REMEDIAL LAW Recent Jurisprudence CIVIL PROCEDURE Payment of Filing Fees o Sun Insurance Corp Case, 1989: whatever

r award is given in excess of what was prayed foryou have to pay for the filing fees for that; becomes a first lien on the judgment. o La Sallete Case, 2003: the payment of docket fees is NO longer jurisdictional, but it is MANDATORY; consider the circumstances for the rule to be relaxed. o Jurisdiction is not acquired but conferred by laweither BP129 or RA7691depending on what law was enforced at the time of the filing of the complaint. o If you do not pay the filing fees, the court still has an option to give the plaintiff period of time to pay the docket fees. Failure of the plaintiff to pay within such time warrants dismissal of the case. Same with appellate court docket fees. o Remedy of the plaintiff when his case is dismissed because of non-payment MR If MR denied, re-file complaint When you re-file, pay the docket fees: re-file within the prescriptive period of the action. o Payment of filing fees is not required in COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS (2008 SC Circular) Korea Technologies Case, 2009: dismissal of the case because of nonpayment of filing fees SC Circular: payment of filing fees for compulsory counterclaims is still suspended o Doctrine of Adherence of Jurisdiction: Once jurisdiction is conferred by law at the time of the commencement of the action, that jurisdiction remains with that court until the termination of the case, irrespective of subsequent amendatory laws. Except when the amendatory law provides for retroactive application. Applies to both civil and criminal cases. CNFS as part of the pleading o Initiatory pleadingmust contain CNFS o Substantial compliance rulemay not be applied to the existence itself of CNFS; may only refer with the respect to the contents of the CNFSthat you only filed the case before that court o Plaintiff is an individual personno problem with signing of CNFS o Plaintiff is a corporationcan only act through its Board of Directors The signatory must be specifically authorized through a board resolution. Cagayan Drug Valley Corp Case, 2008: officers exempt from board resolution:

Chairman of the Board President of the Corporation GM or Acting Manager or Industrial Manager Personnel Officer (HR Department) Employment Specialist in Labor Cases

Amended Pleading o Supersedes the pleading it amends o What if the original pleading contain admissions? Can these admissions be used against the pleader? YES, under the rules, but the provisions contain the word MAY Hence, it must first be proved before being admitted in the records of the case, since the admission in the original pleading is considered extra-judicial admission. Same with the rule that when the judicial admissions used in case #1 will be used in case #2, these admissions would still need proof before being admitted into the case. Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal o Perpetuation of testimony: preservation of known testimony from danger of loss or destruction Deposition on Oral Examination: it is as if the witness is on the witness stand; notice to the adverse partyopportunity for him to cross-examine the witness. If the adverse party, despite notice, does not attend, then cross-examination is considered waived. Deposition on Written Interrogatories: DWI is a mode of deposition taking; o Written direct, written cross, written re-direct, written re-crossserved with the person to be deposed o Different from Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties: a separate mode of deposition; person must give an answer within 15 days from service of interrogatories o As long as the witness can come to court, his previous deposition will be set aside Request for Admission: must be served on the person on whom admission is requested and filed with court o Answer to request for admission is also filed in courtif the answer to the request contains admissions and it is filed in court, these admissions become judicial admissionsconclusively binds the person making the admissions. o No answer to request for admission is filed: considered implied admission conclusively binds the person, as if you made a written admission Production of Books, Papers..

o Related to Bill of Particularsa more definite statement, detailed explanation to help respondent prepare an answer o Production of Booksyou want to obtain copies for inspection only. Examination of the Defendant o The physical and mental condition of the person must be in issue Rule 33: Demurrer to Evidence o Ground is INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE Rule 17: Dismissal of the Action o At the instance of the plaintiff (S1) o Due to the fault of the plaintiff (S2) o If case is dismissed due to the fault of the plaintiff, without any qualificationadjudication on the merits Without qualification: without prejudice; case may be revived o Topacio v BF Savings Bank, 2010: the order of dismissal (without qualification) does not become final and executory when copy thereof is not properly served on the adverse party. Hence, res judicata cannot as yet set in/attach. Rule 37: MR and MNT o Neypes Doctrine: Fresh 15 day period ruleto standardize the periods of appeals Applies only to an order denying MR or MNT, not to any other motions Does not refer to the period within which to appeal the order denying the MR or MNT (since it is unappealable) but appeal the order of the original judgment o File within the period to file notice of appeal15 days reckoned from notice of judgment o When you file MR or MNT, you attack the proprietary of the judgment o MNT: FAME, newly discovered evidence o MR: excessive damages, contrary to law, insufficient evidence to support decision in law o If no grounds for MNT or MR, go straight to appeal o Under the present amendment (2007), Rule 41orders that are NOT appealableorder denying MR or MNT was removed from the list of unappealables. Is the order denying MR or MNT now appealable? STILL UNAPPEALABLEno remedy against the order denying MR or MNT; hence, proceed with the appeal of the original decision, since the filing of the MR or the MNT is also attacking the order itself, so same banana. o Sec. 9, R37: remedy against an order against the order denying MR or MNT WRONG TITLE but contents are correct. Execution

