Proceedings; Debts of
should be established; theBEstate
A, and C,(2002)
the only heirs in Ds intestate
2the will must have been in existence at the proceedings, submitted a project of
time of the death of the testator, or shown partition to the partition, two lots were
to have been fraudulently or accidentally assigned to C, who immediately entered
destroyed in the lifetime of the testator into the possession of the lots. Thereafter,
without his knowledge; and C died and proceedings for the settlement
3its provisions are clearly and distinctly of his estate were filed in the RTC-Quezon
proved by at least two credible witnesses. City. Ds administrator then filed a motion
in the probate court (RTC-Manila), praying
that one of the lots assigned to C in the
project of partition be turned over to him
to satisfy debts corresponding to Cs
portion. The motion was opposed by the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
administrator
The motion of of Cs
Ds estate. How should
administrator should the
be
RTC-Manila
granted. The assignment of the two of
resolve the motion lots Ds
to
administrator?
C was premature Explain.
because(3%)
the debts of the
estate had not been fully paid. [Rule 90,
(1967)].
sec. 1; Reyes v. Barreto-Datu, 19 SCRA 85
Judicial Settlement of
Estate the
State (2005)
rule on venue in judicial
settlement of estate of deceased persons.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippines at the time of' his death, whether
a citizen or an alien, the venue shall be in
the RTC in the province in which he resides
at the time of his death, not in the place
whereNo.
G.R. he 128314,
used to live.
May (Jao
29, v. Court of
Appeals,
2002)
If he is an inhabitant, of a foreign country,
the RTC of any province or city in which he
had estate shall be the venue. The court
first taking cognizance of the case shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all
other courts. When the marriage is
dissolved by the death of the husband or
wife, the community property shall be
inventoried, administered and liquidated,
and the debts thereof paid, in the testate
or intestate proceedings of the deceased
spouse. If both spouses have died, the
conjugal partnership shall be liquidated in
Probate of Lost
the testate or intestate proceedings of
Wills (1999)
What are the requisites in order that a lost
either. (Sees. 1 and 2, Rule 73, Rules of
or destroyed Will may be allowed? (2%)
Court)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com
by: Page6364 ofof 66
sirdondee@gmail.com Page 66 sound
appointed
and
What should the court do if, in the course disposing mind, of
administrator executed a last will
said estate. S, and
the testament
surviving
of intestate proceedings, a will is found in English, opposed
spouse, a language the spokenpetition
and written and by him A's
and it is submitted for probate? Explain. proficiently. He disposed of his estate
application to be appointed the administrator consisting of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a parcel of land in Makati City and cash deposit at
(2%) on the ground that he was not the child of her
If a will is found in the course of intestate the City Bank in the sum of P 300 Million. He
deceased
bequeathed husband
P 50 Million D.each Theto court,
his 3 sons however,
and P
proceedings and it is submitted for appointed
probate, the intestate proceedings will be 150 Million to his wife. He devised a pieceofof land
A as the administrator said
estate. Subsequently, S, claiming
worth P100 Million to Susan, his favorite daughter- to be the
suspended until the will is probated. Upon sole heir of D, executed an
inlaw. He named his best friend, Cancio Vidal, as Affidavit of
the probate of the will, the intestate Adjudication, adjudicating unto herself the
executor of the will without bond. Is Cancio Vidal,
proceedings will be terminated. (Rule 82, after
entirelearning
estate of of Sergio's
her deceased death, husband
obliged toD.file S
Settlement
sec. 1). of with
Estaterules
The (2001) on special proceedings then sold the entire estate to ofX.probate
the proper court a petition Was the of
the latter's last will and testament? (2%)
ordinarily require that the estate of the appointment of A as administrator proper?
deceased should be judicially [2%]SUGGESTED
Was theANSWER:action of S in adjudicating the
administered thru an administrator or entire estate
Cancio of
Vidal
SUGGESTED ANSWER: isher late to
obliged husband to herself
file a petition for
executor. What are the two exceptions to legal?
