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

com Page 1 of 66

ANSWERS TO BAR

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
IN
 Bar Examination
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q
Q&&&A (1997-2006)))by:
AA (1997-2006
(1997-2006 by:
by:sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com Page4
Page
Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com 326Page
7Page
5of
ofof66
66
8966of
of 66
66 affairs.
Jurisdiction;
Witness;
Provisional This
Examination
Finality
Remedies; ais
of of
TRO
Judgment
Witnesses Default;
vs.
law,rendering
In the Status Remedies;
(2002)
(2005)
result Quo a of Party
Order
decision,the Declared
(2006) should
testing in cannot
Default
a court (2006)
be distinguished from REMEDIAL
............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................ 47Witness;
.......................................................................................
60 33Parties;
Provisional
Utilized
Prosecution
LAW Remedies;
aswhich
Stateof
..............................................................................................
considered
TRO;
Offenses
Witness;
take
TRO;its
Offense
Default;
CA
19
into
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
and can
Procedure
(2000)
Demurrer
Duration
20
JusticeRemedies;
to be
consideration
be offered
(2002) to
Dept.
(2006)
the(2006)
(2006)
Evidence
fruit
inthe
FORWARD
TABLE
Substantial
theOF CONTENTS
evidence
(2001)
Compliance
of apossible
poisonous
to prove
(2000)
effecttree prescribes
the obtaining
..............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
of 1991, R.A. 7160.)
Plea Provisional
Local of Government
enforcing
Noinvasion
47
33
Guilty; toRemedies;
such prohibition
Reglementary
Prejudicial
a Lesser
................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
P.D. No. the 1508;method Sec.60 47of
415, 33 rights Code
Question
Period;v.
or
.................................................................................................................................
of verdict upon political stability redress for their (Bustos
SPECIAL
GENERAL
qualifying Demurrer PROCEEDINGS
toJudgment
Evidence; under
Civil ..................................................................................................................................
PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................
circumstance Case thevs.information
Criminal 61
Bar
and by
Supplemental
(1999) 20
economic Prior Pleadings welfare (2000) vs.
of theConclusiveness
nation? 4%Case (2003)
of Lucero, exists
G.R. in the
No. pre-trial
....................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................
L-2068, 3347Remedies;
Prejudicial
negotiations
October Appeal
20, Question
to SC;
....................................................................................
under 8
for qualified
Judgment
Appeals
(2000)
SUGGESTED Discovery;
20 to(1997)
CA
ANSWER: rape
Modes
(2002) under
of R.A. No.
Discovery (2000) 8353. The
.....................................................................................................
the
1948). Rules of Court. 33 Remedies;
47 PrejudicialAppeal; Question;
RTC to
...................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
Cancellation or Correction; Entries Civil Registry (2005) ........................................................................................
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is
fruit,
No,
CA
Suspension
Bar
because
Discovery;
(1999)
Distinguish20
61
by
a court
Modes;
Criminal
Bar
Priortree doctrine
bySubpoena
Action is (1999)
prior
Judgmentrefers vs.
required
Duces
judgment
Escheat Tecumto take
..............................................................................
(1997)
from
Conclusiveness
of .....................................................................................................................
theof poisonous Remedial
Family Proceedings Law; 33Act
Courts
of
Concept
Remedies;
..................................................................................
8 Cause of action
Judgment
48 Pre-Trial
vs. Appeal;
ActionRule
(1997)
to ...............................................................................................
Agreement
45 vs.
(2002)
(1997)
that rule
Discovery; of evidence
Production and that
Inspection excludes of any
Documents (2002)
freeware. It may be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily
into
Rule 65
(2004)
evidence
Remedy
vs.
and
SUGGESTED
21consideration
conclusiveness (1999)
Dismissal;
Civil
21
the which
(2004)
Case
evidence
ANSWER: Motion
(1997) may to
only
have been
Dismiss;
admitted
the
Res
legal
in derived
Judicata
the
issues
case.
(2006)
(2001)
What
a) How is the
should
.......................................................................................................
of judgment concept
34
..................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................ Remedies;
the of
records
48
8 61Civil remedial
Pre-Trial;
Void
Extra-judicial Decision;
Criminal
of
Actions Settlement child law?
Proper
vs. Special Case
and
..................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
or ................................................................................................
(2000) (2%)
.................................................................................................. Special
........................................................................................................
family
SUGGESTED cases 34
ANSWER:in the 48 Civil
Family Provisional
Action;
Courts Ejectment
Dismissal
or RTC
of
Estate
Proceedings (2005) ..............................................................................................................
(1998) 61 Habeas
........................................................................................................... 8 Corpus (1993)
Conciliation
intended for all those who desire to have a deeper understanding of
acquired
Bar
The
Such
by
(1997)Proceedings;
(2002) 21 fromAdmissibility;
prior-judgment
Evidence; a tainted Photocopies
stability isorthe polluted
anddoctrine (2000)source.
economic of The concept by of Special
Remedial 61 Law
48 Remedies;
Civil Action;
Void lies at the
Ejectment
Judgment
.........................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
political designated 35 the
...........................................................................................................................................
evidence Katarungang
is inadmissible Pambarangay for vs. Pre-Trial Conference
having (1999) Supreme Habeas Court
........................................... 8 Corpus
Family to
res
(1998)judicata,
(2004) Forum
22 Shopping; which bars
Definition a second
(2006) action very core of procedural
Special Search
Civildue process,
Warrant;
Action; which
Foreclosure
Motion to
........................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................... 35 48
the issues touched by the Philippine Bar Examinations and its trend.
welfare
emanated of
(1998) from
Courts the nation are extraneous to handle Family Court cases
...........................................................................................................................................
Act spurious origins. of The doctrine, means a 35 lawSpecial which
be treated
61 Habeas8
(2001) ......................................................................................................................................... and
when
(2003)
Quash
the
however,
Forum
22 there
(2005) Shopping;
is Effects;
identity ofLack parties, Certification
subject
................................................................................................................
Corpus
case.
Interlocutory
does
...............................................................................................................
(2003)
They
not Orderapply can have persuasive dealt with? (3%) 49 Trial;
Civilb)hears
Action;
Trial
Under before
(2006) ...........................................................................................
inPetition
Absentia;
...........................................................................................................................................
(2006)to the results obtained what62 it
for
.......................................................................................................................................
It is specially intended for law students from the provinces who,
former
Certiorari
Automatic
matter
influence
pursuant
Rule
22 Rule
Gen.and (2002)
8Intestate
39).
Review
to but
39;
Principles;
cause Sec,
Proceedings
Sec. they
Judgment
1, Rule
47
ofQuestions
ofConviction[b]
action. of
of Law newvs.the
(1998) Questionsof of Fact condemns,
(2004)
..................................................................................................
(2002)
are
28, 1997 (Sec. 49[b]
vs.
Rules
which proceeds
.............................................................................
ofmain
Civil Opinion conditions may identitythe49 of upon inquiry
............................................................................
35of Special
the Civil Action; Venue
Quoparties
Warranto
(1997)
.................................................................................................................................
not Court in
(2001) Judgment;
22 Annulment
Intestate of Judgment; Grounds
Proceedings; (1998) and
SUGGESTED
Debts renders judgment
ANSWER: Special
.........................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................. 36 of Civilonly
49 after Mandamus
Actions;
the trial,Estateand
.............................................................................................
very often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes from other
factors
Procedure, 62
(2006)
Conclusiveness
(2006) Judgment;
22
(2002)
thatas it should be considered
does not contemplate a search in child and family
................................................................................................................ 8 cases
Judicial
of ................................................................................................................
Enforcement; judgment
5-year period precludes contemplates anofopportunity
be divulged
Autonomy & (2%)
Impartiality
to ofbe Estate heard
(1997) .......................................................................................................
a) The records
the .................................................................................................. 62 Judicial child and family
Settlement cases36
deciding
within
Montilla,
EVIDENCE (2003) aG.R.
moaning case. No. ofAthe decision
law. (People
123872, should
January be
..................................................................................................................
v. 8 Katarungang Pambarangay;
................................................................................................................................................................ 50
unscrupulous
the
based
relitigation
Judgment;
22
Summons
(2005)
30,1998) of law
Enforcement; schools
a particular
Foreign Judgmentissueand in students.
(2005) before
in the Share
judgment
Family
on.......................................................................................................................
Objective
Admissibility
Judgment;
another
22 action
the(1999)
(1998)
Execution
between
to
Code isothers
62
law,..........................................................................................................
rules of procedure,
rendered
9 toLiberal
January
Probate handle this
..............................................................................................................................................................
G.R. No. L-19118, 30,Lost
of work
(Albert
Family
Construction; 36 v.
...............................................................................................
Wills
...............................................................................................................................................
pendingthe Appeal
same (2002)
parties University Publishing, 50
.........................................................................................................
Summons
(1999) (1999) 1965).
...................................................................................................................................................
Court cases shall be
................................................................................................................................... dealt with utmost
Probate ofLawWill
629 Remedial 37
JURISDICTION
and
justice
on 23
Summons;you
Rules
aPhil.
(2003)
ofand
Admissibility
Judgment; will
Court
Substituted
different
System
Admissibility
exceptional
(2002)
cause
of
be
(1998)
equity.
Interlocutory
Govt
(2004)
cases
Service
the
of richly
Order;
(2006)
court
(2004)
action. rewarded
However,
Partial Summary in by God
(2004) in heaven. It
............................................................................................................. is also very
...............................................................................................................................................
Judgments Remedial Law is that branch of law which in
50
......................................................................
...................................................................................................................
(Sec. 49 [c] confidentiality. (Sec. 12, Family963
............................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
may consider Probate
Courts
Remedial Act 37
Law
............................................................................................................................................... of
50of
Judgment;
23 Judgment on[c]theEffects
ofPleadings (1999) prescribes the method of enforcing the
.......................................................................................................
good
Summons;
of former
Will
vs. karma.
Validity
Rule
(2005)
Substantive
Venue;Admissibility;
the
Cause political
of action
Judgment;
23Improper
39; ofsec.
Service;
Admission
47
stability
vs.
Judgment
Venue; on of
Action theGuilt;
Compulsory
new (2006)
Rule
Requirements
andCounterclaim
Pleadings
39).
economic
b) The identity
1997) of parties in 963
............................................................................................................................................
Law (2006) ............................................................................................................... child
.........................................................................................................
Probate
Remedial
(2006)....................................................................................
(1998)
and
37
........................................................................................
rights
family cases or obtainingshall not be redressdivulged for unlesstheir
(2005) ....................................................................................................... 38
Jurisdiction
Katarungang
of Will Pambarangay;
(2006) Objective
............................................................................................................................................ 63