o As a matter of discretion/pending appeal: has NOT yet attained finality; must be set for hearing with notice to the adverse party; prevailing party files for a motion for execution pending appeallitigious motionnotice and hearing is still required. Court cannot grant the motion without stating a good reason. Finality of judgment for purposes of appeal: all incidents have been resolved, hence proper for appeal Finality of judgment for purposes of execution: no appeal taken from the judgment Illustration Judgment/Decision o P: receives the judgment on July 10; July 25 to appeal Files motion for execution on July 12 o R: receives the judgment on July 01; July 16 to appeal Files notice of appeal on July 05 o The fact that R filed his notice on appeal within his own period, P is not precluded from filing his own remedy within his own period. Hence, the court can still act on the motion for execution filed on July 12, even if appeal has been perfected on July 05. o If P files motion for execution on July 27, court cannot act on the motion anymore. o Court only loses jurisdiction on the case only upon the perfection of appeal on both sides. Can you stay execution of judgment? R42, S8 Par. B. Illustration: Case is under Rule on Summary Procedure o MTC RTC via Notice of Appeal, can you stay execution of judgment of MTC? YES! Post supersedeas bond, rental deposit as may be adjudged. o RTC affirms MTC CA via Petition for Review R42, can you stay execution of judgment of RTC? NO! It is immediately executory. Illustration: Case is under regular rules o MTC RTC via Notice of Appeal, can you stay execution of judgment of MTC? YES! Post supersedeas bond. o RTC affirms MTC CA via R42, can you stay execution of judgment of RTC? YES! Unless CA orders otherwise o As a matter of right: lapse of 15 days when no appeal taken, judgment becomes final Within a period of 5 years from finality of judgmentexecution by motion Date of finality is the date of entry Failed to execute by motion within 5 years, the judgment becomes dormant but you can still have the judgment executed via an action to revive (independent action for purposes of execution).

After the judgment has been revived, you have another 5 years within which to execute the judgment by motion. If you still failed to execute, judgment becomes dormant again and you can file another action for revival. Action for revival is considered an original action, separate from the other action. Where to file action for revival: follow normal rules on venue. Aran Builders Case: originally decided by Makati RTC (real action); real property involved is in Muntinlupa, because theres no Muntinlupa RTC yet when case was first filed. Action for revival should be filed in Muntinlupa RTC, since it exists already and the case is a real action.

o R39 S10 Par B: Removal of improvements on property subject of execution only upon special orderonly instance when a special break open order is necessary. Otherwise he will be charged with other forms of trespass. o Summary Procedure Forcible entry and unlawful detainer: NO NEED for special break open order. Because the writ of execution has already the nature to evictimmediate possession of real property. Third Party Claim: in the course of the execution of the judgment o R39 Execution: vindicate claim in a separate action; cannot intervene anymore because judgment is final already. Execution na nga eh. o R57 Preliminary Attachment/R60 Replevin (ProvRem) Same action: motion for intervention R19, since no judgment yet, you can intervene anytime before judgment is rendered Separate action Rule 45 o May include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies via a verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding Rule 65 o SC may still receive petitions for certiorari but the petitioner must observe judicial hierarchy first. o As long as theres no TRO or Preliminary Injunction issued through petition for certiorari, proceedings will still have to proceed No more Eternal Gardens Case: judicial courtesyno longer controlling To stop proceedings, you have to file for and secure TRO or preliminary injunction together with your petition for certiorari