1. [3%]
probate and for accepting or
Yes, unless it is shown that the court refusing the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
said requirements? (5%) trust within theits statutory
gravely-abused discretionperiod of 20
in appointing
The two exceptions to the requirement days under Sec. 3, Rule 75, Rules of
the illegitimate child as administrator,
(a) Where the decedent left no will and no
are: instead
Court. of the spouse. While the spouse
debts and the heirs are all of age, or the enjoys preference,
Supposing it appears
the original copy thatofthe thespouse
last
minors(Sec.are represented
6, Rule 76 of by the their
Rulesjudicial
of or has and
will neglected
testament to was applylost, for can letters
Cancio of
legal representatives
Court) duly authorized for administration
compel Susan withinto producethirty (30)a copy days in from
her
the purpose,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the parties may without the death
possession
Gaspay, Jr.of
vs.the
to decedent.
Courtbe ofsubmitted
Appeals. 6, to
(Sec. 238 Rule
SCRAthe
78,
b. No. Theletters
securing allowance of the will from which
of administration, divide SUGGESTED
ALTERNATIVE
163.) ANSWER:
Rules of Court;
probate court.
ANSWER: (2%)
no appeal was taken is conclusive as to its Yes,
S, theCancio
survivingcan spouse,
compel should Susan to haveproduce
been
the estate among themselves by means of
due the copy administratrix
appointed in her possession. of the A person
estate, in
publicexecution.
instrument(Sec. filed 1inofthe Rule
office75.)ofDuethe
execution having
as muchcustody of the first
as she enjoys will preference
is bound to in
register ofincludes
deeds, or a finding
should that they the will is
disagree,
genuine deliver
(Sec.
such 6(a) theof Rule
appointment same 78,
under to the
Rules the
ofrules.court of
they mayand do not
so in a forgery.
an ordinary Accordingly,
action of Court.)
the due execution competent jurisdiction or to the executor,
partition. If there isofonly the onewill cannot
heir, heagain may SUGGESTED ANSWER:
be questioned in a subsequent as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 75, Rules of
adjudicate to himself the entire estate by 2.
proceeding, not even in a criminal action Court.the affidavit
Can No. An probate ofcourt self-adjudication
appoint the is
means
Probate ofofanWillaffidavit filed in the office of allowed only if the affiant
widow as executor of the will? (2%) is the sole heir of
for
the forgery
register of the
of will.
deeds. The parties or the the. deceased.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:(Sec. 1, Rule 74, Rules of
(2003)
A, a resident of Malolos, Bulacan, died
sole heiranshall filelocated
simultaneously Yes,
Court).the probatecase,courtA alsocan appoint
to bethe
leaving estate in Manila,abound worth In this claims an
with widow as executor of the will if the
P200,000.00. In what court,in taking
the register of deeds, an amount into heir. Moreover, it is not legal because
equivalent to the
thenaturevalueofofjurisdiction
the personal executor
there is does alreadynot qualify,
a pending as when he is
juridical
consideration and
property incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to
of venue,asshould certified thetoprobate
under oath by the
proceeding proceeding for the settlement of the
parties
SUGGESTED and conditioned
ANSWER: upon the payment Venue;
estate. Special
give bond (Sec. 6, Rule 78, Rules of Court).
on the estate of A be instituted? (4%) Proceedings (1997)
Theany
of probate proceeding
just claim that may on the beestate of A
filed later. Give
Can the widow
the proper venue
and her for children
the following settle
should
The factbe ofinstituted
the in
extrajudicial the Municipal
settlement Trialor extrajudicially
special proceedings: amonga) themselvesA petition to the
(b) Whenever the gross value of the estate of the deceased? (2%)
Court of
administration Malolos, Bulacan which has declare as escheated a parcel of land
estate of a deceased person, whether hea
shall be published in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisdiction,
newspaper because thecirculation
estatenot is exceed
valued owned by a resident of the Philippines
died testate of general
or intestate, does in the No, the widow and her children cannot
at P200,000.00,
province once and a is the
week court of
for proper
three who died intestate and without heirs
ten thousand pesos, and that fact is made settle the estate extrajudicially because of
venue or persons entitled to the property.
to appear to the RTC having jurisdiction of
consecutive becauseweeks. A was
(Sec. 1 a
of resident
Rule 74, Rules orof the
b) existence
A petition of the
for Will. No will shall pass
the appointment of an
7691;
Malolos
Court) Sec.
at 1the
of Rule
time 73).