REMEDIAL LAW
welfare
(1997) Law;
51
Distinguish Concept
of Admissibility;
the
Cause (2006)
nation ................................................................................................................................
of Document;
when
action these
from Not
are raised in the Pleading Rights
9Lepanto
(2004)
Venue;
(1997)
(1999)
What Judgment;
24 Personal
courts
Probate is of Mandamus
Actions
have
Will; the (1997)
Mandatoryjurisdiction object
Nature over invasion
L-2068,
necessary October
and with v.20, 1948;
authority First
vs..............................................................................................................................
Quo Warranto (2001) the.....................................................................................................
(Bustos Lucero,
JURISDICTION....................................................................................................................................................... G.R. ofNo. the
of......................................................................................................
(2002) 38judge.
...............................................................................................................
10
capable
action of the Accused; Validity; HIV Test (2005)
...................................................................................
SUGGESTED ofANSWER:
being takenAttachment into judicial notice 51 Admissibility;
Ceramics, Electronic
Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110571, Evidence 9
(2003)
Judgment;
24
following
Katarungang
63 cases Soundness;
filed
Pambarangay in Metro Law? (2002)
Settlement
Manila?
(2%) ............................................................................................................
a) (Id.) of Estate
A
of CAUSE
CRIMINAL
and Jurisdiction
are
Judgments;
24 OF
relevant ACTION
Enforcement; to the is
case.
Examination an act
of or
..............................................................................................................
Defendant (2002)March 10,511994).Admissibility;
PROCEDURE....................................................................................................................................
(1997) Object or Real Evidence
................................................................................................................................................. 38
..................................................................................
(2001)
An action
SUGGESTED ANSWER: specific performance or,the in Interlocutory
Rights of the vs. Order
....................................................................................................................................
for Accused; 64 Settlement
Validity;Objections
HIV Test (1997) of
omissionAcquittal;
(1994)
10 of Effect
one (2002)
........................................................................................................
party in violation of Admissibility;
..........................................................................................................................................
Jurisdiction 51 Venue
SUMMARY
The Jurisdiction;
24 object
Estate;
alternative,
the (2006) PROCEDURE...................................................................................................................................
Habeas
Administrator
for of Corpus;
damages the
(1998) Custody
in Katarungang
the of Minors
amount (2005)
of ........................................................................................
(2006)
What is an interlocutory
............................................................................................................. order? 64 Venue;65
legal 38 Actions; the BP22; Civil Under(2005)
............................................................................................................................
right Republic 51
Action
.................................................................................................................................
Jurisdiction; or Lack rights ofeffect
ofisJurisdiction; other
Proper (Maao
Action Act No.108353,
Admissibility;
deemed Offeronetoincluded
Jurisdiction; may CTA be
Marry;
Sugar
25
Pambarangay
Special
P180,000.00
Prohibited
(2001)
Circumstantial
Division
Central vs.
Law
Proceedings
b)
Pleadings
CTA
vs. An
Evidence
En
Barrios,
to
(1997)
action
(2004)
Banc (1998) for ana amicable
writ ofof the Court
..............................................................................................
(2006)
79 Phil.
(2%) (2004)
SUGGESTED
charged39with
.....................................................................
ANSWER:
........................................................................................................................
and found
Actions;
................................................................................ BP22;
52 guilty
Admissibility;
Demurrer
...............................................................................................
606; Sec. of10qualified
to
Offer 64to Pay
...................................................................................................................................
Evidence
Jurisdiction; rape
Parties; Death
25
settlement of(1997) of a Party;among
disputes Effect (1998) family An interlocutory order refers to an order
..................................................................................................................
injunction.
2 65
(2003)
Expenses
ofIncapable
new c) An action forEstimation
replevin ofand a ..........................................................................................
if he knew on 39
.........................................................................................................
Rule of or Actions;
..........................................................................................................
Pecuniary
2), causing damage (2000) to before52the commission
Commencement
Admissibility; ofan
Private
of 10the
Parties; members
25 Death of a Party; Effect (1999) ..................................................................................................................
issued between the commencement
MISCELLANEOUS.................................................................................................................................................
barangay at the barangay level and
65
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
motorcycle
Action;
Document valued at crime that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-
another.
without Parties;Double
Jurisdiction;
An ACTION
25 Death(2005)
judicial
Jeopardy
isIncapable
anof ordinary
Party; of(2004)
Pecuniary
Effect ............................................................................
suit (1999) Estimation
in a court 39 Actions;
a................................................................................................................. 52Discretionary
Admissibility;Power Proof
(2000) ..........................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
the end of Virus the suit(HIV)/Acquired
which is not a final
P150,000.00.
of of Filiation;
Fiscal
Administrative
11
Justice by (1999)
Action
which of
Jurisdiction;
Proceedings one Anrecourse
Partition (2005)
party action
(2000) and
d) ........................................................................................................
for Deficiency
.....................................................................................
Incapable of Pecuniary 39 Actions;
52 Immune
Admissibility;
Injunction
Estimation
........................................................................................................................
prosecutes
No. Parties; the
26
1508, Thirdformer Party Claim and (2000)
the ...........................................................................................................................
first Katarungang decision
Deficiency Syndrome of the whole controversy
(AIDS) 39 or any and
other
consequently
interpleader
(1999)
Rules
(2003)
65 to help
ofThird-Party determine
Evidence relieve
(1997) who the courts of
......................................................................................................................................
Congress; .................................................................................................................
Law
.......................................................................................... Expropriating 11al. v. People, Jurisdiction;
Property 53Arrest;
Best
MTC
(2006)
We would like (1997
another
docket
of
Parties;
26
Pambarangay
between
a (2002)
Liberal
for
2006)
to seek the
congestion.
Warrantless
Evidence
the
Law.)enforcement
theArrest;
forRule
defendants
(1997)
Claim
(Preamble
Preliminary
(2005)
indulgence of the reader for some Bar is
or...........................................................................................................................
P.D.
protection
of entitled
orInvestigation
to receive (Gallardo
leaves
sexually et
something
transmissible moredisease to G.R.
beand
redress of(2004) ..................................................................................
No.
donethe
.....................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
Petition
right,
26 or
Construction; Certiorari
the Rules(2000)
prevention of Court 65 RA 3019;Investments
........................................................................................................................................Mandatory Suspension 11
142030,
on
virus
Jurisdiction;
(2001)
..................................................................................................................................
April 21, 2005; Inc. v. Court
40
53its
of
or
amountthe
Arrest;
Burden of Warrantless
P190,000.00
of from the plaintiff. merits
disease is transmitted to the victim. Under
2).
a Office
Petition
26
wrong.
(1998)
How shall forProof
of
the
(Section the
Relief
Rules
vs.Solicitor
1 of &Arrests
Burden
Questions which are improperly classified under a topic and for
Action
of
former Court
&for
of Searches
Rule
Evidence
General
Annulment
be construed?
(1997)
(2004)
(2006)(2002) ......................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
................................................................................................................ 66 No. 60036, January 27, 1987 11
...................................................................................................
[2%] Appeals,
Section 17(a) G.R.
e) AJurisdiction;
40
54 petition
PetitionANSWER:
27 for
Arrest;
Ombudsman the probate
Case Warrantless of
Decisions a will
(2006)Character Arrests & of Republic Act No. 8504 the
Seizures Evidence
(2003)
..................................................................................................
for Relief; Injunction (2002) .......................................................................................................................
cited in Denso Phils, v. /AC, G.R. No. 75000,
some topics which are improperly or ignorantly phrased, for the
SUGGESTED
Theestate
involving
Civil (2002)
Actions
12
Rules
Pleadings;
27 anof vs. valued
Special
Court
Amendment ofProceedings
should Complaint; beat By
.......................................................................................................
LeaveJurisdiction;
liberally of Court (2003)
court may compel the accused to submit
Feb.
himself 27, Arrest; Warrantless Arrests;
.....................................................................................................................................
401987).
to a blood test where blood Probate
54 Confession;
Objection
............................................................................
samples
(1998)P200,000.00.
(2000)
Affidavit
SUGGESTED
(2001)
Distinguish of
ANSWER: Recantation (1998) Judgment
........................................................................................................
civil actions vs. Opinion of the Court
Bail
...........................................................................................................
from special
................................................................................................................................... 41 12 Jurisdiction;54 (2002)
Facts;
RTC
authors are just Bar Reviewees who have prepared this work while
(a) An Pleadings;
27
construed action
Legislative
(2002)
proceedings.
in Amendment
for
Facts
order
specific
vs.
ofto Complaint;
promote
performance
Adjudicative
By
Edited
Facts
Leave
their
or,and
(2004)
of Court;
in Arranged Prescriptive
would
(2006)
What by:be
is
Period
extracted
the
(2000) .............................................
from
difference
.............................................................................................................................................................
his veins to
between
determine
...........................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................
[3%] 12 41 54a
Bail;
Jurisdiction;
Pleadings;
27
objective of Amendment
securing of
a Complaint;
just,inspeedy Matter of Right (2005)
and .................................................................................
whether he has HIV. (8%)
reviewing for the Bar Exams under time constraints and within their
the
CIVIL
of
alternative,
PROCEDURE
Appeal
Hearsay
Subdivision
SUGGESTED
28
inexpensive
180,000.00
(1998)
Evidence
ANSWER:
Pleadings; Amendment
for damages
Homeowner
disposition
falls
(2002)
within of Complaint;
of every
the
the
(2006)
jurisdiction
amount
..............................................................................................................................................
version 1987-2003 judgment and an opinion of the
................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
To Conform
action of w/ vs. Evidence
a) Are (2004) the rights of the accused to court?
....................................................................................................................................... 13
41
12 be
..................................................................
A CIVIL
Bail;
54
Actions;
Pleadings;ACTION
Application;
Katarungang Cause Hearsay
Answer; of is
Pambarangay;Venueone
Action
Defense; vs.by
(2002) which
Lupon;Evidence
Action
Specific Extent
Silliman
(1999) a
Denial party
of Authority;
University
(2004) (2001)
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED
CollegeOpinion ANSWER: Evidence (2004)
..............................................................................................................................
............................................................................
limited knowledge of the law. We would like to seek the readers
sues
However,
28
ADDITIONAL
and proceeding.
Metropolitan
41 another
Pleadings;
13
28
ANSWER:
strict
Trial (Sec.
for Courts
Bail;
observance
Certification
Actions;
6, Rule
the Against
in 1
Metro
enforcement
of
Cause
1997 Rules
Forum the
of Law
Manila.
Forms
rules
Shopping
............................................................................................................
Batch
of
of
or
.....................................................................................................
13 is(2000)
..............................................................................................
2005
presumed
The judgment
Action;
to of Hearsay;
54
privacy,
innocent
and
or Exception;
Joinder
falloBail
against
of
is thethefinal
Dead
&
crime
Man
self-incrimination
charged,
disposition
Statute
(1999)
Splitting
.......................................................................................
Civil
AlthoughProcedure.)
an action for specific performance of the Court which is reflected in the
indulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.
is
(2001)
......................................................................................................................................
protection
an imperative
(1998)
Pleadings;
29
not
(1999)
Declaration
........................................................................................................
ofCounterclaim
a right,
necessity oragainst
the when prevention
the Counselthey of or
are the Plaintiff
.............................................................................................
capable (1998) of pecuniary estimation,
(2004)
violated
dispositive
13 Actions; 54
byportion Hearsay;41
Cause ofcompulsory
such
....................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................... of
Bail; Exception;
Matter of
Action; Joinder of testing?
55 the
Hearsay;
41 decision.
Bail;
Dying
Right
Action
......................................................................
Exception;
Matter of A
redress (1999)
considered
29 of................................................................................................
Pleadings; a Motions;
wrong.indispensable (See.
Bill 3[a], Rule
of Particulars 1, 1997
to(2003) the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
13 Actions; Cause of Action; Joinder of
.........................................................................................................
Explain.
since the Gestae;
alternative demand for damages is decision
No. The is
courtdirectly prepared by a judge and
Rules Right
Res
Pleadings;
Action
29
prevention vs.
of Civil (2005)Matter
ofReply; Opinion
of
Procedure), Discretionof
Effect ofdelays Ordinary
while (1999)
Non-Filing aand Witness
SPECIALUPDATED
of Reply (2005) BY: 13 Actions; Cause of Action; Splittingto
may compel
............................................................................................... the
...................................................................41 accused
55 Bail;
Hearsay;
Matter
(2000) ...........................................................................................
................................................................................................
needless to the
capable of of pecuniary
Exceptions
Right vs. Matter
(1999) estimation,
of Discretion it is within
(2006) signed
submit byhimselfhim, containing clearly and
Bail;
PROCEEDING
Prejudicial is a Ejectment
Question; remedy vs.bySpecific
of which a
Performance 14 to a Cause blood
...................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................... of test
42 55to
Dondee
orderly (1999)
29 and (2000) ..........................................................................
.............................................................................................................
speedy dispatch Judicial Actions; Action;
the
3[C]. jurisdiction
Witness
Hearsay;
Rule Posting
Exceptions;
1,1997 ofBail the
RulesDying
(1999)Metropolitan
ofDeclaration
Civil Trial.....................................................................................................
(1999) distinctly awhether
statement of the facts
...........................................................................................................................
determine he has HIV under proved 42
Sec.
party
businessPre-Trial;
Splitting
30 seeks Requirements
(2005)
(Alvero
. Metro to establish vs. Judge (2001)
a status,
de a 129right 14 Actions; Cause of
..............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
la Rosa, 76
Courts us.inTan,
Complaint
Procedure.)
Cruz 55 vs.
87 Manila.
Information
Phil. 627]. (Sec.
(1999) of BP as
Hearsay; and
Singson, the of law Adm. upon
No,Matter which His the rights
No.
17(a).........................................................
R.A. 8054. judgment
33 ...........................................................................................................................
Inapplicable
RTJ-91-758, to be is
Remedial
or a Provisional
Actions;
30 Law
particular Motion
in Remedies
Phil.
fact. to System (1999)
Dismiss; ofbar Govtby prior judgment (2002) 14 Actions;
.................................................................................................................................
Phil.
amended 428)
Conciliation
(2003)
42 by
(2006)Counterclaim
How 30
RA
remedial
No.
Proceedings; 7691:
Demurrer
(2002)
(Sec.
Katarungang
laws Attachment The RE-Take 2007
implemented toPambarangay based
inEvidence;presumedContract
September (Etoya 26,v.
are ..................................................................................................................................
Provisional Remedies; Abraham
1994).
innocent of the of Judicialcharged,
55 crime Carriage
Notice;
(1999) .............................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................ 14
(b) An
vs. Pre-Trialaction
(2004)
Evidence
Provisional Conference for injunction
(2005) (1999) is not capable
................................................................................................
Remedies; Demurrer to Evidence;
............................................................................................................................
Attachment (1999) to privacy 42 and against w/o
56
self-incrimination Leave
Judicial of
Actions;
30 Counterclaim
our system of government? (2%) vs. Crossclaim (1999) .............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
An opinion of the court is the informal
of pecuniary estimation and hence falls
The
FromAuthors
What
within
Court
Notice;
30
15
SUGGESTED
of
is the (1998)
Provisional Evidence;
ANSWER:
the ANSWERS
difference,
TO BAR
the jurisdiction
Memorandum
Court
Remedies;
(2001)
Actions;
EXAMINATION
(1996)
Foreign if any,
Attachment
of the RTCs.
Law (1997) .......................................................................................................
between
(2001)
Cross-Claims; the
..................................................................................................
are
Third not
expression of the
42 Demurrer
violated
Party
43 views
by tosuch
Claims
Demurrer
Evidence;
of tothe
w/o (1997)
compulsory Leave 56
.............................................................................................................
court w/o and
conciliation
RemedialProvisional
30 laws are
Remedies; ..................................................................................................
proceedings implemented
Attachment under the
................................................................................................. testing.15 Actions;
In an action Derivative in its vs.Evidence;
..............................................................................................................................................
(2005)in .............................................................................................................
our Suit final
which the Class Suit
physical
July 26, 2005
Leave
57
Katarungang ofgovernment
Court (2004)Attachment
Pambarangay
QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & Philippine Law
system Provisional
(2005)
30 Remedies; Offer Law vs.the and theof (1999) cannot
of.........................................................................................................
through pillars
Garnishment condition
prevail
16
ofthe
against
Evidence
..................................................................................................
Actions;is43
a party inDismissal;
Filing;
order.
Failure
Civil Actions
controversy, (1997) The
to
&
...................................................................................
the
(c) An action
Prosecute for(2003) replevin of a motorcycle opinion of
........................................................................................................................................
negotiations for an court
...................................................................................................................
amicable settlement (Look for citation of latest57 is contained
Offer
case, of
43
in Evidence; in
Dismissal; the
res
of Provisional
the
Criminal
31 judicial Remedies;
Action system,
(2005) Injunction including(2001) the Actions; Intervention;
................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................
court may 16
Schools Association 2006
valued
during at
Provisional
inter the
Provisional
Requisites
31 150,000.00
aliospre-trial
acta
Dismissal(2003)
Remedies;
(2000) (2003) falls within the body of theorder decision the that
..........................................................................................................
conference
Injunction under
(2003) the
accused
57serves
to as
OfferActions;
................................................................................................................
2004)
submit
of 43 aDouble
guide
Evidence;Real
................................................................................................................
to
prosecutory service, our courts of justice
................................................................................................................
a physical examination. 16
(Sec. 1, Rule 28,
Jeopardy
Testimonial
jurisdiction
SUGGESTED ANSWER: &(2002)
of Documentary
the (1994)
Metropolitan Trial or
Mainenlightenment to
of determine 57 Opinion
.........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................
Remedy vs. b) If the result such test the
shows ratio
Rule
44
that
Updated by Dondee
Rules
and
The
Courts
Remedial
Provisional
of Court?
Actions
31
quasi
difference
Double
(1994)in Law
judicial
Jeopardy;
Metro
ProvisionalDeath
Survives
31
Remedies;
& Personal
vs.
(2%) agencies.
between
Manila
Remedies;
Injunctions;
Actions
Upgrading;
Substantive (Sec.
of theInjunctions;
(2006)Ancillary
the
Original
Law 33 conciliation
DefendantIssuance of Charges
(2000) w/out (2005)
1997
decidendi
Action
Rules (2006)
of Civil
of the
Procedure)
decision.
...............................................................................................................................................
he is HIV positive, and the The 57
Actions;
........................................................
................................................................................................... 16
opinion
prosecution
Bond (2006) ...........................................................................
................................................................................................... Parol
..........................................................................................
16
July 22, 2007
proceedings
(2006) Evidence
44
Provisional
Distinguish
Appeals;
31 July 22, 2007
Ruleunder
Remedies;
between
Period of(2001) the FreshKatarungang
Injunctions;
substantive
Appeal; Requisites
Period law Ruleand Extradition
(2006)
(2003) forms such no part of inthe judgment
....................................................................................................................................
offers result evidence to prove (2004)
even 58the
............................................................................................
............................................................................................. if
Preponderance
Pambarangay
Provisional
31
remedial law. (2%)
17 Law vs.
Remedies; Substantial
and
Certiorari; the
Receivership Evidence
negotiations
(2001) (2003)
..................................................................................................................................................
Mode of in one instrument,
Certiorari but Information
....................................................................................................
qualifying
combined circumstance 44 under may
(2006)
...........................................................................................................the
be
for (2001)
58
an amicable settlement Privilege during the 1947).
referred Communication
Information to for for qualified
the purpose rape,
................................................................................................................................................. of vs. should (1998)
construing 45the
Provisional
32 Remedies; Replevin (1999)
......................................................................................................................
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 17 Certiorari; Rule 45 Rule 65
..................................................................................................................
Information;
pre-trial
Provisional
(1998)
32 conference Amendment
Remedies; (2001)
Support the Rules ofLitethe of court reject
............................................................................................................................
SUBSTANTIVE LAW under is thatPendente part the judgment (Contreras such 58 Privilege
result on theCommunication;
ground
............................................................................................................................
(1999) .............................................................................................
..................................................................................................................... 17 Certiorari; Rule 45
v. Felix, G.R. vs. No. that
RuleL-
law
Court Marital
45
which
65
32 is
Provisionalthat
(2005) Privilege
Information;
creates, in thedefines
Remedies; (1989)
Support and
former, Amendment;
lawyers
Pendente regulatesLiteare it
Double is the
SUGGESTED fruit
ANSWER:of a poisonous
Jeopardy;
................................................................................................. Bailtree?
58 Death Explain.
Privilege
(2002)
(2001) .............................................................................................
477, June 30,
..................................................................................................................... 18 Contempt; of not
a
rights Communication;
Provisional
prohibited
Party;
32 from
Effect Remedies; Marital Privilege (2000)
........................................................................................
concerning 45Since
Judicial
Information;the rights &of Supervening
Autonomy
Amendment;
life,..............................................................................................................
appearing
(1998) liberty,
TRO for or
(2001) the property,
parties.
the accused
Impartiality Eventsare
Default (1997)
.................................................................................................
(2000)
........................................................................................................................
18 59
Privilege (2003) 45 because
violated the compulsory Bail 18 testing
or
Parties the mustCommunication;
powers
appear of Marital
person Privilege
agencies
only (2004)
...........................................................................................
Provisional
32 Remedies;inTRO (2006) Information; (2003)
or .................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
except
........................................................................................................................................................ Default
Privilege Communication; is authorized
Marital
.........................................................................................................................................
59 by the Privilege
45 Information; Motion
(2006) to
minors (2001)
33 or ........................................................................................................................................................
instrumentalities incompetents for the administration who may be of Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee 18
Quash (2000)
.................................................................................................
Default; Remedy; Lost
......................................................................................................................
59 Documents; 46 Secondary
Information; Evidence
Motion
public
assisted byOrder theirof next Default; ofEffects
kin who (1999)are ................................................................................................................
not
to Quash
(1992) (2005) ......................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
Default; 60 Testimony; Independent Relevant
46 Information;
Statement
lawyers 18 . (Formerly Sec. 9, Remedies; Party Declared in Default (1998)
Motion ..............................................................................................
(1999) to Quash; Grounds (1998) ......................................................................................................
.............................................................................................. 19 60 Witness; Competency of the Witness vs. 46
Judgment; of
Credibility Promulgation
the Witnessof (2004) Judgment (1997) ........................................................................................................
............................................................. 60 Witness; Examination of a Child
Witness;
46 via Live-Link Jurisdiction;
TV (2005) .........................................................................
Complex Crimes
60 Witness; Examination (2003) of
Witnesses (1997) ............................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................... 47 60
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)
under the jurisdiction of the RTCs.
(Russell v. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738,[1999]).
However, the action for annulment is a
personal action and the venue depends
on the residence of either A or B. Hence,
it should be brought in the RTC of the
place where either of the parties resides.
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
(2000)
A files an action in the Municipal Trial
Court against B, the natural son of As
father, for the partition of a parcel of land
located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed
value of P20,000.00. B moves to dismiss
the action on the ground that the case
should have been brought in the RTC
because the action is one that is not
capable of pecuniary estimation as it
involves primarily a determination of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hereditary
The motionrights shouldand
be not merelyThe
granted. theaction
bare
right to real property. Resolve the
for partition depends on a determination motion.
(2%)
of the hereditary rights of A and B, which
is not capable of pecuniary estimation.
Hence, even though the assessed value of
the land is P20,000.00, the Municipal Trial
Vestil,
Court supra)
has no jurisdiction. (Russell v.
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
(2003)
A filed with the MTC of Manila an action
for specific performance against B, a
resident of Quezon City, to compel the
latter to execute a deed of conveyance
covering a parcel of land situated in
Quezon City having an assessed value of
p19,000.00. B received the summons and
a copy of the Complaint on 02 January
2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction contending
that the subject matter of the suit was
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The
court denied the motion. In due time, B
filed with the RTC a Petition for
Certiorari praying that the said Order be
set aside because the MTC had no
jurisdiction
(a) Was theover the of
denial case.
the 6% On 13
Motion
February 2003, A filed with the MTC
Dismiss the Complaint correct?
motion to declare B in default. The
(b) Resolve the Motion to Declare the
motion wasinopposed
Defendant Default. by B on the ground
that his Petition
BP 129. as amended for Certiorari
by RA No.was still
pending.
7691).
(d) An action for interpleader to
determine who between the defendants is
entitled to receive the amount of
P190,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction
(Makati Dev Corp. v. Trial
of the Metropolitan Tanjuatco
Courts27inSCRA
Metro
401)
Manila.
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 10 of 66
(e) A petition for the probate of a will
involving an estate valued at 200.000.00
falls within the Jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila
ADDITIONAL
(Sec. 19[4]ANSWER:
of BP 129, as amended).
(b) An application for a writ of
preliminary injunction may be granted by
a Municipal Court in an action of forcible
entry vs.
Day and RTC
unlawful
of detainer.
Zamboanga, 191
(Sec.33 of BP
SCRA610.
129;
Jurisdiction vs. Venue
(2006)
Distinguish jurisdiction from venue?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
JURISDICTION treats of the power of the
Court to decide a case on the merits, while
VENUE refers to the place where the suit
may be filed. In criminal actions, however,
venue is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a
matter of substantive law; venue, of
procedural law. Jurisdiction may be not be
conferred by consent through waiver upon
a court,
G.R. No.but145022,
venue may be waived,23,
September except in
2005;
criminalIII
Santos cases (Nocum et al.
v. Northwest v. Tan, G.R. No.
Airlines,
101538, June 23, 1992).
Jurisdiction; CTA Division vs. CTA En Banc
(2006)
Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes
paid, but it was not acted upon. So, he
filed a similar complaint with the Court of
Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions.
Mark's complaint was dismissed. Thus,
he filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Does the Court of Appeals have
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisdiction over Mark's petition? (2.5%)
No. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11
of R. A. 9282. Decisions of a division of
the Court of Tax Appeals must be
appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals en
banc. Further, the CTA now has the same
rank as the Court of Appeals and is no
longer considered a quasi-judicial agency.
It is likewise provided in the said law that
the decisions of the CTA en bane are
cognizable by the Supreme Court under
Jurisdiction; Incapable of Pecuniary Estimation
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
(2000)
A brings an action in the MTC of Manila
Procedure.
against B for the annulment of an
to
a extrajudicial foreclosure sale of real
property with an assessed value of
P50,000.00 located in Laguna. The
complaint alleged prematurity of the sale
for the reason that the mortgage was not
yet due. B timely moved to dismiss the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
case on the ground that the action should
The motion should be granted. The MTC
have been brought in the RTC of Laguna.
of Manila has no jurisdiction because the
Decide with reason. (3%)
action for the annulment of the
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 estimationcircuit 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 304ANSWER:
SCRA 738 [1999]; Copioso v.
but the majority voted to uphold the Yes, the Municipal
Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, Circuit October
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
to implement the contract. The Office of the the value of the estate does not exceed
and jurisdiction is determined by the
Solicitor General (OSG), representing P100,000.00 (now P200,000.00). The
Chairman Go, opposed the petition on the
assessed value of the property. It is
value in this case of P95,000.00 is within
ground that mandamus does not lie to within the jurisdiction therefore of the
its jurisdiction. In determining the
enforce contractual obligations. During the Metropolitan Trial Court.
jurisdictional
SUGGESTED ANSWER:amount, excluded are
proceedings, the majority Commissioners (B.P.Blg. 129, Sec. 33, as
attorneys
(b) The Court fees,could litigation
declare expenses
B in default and
filed a manifestation that Chairman Go was amended)
because these
costs; B did are not obtain a only
considered writ for of
not authorized Jurisdiction; RTC
May the OSGbyrepresent
the COMELEC En Banc
Chairman Goto preliminary the
determining injunction
filing fees.or a temporary
oppose the the petition. (2002)
P sued A in the RTC-Manila to recover the
before RTC notwithstanding that his restraining order from the RTC prohibiting
position is contrary to that of the
following
the judge from sums: (1) P200,000.00
proceeding in the caseon an
during
SUGGESTED ANSWER: overdue
the pendency promissory note, (2) P80,000.00
majority? (5%) (Sec. 7 of Ruleof65; theDiazpetition for certiorari.
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 to hisB car
declare fees
in andand
default
that his position is contrary to that of a litigation expenses. Can
inasmuch as the jurisdiction of MTC was A move to
majority of the Commission members in the dismiss the case on the ground
put in issue in the Petition For Certiorari that the
COMELEC because the OSG is an court has the
filed with no jurisdiction
RTC. The MTC overshould
the subject
defer
independent office; it's hands are not SUGGESTED
matter? ANSWER: (2%)
Explain.
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]). over the subject matter. P
Park
to it that the best interest
v. Quyano-Padilla, September 18, of the government may sue
Jurisdiction; A in one
MTC complaint asserting as
is upheld (COMELEC
2002). many
P suedcauses
(2002) A andofBaction in one as complaint
he may have in and
the
Jurisdiction; Ombudsman Case Decisions since
RTC-Manila, the cause of action againstfor
all the claims are principally A
(2006)
Does the Court of Appeals have recovery
being on of anmoney,
overdue the aggregatenote
promissory amountfor
jurisdiction to review the Decisions in claimed
P300,000.00 shalland be that
the test
againstof jurisdiction.
B being on
criminal and administrative cases of the an alleged
[Rule 5(d)]. The
2, sec.balance aggregate amount
of P300,000.00 on the
SUGGESTED
Ombudsman? ANSWER:
(2.5%) claimed
purchase isprice
P450,000.00,
of goods exclusive
sold on of the
credit.
The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate
amount
Does theof P100,000.00
RTC-Manila for
have attorneys
jurisdictionfees
jurisdiction over decisions of the Jurisdiction;
SUGGESTED Subdivision
ANSWER: Homeowner
Ombudsman in criminal cases (Sec. 14, R.A. and
over expenses
the case? of
Explain.litigation.
(3%) Hence, the
(2006)
What
No, the court has
RTC-Manila jurisdiction
has no over an action
jurisdiction
6770). In administrative and disciplinary
RTC-Manila has jurisdiction.
for specific
over the case. A performance
and B could not filed by a
be joined
cases, appeals from the Ombudsman must be subdivision
as defendants homeowner in one complaint againstbecause a
taken to the
(Lanting Court of Appeals
v. Ombudsman, G.R.under Rule 43
No. 141426, subdivision
the right to developer?
relief against Choose
both the correct
defendants
May 6, 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 1
do not The
answer. Explain.
arise Housing
out of the same and transaction
Land Use or
129742, September 16, 1998; Sec. 14, RA. Regulatory Board
6770).
series of transactions and there is no
Jurisdiction; Probate 2
common The Securities
question of law and or factExchange
common
(2001)
Josefa filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Commission
to both. (Rule 3, sec. 6). Hence, separate
Court of Alicia and Mabini, a petition for 3
complaintsThe Regional
will haveTrial to beCourtfiles and they
144
4
would SCRAThe
fall377 (1986)].
Commercial
under the Court
jurisdiction orof the
the
the probate of the will of her husband,
Martin, who died in the Municipality of Regional
Metropolitan Trial Court
Trial designated
Court.
Jurisdiction; Office of the Solicitor General by
[Flores the v.
Alicia, the residence of the spouses. The Supreme
Mallare-Philipps,
(2006) Court to
In 1996, Congress passed Republic Acthear and decide
probable value of the estate which "commercial
No. 8189, otherwise cases." 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) The in denial
the of amount
the Motion of P10,000.00,
to Dismiss Voter's Registration and Identification
litigation
the Complaint expenses
was not in correct.
the amountAlthough of System (VRIS) Project. It issued
P5,000.00
the assessed andvalue
costs ofweretheincluded.
parcel ofPedro,
land invitations to pre-qualify and bid for the
the
involvednext was of kin of Martin,
P19,000.00, filed the
within an project. After the public bidding, Fotokina
opposition to the probate
jurisdiction of the MTC of Manila, the of the will on was declared the winning bidder with a
the ground that the total amount
action filed by A for Specific Performance included bid of P6 billion and was issued a Notice
in the relief of the petition is
against B to compel the latter to execute a more than of Award. But COMELEC Chairman Gener
P100,000.00,
Deed of Conveyance the maximum jurisdictional
of said parcel of land Go objected to the award on the ground
amount for municipal
was not capable circuit trial courts.
of pecuniary that under the Appropriations Act, the
The court overruled the opposition and budget for the COMELEC's modernization
proceeded to hear the case. is only P1
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%) b)
the Lupon correct in refusing What
to execute
should
the 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
(1998)
Give the effects of the following:
1 Splitting a single cause of action: and
(3%|
2
SUGGESTEDNon-joinder
ANSWER: of a necessary party. [2%]
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
basis of the same cause of action, the subdivision developer is within the
filing of one or a judgment on the merits jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use
in any one is available as a ground for the Regulatory Board. Sec. 1 of P.D. 1344
2. The effect
dismissal of the (Sec.
of the others. non-joinder
4 of Rule 2)of a provides that the HLURB has jurisdiction
necessary party may be stated as follows: over cases involving specific performance of
The court may order the inclusion of an contractual and statutory obligations filed by
omitted necessary party if jurisdiction buyers of subdivision lots and condominium
over his person may be obtained. The units against
Insurance thev. owner,
Corp. Eddy Ng developer,
Kok Wei,dealer,
G.R.
failure to comply with the order for his broker or salesman (Manila Bankers
No. 139791, December 12, 2003; Kakilala Life v.
inclusion without justifiable cause to a Faraon, G.R. No. 143233, October 18, 2004;
Sec. 1, P.D. 1344).
waiver of the 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) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page13
Page 14
15of of66
of 66
66Raphael
case. Is filed the
Thewas
It plaintiff
not proper sued the for Rickydefendant to join in histhe stand
a complaint
of EE Industries
prejudice against
to the rights X sustainable?
Corporation
of each necessary Explain.
for the
causes
RTC for of damages
action allegedly
against caused Perry in by histhe [2%]
payment
party.of P100,000.00
(Sec. 9 of Rule 3) for storage charges
complaint
latters encroachment
for partitiononagainst the plaintiffs
Perry and lot. and SUGGESTED
other advancesANSWER: for the goods. X
Marvin.
In his answer,
The causes the defendant
of actiondenied may the Actions; ACause
a)
be Corporation COUNTERCLAIM
filed of aAction;motion Joinder to isofdismiss
any
Actionclaim the
between claim
plaintiffs the same and alleged
parties, that Ricky
it wasand (1999)
which
a) a defending
What is
the complaint on the ground of res judicata.the partyrule may on have
joinder against ofX
Perry, with
plaintiff who respect
in fact had to theencroached
loan butonnot an opposing
causes of party.
action? (2%)
his Corporation alleged that Raphael should have(Sec. 6, Rule 6)
b)
the incorporated A secured two loans from B? one
with respect to
(defendants) land. the Accordingly,
partition which b)
for A in his complaint
counterclaim
P500,000.00 and isfor
the
interpleader
distinguished
other for
includes Marvin.
defendant counterclaimed
The joinder is against
betweenthe a his claim
from afor storage feesinand
CROSSCLAIM that advances
a cross-claim and
partition for
plaintiff and damages
a sumresulting of money, from but P1,000,000.00,
the that isfor his failure payablehe party on different
was against barred afrom dates.
Both anyhave claim by one
fallen due. Is Brepliedobligedthat to co-file
PARTITION
alleged encroachment
is a special civil on his action lot.underThe interposing
party his
arising claim. out Raphael
of the transaction he
or
Rule 69, filed
plaintiff whichancannot ex parte be joinedmotionwith for could only
not one claimed
have complaint against
storage fees Aand forother the
occurrence
SUGGESTED
recovery of that
ANSWER: is
both loans? Explain. the subject (2%)matter
2,) advances
other causesofof action.
extension time to (See. answer
5[b], Rule the
either in
a. of his
The thecomplaint
rule on JOINDER
original for
action interpleader
OF CAUSES
or of a
Also, the causes
defendants counterclaim,
of action butpertain
the court to because OF he
ACTION
counterclaim was
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
not
is yet
that certain
a party
therein. A counterclaim as to
may who in was oneis
different
denied the venues
motion
City. (Sec. 5, Rule 2,)
andon the
jurisdictions.
ground that
The it liable therefor.
pleading
The
against motion assert,Resolve
to dismissparty
an opposing in the
the
should motion
alternative
while be agranted. with
cross- or
case
should forhave
a sum
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
been of set
money for hearing.
pertains On to thethe reasons.Raphael (4%)
otherwise
claim should
join asahave
is against many
co-party.incorporated
causes (Sec.of 8,action
Rule in 6)hisas
municipal
defendants
No, the Cause
Actions; court
motion,
plaintiff of wasand therefore,
cannot
Action;notSplitting be the
validly declared filedcourtin c)
complaint No, because
for if
interpleader
he may have against an opposing party, no motion his to dismiss
claim for
Pasay
declared
(1999)
in Citythe
a) default.
What Abecauseplaintiff
motion
is the rule theagainst
for in plaintiff
default
extension is
ofonfrom
splitting timethe
a has been
storage
provided fees filed,
that and the any
advances,of the
rule thegrounds
on amountsfor
joinder of
of
Manila
counterclaim.
while Ricky
Was and
the Marvin
plaintiff are validly
from which
dismissal
1.] were obviously
provided
the
parties is complied with; joinder determinable
in the
shall Rules not at the
may
includetime
be
to file of
cause an action
answer and may its be effect
filed exonparte the
Batangas
declared of the
pleaded filing
as ofan the complaint.
affirmative
actionsdefense They orare actions
part
in theof
and need in
respective
[Amante not
vs. default?
rightsbe set
Sunga, Why?
of for
the (5%) for
64hearing.
parties
SCRA 192failure special
Raphael's cause
civil
of action which he may not be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(1975)].
to comply with the same? (2%) answergoverned which by special may rules, include but may a
The general rule is that a counterclaim split. Hence, when the warehouseman asks the
b) A purchased a lot from B for counterclaim.
include causesThis is what
of among
action the A did
pertainingby filing to
must be answered within ten (10) days court to ascertain who defendants
Pl,500,000.00. He gave a down payment an different
are
Answerto alleging
entitled the venues
goods,
the
he oralsolack has
of
jurisdictions
the
legal
right
from service. (Rule 11, sec. 4). However, a capacity
of P500,000, signed a promissory note to ask whoofshould
provided EE one Industries
paycausefor the to of sue
storageaction because
fees fallsand
counterclaim that raises issues which are it is not a duly registered corporation
payable thirty days after date, and as a other within
related the expenses.
jurisdiction Theof filinga RTC of with
and
the
deemed
security automatically
for the settlement joined by of the the a 2.] venue
interpleader theistherein;
counterclaim
lies aggregate
availableforandas amount
damages.
a ground claimed The
for
[Gojo v. Goyala,
allegations 35 SCRA need
of the Complaint 557 not be
obligation, mortgaged the same lot to B. shall be
dismissal
dismissal ofofthethe test
thesecondcomplaintofcase.
jurisdiction
on
(Sec.this where
ground
4, Rule 2,) It
(1970)].
answered.
When
In thisthe case,note thefell due and A counterclaim
defendants failed to pay, the toclaims
is akin
without a prejudice in all to
compulsory the the causes
counterclaimprosecutionofwhich,
action if
of
B commenced not
No. set
are up,
133113, shall
principally be
August
the counterclaim in the same action; barred.
for the
30, (Sec. recovery
2, Rule 9,of
is a compulsorysuit to recoverwhich
counterclaim from arises A the Actions;v. Cross-Claims;
Arreza
2001) Diaz, G.R. Third Party Claims
balance
out or isofconnected
P1,000,000.00. with the After securing
transaction money.
because it is(Sec.a compulsory
5, Rule 2 of thecounterclaim.
1997 Rules)
(1997)
B and
Actions; C
Cause borrowed
of Actions; P400,000.00
Motion to Dismiss;from bar byA.
a (Sec. 6 of Rule 16.)
andfavorable
occurrence judgment
constituting on histheclaim, subject B The
prior promissory
b. judgment
No. Joinder(2002) note is only was executedsince
permissive by B
brought
matter ofanother
the plaintiffsactionclaim. against A before
It raises the and
Rolando C in a
filed Joint
a and
petition several
for capacity.
declaration B,
of
the loans are separate loans which may
the
same sameissue courtof whoto foreclose
encroached the mortgage.
on whose who
be governed by the different terms andC
the received
nullity of the
his money
marriage from to A, gave
Carmela
A now
land. files
Hence, a motion
there wasto dismiss
no need theto second
answer P200,000.00.
because C, alleged in give turn, loaned
SUGGESTED ANSWER: conditions.ofThe the two loans psychological
rise to two
action
theThe
a. on
rulethe
counterclaim. ground
against of bar
splitting a causeby prior of P100,000.00
incapacity
separate causes out
of the of of
latter. the P200,000.00
action and may be the he
Actions;
judgment. Counterclaim
Rule on the vs. motion.
Crossclaim
action and its effect are that(2%) if two or RTC
After
received of Quezon
trial,to the
D. a)City,
court
basis of two separate complaints. In can
rendered
an B
action file a
filed cross-
judgment by A
(1999)
a) What
more suits isarea instituted
counterclaim? on the (2%) basis of b) claim
Actions;
dismissing against
Cause the
against B and C with theof C
Action; for
petition the
Joinderon ofamount
the Action
ground of
Distinguish
the same cause a ofcounterclaim
action, the filing fromof onea P200,000.00?
(2005)
Perry is
that a resident
Rolando b) Can of C
failed file
to a prove
Manila, third
while party Ricky
the
crossclaim. (2%)
or a judgment upon the merits in any one complaint
and Marvin
psychological against
are D
residents
incapacity for the
of
of amount
Batangas
his wife. of P
City.
The
c)
2) A, who is engaged in tile SUGGESTED
100,000.00?
They are ANSWER:
the coowners of a parcel of
is available as a ground for the dismissal judgment having become final, Rolando
installation business, was sued by EE residential land located in Pasay City with
of the others. (Sec. 4, Rule filed another petition,
(a) Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C this time on the
Industries
b. The motion for breach to dismiss of contract
should be for an assessed value of P100,000.00. Perry
ground
for that his
the amount marriage
of 200,000.00 to Carmela
given to hadC.
installing
granted. When different marble tilessuit
B commenced in to its borrowed P100,000.00 from Ricky which
been
A celebrated
cross-claim is a without
claim a license.
filed by one Is
partythe
offices
collect on asthe provided
promissory in note,
theirhecontract.waived SUGGESTED ANSWER:
he promised tobarred
pay on by or thebefore
Without filing any motion
his right to foreclose the mortgage. B to dismiss, A
second
against action
No, the second a co-party actionarising is not barred outDecember
judgment ofby thethe
in
1, 2004.
the first? Why?
transaction However,
or (2%) Perry
occurrence failedthat to ispaythe his
filed
split hisitscause Answerof action. with Counterclaim judgment in the first because they are
loan. Perry
subject also rejected Ricky orand
Actions; Cause
theorizing thatofEE Action;
IndustriesSplittinghas no legal differentmatter causesofofthe original
action. Theactionfirst is for a
Marvin's
counterclaim proposal to partitioninclude the
(2005)
Raphael, to asuewarehouseman,
capacity because it is notfiled a duly a annulment of therein marriage and on may the ground a
of
property.
claim that Ricky
the filed against
party a complaint whom against
it is
complaint against
registered corporation. By way of V Corporation, X psychological incapacity under Article 36
Perry andisMarvin
asserted or may inbe the RTCto
liable of Pasay City
Corporation
counterclaim,and A Y asked
Corporation for moral to compel and of the Family Code, while the the second cross- is
for
(b) the
claimantNo, partition
Cfor cannot
all of orthe
file property.
part a of He
third-party
a claim also
them to interplead. He
actual damages as her business depleted alleged therein for declaration of nullity of the marriage
incorporated
complaint
asserted againstin his complaint
Dabsence
because of the hisloan actionof
that
as atheresult three corporations
of the withdrawal claimed title and in view against of thethe cross-claimant. a basic(Sec.
against
P100,000
8 Rule 6) Perry
has for
no the
connectioncollection with of the
the
and right of possession
cancellation by her clients of their over the goods State with reasons whether
requirement, which is a marriage license. it was proper
latter's
opponent's P100,000.00
claim. loan,
C causes
could plus
have interests
loaned
deposited due
contracts in his to thewarehouse
filing of the andcase. thatThe he for
[Arts, Ricky
9 & to35(3), join his Family Code]. of Theyaction in
are
and
the
(1980) attorney's
money
and out
other fees. of
cases]. other funds in his
was uncertain
case was dismissed which afterof them thewas trial entitled
court his complaint for partition
different causes of action because the against Perry
to the that
found goods. EEAfter due proceedings,
Industries is not a possession.
and Marvin
evidence in the RTC
required to proveof Pasay them City.are(5%) not
Actions;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Counterclaim
judgment was
registered rendered
corporation and by the court
therefore has the
(2002) same. [Pagsisihan v. Court of Appeals,
declaring
no that X Corporation
legal capacity to sue. However, was entitled
it set a 95 SCRA 540
to the
date forgoods. The decision
the reception becameonfinal
of evidence A's
and executory. EE Industries opposed on
counterclaim.
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)
contribution in respect to his opponent's
claim. (Sec. 11 of Rule 6)
Actions; Derivative Suit vs. Class Suit
(2005)
Distinguish a derivative suit from a class
suit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A DERIVATIVE SUIT is a suit in equity
that is filed by a minority shareholder in
behalf of a corporation to redress wrongs
committed against it, for which the
directors refuse to sue, the real party in
interest being the corporation itself (Lint
v. Lim-Yu, G.IL No. 138343, February 19,
2001), while a CLASS SUIT is filed
regarding a controversy of common or
general interest in behalf of many persons
so numerous that it is impracticable to
join all as parties, a number which the
court finds sufficiently representative who
may sue or defend for the benefit of all.
Actions; Filing; Civil Actions & Criminal Action
(Sec. 12, Rule 3) It is worth noting that a
(2005)
While cruising on a highway, a taxicab
derivative suit is a representative suit,
driven
just likeby Manssuit.
a class hit an electric post. As a
result thereof, its passenger, Jovy,
suffered serious injuries. Mans was
subsequently charged before
Municipal Trial Court with reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical
Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against
injuries.
Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for
breach of contract, and Mans for quasi-
delict. Lourdes and Mans filed a motion to
dismiss the civil action on the ground of
litis pendentia, that is, the pendency of
the civil action impliedly instituted in the
criminal action for reckless imprudence
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
resulting in serious physical injuries.
The motion to dismiss should be denied.
Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)
The action for breach of contract against
the taxicab owner cannot be barred by
the criminal action against the taxicab
driver, although the taxicab owner can be
held subsidiarily liable in the criminal
case, if the driver is insolvent. On the
other hand, the civil action for quasi-
delict against the driver is
independent civil action under Article 33
of the Civil Code and Sec. 3, Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court, which can be filed
2004)
separately and can proceed
independently
Actions; of the
Intervention; criminal
Requisites action
regardless
(2000) of the result
What are the requisites for an of the latter.
(Samson v. Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, July
intervention by a nonparty in an action
21,
SUGGESTED
pending inANSWER:
court? (5%)
The requisites for intervention
1
are: Legal interest in the matter in a
controversy; or
2 Legal interest in the success of either
of the parties; or
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 16 of 66
1 Legal interest against both; or
2 So situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or other
disposition or property in the custody of
the court or of an officer thereof.
3 Intervention will not unduly delay
or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
or original parties;
(Acenas
4 II v. Court rights
Intervenors of Appeals, 247beSCRA
may not fully
773 [1995]; Sec. 1, Rule 19, 1997 Rules of
protected in a separate proceedings.
Civil Procedure.)
Actions; Real Actions & Personal Actions
(2006)
What do you mean by a) real actions; and
b) personal action? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. REAL ACTIONS are actions affecting
title to or possession of real property or
an interest
(Fortune therein
Motors, Inc. v. CA, G. R. No. 76431,
October 16, 1989; Rule 4, Sec. 1).
b. All other actions are PERSONAL
ACTIONS (Rule 4, Section I) which include
those arising from privity of contract.
Actions; Survives Death of the Defendant
(2000)
PJ engaged the services of Atty. ST to
the
represent him in a civil case filed by OP
against him which was docketed as Civil
Case No. 123. A retainership agreement
was executed between PJ and Atty. ST
whereby PJ promised to pay Atty. ST a
retainer sum of P24,000.00 a year and to
transfer the ownership of a parcel of land
to Atty. ST after presentation of PJs
evidence. PJ did not comply with his
undertaking. Atty. ST filed a case against
1 Is the
PJ which wasdeath of PJ as
docketed a valid
Civilground to
Case No.
dismiss the money claim of Atty. ST in
456. During the trial of Civil Case No.
Civil Case No. 456? Explain. (2%)
456, PJ died.
2 Will your answer be the same with
respect to the real property being
claimed by Atty. ST in Civil Case No.
456? Explain (2%)
an
and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, C can file a third-party complaint
against D because the loan of 100,000.00
was taken out of the P200,000 received
from B and hence the loan seeks
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 No. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, when 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
is 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 especially provided in the Rules
for prosecuting claims against the estate
of a deceased person.
2 Yes, my answer is the same. An
action to recover real property in any
event survives the death of 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
(2003)
Defendant X 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
Appeal of 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) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page1817of of66 66 wasallowissued a
1 to the When Suprememay a Court party from bethe declared FRESH
Court againstin PERIOD
C, who being of 15B's dayssolewithin
heir, which
acquired to
default?
of Appeals,
(2%) Sandiganbayan and the the property.
file the noticeDid the failure
of appeal in the of RTC,
counselcountedX to
2 45.RTCWhat underisRule the effect of an Orderinform from the court
of receipt of theof B's
orderdeath constitute
dismissing direct
a motion
1
Default? The (2%)first can be filed only on the grounds contempt?
for a new trial (2%)or motion for reconsideration.
of lackFor
3 or excess
failure to of seasonably
jurisdiction file or grave
his Answerabuse SUGGESTED
CA,
[Neypes G.R.
et. ANSWER:
al. No.
vs. 141524, September 14,
of discretion
despite due notice,tantamount A was to lack orinexcess
declared No.
defaultof2005] It is not direct contempt under Sec. 1
jurisdiction,
in a case instituted while theagainst second him is basedby B.onThe theof Rule
Certiorari; 71,
Mode butof itCertiorari
is indirect contempt
errors of law (2006)
Explain
within each
the mode
purview ofofcertiorari:
Sec 3 of Rule 71.
following day,ofA's the lower court.
mistress who is working as a
clerk inThe
2 thefirstsalashould
of the be Judge filedbefore
withinwhom sixty his(60)The
1. lawyer
As a can
mode alsoof be the subject
appeal from the of
days
case from notice of informed
is pending, the judgment, him order disciplinary
Regional
of theorDefault action.
Trial Court
(Sec. or
16, the
Rule 3)Court of
resolution Appeals to the Supreme Court. (2.5%)
declarationsought to be On
of default. assailed
the same (Sec. day,
4. Rule A SUGGESTED
(2000)
DefendantANSWER: was declared in default by the
65) , while the second
presented a motion under oath to set aside should be filed within
the Certiorari
RTC (RTC).as Plaintiff a modewasof allowed appeal to is
fifteenof
order (15) days on
default fromthenoticeground of that
the judgment
his failureorgoverned by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
present evidence in support of his
final
to order was
answer or resolution
due to fraud appealed and from,
he has or aofwhich allows appeal from judgment, final
complaint. Photocopies of official receipts
the denial of defense.
meritorious the petitioner's Thereafter, motion he forwentneworder of resolution of the Court of
and original copies of affidavits were
trial or reconsideration
abroad. After his return a filed
week in later,
due time with after
the Appeals,
presented Sandiganbayan,
in court, identified theby RTC plaintiffor
noticestill
case of the judgment. he
undecided, (Sec. 2, Rule 45)
received the order other courts whenever authorized by law
on the witness stand and marked as
3
declaring The him first incannot
default. generally
The motion be availed
to setofto the Supreme Court by verified petition
exhibits. Said documents were offered by
as a substitute
aside default was for opposed
a lost appeal by B under
on theRules ground 40,for review raising only questions of law
plaintiff and admitted in evidence by the
41, 42,
that 43 and
it was filed45. before A received notice of his 2. distinctly As a special
court on set theforth.
civil action from the
basis of which the RTC
4
having Under
been
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the
declared first,
in the
default, lower
citing court
the rule Regional
is Trial Court or the Court of
renderedto the judgment in favor of the
impleaded
1.
that theA party as amay
motion party
to be
set respondent
declared
aside may in(Sec.
default5 of Rule
be made at Appeals
plaintiff, pursuant
SUGGESTED
Supreme Court. (2.5%)
ANSWER: to the relief prayed for.
when while
65),(Sec.
anytime he4afterunder
fails
of Rule the
tonotice
answer
of 45)second,
butwithin thethe
before lower court isCertiorari as a Special Civil Action is
judgment.
time Upon receipt of the judgment, defendant
not imp leaded.
allowed
Resolve the
therefor,
Motion. and (2%)
upon motion of the governed
appeals tobythe Rule 65 of
Court ofthe Rules claiming
Appeals of Court
claiming
Certiorari; Rule party45 vs.with Rule 65 notice to the when
that an aggrieved party
the judgment is not valid because may filethe a
May(Sec.
(2005) the3,aggrieved
defending Rule 9)
party, party
and file proof a petition
of such for SUGGESTED ANSWER:
verified
RTC claim petition against
based of itsdefendant a
judgmentis on decision, final
certiorari in the Supreme Court under
failure. The not mere valid
The of effect order
photocopies
because or resolution
under and the of
1997 a
affidavits tribunal,
of
Rules, personsbody
reception or
not
2.
Rule 65 theof 1997
an Order Rulesof Default
of Civil is
board that has acted without or in excess
that the court
Procedure, instead mayof proceed to render
filing a petition for of evidence is not required. After ofa
presented in court. Is the claim
judgment granting under the Rule claimant such of its jurisdiction
defendant
defendant valid? orin default,
Explain.
is declared grave
(3%) abuse the court of
review on certiorari 45 thereof discretion amounting to lack or excess of
relief
for the as nullification
his pleading of may warrant unless
a decision of the shall proceed to render judgment
the court in its in discretion requires jurisdiction, when there
granting the claimant such relief as his is no appeal or
Court of Appeals the exercise eitherthe of any other plain, speedy andtheadequate
claimant
SUGGESTED to
ANSWER:submit evidence
its original or appellate jurisdiction? (Id.) The pleading may warrant, unless court in
3.
remedy As in a mode
the ordinary ofcoursereview of law.of the
To NULLIFY
party in default A DECISION
cannot takeof the
part Court
in theof its discretion requires the claimant to
Explain. decisions
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: of the National Labor
trial3[A])
Appeals butthe shall aggrieved
be entitled party to should
notice fileofa submit
Relations evidence,
The claim of Commission
which may
defendant is valid,
be delegated
andbecause the
PETITION
subsequentFOR REVIEW ON
proceedings. (Sec.CERTIORARI to the clerk
SUGGESTED
Constitutional of court.
ANSWER: (Sec. 3, Rule
Commissions. 9)
(2.5%)
3. the Assuming that the motion the court received evidence which it can
in Supreme Court under Ruleto45set of Certiorari as a mode of review of the
aside complies with the othera order in its
decision of own
the NLRCdiscretion, in which
is elevated tocase
the
the Rules of Court instead of filing
requirements of the rule, it should the evidence of the plaintiff must
65, pass the
petition for certiorari under Rule be 65 Court of Appeals under Rule as held
granted. Although such a motion may be basic
in requirements of admissibility.
the case of St. Martin's Funeral Home v.
except under very exceptional Default
made after notice
circumstances. A long butline before judgment
of decisions of NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16,
(2001)
Mario was declared in default but before
(Sec. 3[B]
the Supreme 9), with too
of Rule Court, morenumerous
reason may to 1998. Certiorari as a mode of review from
it be filedholds afterthat discovery evenis before judgment was rendered, he decided to
mention, certiorari not a the Commission on Audit (COA) and
receipt of the file a motion to set aside the order of
substitute
Default; Remedies;for order lostofappeal.
a Party default.It should be
Declared in Default
COMELEC is elevated to the Supreme
default. a) What should Mario state in his
noted, however, when remedies the Court Court within 30 daysaside fromofnotice of the
(1998)
What are the available of aof to justify
motion in the
ordersetting the order of
Appeals imposes the death penalty, or a judgment,
default? (3%)decision
b) In or
what finalform order
should or
party declared
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: In default:
lesser penalty for offenses committed on resolution
such motion be? (2%)sought to be reviewed, as
1
Since As Before
Motion theforrendition
Reconsideration of judgment;was
such occasion, provided for under the Rule 64 of the
[1%]
filed on Januaryappeal 19, 2003 by and petition it was for SUGGESTED ANSWER:
review or January
ordinary appeal. In cases when 1997
a) In Rules
order of
to Civil Procedure.
justify the setting In the
aside caseof
2
deniedAfteron judgment 20, but before
2003, it was its finality;
clearly
the Court ofhearing
Appeals imposes reclusion of
the the
order Civil
of Service
default, Commission
Mario should (CSC),
state in
and
not [2%1
set
Contempt; for
Death of a Party; with at least
Effect three Certiorari; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65
perpetua, life imprisonment or [2%]
a lesser review
his motion of its
that judgments
his failure to is
answerthroughwas
3 filednotice.
(1998)
A
days After finality
a complaint offor
Therefore, judgment?
the recovery
motion wasof (1998)
Differentiate certiorari as an original
penalty, appeal is by notice of appeal filed petitions
due to for review
fraud, under Sec.
accident, 5 of Rule
mistake or
pro forma ofand
ownership land didagainst
not interrupt
B who was the action from certiorari as Procedure.
a mode of
with the of Court 43 of
excusablethe 1997 Rules
negligence of Civil
and that he has a
represented
period byof her
appeal Appeals. counselexpired
which X. In the on appeal. |3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
meritorious defense. [Sec.
Certiorari as an original action and 3(b) of Rule 9,].
January of21,
course the2003 trial, or B died.
fifteenHowever,
(15) days X b) The motion should be under oath.
NOTE:
failed To standardize
to notify
after notice of the court the
decision appeal
of B'son death. periods
January The6, certiorari as a mode of appeal may be
provided in the to Rules (Id.) The first is a special civil action
1.
2003. proceeded
court hear and the to caseaffordand distinguished
Default; Order ofas Default;
follows:Effects
litigants fair opportunity
rendered judgment against B. After the to appeal their under
(1999)
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
cases, the Court deems
Judgment became final, a writ of it practical to while the second is an appeal
execution
 by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 19 of 66 defense (Sec.
3[b], Rule 9); and if it is denied, he may move to
reconsider, and if reconsideration is denied, he
may file the special civil action of certiorari for
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack
or excess of the lower court's jurisdiction. (Sec.
1, Rule 65) or