o 10 days from filing absent any TRO or preliminary injunction, the judge has the proceed CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 110: Prosecution of Offenses o Starts with the institution/filing of the complaint with the fiscals office o For purposes of a preliminary investigation, in order to determine probable cause to indict o In the last paragraph of Sec. 1: embodies doctrine laid down in Zaldivia v Reyes (1992)interruption of period of prescription of the offense chargedupon filing of the complaint before the fiscals office, including light offenses o Qualifying and aggravating circumstances: to be appreciated in the determination of imposable penalty and award of damages, these circumstances must be both alleged in the information and proved during the trial Exception re: award of exemplary damages: Pp v Dalisay, 2009 qualifying and aggravating circumstances were NOT alleged but PROVED Court still granted exemplary damages, in the light of the nature of the conduct of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense (heinous, odious, hateful, despicable)Super bad siya. Ang bad bad niya. o Probable cause to indict: to determine whether a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof EXECUTIVE FUNCTION: only the fiscal who can determine probable cause to indict vs. Probable cause to issue warrant of arrest: information has already been filed in court, to determine whether accused should be held JUDICIAL FUNCTION: only the judge who can determine probable cause to issue warrant of arrest Allado v Diokno, 2004: Judge should have independent evaluation, and not rely on the evaluation of the fiscal, in determining probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. BUT THIS IS ONLY EXCEPTIONAL. Pp v Castillo, 2009: If the judge finds, upon a thorough and independent evaluation of evidence, no probable cause to issue warrant of arrest, judge can dismiss the case but without prejudice. Judge cannot substitute his evaluation (probable cause to issue warrant of arrest) with that of the fiscal (probable cause to indict accused). Leviste v Almeda, 2010: Once information is filed with court, it is the obligation of the court to determine probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. Court does not need a motion to determine probable cause, because that is its obligation (Crespo Ruling, reiterated in Serezo Case). DOJ Secretary cannot order judge to dismiss the case, when the DOJ Secretary finds no probable cause to indict. The most s/he can do is to

order the trial prosecutor to file a motion to withdraw, subject to courts discretion. Rule 112 o On appeal, the prosecutor does not handle the case anymore. It is the SolGen who will represent the people on appeal. Rule 114: Bail o Security given for the release of the person in the custody of the law o Condition for grant of bail: arraignment of the accused CANNOT and SHOULD NOT BE DONE, because it would be unfair, especially if the accused is charged with a bailable offense. If accused jumps bails before arraignment, the case will be sent to the archives. Court needs to issue another warrant of arrest in order to obtain jurisdiction over the person of the accused again. But it did not lose jurisdiction of the case. Courts ask this as a condition for grant of bail, so that it can proceed with trial in absentia in case accused jumps bail. Lavides v CA: It would place the accused in a position where he has to choose Motion to quash and thus delay the release on bail Arraignment at once and thereafter be released on bail As long as the accused has been charged with a bailable offense, the accused has the right to post bail o Where to file bail: 1. Either in the court where case is pending, or in case of absence of judge where the case is pending, with the RTC, METC, MTC; or 2. Where he is arrested in a place different from where case is pending (with RTC of said place; if no RTC, with METC or MTC) o Right to bail after conviction: After conviction, presumption of innocence terminates and the constitutional right to bail ends. From there on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion. Hence, bail becomes a matter of discretion upon the court after conviction. o Bail negating circumstances: application for bail is denied Recidivist, Quasi-Recidivist, Habitual Delinquent, Committed Offense with Reiteracion/Habituality Escaped from penal establishment Evaded service of sentence Violation of conditional pardon, probation, parole Flight risk Undue risk that he will commit another crime when released on bail o None of these bail negating circumstances are present: Court should NOT automatically grant bail because it is still subject to courts discretion to grant/deny bail after conviction.

o RA 9344: Juvenile Justice Act: for purposes of determining the amount of bail to be given to a child committed with discernment; consider circumstances so that the amount can be lowered Pre-Trial Conference o To limit the issues, propose facts for stipulations/admissions o If the matter has already been stipulated/admitted, you dont litigate anymore o If both parties failed to agree, they cannot ask the court to forego pre-trial conference, because it is still mandatory! o Parties come to an agreement for expediting the resolution of the case Judicial affidavit to be used as direct testimony must be jointly agreed upon One-day examination of the witness rule: if both parties agree, they cannot defer cross-examination to a later date Material witness rule Speedy Trial Act o Trial to be completed within 180 days from first day of trial o Exceptions Criminal cases under Summary Procedure RA4908: Person about the depart from the Philippines, without definite date of return RA7610: Child abuse cases, except election cases and habeas corpus cases Dangerous Drugs Law Kidnapping Robbery in Band Robbery against Bank or Financial Institution Carnapping or other heinous crimes Trial is continuous (mandatory) for 60 days, judgment to be rendered within 30 days from submission for decision o Remedy against denial of right of accused to speedy trial MOTION TO DISMISS Dimissal amounts to, is tantamount to, operates as acquittal DOUBLE JEOPARDY sets in Where fiscal secures postponement of the trial without good cause beyond reasonable length of time with objection of the accused MANDAMUS to compel dismissal of the information; HABEAS CORPUS if accused is detained Rule 111: Prosecution of Civil Action o Implied institution of civil with criminal NOT every civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal action