of his death. (Sec. 33
the estate by the petition of an interested either real
administrator or personal
over the estate
land unless
and it is
building
of
(1)BP 129 as
month amended by RA
ofnor
person
Probate and more
upon
Will than
hearing, three
which (3)shall
months be (Sec.
proved 1, and
Rule 75, Rules
allowed in theof proper court
left by an American citizen residing in
Court).
from
After Lulu's death, her heirs brought hera
held
(2005) the
not date
less of
than the
one last publication of
California,
Can the widow who and hadher beenchildrendeclaredinitiate an
notice
last will whichto ashall lawyerbe published
to obtainonce theira incompetent by an American
a separate petition for partition of the court.
week for three consecutive
respective shares in the estate. The weeks in a c) A petition for the adoption of a
newspaper of general circulation in the estate pending the probate of the last
lawyer prepared a deed of partition minor residing
will and testament in Pampanga.
by the court? (2%)
province, and after such
distributing Lulu's estate in accordance other notice to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
interested
SUGGESTED persons
ANSWER: as the court
with the terms of her will. Is the act of the may direct, (a)
No, The
the venue
widowofandthe her
escheat proceedings
children cannot
No.
the
lawyer Nocorrect?
court will,
may shallWhy?pass
proceed (2%) either real
summarily, without or of
file a separate petition foris the
a parcel of land in this case place
partition
Rules of Court)
personal
the estate unless
appointment of it anis executor
proved and or where the deceased last resided.
pending the probate of the will. Partition (Sec. 1.
(Sec.
allowed 1, in
Rule
administrator, the 75,
proper Rules
to settle of
court.
the estate. (Sec. 2 Rule 91,
75, Rules of Court).
Settlement of Estate; is a mode of settlement of the estate (Sec.
Court) (b)
of Rule 74,
Administrator
A, claiming (1998)
to be an illegitimate child of 1, The venue for the appointment of an
Probate of Will Probate of Will;
administrator over Mandatory
land and building of an
the
(2006)
Sergio deceased
Punzalan, D, Filipino,
instituted50anyears Intestate
old, Nature (2002)
American citizen residing in California,
proceeding
married, andtoresiding settle the estateAlabang
at Ayala of the
declared Incompetent
latter.
Village,He also prayed
Muntinlupa City,thatof he be
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 65 of 66 composed of
by an American Court, is the RTC of the investigators from the Office of the Special
place where his property or part thereof Prosecutor and from the Office of the Deputy
is situated. (Sec. 1. Rule 92). Ombudsman for the Military to conduct a joint
(c) The venue of a petition for the investigation of the criminal case and the
adoption of a minor residing in Pampanga administrative case. The team of investigators
is the RTC of the place in which the recommended to the Ombudsman that AG be
petitioner resides. (Sec. 1. Rule 99) preventively suspended for a period not
exceeding six months on its finding that the
SUMMARY PROCEDURE evidence of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman
issued the said order as recommended by the
investigators.
Prohibited AG moved to reconsider the order on the
Pleadings
Charged (2004)
with the offense of slight physical following grounds: (a) the Office of the
injuries under an information duly filed Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority
with the MeTC in Manila which in the to conduct a preliminary investigation of
meantime had duly issued an order the criminal case; (b) the order for his
declaring that the case shall be governed preventive suspension was premature
by the Revised Rule on Summary because he had yet to file his answer to
Procedure, the accused filed with said the administrative complaint and submit
court a motion to quash on the sole ground countervailing evidence; and (c) he was a
that the officer who filed the information career executive service officer and under
had no authority to do so. The MeTC Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service
denied the motion on the ground that it is Law), his preventive suspension shall be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a prohibited motion under the said Rule. for
The a motion
maximum period
should be ofdenied
three for
months.
the
The accused thereupon filed with the RTC Resolve with reasons the motion of
following reasons:
in Manila a petition for certiorari in sum respondent AG. (5%)
1The Office of the Special Prosecutor does
assailing and seeking the nullification of not have exclusive authority to conduct a
the MeTC's denial of his motion to quash. preliminary investigation of the criminal
The RTC in due time issued an order case but it participated in the investigation
denying due course to the certiorari together with the Deputy Ombudsman for
petition on the ground that it is not allowed the Military who can handle cases of
by the said Rule. The accused forthwith civilians and is not limited to the military.