(b) he may file a petition for

certiorari if he has been illegally
declared in default, e.g. during the
pendency of his motion to dismiss or
(Matute
before vs. Court of the
the expiration Appeals, 26
time to
SCRA
answer. 768; Acosta-Ofalia vs.
Sundiam, 85 SCRA 412.)

2. AFTER JUDGMENT BUT BEFORE ITS FINALITY, he

may file a motion for new trial on the
grounds of fraud, accident, mistake,
excusable negligence, or a motion for
reconsideration on the ground of
excessive damages, insufficient evidence
or the decision or final order being
contrary to law (Sec. 2, Rule 37): and
thereafter. If the motion is denied, appeal
3.
to AFTER FINALITYunder
available Rules 40there
OF THE JUDGMENT, or are
41,
three ways to assail
whichever to applicable. the judgment, which
are:a) a petition for relief under Rule
38 on the grounds of fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence;
b) annulment of judgment under Rule
47 for extrinsic fraud or lack of
jurisdiction; or c) certiorari if the
or by the
judgment judicial
to void record.
on its face (Balangcad
vs. Justices of the Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 83888. February 12, 1992,
206 8CRA 171).
Default; Remedies; Party Declared in Default
(2006)
Jojie filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Laguna a complaint for damages against
Joe. During the pretrial, Jojie (sic) and
her (sic) counsel failed to appear despite
notice to both of them. Upon oral motion
of Jojie, Joe was declared as in default
and Jojie was allowed to present her
evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the court
rendered its Decision in favor of Jojie. Joe
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hired Jose as available
The remedies his counsel.
to a What
party are the
against
remedies available to him? Explain. (5%)
whom a default decision is rendered are
1. BEFORE the judgment in default
as follows:
becomes final and executory:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1 Motion for Reconsideration
The available remedies of a party under Rule 37;
declared in default are as follows: 2 Motion for New Trial under
1. BEFORE THE RENDITION OF JUDGMENT Rule 37; and
(a) he may file a motion under oath 3 Appeal under Rule 41.
to set aside the order of default on
the grounds of fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence and
that he has a meritorious
2. AFTER the judgment in default
becomes final and executory:
1 Petition for Relief under Rule
38;
2 Annulment of Judgment under
Rule 47; and
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 20 of 66 Demurrer to
c. Certiorari under Rule 65. Evidence; Civil Case vs. Criminal Case (2003) Compare
the effects of a denial of demurrer to evidence
(See Talsan Enterprises, Inc. v. Baliwag Transit,
G.R. No. 126258, July 8,
Inc., in a civil case with those of a denial of
1999) demurrer to evidence in a criminal case. 4%
Default; Remedies; Substantial Compliance
(2000)
For failure of 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 he has the right to present evidence. If
affidavit of merit attached to it. KJ his demurrer is granted and on appeal by
however attached to the motion his the plaintiff, the appellate court reverses
answer under oath, stating in said answer the order and renders judgment for the
his reasons for his failure to file an plaintiff, the defendant loses his right to
answer on time, as well as his defenses. In a criminal
present case,
evidence. the33).
(Rule accused has to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: obtain leave of court to file a demurrer to
Will the motion
Yes, there to lift the
is substantial order of with
compliance default
the
prosper? Explain. (3%) 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 granted, he is acquitted and the
If the accused
prosecution doesappeal.
cannot not obtain leave of
of 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 Evidence the ground of insufficiency of the
(2001)
Carlos filed 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 Discovery
After the pre-trial and actual trial, and (2000)
Describe briefly at least five (5) modes of
after Carlos has completed the discovery under the Rules of Court. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
presentation of his evidence, Pedro moved Five modes of discovery under the Rules
for the dismissal of the complaint on the of Court are:
ground that under the facts proven and 1 DEPOSITION. By leave of court after
the law applicable to the case, Carlos is jurisdiction has been obtained over any
not entitled to the ownership of the car. defendant or over property which is the
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 the presentation
No. Pedros motion should be of evidence
denied. He interrogatories. (Sec. 1, Rule 23, 1997 Rules
by Pedro. Should the RTC
can no longer present evidence. grant Pedros
The of Civil Procedure.)
motion provide
Rules to present
that his evidence?
if the motionWhy?
for 2 INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES. Under
(5%)
dismissal is granted by the trial court but the same conditions specified in section 1
on appeal the order of dismissal is of Rule 23, any party shall file and serve
reversed, he shall be deemed to have upon any adverse party written
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
waived the right to present evidence. interrogatories regarding material and
No, because
(Sec. 1 when
of Rule 33, the
Rules of appellate
Civil Procedure)court relevant facts to be answered by the party
reversed the order of the trial court it
served. (Sec. 1, Rule 25, 1997 Rules of Civil
should have rendered judgment in favor Procedure.)
of Carlos. (Quebral v. Court of Appeals, 252 3 ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY. At any
SCRA 353, 1996)
time after issues have been joined, a party
may file and serve upon any other party a
written request for the
Version 1997-2006 by Dondee by the
admission
Updated

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)
4. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
OR THINGS. Upon motion of any party showing
good cause therefore, a court may order any
party to produce and permit the inspection
and copying or photographing of any
designated documents, etc. or order any
party to permit entry upon designated land
or property for inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or
any designated relevant object or operation
27, 1997
thereon. (Sec. Rule 27 Rules of Civil
1, Rule
Procedure.)
Discovery; Modes; Subpoena Duces Tecum
(1997)
In an admiralty case filed by A against Y
Shipping Lines (whose principal offices
are in Manila) in the RTC, Davao City, the
court issued a subpoena duces tecum
directing Y, the president of the shipping
company, to appear and testify at the trial
(a)
andOn what valid
to bring ground
with him can documents.
several Y refuse to
comply with the subpoena duces tecum?
(b) How can A take the testimony of Y
and present the documents as exhibits
other than through the subpoena from
SUGGESTED
the RTC? ANSWER:
(a) Y can refuse to comply with the
subpoena duces tecum on the ground
that he resides more than 50 (now 100)
kilometers from the place where he is to
testify, (Sec. 9 of former Rule 23; Sec. 10 of
(b) Rule
new A can 21).take the testimony of Y and
present the documents as exhibits by
taking his deposition through oral
examination or written interrogatories.
(Rule 24; new Rule 23) He may also file a
ALTERNATIVE
motion for ANSWER:
the production or inspection of
(a) The witness
documents. can also refuse to comply
(Rule 27).
with the subpoena duces tecum on the
ground that the documents are not
relevant and there was no tender of fees
for one day's attendance and the
kilometrage allowed by the rules.
Discovery; Production and Inspection of Documents
(2002)
The plaintiff sued the defendant in the
RTC to collect on a promissory note, the
terms of which were stated in the
complaint and a photocopy attached to
the complaint as an annex. Before
answering, the defendant filed a motion
for an order directing the plaintiff to
produce the original of the note so that
1 Should the
the defendant judge
could grantitthe
inspect anddefendants
verify
motion for production and inspection
his signature and the handwritten entries of the
original of the promissory
of the dates and amounts. note? Why? (2%)
2 Assuming that an order for production
and inspection was issued but the plaintiff
failed to comply with it, how should the
defendant plead to the alleged execution of (Sec. 1, Rule 26, 1997 Rules of Civil
the note? (3%) Procedure.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 22
21 of 66
4. there must be between the two SUGGESTED ANSWER:
cases identity of parties, identity of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Yes, because
A QUESTION OF LAW upon is motion
when the of any
doubtpartyor
subject matter, and identity of causes
showing
differencegood arises cause,as tothe what court in which
the law is on
of action.
Cardona,
(San 70
DiegoPhil,
v. 281
[1940]) the actionset
a certain is pending
of facts,may whileorder any party
a QUESTION OF
Evidence; Admissibility; Photocopies to produce and permit
FACT is when the doubt or difference the inspection of
(2000)
If the photocopies of official receipts and designated
arises as todocuments. the truth or (Rule 27). The
falsehood of
photocopies of affidavits were attached to defendant
alleged
SCRA facts.
289, has
[19670]). the right to inspect
(Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling and
the position paper submitted by plaintiff in verify
Co., 19the original of the promissory note
an action for unlawful detainer filed with Judgment;
(2)
so that heAnnulment
The defendant of not
is
could intelligently Judgment;
required Grounds
to deny
prepare his
Municipal Trial Court on which basis the (1998)
What
under
answer. are
oath the grounds
the for
genuineness the annulment
and due
court rendered judgment in favor of of a judgment
execution of of the RTC (RTC)? [2%]
promissory note,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED of
because ANSWER:the non-compliance by the
plaintiff? Explain. (2%)
The claim of defendant is valid, because The grounds
plaintiff with for theannulment
order forofproduction
judgment
although summary procedure requires of theinspection
RTCANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE
and are Extrinsic
of the originalFraud and Lack
thereof.
merely the submission of position papers, (2)
of The defendant
Jurisdiction.
(Rule 8, sec. 8). (Sec,may 2, file
Rule a motion
47, 1997to
the evidence submitted with the position dismiss
Rules the Procedure.)
of Civil complaint because of the
paper must be admissible in evidence. Judgment;
refusal of Enforcement;
the plaintiff5-year to obey period
the order
(Sec. 9 of the Revised Rule on Summary (1997)
A,
of athe resident
court offor Dagupan City, secured
the production anda
Procedure). Photocopies of official receipts favorable
inspection judgment
of the promissory in an ejectmentnote. [Rulecase
and affidavits are not admissible without against
Dismissal;
29 X,Motion
Sec. 3(c)]. a resident
to Dismiss;of Quezon City, from
Res Judicata
Forum ofShopping;
proof loss of theDefinition
originals. (Sec. 3 of Rule (2000)
AB, MTCof
the as mother and in
Manila. Theherjudgment,
capacity as legal
entered
(2006)
What is forum shopping? (2.5%)
130) guardian
on 15 June of her 1991, legitimate
had not minor
as yetson,been
CD,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: brought action
executed. a) Infor Julysupport
1996, against
A decided EF, asto
Forum shopping is the act of a party of
fathertheof
enforce MTCof
the CD andManila.
judgment ABs lawfullyWhat weddedis the
which consists of filing multiple suits, procedure
husband. EF to befiled followed
his answer by A in enforcing
denying his
simultaneously or successively, for the the judgment? b) With
paternity with counterclaim for damages. what court should
purpose v. Office
(Leyson of obtaining a
of the Ombudsman, favorable
G.R. A institute the proceedings?
Subsequently, AB filed a manifestation in
No. 134990, April 27, 2000; Yulienco v. CA,
judgment SUGGESTED ANSWER:
G.R. No. 131692, June 10,1999; Chemphil court that
(a) A can enforcein view of the
the denial
judgment made by by
Export & Import Corp. v. CA, G.R. Nos. EF, it would be futile
another action reviving the Judgment to pursue the case
112438-39, December 12, 1995). against EF.
because it can ABno agreed
longertobemove for the
enforced by
Forum Shopping; Effects; Lack of Certification dismissal of the complaint, subject to the
(2006)
Honey filed with the Regional Trial Court, motion as the five-year period within
condition
which that EF may
a judgment willbewithdraw
enforced by his
Taal, Batangas a complaint for specific
performance against Bernie. For lack of motion has already expired. (Sec. 6 EF
counter claim for damages. AB and of
filedA amay
(b)
former joint
and motion
institute
new Rulethe to proceedings
39). dismiss. The in court
the
certification against forum shopping, the dismissed
RTC the case with
in accordance withprejudice.
the rules Laterof
judge dismissed the complaint. Honey's on, minor
venue because son CD, the represented by
enforcement of AB,
the
lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration, second complaint? Explain your answer
filed another
Judgment is a are complaint
personal action for incapable
support
attaching thereto an amended complaint (3%) b) What the essential requisite
against
of EF. EF
pecuniary filed a motion to dismiss on
estimation.
with the certification against forum of res judicata? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the ground
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of res judicata. a) Is res
shopping. If you were the judge,
If I were the judge, the motion should be
how will judicata
(a) No, a
res valid
judicata ground
is not for dismissal
a defense in anof
you resolve
denied after the motion?
hearing (5%) as expressly
because, the
action for support even if the first case
provided in the Rules, failure to comply with was dismissed with prejudice on a joint
the requirement of forum shopping is not motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs mother
curable by mere amendment of the complaint agreed to the dismissal of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading, but shall be cause for support in view of the defendants
for the dismissal of the case, without
answer denying his paternity with a
prejudice, unless otherwise provided (Sec. 5,
Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). However, the
counterclaim for damages. This was in
Asis v. Court
the nature of aofcompromise
Appeals, 303 of SCRA
the right176of
trial court in the exercise of its sound [1999]).
discretion, may choose to be liberal and support which is prohibited by law. (Art,
(Great
(b) The Essential Requisites of Res Judicata
considerSouthern Maritime Services
the amendment Corp. v.
as substantial 2035, Civil Code; De
Acuna, G.R. No. 140189, February 28,2005; are: 1 the judgment or order rendered
compliance
Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga del Norte, G.R. must be final;
No. 149253, April 15, 2004; Uy v. Land Bank, 2 the court rendering the same
G.R. 136100, July 24, 2000). must have jurisdiction of the subject
Gen. Principles; Questions of Law vs. Questions of matter and of the parties;
Fact (2004)
3 it must be a judgment or order
Distinguish Questions of law from Questions of
on the merits; and
fact.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 25 2423 ofof 6666Yes. which The
Judgment; is
A. After
foreign
alleged judgments.
the in judgmentthe A complaint
had
localbecome judgmentmust final, a MeTC
always
may tantamount
be did not
Interlocutory Order; to
have removal
Partialjurisdiction
Summarywithout over thecause,
Judgments case
(2004)
writ
1 of When
be (Sec.
proved.
enforced 1 of Rule
execution the34.)
by claim
motion
was issuediswithin
notbypurely
the
fivecourt. personal
years After defendant
contrary
because the
to the has
totalfundamental
amount servedof and the filed
guarantee demand his
on
ANOTHER
and ANSWER:
is writnot was thereby extinguished, the answer toofplaintiffs complaint cause. for damages
As the by action within
returned the unsatisfied,
next five years. the partynon-removal
exclusive interest,
except for damages of
Considering
whatever
c. No. The court shall order the prosecutor
should 39) be
plaintiff
(Rule That
filed substituted
isanot motion
the case byforhis withanheirs
respect
order before
or kind,
his Pedro
that the continued
attorney's proper fees, RTC, plaintiff
litigation
to occupy served
expenses,
the disputed and
and
to investigate whether or not a collusion
executor
to
requiring
foreign orthe administrator.
judgments
defendant which
to appear
(Sec. cannot
16, before
Rule filed a was
3)be costs,
position motion
and P1M. (with
exerciseIts supporting
jurisdictional
his affidavits)
functions amount forata
therein,
between the
ALTERNATIVE parties exists, and if there is no
ANSWER:
andIf to
enforced
it the
by be action
mere examined isforfor
motion. recovery ofhismoney summary
the
this time
proper judgment
should remedy notin his quo
exceed
is favor upon all of
P400.000.00
warranto, his
not
2
collusion,
Article to
1144 intervene
ofincome.
the Civil theregarding
Staterequires
Code in order R.A.
(Sec.
SUGGESTED
arising
property fromANSWER:
and contract, express
How or
should implied, the and
33 B.P. No.
ofAppeals,
claims.
mandamus. Big. 7691).
Defendant
129,
{Garces259as amended
v. SCRA
served
Court byof 99and filed his
to
thatseeantoactionit thatupon the evidence
a judgment submitted(though is ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(1996)]
the
court
not defendant
resolve the
fabricated. dies
motion? before entry
(2%)9) Evidence of opposition
final (with supporting affidavits) to the
Jurisdiction;
without Habeas(Sec.
distinction) 3[E],
Corpus; must Rule
Custody be theof brought
Minors Yes, court's
The the court order is to correct
forward in the its case ruling.
judgment
must have in to thebe court
presented in whichin theaccordance action was motion. After due hearing, the court issued to an
(2005)
While
within Marietta
10 years was
from inthe her time place ofrightwork of Mandamus
the
(1) RTC
stating is lies proper.
not
that thewhen court the
It should
has respondent
foundmerely no
pending
with
Republic the at the
requirements
vs. Court timeofofAppeals such
set down death,
and byit shall
Molina
order
the not unlawfully excludes another from the use
in Makati
action accrues. City, her estranged
There husband
be dismissed
Supreme
(268 SCRA Court
198.) but
in shall seems insteadno becogent
allowed to dismiss genuine the
and
issuecomplaint.
enjoyment
as to any material
of a
Under Sec.
right or
fact 3and
office
of
to
Carlo
reason barged
to exclude into her foreign house in Paranaque
judgments from Rule 16, the court may dismiss the action
continue until entry of final judgment. A thus which
concluded that plaintiff is entitled to
suchdeny other is motion
entitled.
City,
the abducted
operation of their
this six-year
rule, subject oldtoson, the or claim, his the or(Sec. order 2,
of Rulethe
favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff 65). In thisin
Judgment; Judgment on the Pleadings judgment
case,
favor
Pablo
as a matter
has not unlawfully
law
Percival,
requirements
(2005)
In a and
complaint ofbrought
Rule
for 39, the
recovery Sec.child 48 of to
of his
the
real amendment
except as toof the
the pleading
amount of but not
damages to
shall be enforced in the manner provided in excluded Fabian from the Office of
hometown
Rules
property, of Court
the in plaintiff
Baguio
which City. Despite
establishes
averred, certain
among forward
recoverable, the case
and to
(2) another
accordingly court. ordering
the rules for prosecuting claims against the Parties; Election Death of a shall
Registrar. Party;
The Effect remedy
Marietta's
requisites
others,ofthat
estate
pleas,
he isCarlo
for
a deceased proving
the
person.
refused
owner theofto20,
(Sec. the return
foreign
said that
66) plaintiff have of Fabian
judgment
(1998)
A
is filed a complaint for the recovery of
their
judgment. child.
property by Marietta,
Pursuant
virtue to through
of thesea deed counsel,
provisions,
of sale summarily against defendant for insuch
to file an action of quo warranto his
filed
an a petition
actionbyforthethe for habeas
enforcement corpus against ownership
name against of land
Pablo against
for B
usurping who was
the
executed defendant in his offavor. the amount
Judgment; as Soundness;
represented
may be found
by her
due plaintiff for
Attachment
counsel by X. trialIn the
Carlo
foreign in the
judgment Court of
may Appeals
be in
brought Manilaat anyto office.
damages,
(2002) (Sec.to 5, Rule
be ascertained on
Copy
Judgment;of the deed ofpending
Execution sale was appended to
Appeal The plaintiff obtained a writ of preliminary
compel
time him
within to
10 produce
years fromtheir son,
the time before the course
October of 7, the
2004, trial, at B8:30 died. However,
o'clock in the X
the
(2002)
The complaint
trial as Annex
court "A" thereof.
rendered judgmentIn his attachment upon a bond of P1 million. The
the court and for her failed to notify the court of B's death. The
right
his
ordering
of action
unverified
In comment,
the answer, accrues.
defendant the to
Carlo to
regain custody.
defendant
alleged
paythat thethat denied
plaintiff the morning.
writ
court
SUGGESTED
May
wasANSWER:
proceeded
defendant
levied on properly
to hear
the defendants
the Or,
take an
case may and
She
the alleged
allegation in the petition
concerningfiled the in sale despite appeal
property, from
but may said
it was order?
discharged upon the
petition
moral was erroneously
and exemplary damages. theof Courtthe
The No,
renderedplaintiff judgment not properly
against B. take the
After an
her efforts,inshe
property could no longer
question, as well locate as her
the defendant
posting by properly
the defendant challenge of a said
counterbond order
of Appeals
judgment as the same
was served on the plaintiff onshould have been appeal
Judgment from said
became order because
final, fora certiorari? it is
writ of an
son.
appended deed ofCourt sale, for lack City of thru
in thea same
special civil action
amount of P1 amillion. After
filed
October in the 1, 2001 Family and on the indefendant
Baguio on interlocutory
execution was order,
issued not against final C, and who
knowledge
which,
Octoberunder 5,ANSWER:or
2001. information
Republic
On October Act No. sufficient
8, 8369,
2001, has to
the Reason.
trial, the
appealable (5%)
court
order rendered
(Sec. 4 of judgment
Rule 35). Itfinding
does
SUGGESTED being B's sole heir, acquired the property.
form a belief
exclusive
defendant
Defendant as a
jurisdiction,
filed
cannot to notice
the truth
deny over of the
the thereof.
salepetition.
appeal offromIstheit that
not the plaintiff
dispose
SUGGESTED ANSWER:of thehad actionno cause or proceeding of action
If you
As counselwereofcounsel C, I would of C, move what to course
set of
proper
Marietta
the judgment,
property for the
replied
for lack court
that the
but tounder
of render judgment
Rule 102day,
following
knowledge of
or PARTIAL
against
(action
Sec. 1 of the
Rule SUMMARY
defendant
39 ). JUDGMENTS
and that heaside had are
the writ would you take?
of execution and [3%] the judgment forbe
without
the
October Rules
information trial? Explain.
of Court,
9, sufficient
2001, (4%)
as
thetoplaintiff
form amended,movedasthe
a belief for
to interlocutory.
sued out There
the is
writ still ofsomethingattachment to
lack
done,ofwhich
maliciously.jurisdiction the and triallack
is Accordingly, for of thedue process
adjudication
the court
petition
the truth
executionmay be
thereof. ofThe filed
the answer in the
judgment amounts Court
pendingto an of
in
of the
damages
(Province
dismissed same of thecourt
Pangasinan because
complaint v. the
Court
and judgment
of
ordered Appeals, is
the
admission.
Appeals
appeal. The and The if defendant
trial granted,
court granted themust writ aver of or
the state
habeas
motion
SUGGESTED ANSWER: void.
220 If
SCRA
plaintiff X
and 726had notified
its[1993J;
surety Guevarra the
to pay jointlycourt v. Courtof B's
to the of
positively
corpus
upon the howbe
shall
posting it isenforceable
that
by theheplaintiff
is ignorant of a of
anywhere bond the
in
Marietta's contention is correct. The death, the209
Appeals,
defendant
court
P1.5 Phil. would
million 241 as
have
[1983])
actual
ordered
, but
damages,
the
the
facts
the alleged.
Philippines.
to indemnify the (Phil, Advertising
Whose
defendant Counselors,
contention is
hasfor damages it
G.R. No. L-31869, August 8, 1973; Sec. 10, Rule 8) substitution
order thrumay ofa the special
deceased civilby actionC, the for
Court
Moreover,
Inc. of the
v. Revilla, Appeals genuineness concurrent
and due defendant
P0.5 million asproperly moral damages challenge saidsole
and P0.5
correct?
may suffer
jurisdiction Explain.as
with a (5%)
result
the family of the
courts execution.
and the certiorari.
heir of B.ANSWER:
SUGGESTED (Sec.
(Sec.1 [c] 16 and of lastRulepar. 3) ofThe Rulecourt41)
execution
court of theas deed of salereason can only for be million
The as
judgment exemplaryagainst damages.
the surety Evaluate
The
Supreme
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
gave
Court ina petitions
special for habeas its acquired
(Ferreira no
us. jurisdiction
Ibarra Vda.over C upon is
de Gonzales, whom not
104
denied
order by the
the defendant
imminent under oath
insolvency of and
the the soundness
Judgment;
sound
the trial if Judgment
due
andVda. of
notice
the judgment the
on was judgment
the Pleadings
not
are not given fromto himthe
No, because
corpus where theawards
custody for moral isand
of minors at Phil. 143; de la Cruz vs. binding.
Court of
failure
defendant.
exemplary to do so Is is
damages cannot also
the an
order admission
of of
execution the point
(1999)
a)
of the of view
What
applicant of
are procedure.
the
for grounds
damages. (5%)for
(Rule judgment
57, sec.
issue,
deed. notwithstanding
(Sec. 8, Rule Hence,
8)appeal.
the be the subject
provision
a judgment in theon
of Appeals, 88 SCRA 695; Lawas us. Court of
pending
execution appeal
pending correct? Why?The (5%)
execution of on the
20)
Appeals, pleadings?
Moreover,146 SCRA the(2%) judgment
173.) I could against also the file
Family
the Courts can
pleadings AH. be (R.A. No. 8369) that
rendered by the
any
No. award
154598, for
August, moral
2004) and exemplary b)
ALTERNATIVE
surety
an action A's
cannottoAnswer
ANSWER:
annulexceed admits
the the
judgment the
amount material
for of lackits
family
court courts have
without need exclusive
of a trial. jurisdiction in (b) A may institute the proceeding in a
damages is dependent on the outcome of the allegations
counterbond
of jurisdiction of B's
of P1because Complaint.
million. C, as the May the
such cases.
Judgment; (Thornton
Mandamus vs. v.QuoThornton,Warranto G.R. MTCwhich
Judgments;
(Rule has
Enforcement; jurisdictionExamination over the
of Defendant area
Jurisdiction;
main case. Lack of Jurisdiction; Proper
Liabilities for moral Action of and the court 47)
successor motu ofproprio
B, was render deprived judgment of due on
(2001)
Petitioner
Court (2004) Fabian
exemplary
was appointed Election
damages, as well as the exact where
(2002)
ALTERNATIVE
c)
the
process A the
pleadings? real
ANSWER:
brought
andareshouldExplain. property
an action
(2%)
have
involved
against
been heard
is
her
Registrar
Plaintiff
amounts filed of
remain the Municipality
a complaint
uncertain for of
and aindefinite Sevilla
sum of While
situated.
The
husband there (Sec.
plaintiff, B afor 1 decisions
of
ManilaRule 4). of the
resident, sued
annulment Supreme
of their the
supposedly to defendant
replace the respondent before
Judgment;
Court judgment.
which Enforcement;
hold thatForeignif Malolos
the Judgment
lawyer failed
money
pending against
resolution by
134 SCRA 395 (1985); International School, the with
Court the
of MeTC-
Appeals defendant,
marriage on a resident
the ground of of Bulacan,
psychological
Election (2005)
Under
to the Article
notify 1144 of
the Bcourt ofhisthe a New
his client's Civil Code,
death,
Makati,
or Supreme
Inc. v. CourttheRegistrar
total
Court. [RCPIPablo
amount
of Appeals, of
309the
v. Lantin, who
SCRAdemand, was
474 in
incapacity, RTC-Manila filedfor sum
Answer of money.
to the
transferred
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: to another municipality an
the
When action
court upon
may
the admitting
sheriff trieda
proceed judgment even
to serve must
without be
the
exclusive
(1999)]. of interest, damages of Complaint all the allegations
Yes, because
without his only moral
consent and and
who exemplary
refused to brought
substitution
summons within of 10
heirs
with a copy of years and from
the the
judgment
the complaint time theis
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation therein contained. May A move on for
damages
accept his are
aforesaidawarded transfer,in themuch judgmentless to right
valid
SUGGESTED
the of
and
defendantaction
binding
ANSWER: accrues. on theIs this
heirs provision
of the
expenses, and costs, being P1,000,000. In judgment on theatpleadings?his Bulacan Explain.residence, (2%)
and they
vacate hisare not dependent
position in Bogo ontown other as a)
applicable
deceased
the sheriffThe(Florendo
grounds
to an
was toldvs. for
action judgment
Coloma,
that thefiled 129on inSCRA
defendant the
the
due time, defendant filed a motion to
types of damages.
election registrar, as in fact he continued pleadings
Philippines
30.),
had as are
gone ANSWER: to
counsel where
enforce of C,aan
to Manila for business and I answer
foreign
will assailfails
judgment? to
the
dismiss
Moreover, thethe complaint
motion on execution
for the ground was of ALTERNATIVE
to occupy his aforesaid position and tender
Explain.
judgment
would an
not issue,
(10%)
and
be back or
execution otherwise for admits
lack of the
due
the
filed MeTC's
whilehis the lack court of had
jurisdiction
jurisdiction overover the Article Death
Parties; 1144 of of theuntil
a Party; Civil
Effect theCode evening which of
exercise functions thereto. Petitioner material
process.
that day. allegations
So, the ofsheriff
the adverseserved party'sthe
subject
the case matter.
and was After due hearing,
in possession of the the requires
(1999)
What
b) isNo, that
the an action
a effect
motion of musttheupon death
be fileda of judgment
aby party
the
Fabian then filed athat
petition for mandamus pleading.
summons, (Sec. 1, Rule
together 34).
with a copy of the
MeTC
original (1)
record. ruled the court indeed (though
upon
adverse a without
pending
party. action?
(Sec. distinction)
1, Rule(2%) 34) must
The court be
against
lacked
SUGGESTED
Pablo
jurisdiction
ANSWER:
but the over trialthe court
subject dismissed
matter complaint,
brought
SUGGESTED withinon
ANSWER: the
10 defendants
years from the18year-old
time the
It is basedpetition
Fabians on goodcontending reason which that is the quo cannot motu proprio render judgment on
Yes,
of thethe
imminent court
complaint;insolvency isand correct
(2)
of in defendant.
ordered
the its ruling.
that the daughter,
1.
right
c) ofWhen
No, who
action the
because was claim
accrues, aeven
college
indoesif B's student.
a pendingnot apply
answer For
action to
to
warranto is the proper remedy. Is the the pleadings.
Mandamus
case
(Rule therefore
39, sec. will shouldnot be lie.
2)its ruling? Why? (5%) This
forwarded remedy
to the the
is
an defendants
purely
action personal,
filed failure
A's complaint for annulment of theirin the the deathto answer
of
Philippines either the
toof
SUGGESTED
court correct ANSWER: in
applies
proper only immediately.
RTC where petitionersWas theright court's is complaint
the parties
enforce a within
extinguishes
foreign
marriage admits all the allegationsjudgment. the the reglementary
claim
While and
we the
can
foundedconcerning
ruling clearly in law, jurisdiction not when correct?it is period,
action
say
therein that the
iscontained,trial court,
dismissed.
where the the onlaw
material motion doesof the
facts not
doubtful.
Was the court'sPablo order was transferred
to forward the withoutcase plaintiff,
distinguish, declared
Versionwe should
1997-2006 the not
Updated by defendant
Dondeedistinguish, in
his consent
proper? Explain briefly. (5%) default.
still theA month law later, the
does not trial court
evidently
rendered
contemplate judgment
the inclusion holding ofthe defendant
liable for the entire amount prayed for in
the complaint.
 Rule 3)