Only the civil action based on or flowing from the crime subject of the action will be impliedly instituted with the criminal action. Nexus/connection should be established. Unless there is waiver, reservation or prior institution EXCEPTION to the IMPLIED INSTITUTION Pp v Bayotas: Accused dies during the pendency of the action. Was his criminal liability extinguished? YES, because he dies before judgment. Was his civil liability extinguished? Only the civil liability extinguished if he died before judgment is the civil liability arising from the crime committed (nexus/connection). If its based elsewhere, it can be prosecuted separately. Pp v Binay, 2010: The death of the accused likewise extinguishes the civil liability that is based exclusively on the crime for which the accused was convicted, because no final judgment has been rendered at the time of his death. o Prejudicial Question: previously instituted civil action (ahead of the criminal action) is determinative whether the criminal action can proceed; Resolve civil action first, before attending the criminal action; Prejudicial Question is exception to the preference of the criminal action over civil action. Tenebro Doctrine: first marriage is subsisting; subsequent marriage. Action for declaration of nullity of second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity Bigamy filed by first wife. Is there prejudicial question? NO, because as long as the first marriage is subsisting and you contracted a second marriage without judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, bigamy has already been consummated. Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Cases o Order denying leave of court for demurrer to evidence and motion for demurrer to evidence itself is denied NOT APPEALABLE, present your evidence already o No leave of court, or denied leave of court, to file demurrer of evidence and motion for demurrer to evidence is denied no right to present evidence o Demurrer to evidence = nature of a motion to dismiss = acquittal NOT APPEALABLE o Reversal of order/judgment of acquittal Rule 65, Certiorari Neypes Doctrine in Criminal Cases o Yu v Samson-Tatad, 2011: Neypes ruling is applicable in criminal cases, where law does not distinguish, you should not distinguish

Double Jeopardy o Jason Ivler Case, 2010: Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property. Reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries. Both information resulted from same act Homicide and damage to property was first filed, than physical injuries. Why split? Art. 48one act producing 2 or more grave or less grave felonies. But since both crimes charged were light offenses only, the information was split. Physical injuries: pleaded guilty No imprisonment, convicted. Homicide and damage to property Moved to quash because it would result in double jeopardy Art. 48 (what is penalized is the act) is NOT applicable to criminal negligence (Art. 365) what is penalized is NOT the act but the mental attitude behind the act Double jeopardy already attached, hence he cannot be prosecuted in the second case (reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property)

EVIDENCE o Judicial Notice o Mandatory Judicial Notice: MEMORIZE THESE o Discretionary Judicial Notice Notoriety: matter of common or public knowledge, well and authoritatively settled, and within the jurisdiction of the court that takes judicial notice of it o Res inter alios acta rule o Applies only in extra judicial admissions/confessions o Comiling Case: confession in open court; res inter alios acta rule was invoked Court said it cannot be invoked o Electronic Evidence o Ang v CA, 2010: MMS received with a scandalous picture of the woman Boyfriend was charged with VAWC Electronic evidence = it should still be authenticated SC: You are prosecuted for VAWC (criminal action); Electronic evidence is only applicable to civil cases, administrative cases and quasi-judicial cases o Ho Wai Ting Case, 2011: extra judicial confession inadmissible because he was tortured into signing the confession and hence, a violation of his Miranda rights o SC: only the extra judicial confession is INADMISSIBLE. But with respect to other pieces of evidence obtained during custodial interrogation, these will not be affected by the inadmissibility of the confession, as long as they are relevant and competent; hence, admissible. o Any evidence to be admissible, it must be both relevant and competent o Best Evidence Rule: applies when the subject of the inquiry pertains to the contents of the document, hence the original should be presented 10

o Subject of the inquiry pertains to the contents of the document and the witness is presented with a photocopy of the document, should the original be presented/the best evidence rule be invoked? YES! o Subject of the inquiry pertains to the contents of the document and the witness is presented with the original document, should the best evidence rule be invoked? NOT ANYMORE. END

11