filed with said RTC a motion for
reconsideration of its said order. The RTC
2The order of preventive suspension need
not wait for the answer to the
in time denied said motion for
administrative complaint and the
reconsideration
SUGGESTED ANSWER:on the ground that the
The RTC's orders denying due course to the submission of countervailing evidence.
same is also a prohibited motion under the
(Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No. 13903, September 10,
petition for certiorari as well as
said Rule. Were the RTC's orders denyingdenying the
motion
due course for reconsideration
to the petitionareasboth well not as
correct. The petition for certiorari
denying the motion for reconsideration is a
prohibited pleading
correct? Reason. (5%)under Section 19(g) of
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
and the motion for reconsideration, while it
is not
31, prohibited
2000, citing motion
Joven v.(Lucas
Courtv.ofFabros, AM
Appeals,
No. MTJ-99-1226,
212 January (1992), should be
SCRA 700, 707-708
denied because the petition for certiorari
is a prohibited pleading.
MISCELLANEOUS
Administrative
Proceedings
Regional (2005)
Director AG of the Department of
Public Works and Highways was charged
with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic
Act No. 3019 in the Office of the
Ombudsman. An administrative charge for
gross misconduct arising from the
transaction subject matter of said criminal
case was filed against him in the same
office. The Ombudsman assigned a team
66 of 66
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page
of Manila shall deliver its 5-hectare lot in decree or executive order can mandate
Sta. Rosa, Laguna originally intended as a that the determination of just
residential subdivision for the Manila City compensation by the executive or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:Explain. (5%)
Hall employees. legislative departments can prevail over
Yes, Congress may enact a law G.R.
the No. L-59603,
court's April 29,1987;
findings Sees. 5 to
(Export Processing
expropriating property provided that it is 8 RuleAuthority
Zone 67,1997 v.
Rules of Civil Procedure). In
Dulay,
for public use and with just compensation. addition, compensation must be paid in
In this case, the construction of a park is money (Esteban v. Onorio, A.M. No. 00-4-
for public use (See Sena v. Manila Railroad 166-RTC, June 29, 2001).
Co., G.R. No. 15915, September 7, 1921;
Reyes v. NHA, GR No. 147511, March 24, .
2003). The planned compensation,
however, is not legally tenable as the
determination of just compensation is a
judicial function. No statute,
RA 3019; Mandatory
Suspension
Governor (2001)
Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged with indirect bribery before the
Sandiganbayan for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a series of contracts for
medical supplies. The Sandiganbayan, after going over the information, found the same to
be valid and ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter contested the suspension
claiming that under the law (Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019) his suspension is not automatic upon
the filing of the information and his suspension under Sec. 13, R.A. 3019 is in conflict with
Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 (R.A. 5185). The Sandilganbayan overruled
Marios contention stating that Marios suspension under the circumstances is mandatory.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is the courts ruling correct? Why?
Yes. Marios suspension is mandatory, although not automatic, (Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 in
relation to Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 (R.A. No. 5185). It is mandatory after the
determination of the validity of the information in a pre-suspension hearing. [Segovia v.
Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 (1988)]. The purpose of suspension is to prevent the
accused public officer from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by intimidating or
influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence or from committing further acts of
malfeasance while in office.

1999) In Vasquez case, G.R. No. 110801, April


6, 1995, the court ruled that preventive
suspension pursuant to Sec. 24 of R.A.
No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989),
shall continue until termination of the
case but shall not exceed six (6)
months, except in relation to R.A. No,
3019 and P.D. No. 807. As a career
executive officer, his preventive
suspension under the Civil Service Law
may only be for a maximum period of
three months. The period of the
suspension under the Anti-Graft Law
shall be
G.R. No.theL-65848,
same pursuantMay 21, to the equal
protection clause. (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R.
1985)
Congress;
No. 13903, Law Expropriating
September 10, 1999; Layno v.
Sandiganbayan,
Property (2006)
May Congress enact a law providing that a
5, 000 square meter lot, a part of the UST
compound in Sampaloc Manila, be
expropriated for the construction of a park
in honor of former City Mayor Arsenic
Lacson? As compensation
Version 1997-2006 Updated to UST, the City
by Dondee

You might also like