Parties; Death of a Party; Effect

(1999)
When A (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
1 Will you
and moved for grant
the the motion?
dismissal of Explain.
the
(2%)
collection suit.
2 Will your answer be the same if A died
while the case is already on appeal to the
Court of Appeals? Explain. (2%)
3 In the same case, what is the effect if B
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
died before the RTC has rendered judgment?
1 No, because the action will not be
(2%)
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to
continue until entry of final judgment. (Id.)
2 No. 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.)
3 The 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 Page27 2829 26of 66
of 66
of
of The66
66 he motion
attached,
being to
copyfrom
not
Consequently,
of date which ofthe receipt
is action
Annex of the"A" of
Order.Xof The the merely
has stating
dismiss plaintiffs
the
should
judgment, grounds be
evencounsel.
granted.
ifofthe his Isdismissal
title
the
Jurisdiction
counterclaim
thereto, is not must
andyet final.
court denied
prescribed
complaint and
with hisrespect
made
motion an toonthe
integral
thethreeground (3) of
part serve
be conferred
DY such
[Golez
v. compulsory
affidavit
Leonidas, by the upon
107 orcontents
not?
the sheriff
SCRA Should
of187 thewhile original
AC'sthe
that the Order
legitimate
thereof; andchildren(2)hadthat already
ofto Y prosecute
becomewho final his motion
are latter(1981)].
complaint.
hastopossession
Amendments
dismiss ofthe the are attached
counterclaim
not proper property, and
be
ANOTHER
and can
indispensable
complaint, ALTERNATIVE
no
plaintiff
parties. ANSWER:
longer contracted
be amended a lawyer, and Pleadings;
to granted
should a copy
be
or not? Amendment
denied
thereof Reason. where
upon of(5%)Complaint;
thetheattaching
court By Leave has
party. of
no
Under
conform
CC, Article
for a with 175
fee of Section of the
P50.000. 2, Family
In his Code,
Rule answer, the Court
68. jurisdiction (2003)
SUGGESTED
(Sec. 14, Rule over ANSWER:
57) The thethird-party
original complaint claimant may and
action
Aggrieved,
defendant mustalleged,beABbrought interwithin
files a
alia,petitionthe lifetime
that he had for thealso Yes.
After
purposeThe
intervenean counterclaim
answer
of or
thefile has a been
amendment of DY filed,
separate isiscompulsory
tocan
action conferthe
to
of X if
certiorari
no the
knowledge action
against of the is based
the mortgage on
Court anddeed, a record
CD. Will of because
plaintiff
(Rosario
and jurisdiction
vindicate his on it
amend is
v.claim one
Carandang,
the his whichcomplaint,
to theG.R.
court. arises
property out
with
No. L-7076, of
involved or
leave is 28,
April
birth
SUGGESTED
the also
he or
petition an
ANSWER:
denied for admission
any liability of
certiorari filiation in a
plaintiffs and SUGGESTED
for prosper? connected
While
of
1955)court,
secure thea plaintiff
by with
changing is the
entitled entirely
necessary reliefs, such as transaction
to amend
the naturethe or
Yes.
public
Does The court erred
document
defendant's or a
answer in
privateissuing
as to an Order
handwritten
plaintiffs complaint
occurrence
of the action? ANSWER:
before
constituting
4% a responsive the subject pleading matter is
Explain. (5%)
contracting with a lawyer for a fee. preliminary
Yes, the injunction,
present rules which
allow will
amendments not be
granting
instrument signed
allegation CDsno. 1 by prayer for
asY. well foreclosure
In such as case,no. the of 1997
of the
served
2 considered Rules
opposing
(Sec.
(Ong v. asTating, of
2, Civil
Rule party's
10, Procedure;
149 SCRA claim and
265, Remington
does not
substantially
Industrial interference
Sales alteringCorporation the with naturev.apresence
court
Courtof the of
of
mortgage
action of Xand
sufficiently has
raise ordering
not issueAB
anprescribed. of to fact?payReasonCD the require
[1987]) for its adjudication the of
However, if the action is based on the coordinate
cause
Appeals,
Parties;
jurisdiction.
of action.
G.R.
Third-Party No. 133657,
(Sec. Claim3, Rule May10, 29,
1977 2002),
Rules
full amount
SUGGESTED
briefly. (5%) of
ANSWER: the mortgage debt including third parties of whom the court cannot
As
open to plaintiffs
and allegation
continuous no.not
possession 1, defendant
of thanthe still,
v.
of Court
Civil
(2005) a Procedure;
complaint
of aAppeals, Heirscannot 280 be
SCRA
of Marcelino amended 870
Pagobo to
interest and other charges later A obtained
acquire jurisdiction money .(Sec.judgment
7 of Ruleagainst 6). B.
[1997]).
confer jurisdiction on a court where there
does
status notof sufficiently
an illegitimate raise an
child, issue
the of fact,
action The
Aftermotion
the finality to dismiss of plaintiffs counsel
120 days from receipt of the Order. The This
was should
none tobe only of
begin be the
with. true,decision,
however, the court
when
because
shouldshould
court have he have cannot
been brought
rendered allegeduring lack the
a judgment of should
issued not a writ granted of because bringing
execution for the in
the substantial
Pleadings; Amendment change of or alteration in the
knowledge ofIn
lifetimeisofappealable.
which Y. the suchmortgage
case,
Sincethe deed
no since
action
appeal he
ofwas X plaintiffs
enforcement counsel thereof. asComplaint;
aConformably
defendant To Conform inwith w/
the
cause
Evidenceof action or defense shall serve the
(2004)
should have
has prescribed.
taken, the judgment personal knowledge became final as to on counterclaim
the said writ, is theauthorized sheriff by levied the Rules.upon
Pleadings; Amendment of Complaint; Matter of Right higher
During interests
trial, of substantial
plaintiff was able justice
to present, and
whether he signed it
August 25, 1999, which is the date of entry or not and because Where
certain it is
properties required under for
B's the
name. grant
C filed of
(2005) prevent
without delay and
objection on equally
the part promote
of defendant the
he did not deny
of judgment. (Sec 2, Rule 36) Hence, AB had under oath the complete
a third-party relief in
claim the determination
over said propertiesof the
On May 12, and 2005, theexecution
plaintiff of filed a laudable
in an ejectment objectivecase, of theevidence rules which showing is to
genuineness due the counterclaim,
claiminga that thehad court shalltransferred
order the
up to December
complaint in the
24,
RTC
1999
of
within which
Quezon City
to
for secure
that plaintiff just,Bservedspeedy already
onanddefendantinexpensive a
mortgage deed, which
pay the amount due. (Sec. 2, Rule 68) The is an actionable defendant's
the same to him. counsel to
Aevery be brought
moved action to deny and in since
the
the collection of P250,000.00. The disposition
written demand of to vacate the subject
document.
court gravely As to plaintiffs
abused its allegationdiscretion no. jurisdiction
third-party claim over him and to canhold be Bobtained. and of C
defendant filed did a motion to dismissdeny the proceeding.
property
(Sec. 12 before
of
(Valenzuela
Rule the6;commencement
Aurelio
v. v.Court Court of the of
2, defendant
amounting to lack or not
excess properly
of jurisdiction jointly
Pleadings; and severally
Amendment of liable
Complaint; to him
By for
Leave theof
Petition
complaint for Reliefon & Action
the ground for Annulment
that the court Appeals,
suit, a matter
Appeals,
363 SCRA
196
SCRA
not alleged 779 [2001]).
674 or otherwise
[1994]). Here, set
the
liability
in denying as ABsto plaintiffs
motion contracting
praying that with
CD a money
Court; judgment
Prescriptive Period alleging
(2000) that B had
(2002)
May
had no an jurisdiction
Pleadings; order
Certificationdenying Against
over the the probate
Forum actionShoppingof be
since a forth
After in the
due
counterclaim pleadings
hearing,
was the court
against onboth file.denied
the May the the
lawyer
directed
(2000)
forto areceive
fee. Hethe didamount
not even deny
tendered. for X, an
transferred illegitimate said child
properties of Y, to plaintiff
celebratedC to
As
will counsel
still be for
overturned A, B, Cafterand the D, Atty.
period XY
to corresponding
ALTERNATIVE
third-party ANSWER: pleading
claim and still be
rendered amended
the of
lack claimed
knowledge. amount (Sec.of 10 of P250,000.00
Rule 8). is and
her
defraud
The
his
18th
SUGGESTED lawyer
him
counterclaim birthday
(A).
ANSWER: who on allegedly
should May be 1996. an
2,maliciously
dismissed A
prepared
appeal thea exclusive
within therefrom complainthas lapsed? for recovery
jurisdiction Why? of (3%) of
the to conform
amended
induced the to the
decision
plaintiff evidence?
declaring
to file theExplain. B
suit. and (5%) C
Yes.
month
because The corresponding
before her birthday, pleading Y may
died. still
The
possession
SUGGESTED
Metropolitan of Trial
ANSWER: a parcel Court, of landof Quezon againstCity. Z. jointly
be amended
legitimate and itseverallyto
family
is
conform
not liable
of
a tocompulsory
to
Y the Aevidence,
refused for the to
Yes,
Before an order filling denying the the probate ofXY
complaint, a counterclaim. When a lawyer files a case
Before the court could resolve the motion, money
because
recognize judgment.
theX aswritten
an Is the
demand
illegitimate ruling to of the
vacate,
will may
discovered be overturned
the plaintiff,thatwithout
after
his clients the
leave were
period
of court, notto for a correct?
SUGGESTED
court client, ANSWER:heExplain.
should (4%) not be sued on Y. child of a
appeal therefrom has lapsed. A PETITION made
After prior
countless
NO. C has not in
counterclaim to the
beenefforts
the commencement
properlyto
very convince
impleaded
same case of
them, the
as
he
available to sign the
amended his complaint to allege a new certification of non- Y.
FOR
forum RELIEF
shopping. mayTo be avoid
filed on the grounds
further delays a After
ejectment
X
has filed
filedon
party Zdefendant.
filed
as suit,
April
counsel.
her 25,answer
was ItHe presented
2000
should
on
anbe
cannot August
action
be by held
filed
14,
inthe
fora
cause of action consisting in the inclusion 2000,
plaintiff
recognitionX filed
in a
evidence
againstmotion Z, for
without
wife leave
of to
objection file an
on
of fraud,
in the accident,
filing of the mistake
complaint, or excusable
XY signed liable
[1991])
separate for the
and judgment
distinct against
civil action. A without
(Chavez
of an additional amount of P200,000.00, amended
negligence
the certification within anda immediately
period of sixty filed(60) the
the
a trial.
v. part In complaint
Sandiganbayan, of
fact, the since193
and
defendant.
no
SCRA
a motion
bond 282wasEven to admit
if
filed the
by
thereby increasing his total claim to the said
Pleadings;
demand to amended
Motions;
vacate Bill
wascomplaint
of Particulars
jurisdictional, impleading still,
days
SUGGESTED
complaint after the
ANSWER:
in cannot petitioner
court. Is XY learns of the B, the sheriff is liable to C for damages. C
P450,000.000.
NO,
judgment counsel or final
The sign plaintiff
order thejustified
and
thereafter
anti-forum
not more
in (2003)
the
1
the
can three When
amendment
file a (3) can
legitimate
separate a bill
proposed action children
of was particulars
to toof
enforce Y. The
conform be
his
signing
filed histheopposition
certification? to Why? the (5%) motion to trial
availed
shopping
Asi,
than100
SUGGESTEDsixPhil. certification
ANSWER:
(6) 785 (1957)].
months because
after such itjudgmentmust be to the court
third-party of? claim.
evidence admitted
that
It iswas in that the
already suitamended
in the
that B
dismiss,
The motion by
executed claiming
to dismiss
the that
should be or
plaintiff the RTC
denied. had
Basic
principal complaint
2
record What
and on not is
August
to theconfer 22,effect2000.
jurisdictionof What non- is
on
or final order was entered [Rule 38, secs. can raise the ground of fraud against C.
An
jurisdiction,
is
partyACTION
the rule
himself
1 & 3; Soriano
thatFOR
over ANNULMENT
his action.
a motion to dismiss
v.(Sec. 5, Rule 7; Excorpizo v.
Rule mayison notalso
thea the
compliance
the effectwhich
court,
(Tanongan with
v.the of execution
Samson, the
isthenot admission
order
G.R. allowed.
No. of
140889,aproceed
of
billMay
Failure the
of
to 9,
responsive pleading. Under the Rules, a However,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: may
be filed of
motion
University on the
of the
Baguio, ground
defendant
306 SCRA of extrinsic
with 497,reasons. fraud,
[1999]) amended
particulars?
2002)
amend, complaint?
however, 4% does Has
not the
affect action
the of
result X
pleader may amend his where
No. Thethere
ALTERNATIVE action isfiled
aANSWER:
finding
on April that the
25,depends.
It 2000 claim
is still is
In
within four
(4%)
since the (4)rule frompleading
years requires its discovery, as a
personal Petition
prescribed?
of for Certiorari
Explain. (5%)
matter
and if based of right on before
lack of the other party
jurisdiction, has
before ABthe
fraudulent.
within
forcible
(2000)
trial
the
mortgagedentry,
on these
four-year
thehismotionissues. (Sec. 5CD.
prescriptive
property may to
of
be allowed
Rule
period AB
knowledge
served his by
responsivethe party executing
pleading. (Sec. 2, the 10).
which started to run on May 2, 1996. The
(Rule 47, secs.
it is barred by UNLESS 2 & 3)
laches or estoppel. failed
at the to pay
discretion his ofobligation
the court, andthe CD
demand filed
certification,
Rule 10, Rules of Court) Thecounsel court, in gives allowinga amended complaint impleading the three
an action
having beenfor foreclosure
presented at theoftrial mortgage.
without
good
the reason
amendment, why
Petition for Relief; Injunction he
would is
not not be able
acting to secure
without legitimate children, though admitted on
After trial,
objection on the
the courtof issued
part the an Order
defendant. In
his clients
jurisdiction
(2002) signatures
because
A default judgment was rendered by the and
allowing shows
an that
amendment his August 22, 2000 beyond the four-year
granting detainer,
unlawful CDs prayer however, for foreclosure
the demand of
clients
as
RTC will of
a ordering
matter be
Dright deprived
to paydoesP a not of require
sum substantial
of money. the prescriptive period, retroacts to the date of
mortgage
to vacate and
is ordering AB and
jurisdictional to pay sinceCD the
exercise(Ortiz
justice of discretion. Court ofThe
v.became court 299
Appeals, therefore
SCRA filing of the original complaint.
The
Parties;judgment
Third Party Claim final, but D filed a full
court amount
did not acquire of the mortgage
jurisdiction fromdebt the
would
708, not
[1998]) be "acting"
or unless and hethus, is could
authorized not have to Amendments impleading new defendants
petition
Pleadings;
(2000)
JKs
acted real for
property
without relief
Counterclaim and
is
jurisdiction. against
beingobtained
It the
attached
would a
Counsel
have writ
byof the
been of
the including
very beginning, interest the and motion other to charges
conform notto
sign it(2004)
by his injunction clients through a special retroact to the date
(Verzosa v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 100 of the filing of the
preliminary
Plaintiff
sheriff
different inhada the civil action
amendments staying
for beendamages madethe later
the than
evidence 120cannot days from be date of
entertained. receipt The of
power ofaattorney. complaint
(Note:
[1998]). The because
four-year they
period isdo not
based onconstitute
Article 285 a of the
enforcement
PX
after filed
a suit
responsive of
for the
damages
pleading
against LM. JK claims that he is not a judgment.
had against
been DY.After
served. In the Order.
amendment
new cause of cannot
Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE AB received
action. be allowed because it
ANSWER: the Order on
hearing,
his
The
party court
to the
answer,
thencase;
the RTC
would DYdismissed
have
that incorporated
his been Ds petition,
exercising
property is not a
its Under
will inthe
August 10,
effect19971999. Rules
confer No of Civil proceeding
other
jurisdiction Procedure, when
whereupon
discretion
counterclaim
involved in inPsaid immediately
allowing
for damages
case; or
and moved
disallowing
against
that he for
PX is the
and
the if an
took
there additional
place
is otherwise defendant
thereafter. no On is
jurisdiction. impleaded
December in
20,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
amendment. It cannot do so however, because
execution
AC,
sole counsel of
registeredmotion the
for judgment
plaintiff
ownerforofexecution inin his
said
said property. favor.
suit, a later
1999, pleading,
AB tendered the action the is commenced
full amount
Ps immediate of the Pleadings; Answer; Defense;
it would
Should
alleging
Under
judgment
be
Ps
the in then
in
motion
said
Rules
his
acting on an amendment
beCourt,
granted?
counterclaim,
of
favor should what Why?
beintermust
of a
(3%)
grantedalia,JK with
adjudged regard by the to court
him to Specific
on the but
CD date Denial
theoflatter the
complaint
May 30,
SUGGESTED over
1963; which
Gumabay it has
v. no
Baralin, jurisdiction.
G.R. No. (2004)
In
filing hisof complaint
such later for
pleading, foreclosure
irrespective of
that
do
because
(Soledad
AC,
to prevent the as
ANSER:
v. Mamangun,
such
the G.R.
dismissal counsel,
Sheriff of
No. from
Ds
L-17983,
maliciously
attaching
petition for refused to accept it on the ground that
If the real
L-30683,
induced May
PX property
31,
to(5%) 1977;
bring has
the beenagainst
Prudence
suit attached,
RealtyDY v. mortgage
of
thewhether
amount the to which
wasmotiontendered was duly
for beyond attached
its admission, the 120- a
if
his
reliefproperty?
also dissolves the writ of
the
CA,
despiteremedy
G.R. No.
AC's is
110274,to file a third-party
knowledge March
of its21, 1994)
utter lack claim. of copy
necessary,of
day period is the mortgage
deniedby
granted bythe deed,
thecourt. plaintiff
court.AB (Sec. PP
filed 5
preliminary
ALTERNATIVE
The third-party
ANSWER: injunction
claimant staying
should make the
an alleged inter alia as follows: (1) that
factual and legal of Rule 1).
enforcement
affidavit of hisofto thebasis.
title to thethe
In due time, AC
property
a motion in the same court praying that
defendant DD toduly executed the
filed a motion dismiss counterclaim CD be directed Version 1997-2006 receive
Updated the amount
by Dondee
as against him on the ground that he is mortgage deed,
tendered by him on the ground that the
not a proper party to the case, 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 Before responding to a pleading, a
party may move for a bill or particulars of
any matter which is not averred with
sufficient definiteness or particularity to
enable him properly to prepare his
responsive pleading. If the pleading is a
reply, the motion must be filed within ten
(10) days from service thereof. (Sec. 1 of
Rule 12)
2 If the order is not complied with,
the court may order the striking out of
the pleading or the portions thereof to
which the order was directed or make
such other order as it deems just. (Sec. 4
of Rule 12)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page3031 of 66
of 66 preliminary
dissolve and
executed the signed writ byofX and Y two injunction
preliminary Provisional mayRemedies;
cause grave Attachment
and irreparable
weeks afteronthe
attachment thecontract
followingofgrounds: sale was (i) injury(1999)
In toa case,
the partythe property
enjoined. of an incompetent
executed.
the court did The notcontract
acquire jurisdiction
of lease over was under guardianship was in custodia legis.
attached
his person to because
the answer. the Xwrit doeswas notservedfile a Provisional
Can it be attached?Remedies; Explain. Injunction(2%)
reply. What
ahead of theis summons;
the effect (ii) of the thenon-filing
writ was (2003)
Can a suit
SUGGESTED for injunction be aptly filed
ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
of a reply?ANSWER:
improperly Explain.
implemented; (3%) and (iii) said Although
with the the propertyCourt
Supreme of an to incompetent
stop the
A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, under guardianship is in
President of the Philippines from entering custodia legis, it
writ was improvidently issued because the
the new matters alleged in the answer are may be attached as in
into a peace agreement with the National fact it is provided
obligation in question was already fully
deemed
SUGGESTEDcontroverted.
ANSWER: (Sec. 10 of Rule 6). that
SUGGESTEDin such
Democratic ANSWER: case, (4%)
Front? a copy of the writ of
paid. Resolve
However, thethe motion with of reasons.
The motionsince to dismiss contract
and to dissolve lease
the No, a suit for
attachment shallinjunction
be filed withcannot theaptlyproper be
(4%)
attached to the answer is the basis of be the
writ of preliminary attachment should filed
courtwith the Supreme
and notice Court to stop
of the attachment the
served
defense,
(1) The fact
denied. by not thatfiling
thea writ
replyofdenying
attachment under President
upon the custodianof the Philippines from entering
of such property. (Sec.
oath served
was the genuineness
ahead of the andsummons
due execution did notof Provisional
into
7, lastapar.,
peace Remedies;
Rule agreement
57) Attachment
with the National
said
affectcontract, the plaintiff
the jurisdiction of the is deemed
court over to havehis (1999)
May damages
Democratic be claimed
Front, which is by aa purelyparty
admitted
person.
Rule 8; It the genuineness
makesv. the
Toribio and
writ,132
Bidin, due execution
unenforceable.
SCRA 162 prejudiced
political by a (Madarang
question. wrongful v.attachment Santamaria,
thereof.
(Sec. 5, (Secs.
[1985]). Rule. 7 57) and 8 However, all that is even
37 if the
Phil. 304 judgment
[1917]). The is adverse
President to ofhim?
the
Prejudicial
Abrogar,
needed toGM. Question;
be doneNo.Ejectment
is to vs.
197393, Specific the
February
re-serve Performance
23,writ. SUGGESTED
Explain. (2%) ANSWER:
Philippines is immune from suit.
(2000) v.
1985)
(Onate
Yes, damages
Provisional Remedies;mayInjunctions;
be claimed by aRemedy
Ancillary party
BB The
(2) files writ
a complaint
was improperly for ejectmentimplemented. in the prejudiced
vs. by a wrongful attachment
Main Action (2006)
MTCon the
Serving a ground notice of ofnon-payment garnishment, of even if the judgment
Distinguish between is adverse to
injunction as him.
an
rentals against
particularly before JJ. After
summons two days,is served,JJ files is This is authorized
ancillary remedy by andtheinjunction
Rules. A claim, as a
in the
not proper.RTCItashould complaintbe a copy against of theBB writ for for damages
main
SUGGESTED action.
ANSWER: may be made on account of
(2.5%)
specific
of attachment performance that should to be enforce
servedthe on Injunction
improper, as irregular an ancillaryorremedy refers
excessive
option
the to purchase
defendant, and a the notice parcel
that the of bankland to the preliminary
attachment, which shall injunction
be heardwhich with
subject of the ejectment
deposits are attached pursuant to the case. What is the requires
Plaza
notice the
Enterprises
to the existence
adverse Inc.,party 32 of SCRA
and a his pending
surety
(3) 281.)
principal case; while20, injunction as a main
writ.The ofwrit 7[d],was Rule improvidently issued if
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
effect (Sec. JJs action 57) on BBs complaint? or sureties.
Provisional (Sec.
Remedies; Rule 57; Javellana
Attachment v.
There
indeed is no effect. The ejectment case action refers to the principal case itself
Explain.it(5%) can be shown that the obligation D. O.
(2001)
May a writ of preliminary attachment be
involves
was already possession
fully paid. de The factowrit only.is onlyThe that prays for the remedy of permanently
action to to enforce the action.
option (Sec. to purchase issued ex-parte? Briefly state the
ancillary the main 13, Rule restraining the adverse party from doing
will not alleged
suspend payment the action reason(s)
Provisional for
Remedies;your answer.
Injunctions; (3%)
Issuanceof. w/out Bond
57) The of oftheejectment
account or not doing
SUGGESTED the act
ANSWER: complained
Supply
for Corp. v. Court
non-payment of of Appeals,
rentals. (Willman 208 AutoSCRA 108 (2006)
cannot, serve as a ground for resolving Yes, an order of attachment may be
[1992]). May a Regional Trial Court issue
the improvident
Pre-Trial; Requirementsissuance of the writ, issued ex-parte or upon motion with
because this matter delves into the merits injunction without bond? (2%)
(2001)
Lilio filed a complaint in the Municipal notice
SUGGESTED andANSWER:
hearing. (Sec. 2 of Rule 57) The
of the case, and requires
Trial Court of Lanuza for the recovery of full-blown trial. reason
Yes, if thewhy the order
injunction that may be issued
is issued is a exfinal
Payment,
a sum however,
against Juan. serves
The as a ground
latter filed for
his parte is: that
injunction. requiring
Generally, however,noticepreliminary
to the
Provisional Remedies; Attachment vs. Garnishment
a motiontotothe
answer dismiss.
complaint serving a copy adverse party
injunction cannot andissuea hearing without wouldbond defeat
unless
(1999)
thereof on Lilio. After the filing of the the purpose
exempted by of the
the trial provisional
court (Sec. remedy
4[b] of Rule
Distinguish attachment from garnishment.
answer of Juan, whose duty is it to have and
58). enable the adverse party to abscond
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Court of Remedies;
Appeals, 172 SCRA
SUGGESTED
Attachment
the case set ANSWER:
for and
pre-trial? garnishment
Why? (5%) are Provisional
or dispose of his property Injunctions;before Requisites
a writ of
After the filing of the answer of Juan, the 480).
(2006)
What are the requisites for the issuance
distinguished from each other as follows: attachment issues. (Mindanao Savings and
PLAINTIFF has the duty to promptly move Provisional Remedies; Attachment
ATTACHMENT is a provisional remedy of
Loan (a)
(2005)
a writ of
Association, preliminary
Inc. v. injunction; and
ex Katy filed an action against Tyrone for
thatparte
effects thata the levycase be set forofpre-trial.
on property a party (b) a final writ of injunction? Requisites
collection of the sum of P1 Million in the
(Sec. 1, Rule18). The reason is that it is the for the issuance of a:
as security for the satisfaction of any RTC, withANSWER:
an ex-parte application for a
plaintiff who knows
judgment that may be recovered, while when the last SUGGESTED
pleading has been filed and it is the writWrit
a. of ofpreliminary
Preliminary attachment.Injunction (Sec. Upon4,
GARNISHMENT
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:is a levy on debts due the posting
Rule 58 of
1997 an
Rulesattachment
of Civil bond,
Procedure) theare court

plaintiff
judgment who has the
obligor or duty to prosecute.
defendant
In the event the plaintiff files a and reply,other his granted
(1) the application
A verified complaint and issued a writ
credits,
duty to move including that the bankcase deposits,
be set royalties
for pre- of preliminary
(2) The existence
showing; attachment.
of a right Apprehensive
and
trial other
arisespersonal after the property
reply not hascapablebeen (3)
that
in Violation
esse;Tyrone or threat
might of violation
withdraw of
his savings
of manual
served and delivery under a writ of
filed. (4)
such
depositDamages
right;with or theinjuriesbank, sustained
the or
sheriff
Provisional
Provisional or Remedies; Injunction
execution aRemedies
writ of attachment. that will
immediately be sustained
served by reason
a of
notice such of
(2001)
May
Whataare
(1999) writ the ofprovisional
preliminaryremedies injunction under be
(5) Notice
violation;
garnishment
Pleadings; to
Reply; all
on parties
the
Effect bank
of of
to raffle
implement
Non-Filing of and
Reply the
issued
the rules? ex-parte?
(2%) Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (6)
of
X hearing;
(2000)
writ filesHearing
ofa complaint on the
preliminary in attachment.
the RTC for The the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a writ of preliminary injunction may (7) Filing
application;
recovery
following of of
a
day, an
sumthe appropriate
of money
sheriff with bond
damages
proceeded andto
The provisional remedies under the rules
not service
against thereof.
are be issued ex parte.
preliminary As provided
attachment, in the
preliminary Tyrone's Y. house
Y filesand his served
answer him denying the
Rules, no preliminary
injunction, receivership, replevin, and injunction shall be liability
summons, underwith the contract
copies of the of sale
complaint and
granted without hearing and prior notice praying for the
containing dismissal
the(15) application of the complaint
57 to 61, Rules
support pendente of Court).
lite. (Rules Within fifteen days fromforservice writ of of
to the party or person sought to be on the ground
preliminary of lack of Katy's
attachment, cause of action
affidavit,
the summons, Tyrone filed a motion to
enjoined. (Sec. 5 of Rule 58) The reason is because
order the contract writbyof sale was
dismissofand attachment,
to1997-2006 Updated
Version
of preliminary
Dondee
that a superseded and
attachment by aattachment
contract of bond. lease,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006)by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 33
sirdondee@gmail.com Page 32 ofof 66
66 Waswaived,
the
Provisional Remedies; TRO reservedfor
motion or Reconsideration
instituted prior to
filed
its within
filing, the
(2006)
Define a temporary
Provisional Remedies; restraining
Receivership order (TRO).
accused may period?
reglementary be ordered
Explain.
to provide
(5%) support
(2001)
Joaquin filed
(2%)
SUGGESTED a complaint against Jose for pendente
ANSWER: liteANSWER:
SUGGESTED to the child born to the
A
thetemporary
foreclosure restrainingof a order is an order
mortgage Yes, because
of a offended party allegedly the last because day of filing of thea
issued to restrain the opposite party
furniture factory with a large number of crime. (Sec. 6 of Rule 61.)and motion for reconsideration was March 15
to maintain the status
machinery and equipment. During the quo until a hearing if
Provisional Remedies; Support Pendente Lite if
February had 28 days or March 16
for determining the propriety
pendency of the foreclosure suit, Joaquin of granting February
(2001)
Modesto was had accused 29 days. of Although
seduction the by
a preliminary injunction
learned from reliable sources that Jose (Sec. 4[c] and [d], original
Virginia, motion
a poor, for reconsideration
unemployed young girl, was
Rule
was 58,1997
quietly Rules
andofTRO Civil Procedure).
gradually disposing defective
who has a because child by Modesto. it lacked Virginia a noticewas of
Provisional Remedies; vs. Status Quo Orderof
some of his machinery and equipment to a hearing,
in dire the defect
need of was cured
pecuniary on time by
assistance to
(2006)
Differentiate a TRO from a status quo order.
businessman friend who was also engaged its
keep filing
her on
child, March not to 15say of of a herself,
supplemental alive.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in furniture manufacturing
A status quo order (SQO) is more in the such that from pleading,
The criminal provided
case is that
still motion
pending was
in set
court
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
confirmed
nature of areports
cease and Joaquin
desistgathered,
order, since the for
and hearing
although andthe served
civil on
liability the adverse
aspect of
Since the supplemental pleading was not
machinery
it does not direct and equipment
the doing or leftundoing
with Jose of party
the at
crime least has three not (3)
set for hearing, it did not cure the defect beendays before
waived the
or
were no
acts, as longer
in thesufficient
case oftoprohibitory
answer for the or date
reservedof hearing.
for amotion.separate
(Sec. 4, Rulecivil 15). action, the
of the original
latters mortgage
mandatory injunctiveindebtedness.
relief. A TRO is Inonly the trial for the case was foreseen to take two
meantime
good for 20 judgment
days was rendered
if issued by the RTC; by 60 the long
Remedies; Appeal to SC; Appeals to CAclogged
years because of the heavily
Knowing what Jose has been doing. If you court calendar
court ifin issued
days favor of Joaquin but the further
same is (2002)
a) What arebefore the modes the judgment
of appealmay to
were Joaquins by lawyer,the CA; whatuntilaction would be rendered. If you were the lawyer of
not yet if
notice final.
issued by the SC. The SQO is the Supreme Court? (2%)
you take to preserve whatever remaining SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Virginia, what action should you
without anyand prescriptive period b) Comment onina the proposal to take
amend to
machinery equipment are and left may with To
help
help Virginia
Virginia in the meantime
meantime,
especially
her
be issued
SUGGESTED without
ANSWER: a bond. A TRO dies a Rule
lawyer 122, Section
should 2(b),
apply in
for relation
Support to
Jose? Why? (5%) with the 3(c), problem of feeding
natural
To death afterwhatever
preserve the allowable period;
remaining Section
Pendente Lite asof provided
the Revisedin thethe Ruleschild?
Rules. of
In
the SQO does
machinery andnot. A TRO isare
equipment provisional.
left with (5%)
Criminal Procedure to
criminal actions where the civil liability provide for appeal
SQO
Jose, lasts until revoked.
Joaquins lawyer should A TRO is filenota to the Court
included supportof Appeals for the from the decisions
offspring as a
Provisional Remedies; TRO; CA Justice Dept.
extendible,
verified but
application the SQO
for may
the be subject
appointment of the
consequence RTC in ofcriminal
the crime cases, and where
the the
civil
(2006)
May a justice of a Division of the Court of
to agreement of the parties.
by the court of one or more receivers. The penalty imposed is reclusion
aspect thereof has not been waived or perpetua or
Appeals issue a TRO? (2%) life imprisonment, subject to the right of
Rules provide
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that receivership is proper reserved for a separate civil action, the
SUGGESTED
Rule 61) ANSWER:
in an
Yes, action of
a justice bya the divisionmortgagee
of the Court for the of the
accusedaccused may of to appeal
beappealordered to the Supreme
to Supreme
provide
A. The modes to the
foreclosure
Appeals mayof issuea mortgage a TRO,when it appears
as authorized Court. (3%)
support pendent elite to the child born to
Court
Provisionalare: Remedies;
(a) APPEAL TROBY CERTIORARI
that the
under Rule property
58 and by is Section
in danger 5, Ruleof being
IV of the
on offended party. (Sec. 6 of
(Sec. 1 of Rule 59). An pure
(2001) questions
application for of law under
a writ Rule 45
of preliminary
the
wasted IRCA or which
dissipated additionally requires
or materially that
injured through awithpetition for review on
the action injunction a prayer for a temporary
and that itsshall
Provisional value
Remedies;
be issubmitted
probably
Replevin
on the next
insufficient certiorari; and (b) ORDINARY APPEAL in
working day to restraining order is included in a
to discharge
(1999)
What is Replevin?thethe absent members
mortgage
(2%) debt. of the
criminal cases through a notice of appeal
division
late for the
Justice Jose ratification,
B.L. Reyes modification
v. Court or of
complaint and filed in a multi-sala RTC
SUGGESTED ANSWER: from
consisting convictions
of Branches imposing
1,2,3 andreclusion 4. Being
recall
Appeals, (Heirs
G.R. ofNos.
the 135425-26, November 14,
Replevin or delivery of personal property
2000). perpetua or life imprisonment
urgent in nature, the Executive or where
Judge, a
consists in the delivery,
Provisional Remedies; TRO; Duration by order of the lesser penalty is involved
who was sitting in Branch 1, upon the but for offenses
court,
What is of
(2006) the personal
duration ofproperty a TRO issued by the by committed
filing of onthe the same aforesaid occasion or which
application
defendant to the plaintiff,
the Executive Judge of a Regional Trial upon the filing arose
immediately raffled the case in that
out of the same occurrence the
of a
Court?
SUGGESTEDbond.
(2%) (Calo
ANSWER: v. Roldan, 76 Phil. 445 gave
presence rise ofto the thejudgesmore of serious
Branches offense.2,3
Provisional
cases Remedies;
[1946])
In of extreme Support Pendente
urgency, when Lite the
(Rule
and 4.122,
The sec.case3) Convictions
was raffled imposing
to Branch the4
(1999)
Before thewill
applicant RTC,sufferA wasgrave charged with rape
injustice and B. There ANSWER:
SUGGESTED is no constitutional objection to
death
and judgepenalty
thereof areimmediately
elevated issued through a
of his 16year
irreparable old daughter.
injury, the duration During
of a TRO the providing
No. It is only in thethe Executive
Rules of Judge Court who for canan
automatic
temporary review.
restraining order. Is the
pendency
issued of thebycase,
ex parte the daughter
an Executive Judgegave of a appeal to the Court
issue immediately of Appealsrestraining
a temporary from the
birth to a child allegedly as a temporary
decisions
order ofrestraining
effective the only RTC fororder
in valid? Why?
criminal
seventy-two cases
(72)
Regional Trial Court is 72 hours (2nd par. (5%)
consequence of the rape. Thereafter,
of Sec. 5, Rule 58 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) . she where
hours the
from penalty
issuance. imposed
No other is reclusion
Judge has
asked the accused to
In the exercise of his regular functions support the child, perpetua
the right or
or life
power imprisonment
to issue a subject
temporary to
and when
over caseshe assigned
refused, the to former
his sala, filedan a the right
restraining of the
order accused
ex parte. to appeal
The to
Judge theto
petition for
Executive Judgesupport may pendente
issue a TRO lite. for The a Supreme Court,
whom the case is assigned will thenbecause it does not
Reglementary
accused, not
duration Period;
however,
exceeding Supplemental
insists thatofPleadings
a total he20cannot
days. deprive
conduct the Supreme hearing
a summary Court oftothe right to
determine
(2000)
The
be made RTC rendered
to give such judgment support against
arguing ST, exercise
whether ultimate
the temporary review of the judgments
restraining order
copy of which wasno received Remedies; Appeal; RTC to CA
that there is as yet finding asbyto his in such
shall becases.
extended, but in no case beyond
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
counsel on February 28, 2000. On March (1999)
1
ALTERNATIVEWhen is an appeal from the RTC to
ANSWER:
guilt.The
No. Would you agree
provisional with
remedy theof trial court
support 20
The days,
temporary including the original
restraining order 72hour
is not
10, 2000, ST, through counsel, filed a the Court of Appeals deemed perfected?
if it denied the application
pendente lite may be granted by the RTC for support period.
valid (Sec. 5 of Rule 58)
because the question does not state
motion forlite?
reconsideration of the decision (2%}
pendente
in the criminal Explain.
action for (2%)
rape. In criminal SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that the matter is of extreme
with notice to the Clerk of Court 2 While
b. XXX received
a final writ of copy urgency
a injunction of the mayRTC
and
be
actions where the civil liability includes the applicant
decision on by will
June judgment suffer
9, 1999; YYY grave injustice
received it
submitting the motion for the rendered after trial,
support for the offspring as a and
on irreparable
the next day, injury.
June (Sec.
10, 5 of Rule
1999. XXX 58)
filed
consideration of the court. On March 15, showing applicant to be entitled to the
consequence of the crime and the civil a Notice
2000, realizing that the Motion lacked a writ (Sec.of9, Appeal
Rule 58 on June1997 15, Rules 1999. The
of Civil
aspect thereof has not been parties
Procedure). entered into a compromise on
notice of hearing, STs counsel filed a
supplemental pleading.
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
assuming that the records have not yet
1 An appeal from the RTC to the Court
been forwarded to the CA. (2%)
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)
2 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)
on appeal, the plaintiff is deemed to have
waived his right to present evidence.
(Id.)
Special Civil Action; Ejectment
(1997)
On 10 January 1990, X leased the
warehouse of A under a lease contract
with a period of five years. On 08 June
1996, A filed an unlawful detainer case
against X without a prior demand for X to
(a) Canthe
vacate X premises.
contest his ejectment on the
ground that there was no prior demand
for him to vacate the premises?
(b) In case the Municipal Trial Court
renders judgment in favor of A, is the
judgment immediately executory?
(Sec. 9, third par., Rule
41)
The rules also provide that prior to the
transmittal of the record, the court may,
among others, approve compromises.
(Sec. 9, fifth par., Rule 41) (Note: June 13,
the date of the filing of the motion for
approval of the Compromise Agreement,
appears to be a clerical error)
Remedies; Appeal; Rule 45 vs. Rule 65
(1999)
a) Distinguish a petition for certiorari
as a mode of appeal from a special civil
action for certiorari. (2%)
b) May a party resort to certiorari
when appeal is still available? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON
CERTIORARI as a mode of appeal may be
distinguished from a special civil action
for certiorari in that the petition for
certiorari as a mode of appeal is governed
by Rule 45 and is filed from a judgment or
final order of the RTC, the Sandiganbayan
or the Court of Appeals, within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the judgment
appealed from or of the denial of the
motion for new trial or reconsideration
filed in due time on questions of law only
(Secs. 1 and 2); SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
FOR CERTIORARI is governed by Rule 65
and is filed to annul or modify judgments,
orders or resolutions rendered or issued
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, when
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 34 of 66 there is no
appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, to be
filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution subject of the
petition. (Secs. 1 and 4.)
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
1) In appeal by certiorari under Rule 45,
the petitioner and respondent are the
original parties to the action and the
lower court is not impleaded. In
certiorari, under Rule 65, the lower court
2) In appeal by certiorari, the filing of a
is impleaded.
motion for reconsideration is not
required, while in the special civil action
of certiorari, such a motion is generally
required.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. NO, because as a general rule,
certiorari is proper if there is no appeal
(Sec. 1 of Rule 65.) However, if appeal is
not a speedy and adequate remedy,
certiorari may be resorted to. (Echaus v.
Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 381.)
Certiorari is sanctioned, even if appeal is
available, on the basis of a patent,
capricious and whimsical exercise of
(Vasquez
discretionvs.byRobilla-Alenio,
a trial judge271 as SCRA
when an
67)
appeal will not promptly relieve petitioner
Remedies; Void Decision; Proper Remedy
from the injurious effects of the disputed
(2004)
After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action
order
before the RTC; ZZ has completed
presentation of his evidence, defendant
without prior leave of court moved for
dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for
insufficiency of plaintiffs evidence. After
due hearing of the motion and the
opposition thereto, the court issued an
order, reading as follows: The Court
hereby grants defendant's motion to
dismiss and accordingly orders the
dismissal of plaintiffs complaint, with the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
costs taxedoragainst him.is Itvoid
is sobecause
ordered."
The order decision it
Is the order of dismissal valid?
does not state findings of fact and of law, May
plaintiff properly take
as required by Sec. 14,an appeal?
Article VIIIReason.
of the
(5%)
Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36. Being
void, appeal is not available. The proper
ANOTHER
remedy ANSWER:
is certiorari under Rule 65.
Either certiorari or ordinary appeal may
be resorted to on the ground that the
judgment is void. Appeal, in fact, may be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the more expedient remedy.
Yes. The order of dismissal for
insufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence is
valid upon defendant's motion to dismiss
even without prior leave of court. (Sec. 1
of Rule 33). Yes, plaintiff may properly take
an appeal because the dismissal of the
complaint is a final and appealable order.
However, if the order of dismissal is
reversed
 by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 35 of 66 summary
procedure and since the counterclaim is only
permissive, it cannot be entertained by the
Municipal Court. (Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure.)
Special Civil Action; Foreclosure
(2003)
A borrowed from the Development Bank
of the Philippines (DBP) the amount of P1
million secured by the titled land of his
friend B who, however, did not assume
personal liability for the loan. A defaulted
and DBP filed an action for judicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
impleading A and B as defendants. In due
course, the court rendered judgment
directing A to pay the outstanding account
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes. X can contest his ejectment on the of P1.5 million (principal plus interest) to
ground that there was no prior demand to the bank. No appeal was taken by A on
vacate the premises. (Sec. 2 of Rule 70; the Decision within the reglementary
Casilan vs.Tomassi l0 SCRA 261; Iesaca period. A failed to pay the judgment debt
vs.Cuevas. 125 SCRA 335). within the period specified in the decision.
(b) Yes, because the judgment of the Consequently, the court ordered the
Municipal Trial Court against the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged land. In
defendant X is immediately executory that foreclosure sale, the land was sold to
upon motion unless an appeal has been the
On 10DBP for P1.2
January 2003,million.
the bankThe sale
filed an was
ex-
perfected, a supersedeas bond has been subsequently confirmed by the
parte motion with the court for the court, and
filed and the periodic deposits of current the confirmation
issuance of a writ of of the sale
possession was
to oust B
rentals. If any, as determined by the registered with the Registry of Deeds
from the land. It also filed a deficiency on
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
judgment will be made with the appellate 05 January
claim 2002.
for P800,000.00 against A and B.
(a) Yes, X can contest his ejectment on the
court. (Sec. 8 of former Rule 70; Sec. 19 of new the deficiency claim was opposed by A
ground that since he continued enjoying
Rule 70). (a)
andResolve
B. the motion for the issuance of
the thing leased for fifteen days after the (b) Resolve the deficiency claim of
a writ of possession.
termination of the lease on January 9, the bank. 6%
1995 with the acquiescence of the lessor
without a notice to the contrary, there
was an IMPLIED NEW LEASE. (Art. 1670.
Special
Civil Civil Action; Ejectment
Code).
(1998)
In an action for unlawful detainer in the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), defendant X
raised in his Answer the defense that
plaintiff A is not the real owner of the
house subject of the suit. X filed a
counterclaim against A for the collection
of a debt of P80,000 plus accrued interest
1.
of IsP15,000
X's defenseandtenable?
attorney's fees of
2.
[3%]Does the MTC have jurisdiction over
P20,000.
the counterclaim? [2%] SUGGESTED
ANSWER::
1. No. X's defense is not tenable if the
action is filed by a lessor against a lessee.
However, if the right of possession of the
plaintiff depends on his ownership then
the defense is tenable.
2. The counterclaim is within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court
which does not exceed P100,000, because
the principal demand is P80,000,
exclusive of interest and attorney's fees.
(Sec. 33, B.P. Big. 129, as amended.) However,
inasmuch as all actions of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer are subject to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) In judicial foreclosure by banks such

as DBP, the mortgagor or debtor whose
real property has been sold on
foreclosure has the right to redeem the
property sold within one year after the
sale (or registration of the sale). However,
the purchaser at the auction sale has the
right to obtain a writ of possession after
the finality of the order confirming the
sale. (Sec. 3 of Rule 68; Sec. 47 of RA 8791. The
General Banking Law of 2000). The motion for
(b) The
writ of deficiency
possession,claim of the cannot
however, bank maybe
be enforced against the mortgage
filed ex parte. There must be a notice debtor
of
A, but it cannot be enforced against B,
hearing.
the owner of the mortgaged property,
who did not assume personal liability for
the loan.
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page3637ofof 6666 claiming
the ground that
Serviceofofoutside
order
income, default
Summons the
and onprovince
Carlos
to set was or
aside city
validly in that
the its mainthe office
court and had operations
no jurisdiction are in over Cebu his
judgment.
which
served such
upon Inobligor
himhis ifmotion,
the
resides.
ReturntheIn defendant
will
this showcase personCity andas nottherein Manila.was no Is the valid contention
service of of
alleged
the
that judgment
it that,
was immediately
done
obligorthroughresides upon in
Substituted
receipt
Bulacan. of summons
Cars Co. correct?
on him Why? because (5%)the sheriffs return
(Rule
the summon,
Service39, because
sec.36). he thesaw defendant
the plaintiffcan notand be or proof SUGGESTED ANSWER: does not show that the
of service
Summons
confronted
served personally him within with ahisreasonable receipt sheriff No.first
As made
expressly provided
a genuine in thetoRules,
attempt serve
(1999)
a)
evidencing
time What his
despite is diligent
the effect
payment of
efforts
and absence
made
that the of when the Solicitor
to the summons on defendant personally General commences before
summons
plaintiff
serve on the judgment
the assured
summons him thatrendered
personally. Linda,
he would in serving
the the action
it thrufor hisquo wife.warranto,
Is the itmotion may be to
b)
the case?When
instruct his
secretary (2%) additional
of lawyerdefendant defendant
to withdraw
Carlos, must is
the brought
dismiss in
meritorious? a RTC in
Whatthe City
is theof Manila,
purpose asof
impleaded
complaint.be The
likewise in the
shown action,
trialto court is it
be a denied necessary
competent in this case, in
the summons and by whom may it be served?the Court of Appeals or in
that summons
defendants
person in charge motion be ofbecause
served
defendant's upon
it was him?not Explain.
office the Supreme
SUGGESTED
(5%) Court. (Sec. 7 of Rule 66)
ANSWER:
c)
A.
2. Is
Explain. Is summons
certiorari
If (2%)
you under
were required
theRule 65
judge,to be
the will served
properyou Special
The Civil
motion Actions;
to dismiss Mandamus
is not meritorious
accompanied
where summons by an was affidavit
servedof(Sec. merit. The
7, Rule (2006)
In 1996, Congress passed Republic Act
upon aTina's
defendant because the defendant actually received
remedy?
grant
14).
defendant Why?filed a who
(2%)
motion towas
special substituted
declare
civil Carlosfor
action in
for No. 8189, otherwise known as the Voter's
ALTERNATIVE
B.
the Did the
deceased?
default? ANSWER:
trialExplain.
(2.5%) court abuse
(2%) its discretion the summons on time from his wife.
certiorari
If under Rule 65 challenging the
or I were
d) the
actA without
sued judge,
XX or I will
in not
Corporation grant
excess (XXC),Tina's
of itsa Registration
Service on Act the ofwife 1996,was providingsufficient.for
denial
motion order.
to declare Carlos in default computerization of elections. Pursuant
corporation organized
jurisdiction in denying the defendants under Philippine (Boticano v. Chu, 148 SCRA 541 [1987]). It is
because summons
laws, fortospecific
motion lift the was
performance not
order ofwhen properly
defaultthe thereto,
the duty the
of theCOMELECcourt to approved
look into the
the
served
SUGGESTED
latter
judgment? and anyway,
ANSWER:
failed Why? to (3%) a verified
deliver T-shirts answer to the to Voter's Registration
sufficiency of the service. and Identification
The sheriffs
A.
the The petition
complaint for
had certiorari
already
former as stipulated in their contract of under
been Rule
filed. System
negligence (VRIS)
in not Project.
stating in his Itreturn issued
that
65
sale.filed
Moreover, by it
Summons the
is defendant
better to is
decide
was served on the the
a proper
case on invitations
he first made to a pre-qualify
genuine and
effort bid
to for
serve the
the
ALTERNATIVE
remedy ANSWER: appeal is not a plain,
because
the merits
corporation's rather than on technicality. project. After the public
summons on the defendant, should not bidding, Fotokina
Yes.
speedy If itand was cashiershown and
adequate that director.
summons
remedy
Would
was
ineither
the
you consider
validly served, service
and of summons
that In theappeal, on
motionthe to was declared
prejudice the the winning
plaintiff. (Mapa bidder v. Courtwith of a
ordinary
SUGGESTED
officer course
ANSWER:
sufficient? Explain. of law. (2%) was duly bid of P6 billion and was
Appeals, 214 SCRA 417/1992). The purpose issued a Notice
declare
a)
defendant TheCarlos ineffect in ofdefault
default can theonly absence
question of
furnished on Carlos, andofafter conducting Award.
of the summons But COMELEC is to inform Chairman
the defendant Gener
summons
the decision onin a the
judgment
light would
the evidencemake the of Go objected to the award on the ground
a hearing on the same of the complaint filed against him and to
judgment
the plaintiff. nullThe and voidmotion.
defendant because
cannot the court
invoke ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
that under the Appropriations Act, the
Venue; Improper Venue; Compulsory Counterclaim enable the court to acquire
Yes. The motion to dismiss is meritorious. jurisdiction
would
ALTERNATIVE
the notANSWER:
receipt have
to prove jurisdiction
paymentover of his the budget
(1998)
A. Under ordinary circumstances, the over hisfor
Substituted the
person. COMELEC's
service It maybecannotmodernization
served
be effected by the
person
obligation ofto the defendant, but if the
theofplaintiff. is
A, a
defendant
resident
proper remedy voluntarily
Lingayen,
of appeared
a party before Pangasinan
wrongly the unless the sheriffs return shows thatthe
only
sheriff P1
or billion.
his He
deputy announced
or any to
person he
sued
declared X, a in resident
default of
is San
either Fernando
to appeal La public
authorized
made
Meanwhile,athat
genuinethe
by theVRIS
Fotokina court.
attempt project
filed to hasthe
effect
with been
personal
RTCseta
court, his appearance is equivalent to the aside. Two Commissioners sided with
Union
from the in the judgmentRTC (RTC) of Quezonfile
by default City
service of summons. (Sec. 20, Rule or 14) a petition on
service for the husband.
mandamus compel the COMELEC
for
251 the
SCRA collection
petitionYes.
b) 391
forSummons(1995) of
relief from a debt
must of P1
judgment. million.
be served[Jao, on X Chairman
to implement the contract. The Office of to
Summons; Go,
Validity butof the
Service;majority
Effects voted the
did
Inc. not file
v. Court of defendant
an additional a motion to
Appeals, impleaded in the dismiss for uphold
(2006)
Tina
Solicitor the General
Guerrero contract.
filed with (OSG), filed the Regional
representing
SUGGESTED
improper ANSWER:
venue the but filed can his acquire
answer Trial
ChairmanCourt Go, of Binan,
opposed Laguna, a complaint
the petition on forthe
action
B. Yes, so the that trial courtcourt gravely abused its
raising therein improper venue as an sum
ground of money
that amounting
mandamus to P1does Million
not against
lie to
jurisdiction over him, unless
discretion or acted without or in excess of he makes a Carlos Corro. The complaint alleges, among
affirmative
voluntary appearance.
jurisdiction defense. He
in denying the defendants motionalso filed a enforce contractual obligations. During the
others, that Carlos borrowed from Tina the
counterclaim
c)
because No.it wasAnot for accompanied
P80,000 against
defendant who
by A was
a separate for proceedings, the majority Commissioners
said amount as evidenced by a promissory note
attorney's
substituted
affidavit of merit. fees
for the andverified
deceased
In his expenses
need
motion not tofor
belift filed a manifestation that Chairman Go was
signed by Carlos and his wife, jointly and
litigation.
served
the order with X summons
of moved and
default for toa set
because preliminary
itaside
is the the not
Is authorized
a petition
severally. Carlosbywas theforCOMELEC
served withEn
mandamus Banc
summons anto
judgment,
hearing
court which on saidthe ordersdefendant
affirmative
him as alleged
defense.
the legal that
For oppose
appropriate the
which was received petition. remedy by Linda, to his secretary.
enforce
1 Rule
immediately A upon on the themotionaffirmative
receipt of the defensethe of contractual
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his part,
representative filed of athe deceased to tosummons,
dismiss appear However, Carlos obligations?
failed to file(5%) an answer to the
improper
he thevenue. [3%] No, the petition
within for the mandamus is not an
andsaw
counterclaim
substitute plaintiff
forthelackand of confronted
jurisdiction.
deceased. (Sec. him 16with of complaint 15-day reglementary
2
his
d)
Rule 3.) Rule
receipt
Summons on
showing the motion
payment
on a to
and dismiss
that
domestic the the appropriate
period. Hence, remedy
Tina because
filed with theit is nota
court
counterclaim
plaintiff
corporation assuredthrough on
him thatthe he ground
its wouldcashier of and
instruct lack available
his of motion to enforce
to declare Carlos ina default contractual and to
lawyer to withdraw
jurisdiction over the the complaint.
subject matter. Since
[2%] the obligation.
allow her toMandamus
present is
evidence directed
ex only
parte. to
Five
director are not valid under the present
good defense of the defendant was already ministerial
days thereafter, acts, directing
Carlos filed or
his commanding
verified answer
rules. (Sec. 11, Rule 14) They have been
incorporated in the verified motion, there was to
No. the
151992,
a person complaint,
to doSeptember denying
a legal 18, under
duty 2002;
(COMELEC oath
Sec. 3, the
v.
removed
v. needoffrom
notCourt for a those
Appeals, separate
233 who can471
affidavit
SCRA be of served
merit.
(1994); Rule 65).
genuineness
Quijano-Padilla, G.R. and due execution of the
with
Mago
[Capuz summons
v. Court for a domestic
of Appeals, 303 corporation.
SCRA 600 Summons
promissory note and contending that he has
Cashier was substituted by treasurer. (Id.)
(1999)]. Seven
fully years
paid his after
loan the entry
with interest of at judgment,
12% per
Summons;Civil Substituted
Special Action; Quo Service Warranto 1. Was the summons validly served
annum.
the plaintiff
on Carlos? (2.5%) filed an action for its revival.
(2004)
Summons
group was
(2001)
A of issued
businessmen by the MM formedRTC and an
actually received on time Can the defendant
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: successfully oppose
association in Cebu City by callingdefendantitself The summons was not validly served on
from histowife at their residence. The the
Special Civil Action; Petition for by
revival of the judgment contending
Certiorari
Cars C. distribute / sell cars in said Carlos because it was served
sheriff earlier that day had delivered the that it is null and
(2002)defendant
The was void because
declared theonRTC-
in default
his
in
city. It did not incorporate itself under the secretary and the requirements for
summons to her at said residence because Manila
the RTC did
for not failure
his acquire to jurisdiction
file an answer overto
law nor did it have any government substituted
a person? service
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
hiscomplaint Why?
for ashould
have not been followed,
(3%)
sum
defendant
permit or license was nottohome conduct at the its time.
business The The
such RTC-Manila
as a showing that of money.
deny
efforts the haveOn
motion the
been
sheriffs return or proof
as such. The Solicitor General filed before of service filed basis
because to
exerted ofit is the
serve plaintiffs
in violation
the same of on ex
theCarlos parte
rule that and
with
a RTCthe in court
Manilaina sum verified states that for
petition the presentation
no judgment
such
No. attempt
130974, of has
obligor
August evidence,
shall
16,failed bejudgment
2006; required
despite
AngPingdue by
tov.
summons, with attached
quo warranto questioning and seeking to copy of the default
diligence
appear
CA, G.R. before was
(Manotoc
No. rendered
a court,
126947, Julyfor
v. CA, 15,the
G.R. against
purpose of
1999). the
complaint,
stop the operationswas served on defendant
of Cars Co. The latter at his defendant.
ALTERNATIVE
examination The
ANSWER:
concerning defaulthisjudgmentproperty and was
residence
filed a motion thruto his dismiss wife,the a petition
person on of served on the defendant on October 1,
suitable
the ground ageofand discretion
improper venue then residing 2001. On October 10, 2001, he files a
therein. Defendant moved to dismiss on verified motion to lift the
 by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 38 of 66
2. The motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
should be denied. The counterclaim for
attorney's fees and expenses of litigation is
a compulsory counterclaim because it
necessarily arose out of and is connected
with the complaint. In an original action
before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the
Venue;
amount.Personal Actions
(Sec. 7 of Rule 6)
(1997)
X, a resident of Angeles City, borrowed
P300,000.00 from A, a resident of Pasay
City. In the loan agreement, the parties
stipulated that "the parties agree to sue
and be sued in the City of Manila." a) In
case hisofcomplaint
non-paymentto collect
of thethe loancan
loan, fromA
file X in Angeles City?
b) Suppose the parties did not
stipulate in the loan agreement as to the
venue, where can A file his complaint
c)
againstSuppose
X? the parties stipulated in
their loan agreement that "venue for all
suits arising from this contract shall be
the courts in Quezon City," can A file his
SUGGESTED
complaintANSWER:
against X in Pasay City?
(a) Yes, because the stipulation in the
loan agreement that "the parties agree to
sue and be sued in the City of Manila"
does not make Manila the "exclusive
95: Sec.thereof."
venue Rule 44)ofHence,
4 of new (Sec, A can
Rule 4, as file
amended
hisCircular
by complaint in Angeles City where he
No. 13
resides, (Sec, 2 of Rule 4).
(b) If the parties did not stipulate on the
venue, A can file his complaint either in
Angeles City where he resides or in Pasay
City where X resides, (Id).
(c) Yes, because the wording of the
stipulation does not make Quezon City the
exclusive venue.

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) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 39 40 ofof6666hewithout filed his a
a) To
If the afford
judgment
adequate ofprotection
acquittal toin thethe warrant
demurrerofto arrest evidence and without
searched leavehis of house
court.
constitutional
criminal case rights finds ofthat the the accused;act b) (Sec. 23 ofaRule
or without 119). warrant. a) Can the gun
search
When
omission necessary
from whichforthe the orderly used by B in shooting A, which was seized
civil liability
mayjustice
arise or
administration does toofnot
avoid oppression
exist, the court or may
multiplicity Actions;
during theCommencement
search of ofthe an Action;
houseDouble of B, Jeopardy
be
actions;
last it c)
paragraph].
of
receive When double
in evidence over the jeopardy
objectionis admitted (2004) in evidence? b) Is the arrest of B
ALTERNATIVE
clearly ANSWER: d) Where the charges SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC can in Quezon
by Delia.apparent;
[Rule 111, sec. 2, legal? c) Under the circumstances, B be
If the judgment
are manifestly false of andacquittal is based on City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement
convicted of homicide?
reasonable
motivated by doubt,
the thelustcourt may receivee)it
for vengeance; duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an
in
Where there is clearly no case,
evidence because in such primathefacie civil actual resident
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Cebu City) with the
action
case the for damages which may
accused and a motion to quash on that offense of slight
against be (a) No. The gun physical
seized during injuries theallegedly
search
instituted requires
ground has been denied. only a preponderance of the house of B without
inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of a search
of the
(See evidence.
cases cited (Art.
in29, Civil Code).
Roberts, Jr., vs. Court warrant
Quezon City). is notThe admissible
Judge of the in evidence.
branch to
Actions; BP22; Civil
of Appeals, 254Action
SCRA deemed included and
307 [1996] (Secs. 2 and 3[2], Art. III of Constitution).
(2001)
Saturnino filed a criminal which the case was raffled thereupon
Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRAaction against
183 [1990].) Moreover, the search was not an incident
Alex for the latters bouncing check. On issued an order declaring that the case
to a lawful arrest of a person under Sec.
Arrest; date
the Warrantlessof Arrest; Preliminary after
the hearing Investigation
the shall be governed by the Rule on Summary
(b)
12 ofNo. A warrantless
Rule 126. arrest requires that
(2004)
arraignment, Saturnino manifested to the Procedure in criminal cases. Soon
the crime has in fact just been committed
AX
courtswindled
that he RY in the amount
is reserving his rightof P10,000
to file a thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal
and the police arresting has personal
sometime in mid-2003.
separate civil action. The court allowed On the strength of of the case for the reason that it was not
knowledge
Sometime later, of facts basedthatonthe theperson
same to factsbe
the
Saturninosworn statement
to file a civil action givenseparately
by RY commenced by information, as required by
arrested
giving rise hasto committed
the slight physical it. (Sec. injuries
5, Rule
personally
and proceeded to SPO1 to hearJuanthe Ramoscriminalsometime
case. said Rule.
case, Here,
113). the City the Prosecutor
crime has filed not just withbeen the
in mid-2004, and without
Alex filed a motion for reconsideration securing a committed
same MeTC-QC since a period of two days had
an information for
warrant,
contending the thatpolice
the civilofficeractionarrested
is deemed AX. already
attempted lapsed,
homicide and the policethe
against arresting
same
Forthwith
included inthe the police officer
criminal filedThe
case. withcourt
the has
RGR.noInsuch duepersonal
time, before knowledge because
arraignment,
City Prosecutor of Manila
reconsidered its order and ruled that a complaint for (c)
RGRYes.
he was
moved The
not to gun
present is not
quash theindispensable
when the incident
information onin
estafa
Saturnino supported by RY"s sworn
could not file a separate action. statement the conviction
happened.
the ground(Go of
of vs. A
double because
Court jeopardy the
of Appeals.and court
206 SCRA may
after
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and
Is the other
courts documentary
order granting evidence.
the After
motion rely
138). on testimonial or
due hearing, the Judge granted his other evidence.
Yes, the courts order granting the motion
due
for inquest, the prosecutor filed the
for reconsideration
reconsideration correct? is correct. Why? The (5%)
Rules motion. Was the dismissal of the
Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Seizures
requisite information with the MM RTC. complaint for slight physical
provide that the criminal action for
No preliminary investigation was (2003)
In a buy-bust
SUGGESTED ANSWER: operation, the injuries
police
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be deemed proper?
Yes, the
operatives Was the
dismissal
arrested grant
of of
the
the the
complaint
accusedmotionand to
for
conducted either before or after the filing quash the attempted homicide
to include the corresponding civil action, slight
seized physical
from himinjuries a sachet is of
proper
shabubecause and an
of the information and the accused at no information correct? Reason (5%)
and that no reservation to file such civil in Metropolitan
unlicensed Manila
firearm. Theand in
accused chartered was
time asked for such an investigation.
Procedure]
action separately shall be allowed. [Sec. cities,
charged the case
in twohas to be commenced
Informations, one only
for
However, before arraignment,
1(b), Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal
the
accused
Actions; BP22; moved to quash
Demurrer the information
to Evidence by information.
violation of the Dangerous
(Sec. 11, Drug
Revised Act,
Rule as
on
No,
Summarythe grant
amended, Procedure).
and of the motion tofor
another quash the
illegal
on
(2003)
In an the actiongroundforthat the prosecutor
violation of Batas attempted homicide
The accused
possession of filed
firearms.an information
action for recovery on the
suffered
Pambansafrom Big.a22, want the of authority
court granted to the
file ground of double jeopardy was not
of the firearm in another court against
the information
accuseds
SUGGESTED demurrer
ANSWER: because of his failure
to evidence which he to correct, because there was no valid
the police officers
(Philbanking with an230
v. Tensuan. application
SCRA 413; for
No.
conduct
filed The awarrantless
without preliminary
leave of investigation
arrest is not before
court. Although valid
he prosecution
Unimasters forofslight
Conglomeration, physical injuries.
the issuance a writ of Inc. v. CA. CR-
replevin. He
because
filing thethe
was acquitted information,
alleged
of theoffenseas required
crime has not
charged, byjust
the
he, ALTERNATIVE
Actions;
119657, ANSWER:
Discretionary
Feb. 7, 1997) Power of that Fiscalhe was a
alleged
(c) No. in the
If his Complaint
parties stipulated that the
been
Rules
however, committed.
of Court.
was requiredIsThethecrime
warrantless
by the was
court allegedly
arrest
to pay (1999)
A filed with the Office of the Fiscal aa
military
venue informer
"shall be inwhothe had
courtsbeen in issued
Quezon
committed
of
theAX valid?complainant
private one
Is heyearentitled beforeto a
the the
preliminary
face arrest.
value of Complaint for estafa against B. After the
(Sec. written
City", authority
A cannot filetohiscarry
complaint said in firearm.
Pasay
5 (b) of The
investigation
the check. Rulebefore
113).
accusedthe filedfiling
a Motion of the of preliminary investigation, the Fiscal
Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary The
City police
because officers
the usemoved
of the to dismiss
word the
"shall"
information? Explain. (5%)
Reconsideration regarding the order to dismissed thetheComplaint forthelack of
criminal complaint on ground that subject
pay the aspect
investigation face becauseof the
value ofhecase;
thewas and
notb)lawfully
check at the
on the makes
merit. Quezon
May the City
Fiscal thebeexclusive
compelled venueby
very least,without
he was aentitled firearm was in custodia legis. The court
arrested
following grounds: a) theto demurrer
warrant adduce
(See Sec. 7 to of thereof.
SUGGESTED
mandamus
(a) Wasthe (Hoechst
ANSWER:
the Philippines
to seizure
file theinstead
ofcasethe vs.in Torres,
court? 83
controverting evidence on the civil denied
No. The motion
public and
prosecutor mayissued not the
be
He can move for a
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 112).
evidence applied only too the SCRA 297).
(b)
firearm
writ Was
Explain. the denial
(2%)
valid?
of replevin. of the motion to
liability. ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE
reinvestigation. Resolve the Motion for compelled by mandamus to file the case in
He is not entitled dismiss proper? 6%
Reconsideration.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (6%) to a preliminary court because the determination of
(a) The Motionbecause
investigation for Reconsideration
the penaltyshould for Acquittal; Effectis within the discretion of
probable cause
be denied.
estafa is the Thesum ground that the does
of P10,000 demurrernot (2002)
Delia sued
the prosecutor. Victor Thefor personal
remedy is aninjuries
appeal
to evidence
exceed 4 years applied
and 2 only months. to theUnder criminal
Sec. which she allegedly sustained when she
to the Secretary of Justice. (Sec. 4 Rule
aspect
1, second of the case
par., was112,
Rule not correct because
a preliminary was struck
Actions;
112.) by a car
Injunction driven by Victor. May
the criminal action
investigation is not for violation
required. of Batas
(Note: The the court
(1999)
Will receive inlieevidence,
injunction to restrain over proper the
Arrest; Warrantless
Pambansa
penalty Blg.Arrests
is not stated in the & Searches
22question.)included the and timely objection
commencement of a criminal action? by Delia, a certified
(1997)
A was killed bycivil
corresponding B during
action. a quarrel
(Sec. 1(b)over a
of Rule true
Explain.copy(2%)
SUGGESTED of a judgment of acquittal in a
ANSWER:
(b)
hostess
111). Thein accused
a nightclub. wasTwo notdays entitled
after the to As a general
criminal rule, injunction
prosecution charging will Victor notwith lie
adduce
incident, controverting
and upon complaint evidence on of the to restrain
SUGGESTED a criminal
ANSWER: prosecution
hit-and-run driving in connection with except:
civil liability,
widow of A, the because
police arrested B Delias injuries? Why? (3%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 42 41 of 66
or not. The
When bailmotionis to a recover
matterthe of firearm he could ANSWER:
SUGGESTED be convicted of the capital
Upon
shouldconviction
discretion: be filed in by the RTC courtofwhere an offensethe In criminal
offense. (Obosa procedure,
vs. Courta ofcomplaint Appeals, 266 is a
not
criminal punishable by death, reclusion
action is pending. sworn
ALTERNATIVE
SCRA 281.) written
ANSWER: statement charging a
perpetua or life imprisonment, on Under
person Circular
with an No.
offense,2-92, A is
subscribed entitled by to
the
Arrest; Warrantless
application of theArrests;
accused. Objection
If the penalty bail because
offended party, any he peace was officer convicted or other of
(2000)
FGimprisonment
of was arrestedexceeds withoutsixa years warrantbut notby homicide
peace and
officer hence the
charged evidence with of guilt
the
policemen
more than while
20 years,he was bailwalking
shall be in adenied
busy of murder is not
enforcement of strong.
the law violated. (Sec. 3,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
street.a After
upon showingpreliminary investigation,with
by the prosecution, he Rule
2. B,110,who 1985did Rulesnot of Criminal
appeal, Procedure);
can be
was
notice charged
to the accused, with ofrape and
the following theor while
benefited an information
by the decision is an of accusation
the Court ofin
1 That the
corresponding
other similar accused is awas
information
circumstances: recidivist,
filed in quasi-re-
the writing
Appeals charging a
which Contract person
is with
favorable an offenseand
cidivist Demurrer
subscribed to Evidence;
or hasapplicable to him. (Sec. 11 [a]. and
by the prosecutor of Carriage filed
RTC. On or habitual delinquent,
arraignment, he pleaded not Rule 122,
by thewith (2004)
AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of
committed
guilty. Trial the on the crimemerits aggravated
ensued. The Rules the court. (Sec.
of Criminal 4, Id.) The benefit will
Procedure.)
circumstance
court rendered of judgment
reiteration;convicting him. PBU, a public utility bus, died instantly on
also apply to on C account
even ifofhis the appeal is
2
On appeal, That FG theclaimsaccused
that the found tois haveboard
is judgment Bail;
dismissed
the bus
Application;
becauseVenue of his escape.
fatal head
previously
void because escaped
he was from illegally legal confinement,
arrested. If wounds
(2002) he sustained
If an information was as filed a result
in theofRTC- the
evaded
you were sentence, or has violated
the Solicitor General, the conditionsManila charging D with homicide and the
counsel
strong impact of the collision between he
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of
forhis the bailPeople
withoutofvalid the justification;
Philippines, how bus
was and arrested a dump truck that
in Quezon City, happened
in what
Any objection to the illegality of the arrest
3
would Thatrefute
the accused committed the offensewhilecourt the or bus courts wasmay still hetravelling
apply on for EDSAbail?
of theyou accused said claim?
without a(5%)warrant is towards
SUGGESTED Makati.
ANSWER: The foregoing facts,
while on probation, parole, or under conditionalExplain. (3%)
deemed waived when he pleaded not D may apply
among others,for werebail dulyin the RTC-Manila
established on
pardon;
guilty at the arraignment without raising where the
evidence-in-chief information by the was filed
plaintiff or TY,in the
sole
4 That the circumstances of the accused or
the question. T is too late to complain
his case indicate the probability of flight ifRTC-Quezon heir of AX, City in TYs where he was
action arrested,
against the
about a warrantless arrest after trial is or if no judge, thereof
subject common carrier for breach of is available, with
released on bail; or
commenced and completed and a any metropolitan trial judge, municipal
5
[1999]) That there is undue risk that during thecontract 114, sec.
of carriage. After
17).or municipal circuit trial judge
TY had rested
judgment of conviction rendered against trial
his judge
case, the common carrier filed a
pendency of the appeal, the accused may
the accused. (People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA therein.
demurrer (Ruleto evidence, contending that
Bail
commit
Bail; Matter another
of Rightcrime. (Sec.
vs. Matter of 1, Id.)
Discretion Bail; Forms of Bail
199, plaintiffs evidence is insufficient because
(2002)
D was
(2006) charged with murder, a capital (1999)
In what forms may bail be given?
When is bail a matter of right and when it did not show (1) that defendant was
offense.
is it a matterAfterof arraignment,
discretion? (5%) he applied for (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
bail. The trial court ordered the negligent
No.
Bail The
may court
be andgiven (2) by
should that
not such defendant's
grant
a corporate negligence
surety,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prosecution
Bail is a matter to present
of right its (a) evidence
before orin full
after was
demurrer
or the
through proximate
to a evidence
property causebecause
bond, of thethe
cash collision.
case is
deposit
on the ground
conviction by that only on the
the inferior basis(b)
courts; of Should
for breach
or recognizance. the of court
contract grant
of or
carriage. deny
Proof
such presentation
before conviction by couldthe itRTC determine
of an defendant's
that
Bail; the
Matter defendant
of demurrer
Right was to
negligent evidence?
and that
whether the such
(1999)
When
Reason negligence
the accused
briefly. was
(5%) isthe proximate
entitled as a cause
matter of
offense not evidence
punishable of Dsbyguilt was
death,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
strong forperpetuapurposesoroflife bail. Is the ruling the
of
Civil collision
rightCode; to is
bail, not
(Mendoza may required.
the
v. Court
Phil. refuse
(Articles
Airlines, 1170to
Inc.,
reclusion imprisonment.,
No, the prosecution is only required to and
90
grant 2201,Phil.
him bail 836 on the [1952];ground that Batangas
there
correct?
when theWhy? (3%) of guilt is not strong
evidence
present as much evidence as is necessary Transportation
exists a high degreeCo. ofv.probability Caguimbal, that he22
(Sec. 4, Rule 114, 2000 Rules of Criminal
to
Baildetermine whether Upon
is discretionary: the evidence
conviction of Dsby SCRA171
SUGGESTED U 968];
ANSWER: Abeto v. PAL, 115 SCRA
Procedure). will abscond or escape? Explain. (2%)
guilt is strong for purposes of bail .(Rule 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 95onto Evidence; w/o Leave of Court
[1984]).
114,
death, sec. 8).reclusion perpetua or life denied the ground that there exists a
(1998)
Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a
Bail;
of Appeal
Criminal Procedure). high degree of probability that the
imprisonment (Sec. 5, Rule 114, 2000 Rules petition for bail. The petition was opposed
(1998)an information charging them of
In accused will abscond or escape. What the
Murder,
Bail; Witnesspolicemen
Posting Bail A, B and C were by the prosecution but after hearing the
court can do is to increase the amount of
convicted
(1999)
May the Courtof Homicide.
require aAwitness appealed from
to post court granted bail to X. On the first
the bail. One of the guidelines that the
the decision
bail? Explainbut your B answer.
and C did (2%)not. B started scheduled hearing on the merits, the
judge may use in fixing a reasonable
serving his
SUGGESTED sentence but C escaped and is
ANSWER: prosecution manifested that it was not
amount of bail is the probability of the
Yes. The court mayCourtrequireofa Appeals,
witness toA adducing additional
Bail; Matterappearing
of Right vs.inMatterevidence and that it
at large. In the accused trial. of Discretion
post
applied bailforif he
bailis buta material
was denied. witness and
Finally, was
(1999) resting its case. X
When is bail a matter of right and when filed a demurrer to
bail is needed
the Court to secure
of Appeals his appearance.
rendered a decision evidence
is it a matter without leave of court
of discretion? (2%) but it was
The
1 rulesWas provide
the that
Court when
of the
Appeal's court is
denial of 1. Did by
denied
SUGGESTED the thecourt
ANSWER: court. have the discretion to
acquitting A on the ground that the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
deny theBail demurrer
A's
satisfied,
applicationuponforproof bail When is a tomatter evidence ofunderwas the
evidence pointed to theproper?
or
NPAoath, as[2%]
thethat
killersa (a) Yes,
2. Ifpersons
All
the seizure
the answer
circumstances in to theof
mentioned
custody
the firearm
preceding
shall above?
(a) question
(2%)
before or
material
2 Canwitness
B andwill C be not benefited
testify when right:
by the valid because it was seized in the course
of the victim. is
after in conviction
the affirmative, by the can X adduce
metropolitan and
decision ofitthe
required, may,
Court uponof Appeals?
motion of [3%]
either of a valid arrest in a buy-bust operation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: evidence
municipalin trial his defense
courts,after andthe (b)denial
before of
party, order the witness to post bail in (Sec. 12 and 13 of Rule 126) A [1%]
search warrant
1, Yes, the Court of Appeals properly 3.
his Without
demurrer
conviction by further
to evidence?
the RTC proceeding
of an offenseand not on
such sum as may be deemed proper. [1997]).
was not necessary.
denied A's application for bail. The court the sole
punishable basis
by death,of (People
thereclusion v. Salazar,
evidence of the
perpetua
266
Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall SCRA 607
had the himdiscretion to until
do so. prosecution, canofthe thecourt legally convict
commit to prison he Although
complies or A or
(b) life
Theimprisonment,
denial be admitted
motion to bail
to dismiss
Complaint
was convictedvs. of Information
homicide only, since he X
as for a Murder?
matter (2%)
of
was not proper. The court had no right, with sufficient
is legally discharged after his testimony Rule 114, Rules
(1999)
Distinguish
was charged a with
Complaint
a capital from Information.
offense, on sureties,
authority or beof released
Court, as amended by Circular
on recognizance
is taken. (Sec. 6, Rule 119) No. 12-94.) to issue the writ of replevin
(2%)
appeal as prescribed
whether the by
firearm law Updated
or Rule 114. (Sec. 4,
Version 1997-2006 was inby custodia
Dondee legis
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 43 of 66 The trial
a) Was the
evidence presented
provisionalby the
dismissal
prosecution
of the
at court denied the demurrer to evidence and
the hearing
case proper? for b) Resolve
bail was thenot
Motion
strong,
to deemed the accused as having waived his
without any
Quash.
SUGGESTED evidence for the defense, it
ANSWER: right to present evidence and submitted the
(a)
couldThebeprovisional
sufficient for dismissal of the case
conviction. case for judgment on the basis of the
was proper because the accused
2. No. Because he filed the demurrer gave histo prosecution evidence. In due time, the court
express consent thereto and the
the evidence without leave. (Sec. 15, Rule offended rendered judgment finding the accused guilty
party was of
119, Rules notified.
CriminalIt Procedure.)
was not necessary
However, of the offense charged beyond reasonable
for
the the offended
trial party toinquire
court should give heras consent
to why doubt and accordingly imposing on him the
thereto.
the accused (Sec. 8filed
of Rule
the117).
demurrer without penalty prescribed therefor. Is the judgment
(b)
leave Theandmotion
whether to quash the information
his lawyer knew that SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the trial court valid and proper? Reason.
should be denied because,
the effect of filing it without leave while isthe
to Yes. The judgment of the trial court is
(5%)
provisional
62.) dismissal had already
waive the presentation of the evidence become
for valid. The accused did not ask for leave to
permanent, the prescriptive
the accused. (People period for
vs. Fores, 269 SCRA
file the demurrer to evidence. He is
3. Yes. the
filing Withoutmurderany evidence
charge fromhad the not deemed to have waived his right to
accused, theThere
prescribed. primawas facie
no evidence of the
double jeopardy 269 SCRAevidence.
present 62 [1997]; Bernardo
(Sec. 23 of v. Court
Rule of
119;
prosecution
because thehas been
first converted
case to proof
was dismissed Appeals, 278 SCRA 782 [1997]. However,
People v. Flores,
ALTERNATIVE
beyond the
before ANSWER:
reasonable
accused doubt.
had pleaded to the the judgment is not proper or is erroneous
If the evidence
charge. of guilt is not strong and
(Sec. 7 of Rule 117). 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 of Court
possess the firearm, which is fatal to the
(2001)
Carlos, the accused in a theft case, filed a
conviction of the to
Dismissal; Failure accused. (Mallari v. Court
Prosecute
demurrer to evidence without leave of of Appeals &People,265 SCRA 456[1996]).
court. The court denied the demurrer to (2003) a criminal case is dismissed on
When
evidence and Carlos moved to present his nolle prosequi, can it later be refilled?
evidence. The court denied Carlos (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, when a criminal case is
motion to present evidence and instead dismissed on nolle prosequi before the
judgment on the basis of the evidence for accused is placed on trial and before he is
the 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
Yes, of the evidence
because the for the prosecution?
demurrer to the [1994]).
Why? (5%)
evidence was filed without leave of court. Dismissal; Provisional Dismissal
(2003)
Before the arraignment for the crime of
The Rules provide that when the
demurrer to evidence is filed without murder, the private complainant executed
leave of court, the accused waives the an Affidavit of Desistance stating that she
right to present evidence and submits the was not sure if the accused was the man
119,
case Revised Rules of
for judgment on Criminal
the basis of the who killed her husband. The public
Procedure)
evidence for the prosecution. (Sec. 23 of prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the
Demurrer
Rule
to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court Information on the ground that with
(2004)
The information for illegal possession of private complainants desistance, he did
firearm filed against the accused not have evidence sufficient to convict the
specifically alleged that he had no license accused. On 02 January 2001, the court
or permit to possess the caliber .45 pistol without further proceedings granted the
mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, motion and provisionally dismissed the
the prosecution established the fact that case. The accused gave his express
the subject firearm was lawfully seized by consent to the provisional dismissal of the
the police from the possession of the Subsequently, the private complainant
case. The offended party was notified of
accused, that is, while the pistol was urged the public prosecutor to refile the
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. ThefiledCourt a Motion
had theto Quash the
discretion to
prosecution evidence has not established Information on the ground
deny the demurrer to the evidence, that the
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable provisional dismissal
because although 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) by: sirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com Page45
sirdondee@gmail.comPage
Page 4644
ofof66
of6666
possession
was awareof
Information
a. Yes, there is a legal basis for the court an unlicensed
that B.theYes,
victim the.32had caliber
died two
prosecution gun,days canpunishable
earlier the
re-file by
on
(2001)
Thedeny
to prosecution
the motion filed to quash an the information
warrant account
prision correctional
of his stab
information for in wounds.
its maximum
murder in Because period
substitution of and his
of
against
of arrest Joseand to forwithdraw
slight physical
the information. injuries guilty
a fine
theplea,
ofinformation
notNoel less was thanforconvicted
P15.000.00.
homicideofbecause frustrated
It is the no
alleging
The courtthe actsbound
is not constituting
by the the offense
Resolution homicide
MTC thatand
double has meted
jeopardy exclusive
hasthe as corresponding
and original
yet attached.
butthe
Mogul,
of without 151anymore
Secretary SCRA
of Justice.alleging
462 (Crespo thatv.it was penalty.
jurisdiction
SCRA
[GalvezWhen
685v.over theall
(1994)].
Court prosecution
of offenses237
Appeals, punishable
learned of the by
[1987]).
committed after Joses unlawful entry in victim's death,not
imprisonment it filed
exceedingwithin six fifteen
years. (15) days
(Sec. 2,
b.
theIf I complainants
were the counselabode. for the accused, Was theI R.A. Information;
129)
No.
therefrom 7691, Amendment;
a amending
motion toB.P Supervening
. Blg.
amend Events
the information
(1997)
would surrender the
information correctly prepared by the accused and apply to A was accused
upgrade the of homicide
charge from for the killing
frustrated
Information; Motion totheQuash; Grounds
for bail because
SUGGESTED
prosecution? ANSWER: the offense is merely
Why? (5%) homicide to consummated homicide.public
of B. During trial, the Noel
No.
homicide, aggravating
The a non-capital circumstance offense. At the of (1998)
1
prosecutorGive two received(2) grounds a copy to quash
of the an
opposed the motion claiming that the
unlawful entry in
pre-trial, I would make a stipulation ofthe complainants Information.[2%]
marriage certificate of A and B.
admission of the amended information would
abode
facts with hasthetoprosecution be specified whichinwould the (a) Can
2
SUGGESTED If the the
ANSWER:publicInformation
prosecutor move is for
not
placeThe him inamended double jeopardy. information Resolve the toa
information;
show that no offense was committed. be
otherwise, it cannot the amendment
accompanied by of a the information
certification that to
Procedure) motion
(b) with
consummated reasons. (4%) of moving
homicide
Information; Motion
considered to Quash (Sec. 8 of Rule
as aggravating. chargeSuppose
preliminary A with instead
the crime offrom
investigation frustrated
parricide?
has for been the
ALTERNATIVE
(2000) ANSWER:
BC is
110, charged
Revised Ruleswith illegal possession of
of Criminal homicide
amendment
conducted. does
Isof the not
the placeinformation,
Information thevoid?accused [3%] the in
The information prepared by the
firearms under an Information signed by a double
public jeopardy.
prosecutor As presented
provided ininthe second
evidence
prosecutor is not correct because the
Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment paragraph
the marriage of certificate
Sec. 7, Rulewithout 117,2000 objection
Rules of
accused
Double should have been charged with
but before Jeopardypre-trial, BC found out that the on the part
Criminal Procedureof the , the conviction
defense, couldof Abe the
qualified
(2002)
D was trespass
charged towith
dwelling. slight physical SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Provincial
Information; Prosecutor
Amendmenthad no authority to accused
convictedshall not be a bar to another
of parricide?
injuries
sign andinfile the MTC. He pleaded itnot guilty (a) No. The forInformation cannotwhich be
(2001)
Amando wasthecharged information withas frustrated was the prosecution
amended to change
an
the
offense
offense charged
and went
City Prosecutor to trial. who After
has the
such prosecution
authority. necessarily includes the offense charged
homicide. Before he entered his plea and from
had presented
During
upon the the advice its evidence,
pre-trial, ofBChismoves
the trial
counsel, thatcourt the
he in thehomicide
former complaintto parricide. or Firstly,
information the
set the
case continuation
against him be ofdismissed
the hearing on on
the marriage is not a supervening
when: (a) the graver offense developed fact arising
manifested his willingness to admit from
another that
ground date.the OnInformation
the date scheduled
having committed the offense of serious is defective for due tothe act constituting
supervening facts arising the charge from the of
hearing,
because the officer
prosecutor failed to appear, homicide. (Sec. 7[a] of Rule 117). Secondly,
physical the injuries. The signing it lacked
prosecution the
then same act or omission constituting the
after plea,charge;
amendments
whereupon
authority tothe docourt, so.
filed an amended information for serious
on The motion of D,
Provincial former or may (b) bethe done facts only
dismissed
Prosecutor the case. Athe
opposes few minutes later, as to matters of form. The amendment is
physical injuries against motion Amando.onWhat the constituting
us. Dacuycuy.
substantial
the SCRA
108
because
graver 736). charge became
it will only change
the
ground prosecutor
of estoppel arrivedas
steps or action should the prosecution BC and did opposed
not move the
to known or were discovered afterthea
dismissal
quash of
the the case.
Information The court
before nature
plea of the
was entered offense. (Sec. 14 of Rule 110;
take so that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the amended information (b) No.
Dionaldo
A can in bethe former complaint
convicted only of
reconsidered its order areand directed for DBC, to
Iarraignment.
would Amando
against argueIf that youwhich since counsel
the Provincial
downgrades the or information.
homicide
Extradition not of Here, when
parricide the
which plea is to a
present
what
SUGGESTED his
isof yourevidence.
ANSWER: argument Before the
to to next
refute date
the frustrated
graver homicide
offense. was
The made,
accused neither
has the
the
Prosecutor
nature had offense
the no authority could be file the
validly (2004)
RP and State XX have a subsisting
In
of ordercame,
trial
opposition that
of the Provincial
however,
the amendedD moved information
that the
Prosecutor? court nor the
constitutional prosecution
rights of duewas processaware and thatto
information,
made? Why? the court did not acquire
(5%) Extradition Treaty. Pursuant thereto RP's
which
last
(5%)order downgrades
be set asidethe on thenature ground of thatthe the
be victim
informed had
of died
the two
nature days
and earlier
the cause on
jurisdiction over the person of the accused Secretary of Justice (SOJ) filed a Petition
offense could beof the
the reinstatement validlycase made, had placed the Constitution),
account
of of his stabbefore wounds.
and over the subject matter of the offense
prosecution should file a Acceding
motion to ask for forthe accusation
Extradition against him.
the (Secs.
MM 1, RTC 14
him twice in jeopardy. to this (1) and (2} Art. III. 1987
charged. (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 alleging
leave of court with notice
motion, the court again dismissed the to the offended Information;that Juan Bail Kwan is the subject of
SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is an
party.
case. (Sec.14
The prosecutor
of Rule 110, then Revisedfiled Rules an of After the requisiteduly
(2003)arrest warrant issued by the
proceedings, the
not waived if not raised in a motion to proper criminal court of State XX in
The
information in the RTC, charging D with
Criminal Procedure). new rule is for the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information
quash and could be raised at the pretrial. connection
X. The latter, with a criminaltimely
however, case for filedtaxa
protection
direct
Information;assaultof the
Motion based intereston
to ofQuash of the
the same offended
facts for homicide against
(Sec. 8, Rule 117, Rules Court). evasion
party
alleged
(2005)
Rodolfo andisinto charged
prevent
the informationpossible abuse
with possession for by the
slight of Petition for Review of the Resolution to
and fraud before his return of RPthe
Information; Amendment; Double Jeopardy; Bail
prosecution. as a balikbayan. Petitioner
Provincial Prosecutor with the Secretary prays that Juan
physical injuries
unlicensed firearms butin with an the added
Information
(2002)
A. D and E were charged with be extradited
of Justice who, and in delivered
due time, to the propera
issued
allegation
filed in the thatRTC. D inflicted
It was allegedthe injuries therein out
homicide in one information. Before they authorities reversing
Resolution of State XX thefor trial, andofthat
resolution the
of resentment
that Rodolfo
SUGGESTED ANSWER: wasfor what the complainant
in possession of two
could
Ds be arraigned, the beprosecution to preventProsecutor
Provincial Juan's flight andindirecting
the interim, him to a
had motion
done into
unlicensed thequash
firearms: should
performance
a .45 caliber ofgranted
hisand-adutieson.
moved
the to
groundUnder amend
of ofdouble the information
jeopardy because to warrant for
withdraw the Information.his immediate arrest be
as caliber.
32 chairman the
Republicboard ActofNo. election
8294,
exclude
the E therefrom.
first offense Can the court grant issued. Before
Before the Provincialthe RTC Prosecutorcould act on couldthe
inspectors.
possession
B. On the D an charged
of moved
facts to quash
unlicensed
above
is necessarily
stated, thesuppose
.45 second
caliber
the motion
included intothe amend?second Why? (2%) charged.
offense petition for
comply with extradition,
the directive Juan filedofbefore the
information
gun
the is punishable
prosecution, on the by ground
instead prision that
of filingmayor its
a filing
in
motion its
ALTERNATIVE
[Draculan ANSWER:
v. Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)]. it an urgent
Secretary of motion,
Justice, the in sum court praying
issued(1) a
had
minimum
to placed him
period in
and double
a fine jeopardy.
of P30.000.00, How
Ds amend,
motion tomoved quash to should withdraw
be denied the that
warrant SoJ'sof
SUGGESTED ANSWER: application
arrest against X.for an arrest
should
while
information Ds motion
possession
altogether to quash
of an
and its bemotion
unlicensed resolved? .32
was The Public Prosecutor filed and aandMotion to
because the two dismissals of the case warrant
Under the beExtradition
set for hearing Treaty (2)
Law,that the
(4%)
caliber
granted. gun
Canwere is
the punishable
prosecution byre-fileprision the Quash
against him on his motion (hence Juan be the
application ofWarrant
allowed the to post of bail
Secretary Arrest
ofinJustice
the and fortoa
event
correctional
information in its
although maximum
consent) this period
and histime and a
for Withdraw thearrest
Information, attaching
with his express right to the courtofwould
warrant issue need an not arrest setto for
bewarrant. it
fine
SUGGESTED
murder?
a speedy of not
ANSWER:
Explain less
trial was(3%) than
not violated.P15,000.00. As the Resolution
hearing, and Juan of thecannotSecretary
beorallowed of Justice.
to post
A. Yes,Jeopardy;
provided notice is givenCharges to file
thea Should the court grant deny Juan's
counsel
Double of the accused,
Upgrading; you intend
Original The
bail court denied
if theReason.
court would the motion. issue (6%) a warranta) Wasof
SUGGESTED
offended
ANSWER:
party and the court states its prayers? (5%)
motion
(2005)
For the
The to
ground quash
multiple for the themotion
stab Information.
wounds to sustained
quash What is motion?
arrest.
there aThe b) If
legal you
provisions
basis wereforinthe thecounsel
the Rules to
court fordeny
of the
Court
reasons
ground
by the
that more for
orthan
victim,granting
grounds the
should
Noeloffense
one same.isyou
was charged (Rule
charged 110,
invoke?
with in accused, what remedies, if any, would
on
the arrest and
(Government of thebail United are States not of basically
America
sec. 14). (4%)
Explain.
frustrated
the information. homicide (Sec. in the
3[f], Rule RTC. 117, Upon2000 you pursue? 389 SCRA 623 [2002])
applicable.
v. Puruganan,
arraignment,
Rules of Criminal he Procedure)
entered a Likewise,plea of guilty the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to said
RTC hascrime. Neither the
no jurisdiction over courtthe nor second the
prosecution
offense of
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 47 of 66
criminal docket and a copy thereof Parties; Prosecution of Offenses
served upon the accused or counsel. (Sec. (2000)
Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old,
6. third 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 quiet and not to file charges against ZZ,
he had to attend to another criminal case their son. Feeling very much aggrieved,
Jurisdiction;
against him.Complex Crimes she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be
(2003)
In complex crimes, how is the made to answer for his crime. a) What
jurisdiction of a court determined? 4% uncle
would ZZ advice
your is rape, be?witnessed
Explain. by (3%)your
b)
Suppose the crime committed against YY
mutual friend XX. But this time,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the YY
was
by her prevailed upon by her
whole complex crime must be lodged with grandparents not to file charges. XX
the trial court having jurisdiction to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
asks you if she can initiate the
impose the maximum and most serious 1.
SUGGESTEDTwoANSWER:grounds to quash an
complaint against ZZ. Would your
penalty imposable on an offense forming Information are: a) That the facts
[1988]).
part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v. (a) answer
I would
charged
be the same?
do advise
not constitute
Explain.
the minor, (2%). of
an orphan
an offense; and
Garcia, 160 SCRA 302 16 b)years That
of age, the to file trying
court the complaint
the case
Jurisdiction; Finality of a Judgment herself independently
has no jurisdiction over the of offense
her
(2005)
Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping grandparents,
charged or the because
person ofshe is not
the accused.
Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion c) That the
incompetent officer who
or incapable to filed
doing theso
perpetua. While serving sentence at the (b) information
upon rapehad
grounds
Since is no
other now authority
than her to do
asso;
minority.
classified a
National Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria d)5, Rule
(Sec. That itPersons
110, Rules does not Procedure.)
of Criminal conform
Crime Against under the Anti-
were married. Mariano filed a motion in said
Rapesubstantially
Law of 1997 to the(RAprescribed
8353), Iform;would
court for his release from the penitentiary on
e)
advise That
XX to more than the
initiate one complaint
offense is
his claim that under Republic Act No. 8353,
his marriage to Victoria extinguished the charged
against ZZ. except in those cases in
criminal action against him for rape, as well as which existing laws prescribe a single
the penalty imposed on him. However, the punishment for various offenses;
court denied the motion on the ground that it f) That the criminal action or
had lost jurisdiction over the case after its liability has been extinguished;
decision had become final and executory. (7%) g) That it contains averments
a) Is the filing of the court correct? which, if true, would constitute a legal
SUGGESTED
Explain. ANSWER: excuse or justification; and
No. The court can never lose jurisdiction h) That the accused has been
so long as its decision has not yet been previously convicted or in jeopardy of
fully implemented and satisfied. Finality of being convicted, or acquitted of the
a judgment cannot operate to divest a Rule charged.
offense 117. Rules (Sec. 3,of Criminal
court of its jurisdiction. The court retains Procedure.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
an interest in seeing the proper execution
2. No. The certification which is provided
and implementation of its judgments, and
in Sec. 4, Rule 112. Rules of Criminal
to that extent, may issue such orders
No. 13205, and
January 19, Procedure, is not an indispensable part of
necessary appropriate for these
1999) the information.
Lapura, 255 SCRA(People
85.) vs.
purposes. (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice,
b)
G.R. What remedy/remedies should the Judgment; Promulgation of Judgment
counsel of Mariano take to secure his
(1997)
X, the accused in a homicide case before
proper and most expeditious release
from the National Penitentiary? Explain. the RTC. Dagupan Cay, was personally
SUGGESTED ANSWER: notified of the promulgation of judgment
To secure the proper and most in his case set for 10 December 1996. On
expeditious release of Mariano from the said date. X was not present as he had to
National Penitentiary, his counsel should attend to the trial of another criminal case
file: (a) a petition for habeas corpus for against him in Tarlac, Tarlac. The trial
the illegal confinement of Mariano (Rule court denied the motion of the counsel of
102), or (b) a motion in the court which (a)
X toHow shall the
postpone thepromulgation.
court promulgate the
convicted him, to nullify the execution of judgment in the absence of the accused?
his sentence or the order of his (b) Can the trial court also order the
commitment on the ground that a arrest of X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) In the absence of the accused, the
supervening development had occurred
(Melo v. People, G.R. No. L-3580, March 22, promulgation shall be made by recording
1950) despite the finality of the judgment. the Judgment
Version in the Updated by Dondee
1997-2006
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%).
Thereasons:
civil case filed by CX against MM
following
1
for accounting and damages does not involve
an issue similar to or intimately related to the
issue of estafa raised in the criminal action.
2 The 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

(2002)
D was charged with theft of an article
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
(1999)
What is 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 ANSWER:
criminal action may proceed. (Sec. 5 of
A prejudicial
Rule 111.) question is one based on a
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
(2000)
CX is charged with estafa in court for
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 the "Defense
v. Roman, A.M. admitted all the
No. RTJ-93-904,
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 warrant will be and
defend himself, served. Moreover,
violating describing
his right against
material facts duly established during the the shabu in an Should
self-incrimination. undetermined
the court amount is
grant or
trial showed that the offense committed sufficiently
denyNos. particular.
QR's 140546-47,
motion? January
(People
Reason. 20, G.R.
v. Tee,
(5%)
was estafa, punishable by imprisonment 2003)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The
Trial; court
Trial in should
Absentia;deny QR'sReview
Automatic motion. If in the
of Conviction
of up to eight years of prision mayor
pretrial
(1998) agreement signed by the accused
under the said Code. No appeal having and his counsel,
1. What are the the accusedofadmits
requisites a trial the
in
been taken therefrom, said judgment of documentary
absentia? evidence
[2%] of the prosecution, it
conviction became final. Is the judgment does
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. If not violate his
an accused who right against self-
was sentenced to
of conviction valid?ofIsconviction
the said judgment incrimination. His lawyer
Yes, the judgment 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 The 118;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. Civil Case
judgment of conviction is substantial since (1997)
Procedure.) Give three distinctions between a pre-trial
the evidence is one for estafa while the
Prejudicial Question; Suspension of Criminal Action in a criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil
judgment is one for theft. The elements of
(1999) case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the two crimes are not the same. (Lauro Three distinctions between a pre-trial in
A allegedly
Rule 120). sold to B a parcel of land
Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487) . One a criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil
which A later also sold to X. B brought a
offense does not necessarily include or is The
case are
1. as pre-trial
follows: in a criminal case is
The
civil judgment
action for of conviction of
nullification is the
reviewable
second
included in the other. (Sec. 5 of conducted only "where the accused and
by
salecertiorari
and asked even
thatifthe nosaleappeal made had by been
A in
taken,
his favor because
be declared the judge valid. committed
A theorizeda counsel agree" (Rule 118, Sec. 1): while the
grave
that heabuseneverofsold discretion
the property tantamountto B and to pre-trial in a civil case is mandatory. (Sec.
1 of 18).
former Rule 20; Sec, 1 of new Rule
lack or excess
his purported of his appearing
signatures jurisdiction in thein
convicting
first deed theof accused sale were of theft and in
forgeries. 2. The pre-trial in a criminal case
violating
Thereafter, due anprocess
Information and his for right
estafatowas be does not consider the possibility of a
informed
filed against of theA basednature on and the cause
the same double of compromise, which is one important
the
sale accusation
that was against the subject him, of which the makecivil (Sec.of1 the
aspect of former Rulein20;
pre-trial Sec. 2case.
a civil of new
the judgment
action. A filed avoid. "Motion Withforthe mistake of
Suspension in Rule 18).
charging the proper offense,
Action" in the criminal case, contending the judge 3. In a criminal case, a pre-trial
should
that the have
resolutiondirected of thethe issue filing
in the of civil
the agreement is required to be reduced to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
proper
case
Yes. would
The information
necessarily
suspension
Search Warrant; Motion to Quash of theand
be thereafter
determinative
criminal action writing and signed by the accused and his
dismissed
of
is inhis
(2005)
Police order the
guilt original
because
operatives or of the information.
innocence.
thedefense
Western of AIs in the
(Sec. 19
the
Police counsel (See; Rule 118, Sec. 4); while in a
of Rule 119). of the criminal action in
suspension
civil action,
District, that he National
Philippine never sold the
Police, civil case, the agreement may be
order? Explain. (2%) 20; See in
contained 7 the
of new Rule order. (Sec. 4 of
pre-trial
property
applied fortoa Bsearch and warrant
that his inpurported the RTC 78).Rule
former
signatures
for the search in the
of the first deedofof
house JuansaleSantos
were Provisional Dismissal
forgeries,
and is a prejudicial
the seizure question the
of an undetermined (2002)
In a prosecution for robbery against D, the
resolution
amount of of whichThe
shabu. is determinative
team arrived at of the
his prosecutor moved for the postponement of
guilt orofinnocence.
house Santos but If the firsttosale
failed findis him
null the first scheduled hearing on the ground
(Ras
there.v. Rasul,
and void, there
Instead, 100the SCRA
would 125.)
team be no found double sale
Roberto that he had lost his records of the case.
and The
Co. A would team beconducted
innocent of a the offense
search in of
the The court granted the motion but, when
Pre-Trial Agreement
estafa.
house
(2004) of Santos in the presence of the new date of trial arrived, the
Mayor TM was charged of malversation
Roberto Co and barangay
through falsification of officialofficials
documents. and prosecutor, alleging that he could not
found ten (10) grams
Assisted by Atty. OP as counsel de parteof shabu. Roberto locate his witnesses, moved for the
Co
duringwaspre-trial,
chargedheinsigned courttogether
with illegal with provisional dismissal of the case. If Ds
possession SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ombudsmanof ten grams of TG
Prosecutor shabu. a Before
"Joint counsel does not object, may the court
No, because a case cannot be
his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a grant the motion of the prosecutor?
Stipulation
motion to
of Facts
quash the
and Documents,"
warrant provisionally dismissed except uponWhy?
the
which was presented to on the the (3%)
express consent of the accused and with
following
Sandiganbayan.
SUGGESTED grounds (a) it
ANSWER: Before the court could was not the
accused named in the search warrant; notice to the offended party. (Rule 117,
The motion to quash
issue a pre-trial order but after some should be denied. Remedies; Void Judgment
and sec. 8).
delay(b)
The name the of
caused warrant
the does
by personAtty. not in
OP describe
,thehesearch the
was (2004)
AX was charged before the YY RTC with
article
warrant to
is be
not seized
important.
substituted by Atty. QR as defense with
It is sufficient
not even theft of jewelry valued at P20.000,
particularity.
necessary
counsel. Atty. thatQR Resolve
a particular
forthwith thepersonmotion
filed a be with
motion punishable with
Version 1997-2006 Updated by Dondee
reasons. (4%)
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,
Alternative Answers:
providing for two other branches in Cebu
(b) The information may be filed either in
and in Cagayan
Calamba or inde Makati
Oro, is implemented.
City, not in
Tagaytay City where no offense had as
yet been committed,
(c) Assuming that the Sandiganbayan has
no jurisdiction, the proper venue is the
first RTC in which the charge is filed (Sec.
15(d). Rule 110).
EVIDENCE
Admissibility
(1998)
The barangay captain reported to the
police that X was illegally keeping in his
house in the barangay an Armalite M16
rifle. On the strength of that information,
the police conducted a search of the house
of X and indeed found said rifle. The police
raiders seized the rifle and brought X to
the police station. During the
investigation, he voluntarily signed a
Sworn Statement that he was possessing
said rifle without license or authority to
possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel.
During the trial of X for illegal possession
of firearm, the prosecution submitted in
1. Rifle;
evidence the rifle. Sworn Statement and
2. Sworn Statement; and
[2%]
Waiver
3. Waiver of ofRight
RighttotoCounsel, individually
Counsel of
[2%1
rule
X.
on the
[1%] ANSWER:
SUGGESTED admissibility in evidence of
the:
1. The rifle is not admissible in evidence
because it was seized without a proper
search warrant. A warrantless search is
not justified. There was time to secure a
search warrant. (People us. Encinada G.R. No.
116720, October 2. 1997 and other cases)
2. The sworn statement is not admissible
in evidence because it was taken without
informing him of his custodial rights and
without the assistance of counsel which
should be independent and competent
and preferably of the choice of the
accused. (People us. Januario, 267 SCRA 608.)
3. The waiver of his right to counsel is
not admissible because it was made
without the assistance of counsel of his
choice. (People us. Gomez, 270 SCRA 433.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The requisites of trial in absentia are:
(a) the accused has already been
arraigned; (b) he has been duly notified of
the trial; and (c) his failure to appear is
Parada vs. Veneracion,
unjustifiable. (Sec. 14269[2],SCRA 371III.
Article
[1997].)
Constitution;
2. Yes, there is still a legal necessity for
the Supreme Court (as of 2004 the Court of
Appeals has the jurisdiction to such review)
to review the decision of conviction
sentencing the accused to death, because
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.
539.)
Venue
(1997)
Where is the proper venue for the filing of
an information in the following cases? a)
The theft of a car in Pasig City which was
brought to Obando, Bulacan, where it
was cannibalized.
b) The theft by X, a bill collector of
ABC Company, with main offices in Makati
City, of his collections from customers in
Tagaytay City. In the contract of
employment, X was detailed to the
Calamba branch office, Laguna, where he
c)
was to The
turn malversation of public funds
in his collections.
by a Philippine consul detailed in the
Philippine Embassy in London.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The proper venue is in Pasig City
where the theft of the car was
committed, not in Obando where it was
cannibalized.
(People Theft is65notPhil
v Mercado, a continuing
665).
offense.
(b) If the crime charged is theft, the venue
is in Calamba where he did not turn in his
collections. If the crime of X is estafa, the
essential ingredients of the offense took
place in Tagaytay City where he received
his collections, in Calamba where he
should have turned in his collections, and
in Makati City where the ABC Company
was based. The information may therefore
be filed in Tagaytay City or Calamba or
121 SCRA
Makati 106). have concurrent territorial
which
Jurisdiction. (Catingub vs. Court of Appeals,
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.com Page
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page5051of of 66 66
Acting
deemedon a to tip
1) Specific
before whomobjections:
they signedExample: the statements parol include
by an informant,
an electronic police document
officers as stopped
defined a car
in
was a lawyer,
evidence and besthe was evidence
not functioning
rule as a these
being Rules.
driven (Sec. by D 1and ordered
of Rule 3, Rules himoftoElectronic
open the
General
lawyer, nor Objections:
can he Example:
be considered continuing
as an Evidence
trunk. The effective Augustfound
officers 1, 2001). a bag containing
objections
independent (Sec. 37 of Rule
counsel. Waiver 132). of the right several kilos of cocaine. They seized the car
to a lawyer must be done in writing and in and An theelectronic
cocaine as document
evidenceis and admissible
placed in D
2)
theThe two kinds
presence of of objections counsel.
independent are: (1) under evidence if it complies
arrest. Without advising with him the
of rules
his righton
533 [1999]).
objection to a 302
question
SCRA 455propounded
11999]; People v. in the to remain admissibility prescribed by the Rules of
(People v. Mahinay, Espiritu, silent and to have the assistance of
course
302 SCRA of the oral examination of the an attorney, Court and
they related
questioned laws
him and
regarding is
Admissibility;
witness andAdmission of Guilt;to Requirements
(2) objection an offer of the authenticated in the
cocaine. In reply, D said, I dont know manner prescribed
(2006)
What are the
evidence in requirements
writing. Objection in orderto thata by these
anything about Rules. (Sec. even
it. It isnt 2 of Rule 3, Id.).
my car. The
D was
an admission
question propounded of guilt in theof course
an accused of the charged authenticity of any private electronic
with illegal possession of cocaine, a
during
oral a custodial
examination of a investigation
witness shall be be prohibiteddocument must be proved by evidence
SUGGESTED
admitted ANSWER:
in evidence? (2.5%) 2 of Ruledrug. 5, Id.).Upon motion of D, the court
made
1 as soon as the grounds
The admission must be voluntary. therefor suppressed the use ofdigitally
that it had been cocainesigned and other
as evidence and
shall become reasonably apparent appropriate
dismissed security measures have been
2 The admission must be in writing. (b) An electronic document shall beD
the charges against him.
otherwise,
3 it is waived.
The admission must be An made offer with the applied.
of commenced (Sec.
regardedproceedings
as the equivalent againstofthe anpolice
originalfor
objection in writing shall be
assistance of competent, independent counsel. made within the document
recovery under of his car. In
the Best Evidence Rule if his direct
three (3)
4. Thedays after notice
admission must ofbetheexpress offer, examination,
it is a printout D testified
or output that readable
he ownedby the car
sight
unless av.different
(People Prinsipe,periodG.R. No. is allowed
135862, by May the2, but had registered it in the name of a friend
or other means, shown to reflect the data
5.
court. In both
2002). case instances
the accused waives for
the grounds his for convenience. On cross-examination, the
accurately. (Sec. 1 of Rule 4)
rights
objection to mustsilence be and to counsel,
specified. An example such attorney representing
Admissibility; Object ortheReal police asked, After
Evidence
waiver
of the mustisbewhen
first in writing,
the executed
witness is with your(1994)
being At the
arrest, trial
did of
you Ace not for tellviolation
the of the
arresting
Admissibility; Offer to Marry; Circumstantial Evidence SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the
(1998)
assistance
cross-examined of competent,
and independent
the cross Dangerous
officers
Yes, that
because it Drugs
wasnt
his Act,
your
admission the
car? made prosecution
If you
when were
he
counsel.
examination
A was accused is on a
of having matterraped not relevant. Ds offers
attorney,
was in evidence
would
questioned you
after a
object
he photocopy
was to the
placed of
question?
underthe
Admissibility;
An example Document;
of the Notsecond
raised inisX. Rule
thethat on
Pleading
the Why?
the admissibility of the following pieces marked
(5%) P100.00
arrest was inbillsviolation
used in the of buy-
his
(2004)
evidence
of evidence: offered is not the best evidence. bust
constitutionaloperation. right Ace
to be objects
informed toof his
the
In a complaint for a sum of money filed
1 introduction of the
right to remain silent and to have photocopy on the
before an theoffer MM of ARTC,to marry X; anddid
plaintiff (3%] not
2 a pair of short pants allegedly left by A ground
competent thatand the Best Evidence
independent counsel ofRule his
mention or even just hint at any demand R.A. 7438 (1992), sec, 2; Peopleitv. is Mahinay,
at the crime which the court, over the prohibits
own choice. the introduction
Hence, of302secondary
SCRA 455].
inadmissible in
for payment made on defendant before documentary
ALTERNATIVE evidence?
ANSWER: b) 12;
Is thea) Is the
objection of A, required him to put on, and evidence
evidence. in lieu
[Constitution,of Art.
the III, original.
sec.
commencing suit. During the trial, Yes,
photocopybecause the question did not lay the
when he duly
did, it fit himExh. well."A"[2%] photocopy admissiblereal (object)inevidence evidence? or
plaintiff offered in evidence predicate ANSWER:
SUGGESTED to justify the cross-examination
for the stated purpose of proving the a) The photocopy of the marked bills is
question.
making of extrajudicial demand on Admissibility
real (object) evidence not documentary
defendant to pay P500.000, the subject of (2004)
Sgt. GR because
evidence, of WPD the arrested
marked two bills NPA
are
the suit. Exh. "A" was a letter of demand suspects,
real evidence. Max and Brix, both aged 22, in
for defendant to pay said sum of money b)
the Yes,
act ofthe photocopy
robbing a grocery is admissible
in Ermita. As in
within 10 days from receipt, addressed to evidence,
he handcuffed because themthe he bestnoted evidence rule
a pistol
and served on defendant some two does
tucked not in applyMax'sto object
waistor and real evidence.
a dagger
months before suit was begun. Without hidden under Brix's shirt, which he
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Admissibility; Objections
objection promptly confiscated. At the police
The court'sfrom defendant,
admission of Exh. the "A" courtin (1997)
What are theroom, two kinds of objections?
admitted Exh. "A" inerroneous.
evidence. Was the investigation Max and Brix orally
evidence is not It was Explain each briefly. Given an example
court's admission of Exh. "A" objection
in evidence waived their right to counsel and of to
admitted in evidence without on each.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
erroneous or the
not?defendant.
Reason. (5%) remain silent. Then under oath, they
the part of It should be Two kinds of objections are: (1) the
freely answered questions asked by the
treated as if it had been raised in the evidence being presented is not relevant
police desk officer. Thereafter they signed
pleadings. The complaint may be to the issue; and (2) the evidence is
their sworn statements before the police
amended to conform to the evidence, but incompetent or excluded by the law or the
10). captain, a lawyer. Max admitted his part
if it is not so amended, it does not affect rules, (Sec. 3, Rule 138). An example of
in the robbery, his possession of a pistol
the result of the trial on this issue. (Sec. 5 the first is when the prosecution offers as
Admissibility; Electronic Evidence and his ownership of the packet of shabu
of Rule evidence the alleged offer of an Insurance
(2003)
a) State the rule on the admissibility of an(See found1997 in his No.pocket.
14). Brix admitted his role
evidence. company to pay for the damages suffered
electronic b) When is an electronic in the robbery
Examples of the andsecond his possession
are evidence of a
evidence regarded as being by the victim in a homicide case.
dagger. But
obtained they denied
in violation of thebeing NPA hit
Constitutional
the equivalent of an original document underprohibition men. In due course, against proper unreasonable
charges were
Best Evidence Rule? 4%
the filed
searches and seizures and against
SUGGESTED by the City
ANSWER: Prosecutor confessionsboth
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
arrestees
The sworn
before written
the
and admissions in violation of the rightsMM
statementsRTC. May
of Max
the
(a) Whenever a rule of evidence refers to
and
written
ALTERNATIVEBrixstatements
may
ANSWERS: not
signed
of a person under custodial Investigation. be and
admitted
sworn into
the term writing, document, record,
Admissibility evidence,
by Max and because
Brix be theyadmitted
were not by assisted
the trial
instrument,
(2002) memorandum or any other
by
court counsel.
as evidence
Even if the forpolice the prosecution?
captain
form of writing, such term shall be
Reason. (5%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 52 of 66
property is involved. As counsel for SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue (a) The offer by A to pay the
against the objections of the spouses hospitalization expenses of B is not
Ceres so as to convince the court to allow admissible in evidence to prove his guilt
Sec.
in 27, fourth
both par.).and criminal cases. (Rule
the civil
the partition. Discuss each of the five (5)
SUGGESTED 130,
argumentsANSWER:
briefly but completely. (10%)
(1) The baptismal certificate can show (b) No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of
filiation or prove pedigree. It is one of the the insurance company is based on the
other means allowed under the Rules of contract of insurance and is not
Court and special laws to show pedigree. admissible in evidence against the
[1998];
(Trinidad Heirs of ILgnacio
v. Court Conti
of Appeals, 289v.SCRA
Court
188of accused because it was not offered by the
Appeals, 300 SCRA 345 [1998]). accused but by the insurance company
Admissibility;
which is not his Private
agent. Document
(2) Entries in the family bible may be received as (2005)
May a private document be offered, and
evidence of pedigree. (Sec. 40, Rule 130, admitted in evidence both as
Rules of Court). documentary evidence and as object
SUGGESTED
evidence?ANSWER:Explain.
(3) The certification by the civil registrar Yes, it can be considered as both
of the non-availability of records is needed documentary and object evidence. A
to justify the presentation of secondary private document may be offered and
evidence, which is the photocopy of the admitted in evidence both as
Ignacio Conti v.of Court
birth certificate of(Heirs
Jocelyn. Appeals,
of documentary evidence and as object
supra.) evidence. A document can also be
(4) Declaration of heirship in a considered as an object for purposes of
settlement proceeding is not necessary. the case. Objects as evidence are those
It can be made in the ordinary action for addressed to the senses of the court. (Sec.
partition wherein the heirs are exercising 1, Rule 130, Rules of Court) Documentary
the right pertaining to the decedent, evidence consists of writings or any
their predecessor-ininterest, to ask for material containing letters, words,
(5) Even as
partition if co-owners
real property
(Id.) is involved, no
publication is necessary, because what is numbers, figures, symbols or other modes
sought is the mere segregation of Lindas of written expressions, offered ns proof of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Linda contents.
their and spouses ( Sec. Arnulfo
2, Rule 130,and Rules
Regina
of
share
1. A's inoffer
the property.
to marry (Sec.
X is1 admissible
of
in Ceres
Court) were
Hence, co-owners
a private of a parcel
document of
mayland.
Admissibility; Proof of Filiation; Action of Partition be
evidence as an Implied admission of guilt Linda
(2000) diedas intestate
presented and without
object evidence in orderanyto
because rape cases are not allowed to be issue. Ten (10) persons headed
'establish certain physical evidence or by Jocelyn,
compromised.
People vs. Domingo, 226
(Sec. 27 of RuleSCRA13O; claiming to be the
characteristics thatcollateral
are visible relatives
on theof
156.)
the deceased Linda, filed
paper and writings that comprise the an action for
2. The pair of short pants, which fit the
partition with the RTC praying for the
document.
accused well, is circumstantial evidence
segregation of Lindas share,
of his guilt, although standing alone it
submitting in support of their petition the
cannot be the basis of conviction. The
baptismal certificates of seven of the
accused cannot object to the court
petitioners, a family bible belonging to
requiring him to put the short pants on.
Linda in which the names of the
It is not part of his right against self-
petitioners have been entered, a
incrimination because it is a mere
Admissibility; photocopy of the birth certificate of
physical act.Offer to Pay Expenses
(1997)
A, while driving his car, ran over B. A Jocelyn, and a certification of the local
visited B at the hospital and offered to pay civil registrar that its office had been
for his hospitalization expenses. After the completely razed by fire. The spouses
filing of the criminal case against A for Ceres refused to partition on the following
serious physical injuries through reckless grounds: 1) the baptismal certificates of
imprudence. A's insurance carrier offered the parish priest are evidence only of the
to pay for the injuries and damages administration of the sacrament of
suffered by B. The offer was rejected baptism and they do not prove filiation of
because B considered the amount offered the alleged collateral relatives of the
expenses
as inadequate. of B admissible in evidence?
a) Is the offer b)
by A to pay deceased; 2) entry in the family bible is
Is
thethe offer by A's insurance carrier to
hospitalization hearsay; 3) the certification of the
payinjuries
for the and damages of B admissible in registrar on non-availability of the records
evidence? of birth does not prove filiation: 4) in
partition cases where filiation to the
deceased is in dispute, prior and separate
judicial declaration of heirship in a
settlement of estate proceedings is
necessary; and 5) there is need for
publication as real
 by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 53 of 66
(c) BEST EVIDENCE RULE: This Rule is
adopted for the prevention of fraud and is
declared to be essential to the pure
administration of justice. (Moran, Vol. 5, p.
12.) If a party is in possession of such
evidence and withholds it, the
presumption naturally arises that the
pp, 121,122)
better evidence is withheld for fraudulent
purposes. (Francisco. Rules of Court, vol. VII.
(d)
Part I,An illegally obtained extrajudicial
confession nullifies the intrinsic validity of
the confession and renders it unreliable
as evidence of the truth. (Moran, vol. 5, p.
257) it is the fruit of a poisonous tree.
(e) The reason for the rule against the
admission of an offer of compromise in
civil case as an admission of any liability is
that parties are encouraged to enter into
compromises. Courts should endeavor to
persuade the litigants in a civil case to
agree upon some fair compromise. (Art.
2029, Civil Code). During pre-trial, courts
should direct the parties to consider the
possibility of an amicable settlement. (Sec.
1[a] of

Rule 69; Id.)

Admissibility; Rules of Evidence

(1997)
Give the reasons underlying the adoption
of the following rules of evidence:
(a) Dead Man
(b)
RuleParol Evidence
(c)
RuleBest Evidence
(d) The rule against the admission of
Rule
illegally obtained extrajudicial confession
(e) The rule against the admission of an
offer of compromise in civil cases
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The reasons behind the following rules are as
(a) DEAD MAN RULE: if death has
follows:
closed the lips of one party, the policy of
the law is to close the lips of the other.
(Goni v. Court ofAppeals, L-77434.
September 23, 1986, 144 SCRA 222). This is
to prevent the temptation to perjury
because death has already sealed the lips
(b)thePAROL
of party. EVIDENCE RULE: It is
designed to give certainty to a
transaction which has been reduced to
writing, because written evidence is
much more certain and accurate than
that which rests on fleeting memory only.
(Francisco, Rules of Court Vol. VII, Part I. p.
154)
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
(2002)
D 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%) former Rule 20: Sec. 2 [a] of new
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rule 16).
A. The prosecution may introduce Best Evidence Rule
evidence of the good or even bad moral (1997)
When A loaned a sum of money to B. A
character of the victim if it tends to typed a single copy of the promissory
establish in any reasonable degree the note, which they both signed A made two
probability or improbability of the offense photo (xeroxed) copies of the promissory
charged. [Rule 130, sec. 51 a (3)]. In this note, giving one copy to B and retaining
case, the evidence is not relevant. the other copy. A entrusted the
B. Yes, D may introduce evidence of
specific violent acts by V. Evidence that typewritten copy to his counsel for
one did or did not do a certain thing at safekeeping. The copy with A's counsel
one time is not admissible to prove that was destroyed when the law office was
which
burned. is a)
deemed
In an to be the
action to"original" copy
collect on the
he did or did not do the same or a similar for the purpose of the "Best Evidence
thing at another time; but it may be promissory note,
Rule"? b) Can the photocopies in the
received to prove a specific intent or hands of the parties be considered
knowledge, identity, plan, system, "duplicate original copies"? c) As counsel
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the for A, how will you prove the loan given
Confession; Affidavit of Recantation
like. (Rule 130, sec. 34). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to A and B?
(1998)
1 If the accused on the witness stand(a) The copy that was signed and lost is
repeats his earlier uncounseled extrajudicialthe only "original" copy for purposes of
confession implicating his co-accused in thethe Best Evidence Rule. (Sec. 4 [b] of Rule
crime charged, is that testimony admissible in130).
evidence against the latter? [3%] (b) No, They are not duplicate original
2 What is the probative value of a witness'copies because there are photocopies
Affidavit of Recantation? [2%] which were not signed (Mahilum v. Court of
Appeals, 17 SCRA 482 ), They constitute
secondary evidence. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).
(c) The loan given by A to B may be
proved by secondary evidence through the
xeroxed copies of the promissory note.
The rules provide that when the original
document is lost or destroyed, or cannot
be produced in court, the offerer, upon
proof of its execution or existence and the
cause of its unavailability without bad
faith on his part, may prove its contents
by a copy,Version
or by a recital
1997-2006 Updatedof its contents in
by Dondee
some authentic document, or by the
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. that
People.a259witness
SCRA 138.)may testify
any matter of fact occurring before on his impressions of the emotion, behavior,
Juans death. (Sec. 23 of Rule 130) condition or appearance of a person.
Hearsay; Exception; Dying Declaration Facts; Legislative Facts vs. Adjudicative Facts
(1998)
Requisites of Dying Declaration. (2004)
Legislative
Hearsay; facts and adjudicative
Exceptions
[2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: facts.
SUGGESTED
(1999) ANSWER:
a) Define hearsay evidence? (2%) b)
The requisites for the admissibility of a Legislative
What are the facts refer to facts
exceptions to the mentioned
hearsay
dying declaration are: (a) the declaration is in a statute
rule? (2%)
SUGGESTED or
ANSWER: in an explanatory note,
made by the deceased under the while adjudicative
.1 Hearsay evidence facts aremay factsbefounddefinedin
consciousness of his impending death; (b) a court
as decision.
evidence that consists of testimony not
the deceased was at the time competent as Hearsay from
coming Evidence
personal knowledge (Sec. 36,
a witness; (c) the declaration concerns the (2002)
Rule 130, Rules of for
Romeo is sued damages
Court). Hearsay fortestimony
injuries
cause and surrounding circumstances of the suffered by the plaintiff in
is the testimony of a witness as to what he a vehicular
declarant's death; and (d) the declaration is accident.
has heard Julieta, a witness
other persons say in about court,
the
offered in a (criminal)
(People vs. Santos, 270 SCRA case wherein the testifies
facts that Romeo told her (Julieta) that
in issue.
declarant's
650.) death is the subject of inquiry.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: he (Romeo)The heard Antonio,toa the witness to
The declaration of a dying person, made .2 exceptions hearsay
the accident,
rule are: givedeclaration,
dying an excited account declaration of
under the consciousness of an impending the accident immediately after its
death, may be received in any case against interest, act or declaration about
occurrence.family
pedigree, Is Julietas testimony
wherein his death is the subject of Inquiry, SUGGESTED ANSWER: reputation or tradition
admissible
regarding against
pedigree, Romeo
common over proper
as evidence of the cause and surrounding No, Julietas testimony is not reputation,
admissible
and
part timely objection?
of Romeo,
the resbecause Why?
gestae,while (5%)
entries in the
circumstances of such death. (Sec. 37 of against the excited
Hearsay;
Rule 13O.)Exception; Res Gestae; Opinion of Ordinary course
account of
of business,
Antonio, entries
a witness in official
to the
Witness (2005) records,
accident, commercial
was told to Romeo, lists and the only
it was like,
Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied learned
Romeo who treatises,
told Julieta and about testimony
it, which or
her to a chair and robbed her of assorted deposition at
makes it hearsay. a former proceeding. (37 to
pieces of jewelry and money. Dencio then Hearsay
47, Evidence
Rule 13O, Rulesvs. Opinion Evidence
of Court)
brought Candida, Marcela's maid, to a (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
130), while opinion evidence is expert
the police station about a kilometer away and
told Police Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio evidence based on the personal
had 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
officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had Hearsay; matters
limited Exception;(Sec.
Dead50,ManId.). Statute
raped her. The policeman noticed that (2001)
Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the
Candida was hysterical and on the verge of administrator of the estate of deceased
collapse. Dencio was charged with robbery Juan, for the recovery of a car which is
with
a) rape.
If the During thepresents
prosecution trial, Candida
Police can no
Officer part of the latters estate. During the trial,
longer beMaawa
Roberto located.to (8%)
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
hearsay. It is part of the res gestae. It is a 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
personal knowledge, Maximo. Pedro objected to the admission
1. Yes. The accused notcan to the truth
testify of
by repeating
Candida's statement, i.e., that she told of Marianos testimony. If you were the
his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. 74065, February judge, would you sustain Pedros
him, despite
confession, her pleas,
because Dencio
he can behadsubjected
raped toNo, the testimony is admissible in
27,1989)
her.cross-examination.
(People v. Gaddi,G.R.
objection? Why? (5%)
evidence because witness Mariano who
b) If the police officer will testify that he
2. On the probative value of an affidavit oftestified as to what Maximo and Juan, the
noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the
recantation,
verge of collapse,courts
would look
suchwith disfavor
testimony be upon
deceased person agreed upon, is not
recantations
considered because
as opinion, hence, they can easily bedisqualified to testify on the agreement.
inadmissible?
SUGGESTED
secured
Explain. from witnesses, usually throughThose disqualified are parties or assignors
ANSWER:
No,intimidation
it cannot be considered
or for asaopinion, monetaryof parties to a case, or persons in whose
because he
consideration,was testifying
Recantedon testimony
what he isbehalf a case is prosecuted, against the
actually observed.
exceedingly The lastThere
unreliable. paragraph of theadministrator or Juans estate, upon a
is always
Sec.probability
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 foreign
(b) A written X admitted
law maythe robbery. by
be evidenced It not generally take judicial notice of foreign
an officialpresented
likewise publicationa thereof or by of
certification a copy
the laws (In re Estate of Johnson, G.R. No. 12767,
attested by the officer
PNP Firearms andhaving the legal custody
Explosive Office November 16, 1918; Fluemer v. Hix, G.R. No.
of
attesting that the accused haddeputy,
the record, or by his no licenseand 32636, March 17, 1930), which must be proved
accompanied. If the record is not kept in the like any other matter of fact (Sy Joe Lieng v. Sy
to carry any firearm. The certifying
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer
officer,
has the however,
custody, ifwas the not presented
office in whichasthe a Quia, G.R. No. 4718, March 19, 1910) except in
record is kept is in a foreign country, the a few instances, the court in the exercise of its
witness. Both pieces of evidence were
against
objected X?may
certificate to
b) be
by Is made
the the certification
defense. (6%) a) of
by a secretary Is the
the sound judicial discretion, may take notice of
of the
PNP Firearm
newspaper and
embassy or legation,clipping consuladmissible
general, consul, in foreign laws when Philippine courts are
Explosive
evidence
vice-consul, or Office
consular without
agent the
or bycertifying
any officer officer
evidently familiar with them, such as the
in testifying
the foreign onservice it admissible in evidence
of the Philippines Spanish Civil Code, which had taken effect in
against
SUGGESTED
stationed X?
ANSWER:
in the foreign country in which the the Philippines, and other allied legislation.
(a)
recordYes, theandnewspaper
is kept, authenticatedclipping
by the seal is
(Pardo v. Republic, G.R. No. L2248 January 23,
admissible
of his 23).
SCRA in evidence against X. regardless
office (Sec. 24, Rule 132, Zalamea v. CA, 1950; Delgado v. Republic, G.R. No. L2546,
of the
228 truth or falsity of a statement, the January 4. .28,Rules
1950) and Regulations issued
hearsay rule does is
(c) The presumption notthatapply and the
the wordings by quasi-judicial bodies
statement may be shown SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the foreign law are where
the samethe fact
as that
the implementing statutes;
it is made is relevant. The RTC may take judicial notice of Rules
local
Orient law.
Airlines v. CourtEvidence
(Northwest as to 241
of Appeals, the
making192;
SCRA of such statement
Moran, Vol. 6. ispage
not secondary
34, 1980
and Regulations issued by quasi-judicial
but primary,
edition; Lim v. forCollector
the statement itself may
of Customs, 36 bodies implementing statutes, because they
constitute
Phil. 472). a This fact is in known
issue as or thebe are capable of unquestionable
circumstantially
PROCESSUAL
SCRA 18 [1992]) relevant as to the existence
PRESUMPTION. demonstration (Chattamal v. Collector of
Memorandum
of such fact. (Gotesco Investment Corporation Customs, G.R. No. 16347, November 3,1920) ,
(1996)
X
vs. states
(b)Chatto, on certification
210
Yes, the direct examination that he
is admissible in unless
Hearsay; the law itselfDying
Exceptions; considers such rules as
Declaration
once
evidence knewagainst
the facts X being
because asked but he
a written an integral
(1999)
The accusedpartwasofcharged
the statute,
with in which
robbery
cannot
statement recall
signedthem by now. Whenhaving
an officer handedthe a case judicial notice
and homicide. The becomes
victim sufferedmandatory.
several
written
custody recordof an ofofficial
the facts he testifies
record or by that
his 5. Rape may
stab wounds. be committed
It appears that eleven even in
(11)
the
deputyfactsthatareafter
correctly
diligentstated,
search butnothat
recordhe public
hours places.
after the crime, while the victim
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
has neverofseen
or entry the writing
a specified tenorbefore. Is the
is found to was being
The RTC may brought to the notice
take judicial hospital of in thea
writing
exist inadmissible
the records as pastof recollection
his office, jeep, with his brother and
fact that rape may be committed even in a policeman as
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
recorded?
accompanied Explain,
by thea certificate as above companions, the victim was
public places. The "public setting" of the asked certain
No,
(Sec. because
28 of Rulefor 132). written record to be
provided, is admissible as
admissible as past recollection recorded.evidence that questions
rape
(Peopleis not which he G.R.
an indication
v. Tongson, answered, pointing
of consent.
No. 91261, Februaryto 18,
the
It records
must have of his office contain no such The
1991) Supreme
the accused as Court has taken
his assailant. judicial
His answers
Judicial Notice;been written or recorded by
Evidence
record
X or underor entry.
his direction notice
were put of thedownfact inthat a man overcome
writing, but since by he
(2005)
Explain briefly whether atthe theRTCtime may,
when
the
motu fact proprio, occurred, or
take judicial immediately
notice of: perversity
was a in a and beastly
critical passion
condition, hischooses
brother
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
thereafter,
(5%) The or at street any other time when the neither
and the
Yes. Thethe time, signed
policeman
statement place, occasion
the
is admissible statement.
asnora
1. name of 1990)
fact was fresh in his memory and he knew victim.
Is the
dying statement
(People v, admissible
declaration Barcelona, asG.R.
if the a dying
No.
victim
methamphetamine hydro-chloride is 82589, October 31,
SUGGESTED
the ANSWER: declaration?
subsequently Explain. (2%)
that
shabu. same was correctly written or Judicial Notice; died Evidence;andForeign
his answers
Law were
The RTC may
recorded. (Sec. motu
16 of proprio
Rule 132)takeBut judicial
in this made under the consciousness of
(1997)
a) Give three instances when a Philippine
case X has never seen the writing before.of
notice
Offer of of the
Evidence street name impending
take
court judicial
can death (Sec. 37 of Rule
notice of a foreign law. b) 130) . The
(1997)
A trial
methamphetamine court cannot take
hydrochloride into
is fact
How thatdo you he prove
did not sign the
a written statement
foreign law?
consideration
shabu, in deciding
considering the a casechemicalan point to the accused as his assailant,
c) Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as
evidence
1993)
composition that has not
of shabu. been
(People "formally
v. Macasling, because he ofwas in criticalbut condition, does
partdefense
of the defendant no evidence
offered".
GM, When May
No. 90342, are the
27, following pieces of Viovicente,
not wasaffect 286
its SCRA
presented to1)prove the
admissibility as existence
a dying
2.
(a)
evidence Ordinances
Testimonial
formally offered? approved by
declaration.
of said law, A dying
what is the presumptionnot
declaration need to
municipalities
(b)
evidence Documentary under its territorial Hearsay; Inapplicable
SUGGESTED
(c) ANSWER:
Object be in
be
(2003) writing
taken by
(People thev. court as to the
jurisdiction;
evidence X was charged with robbery. On the
In the absence of statutory authority, the SUGGESTED
wordings ANSWER:
of said law"?
evidence ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
(a) The three instancesofwhen
strength of a warrant arrest issued by
a Philippine
RTC
(a) may
Testimonialtake
not judicialis notice
evidence formally of
ordinances approved by municipalities the court, X was arrested
court can take judicial notice of a foreign by police
time
offered theatwitness
the is called to testify. (Rule operatives. They seized from his person a
under
132. their
Sec. 35, territorial
first par.). jurisdiction, except on law are: (1) when the Philippine courts
appeal from the municipal trial courts, handgun. A charge for illegal
are evidently familiar with the foreign law possession
which took
(b) judicial notice
Documentary of the
evidence is ordinance
formally of firearm
(Moran. Vol.was
5, p.also
34, filed
1980 against
edition); him.
(2) whenIn a
in question.
the
offered
9,1917; U.S. (U.S.
presentation
after v. Blanco,
v. Hernandez, G.R,
of theG.R. No.
No. 12435,
testimonial
9699, press conference called
the foreign law refers to the law of by the police, X
November
August
evidence. 26, (Rule
1915) 132, Sec. 35, second par.). admitted that he had robbed
nations (Sec. 1 of Rule 129) and (3) when it the victim of
The
jewelry robbery
valued and illegal possession of
at P500,000.00.
refers to a published treatise, periodical
3.
(c) TheForeign
same is laws;
true with object evidence. firearm cases were tried jointly. The
or pamphlet on the subject of law if the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is also offered after the presentation of prosecution presented in evidence a
court takes judicial notice of the fact that
the testimonial evidence. newspaper clipping of the report to the
the writer thereof is recognized in his
reporter who was present during the
profession or calling as expert on the
press conference
subject (Sec. 46. Rule 130).
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 57 of 66

Offer of Evidence; res inter alios acta

(2003)
X and Y were charged with murder. Upon
application of the prosecution, Y was
discharged from the Information to be
utilized as a state witness. The prosecutor
presented Y as witness but forgot to state
the purpose of his testimony much less
offer it in evidence. Y testified that he and
X conspired to kill the victim but it was X
who actually shot the victim. The
testimony of Y was the only material
evidence establishing the guilt of X. Y was
thoroughly cross-examined by the defense
counsel. After the prosecution rested its
case, the defense filed a motion for
(a) The testimony of Y should be excluded
demurrer to evidence based on the
because its purpose was not initially
following grounds.
stated and it was not formally offered in
evidence as required by Section 34, Rule
(b)
132Ys testimony
of the Revisedis Rules
not admissible against
of Evidence; and
X pursuant to the rule on res inter alios
acta. Rule on the motion for demurrer to
evidence on the above grounds. (6%)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 58 of 66
SUGGESTED ANSWER: PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE means
No. The testimony of Kim should not be that the evidence as a whole adduced by one
excluded. Even though Kim is not an side 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
Parol Evidence Rule
of relevant evidence which a reasonable
(2001)
Pedro 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-
his complaint, Pedro alleged that
judicial bodies. (Sec. 5 of Rule 133)
although the promissory note says that it Privilege Communication
is payable within 120 days, the truth is (1998)
C is the child of the spouses H and W. H
that the note is payable immediately after sued his wife W for judicial declaration of
90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he nullity of marriage under Article 36 of
may, upon request of Lucio give the latter the Family Code. In the trial, the
up to 120 days to pay the note. During the following testified over the objection of
hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is W: C, H and D, a doctor of medicine who
that the agreement between him and 1.
usedHtocannot
treat testify
W. Ruleagainst
on W'sher because
objections
Lucio is for the latter to pay immediately of the rule on marital
which are the following: privilege; [1%]
after ninety days time. Also, since the 2. C cannot testify against her because
original note was with Lucio and the of the doctrine on parental privilege;
latter would not surrender to Pedro the and [2%]
SUGGESTED
3. ANSWER:
D cannot testify against her because
original note which Lucio kept in a place
The demurrer to the evidence should be
about one days trip from where he of the doctrine of privileged
deniedcommunication between patient of
because: a) The testimony andY
received the notice to produce the note
should not be excluded
and in spite of such notice to produce the physician. [2%]
because the defense counsel did not
same within six hours from receipt of
allowed to testify as to the true agreement or object to his testimony despite the
such
contents notice, of theLucio failed to do
promissory note?so. Why?
Pedro fact that the prosecutor forgot to state
presented a copy of
(2%) b) Over the objection of Lucio, can the note which was its purpose or offer it in evidence.
executed
Pedro copy presentat the
of thea same
promissorytime as notethe original
and have it Moreover, the defense counsel
andadmitted
aswithvalid identical
evidence contents. a) OverWhy?
in his favor? the thoroughly cross-examined Y and thus
objection
(3%) ANSWER:
SUGGESTED of Lucio, will Pedro be b) waived The the
res objection.
inter alios acta rule does
a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his not apply because Y testified in open
complaint that the promissory note does court and was subjected to cross
not express the true intent and examination.
agreement of the parties. This is an Offer of Evidence; Testimonial & Documentary
exception to the parol evidence rule. [Sec. (1994)
What is the difference between an offer of
9(b) of Rule 130, Rules of Court] testimonial evidence and an offer of
b) Yes, the copy in the possession of
documentary evidence?
Pedro is a duplicate original and with SUGGESTED ANSWER:
identical contents. [Sec. 4(b) of Rule 130]. An offer of testimonial evidence is 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. 6 of
notice, as 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 document and (1994)
presented. At Nolans trial for possession and use of
the original or a copy thereof should have been attached to
the prohibited drug, known as shabu:,
the complaint. (Sec. 7 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). In
such a case, the genuineness and due execution of the note, his girlfriend Kim, testified that on a
if not denied under oath, would be deemed admitted. particular day, he would see Nolan very
(Sec. 8 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) prim and proper, alert and sharp, but that
three days after, he would appear
Preponderance vs. Substantial Evidence haggard, tired and overly nervous at the
(2003)
Distinguish preponderance of evidence slightest sound he would hear. Nolan
from substantial evidence. 4% objects to the admissibility of Kims
SUGGESTED ANSWER: testimony on the ground that Kim merely
stated her opinion without having been
first qualified as expert witness. Should
you, as judge, exclude the testimony of
Kim?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The rule of marital privilege cannot be
invoked in the annulment case under
Rule 36 of the Family Code because it is
(Sec.
a civil22 , Rule
case filed 130. Rules
by one of
against the other,
Court.)
2. The doctrine of parental privilege
cannot likewise be invoked by W as
against the testimony of C, their child. C
may not be compelled to testify but is
free to testify against her. (Sec. 25. Rule
130. Rules of Court; Art. 215, Family Code.)
3. D, as a doctor who used to treat W, is
disqualified to testify against W over her
objection as to any advice or treatment
given by him or any information which he
may have acquired in his professional
capacity. (Sec. 24 [c], Rule 130. Rules of
Court.)
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) sirdondee@gmail.comPage
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page59 of6066ofbeing 66 Witness;
used as
exonerating
matter which the is innocent,
not confidential
and must have a center for
in Examination of asexChild tourism
Witness;and child trafficking.
via Live-Link TV (2005)
nature.
the rightThe to offer
trial court
the testimony
ruled in of favor
Leticiaof When may the
The defense counsel trial for courtXYZorder objected thattothe the
Ody. the
over Wasobjection
the ruling of her proper?
husband Will your testimony of a
(Alvarez ABC child at be the taken
trial of by the
live-link
child
answer
v. Ramirez,
October be G.R.
14, the
2005). same
No. 143439,if the matters to be television? prostitutionExplain.case and the introduction of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
testified on were known to Baby or affidavits she executed against her husband as
Remedy;
SUGGESTED Lost
ANSWER:Documents; Secondary Evidence The testimony of a child may be taken by
acquired by her prior to her marriage to a violation of espousal confidentiality and
No.
(1992)
Ajax Under
Power the Rules on Evidence,
Corporation, a autilitywife marital live-link television
privilege rule. It if there
turnedisout a substantial
that DEF,
Cesar? Explain.
cannot besued
company, examinedin the for RTC or toagainst
enforce hera the likelihood that the child would suffer
minor daughter of ABC by her first
husband without
supposed right ofhis way consent,
over a except property in husband trauma who fromwastestifying
a Filipino, inwas the molested
presence by of
civil cases
owned by one against
by Simplicio. At thethe other, or
ensuing trial,in XYZ the accused, his counsel or the prosecutor
earlier. Thus, ABC had filed for legal
a criminal
Ajax presentedcase for its aretired
crime committed
field auditor as the case
by separation from may XYZbe. sinceThelasttrauma year.mustMay of the a
one against the other. Since the case was kind which
who testified that he know for a fact that court admit the testimony and affidavits of the would impair the completeness
filed
a by Ody
certain sumagainst
of money thewas spouses Cesar wife,Rule
periodically orABC, on Examination
truthfulness of the of atestimony
Child of the
Witness).against her husband, XYZ, in the
and Baby,
paid Baby cannot
to Simplicio for be somecompelled
time as to criminal child. (See Sec. 25,
Witness;case involving
Examination of child
Witnesses prostitution?
testify for or for
consideration against
a right Cesar
of way without
pursuant his Reason. (1997) (5%)
The a) Aside from asking a witness to
aanswer
consent.
to written
(Lezama would vs. be
contract. the The
Rodriguez, same ifSCRA
original
23 the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
explain and supplement his answer in the
matters Yes. The court may admit the testimony and
contract towas
1166). be testified
not presented. on wereInstead,known to a cross-examination,
affidavits of the wife can the
against proponent
her husband askin
Baby
purported or acquired
copy, identifiedby her by prior to her
the retired
marriage to as Cesar, the
in criminal
re-direct case where
examination it involves
questions child
on
field auditor such, because
was formally the marital
offered prostitution
matters not of thedealt wife's
with daughter.
duringIt cross-is not
Can Ajax validly
disqualification claimbe that it had
as part of his testimony. Rejected bywith
rule may invoked the covered
b) by the
Aside
examination? from marital
asking privilege
the rule. One
witness on
sufficiently
respect to it met its burdenany
testimony of proving Itthe
trial court, was finallyonmade fact.
the subject is exception
matters thereof
stated is inwherehis the crime
re-direct is
existence
immaterial ofwhether
the contract such establishing
matters were its
of an
SUGGESTEDoffer of proof by Ajax. committed by one against
examination, can the opponent in his re- the other or the
right
known toANSWER:
of way? Explain,
Baby before or after her latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (Sec.
No. AjaxCommunication;
Privilege had not sufficiently Marital met the
Privilege cross-examination ask questions on
marriage to Cesar. 22, Rule 130). A crime by the husband against
burden
(2000)
Vida and of proving
Romeo are the existence
legally married. of the c)
matters Afternot plaintiff
dealt with has
during formally
the re-
the daughter is a crime against the wife and
written
Romeo is contract
chargedbecause. to court It withhadthe notcrimelaid submitted
direct? his evidence, he realized that
directly attacks or vitally impairs the conjugal
the basis for physical
of serious the admission injuriesof a committed
purported he
SCRA had270 forgotten
[1975]).
relation. (Ordono v. Daquigan, to present62
what he
copy
against thereof
Selmo, as secondary
son of Vida, evidence.
stepson Ajax of considered an important evidence. Can he
should
Romeo.have Vidafirst proven the execution
witnessed infliction of of Privilege
SUGGESTED Communication;
ANSWER:
recall a witness? Marital Privilege
(a)
Leticia was estranged from examination,
(2006) Yes, on redirect her husband
the original
injuries on document
Selmo and its loss The
by Romeo. or
Testimony; Independent Relevant Statement questions
Paul for on matters
more than a not dealt
year due towith his
destruction.
public prosecutor called Vida to the
(Sec. 5 of Rule 130)
(1999)
A overheard B call X a thief. In an action during
suspicion the that cross-examination
she was having may
an be
affair
witness stand and offered her testimony allowed by thetheir courtneighbor.
in its discretion.
for
as defamation
an eyewitness. filed by X against
Counsel forB,Romeois the with Manuel She was
testimony of A offered to prove the fact of (b)
(Sec.Yes,
temporarily the
7 of Rule opponent
132).
living with herin sister
his re-cross-
in Pasig
objected on the ground of the marital examination may also ask questions on
utterance i.e., that B
disqualification rule under the Rules of called X a thief, City. For unknown reasons, the house of
admissible
is offered in evidence?
in a civil Explain.
case (2%)
for recovery ofsuch
Leticia'sother matters
sister was as may
burned, be allowed
killing by
the
Court. a) ANSWER:
Is the objection valid? (3%) b)
SUGGESTED
Will property
personal
your filed by
answer be Selmo
the against
same Romeo? the
if Vidas latter.court in itssurvived.
Leticia discretion.She (Sec. 8. Rule
saw her
Yes. The
(2%)
SUGGESTED testimony
ANSWER: of A who overheard B 132).
testimony husband in the vicinity
(c) Yes, after formally submitting his during the
call
(a) X aWhile
No. thief neither
is admissible the husbandin evidencenor the as
incident. Later he was
evidence, the plaintiff can recall a charged with arson
an
wifeindependently
may testify for relevant
or against statement.
the other It is
in an Information
witness with leavefiled with the
of court. The Regional
court
offered
without inthe evidenceconsent only of to prove
the the tenor
affected Trial
may Court,
grant Pasig
or City.
withhold During
leave thein trial,
its
thereof,
spouse, one not to prove the
exception is truth
if the of the facts
testimony the prosecutor
discretion as the called
interests Leticia
of justice to maythe
asserted
of the spouse therein. is inIndependently
a criminal case relevant
for a witness
require.
ALTERNATIVE stand
(Sec. and offered
9. Rule 132).
ANSWER: her testimony
statements
crime committed include by statements
one against which the other are ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
to
If
No,theprove
doctor's
Leticia that
cannot her
testimony husband
testify is pursuant
over thecommitted
to the
objection
on
or thethe very facts direct
latters in issuedescendants
or those which or
(See People vs. Gaddi, 170 SCRA arson.
requirement
of her Can
husband, Leticia
of
not under testify
establishing
marital over
privilegethe
the
are circumstantial
ascendants. (Sec, 22,evidence
Rule 130)thereof.
. The case The
649) objection
psychological
which is of her
inapplicable husband
incapacity and on
of the
W,
which ground
and can he of
be is
hearsay
falls underrulethis does not apply.because Selma
exception
Witness;
(b) No. Competency
The maritalof thedisqualification
Witness vs. Credibility ruleof marital
waived,
the expertprivilege?
but she called (5%)
would uponbe barred
to testify under forSec.the
is the direct
the Witness (2004) descendant of the spouse 22 of Rule
(Republic vs.130, Court which prohibits
of Appeals andher from
Molina,
applies this time. The exception provided purpose, then it should be allowed.
Vide.
Distinguish Competency of the witness 26S SCRA
testifying 198.)
and which cannot be waived
by the rules is in a civil case by one (Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439, October 14,
and
spouse credibility of the witness.
against the other. The case here
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2005).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Privilege
Yes, Leticia Communication;
may testifyMarital over the Privilege
objection
involves a case
Competency of by theSelmowitness for the recovery
refers to a (1989)
Ody sued spouses Cesar
of her husband. The disqualification and Baby for of a
of
witnesspersonal who property
can against
perceive, Vidas
and sum of money
witness by reason andofdamages.
marriageAt the trial,
under Sec.
Privilege Communication; Marital Privilege
spouse, Romeo.
perceiving,
(2004)
can make known his Ody
22, called
Rule Baby
130 ofas his
the first
Revised witness. Rules Baby of
XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of
perception to others (Sec. 20 of Rule 130), objected,
Court has joined
its by Cesar, on
exceptions as the
where groundthe
promoting and facilitating child
while credibility of the witness refers to a that she relations
marital may not be arecompelled
so strained to testify
that
prostitution and other sexual abuses
witness whose testimony is believable. against ishernohusband.
there more Ody
harmony insisted to and
be
under Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal
contended that
preserved. The after
acts all,
of she would
Paul eradicatejust be all
witness against him was his Filipina wife,
questioned
major aspects about a conference
of marital life. On the theyother had
ABC. Earlier, she had complained that
with thethe
hand, barangay State captain,
has an a interest in
XYZ's hotel was
punishing the guilty and
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 61 of 66 stipulation in
2. is
It No.the The Prosecutor
petition is who
notmusttenable recommend
because a pending action for partition and shall file a
and warrant
the move for of arrest
the acceptance
was issuedofbythe a bond with the register of deeds in an amount
accused
court which
as a had stateJurisdiction
witness. The to issue
accused it equivalent to the value of the personal
(Sec.
may 4, also Rule 102 applyRules of Court) the Witness
under property involved as certified to under oath
Habeas
Protection Program.Corpus by the parties concerned. The fact of extra-
(2003)
Widow A and her two children, both girls, judicial settlement shall be published in a
aged 8 and 12 years old, reside in Angeles
SPECIAL
City, Pampanga. PROCEEDINGS
A leaves her two
newspaper of general circulation once a week
for three consecutive weeks in the province.
Cancellation or
daughters in their houseCorrection; Entries
at nightCivil because
Registry (Sec. 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court)
(2005)
Helen is the daughter
she works in a brothel as a prostitute. of Eliza, a Filipina, Habeas Corpus
and Tony, the
Realizing a Chinese,
danger who to the is married
morals to of (1993)
Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for
another woman
these two girls, B, the fatherliving in China. Her ofbirth
the habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals
certificate
deceased husband indicates of A, that
filesHelen
a petition is the
for against Major Amor who is allegedly
legitimate
habeas child against
corpus of Tony and A forEliza the and that
custody detaining her 18-year old son Bong
shethe
of is girls
a Chinesein thecitizen.
Family HelenCourt in wants
Angelesher without authority of the law.
birth Incertificate
City. said petition, corrected
B alleges by thatchanging
he is After Major Amor had a filed a return
her
entitled filiation
to the custody from "legitimate"
of the two girls to alleging the cause of detention of Bong,
"illegitimate" and
because their mother is living a her citizenship from the Court of Appeals promulgated a
"Chinese"
disgraceful to "Filipino"
life. The court issues because her
the writ resolution remanding the case to the RTC
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
parents
of petition
habeas to werecorpus.not married. What petition for a full-blown trial due to the conflicting
A changeWhen A learns
the record of the
of birth by
should
petition Helen and file and what procedural facts presented by the parties in their
changing thethe writ,
filiation she
from brings her two
"legitimate" to
requirements
children to Cebu must be Atobserved? Explain. pleadings. In directing the remand, the
"illegitimate" andCity. the expense
petitioner's of B
citizenship
(5%)
the sheriff court of Appeals relied on Sec.9(1), in
from
Cebu City of
"Chinese" is the tosaid
illegal; Family
"Filipino"
and Court
B hasgoes
b)because her
no relation to Sec. 21 of BP 129 conferring
to Cebu
parents City
were and notserves the
married,
personality to institute the petition. 6% writ on
does A. notA
files her comment on the petition raising upon said Court the authority to try and
involve a simple summary
Resolve the petition in the light of the correction,
the following decide habeas corpus cases concurrently
which could
above defenses of A.defenses:
otherwise (6%) be done under a) The
the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
with because
the RTCs. Did the
enforcement of the writ
authority of R.A. No. 9048. A petition has
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of habeas corpus No, while the Court
CA hasof original
Appeals
(a)
in beThe writinofa habeas corpus issued by 108
the act correctly
jurisdiction in remanding
over the
habeas petition to
corpus
to filed proceeding under Rule
Family Court in Angeles City may not be the RTC? Why?
concurrent with the RTCs, it has no
of the Rules of Court, which has now been
legally enforced in Cebu
interpreted to be adversarial in nature. City, because the authority for remanding to the latter
writ is enforceable
(Republic v. Valencia, only G.R.
withinNo. theL-32181,
judicial original actions filed with the former. On
region to
March 5, which
1986) the Family Court
Procedural belongs,
requirements the contrary, the CA is specifically given
unlike the
include: (a)writ filing granted
a verified by the Supreme
petition; (b) the power to receive evidence and
Court or Court of
naming as parties all persons who have orAppeals which is perform any and all acts necessary to
enforceable
Rule onany anywhere
Custody in
of Minors the Philippines. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
claim interest which and Writ be
would of resolve factual issues raised in cases
(Sec. 20 of
Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Yes, because there is no prohibition in the
affected; (c) issuance of an order fixing the falling within its original jurisdiction.
Minors. (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC; see also Sec. law against a superior court referring a
time and
4 of Rule 102, place
Rulesof hearing; (d) giving
of Court.) case to a lower court having concurrent
reasonable
(b) B,
Escheat the notice
father
Proceedings to
of the
the parties named
deceased husband in
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has
the
of A,
(2002) petition;
has the and (e)
personality
Suppose the property of D was declared publication
to institute of the
referred to the CA or the RTC cases
order
petition
escheated once forona habeas
week
July for three of
1,corpus
1990 consecutive
in the two
escheat falling within their concurrent
seeks
minor in
girls, a
because newspaper
proceedings brought by the Solicitor the of
grandparent general
has Habeas Corpus
jurisdiction.
Witness; Examination on of the
Witnesses
circulation.
the right of (Rule
custody 108, as
Rules
General. Now, X, who claims to be an heir of Court)
against the mother (1998)
A was arrested strength of a
(2002)
Is this question
A
of whoD, isfiled
a prostitute.
an action (Sectioins 2 and 13, the
to recover Id.) warrant of arrest on direct
issued by examination
the RTC in
Intestate
SUGGESTED Proceedings
ANSWER: objectionable:
connection with What an happened
Information on Julyfor
escheated
(2002)filed property. Is the action viable? 12, 1999?
SUGGESTED Why?
ANSWER: (2%)
X
No, the a claim
action in the
is not viable. The intestate
action to Homicide. W, the live-in partner of A filed
Why? (2%) The question is objectionable because it
proceedings
recover escheated of D. Ds administrator
property must be filed a petition for unless
habeasbeforecorpustheagainst A's
denied five liability has no basis, question
within yearsand from filed
Julya 1, counterclaim
1990 or be jailer and police investigators with the
(1) Does the claim probate court is asked the proper basis is laid.
against
forever X. Xs
barred. (Rulewas91, sec. 4). still have
disallowed. 1.
CourtDoes W have the personality to file
of Appeals.
jurisdiction to allow of the
Extra-judicial Settlement claim of Ds
Estate 2.
theIs the petition
petition tenable?
forashabeas corpus?Procedure
[2%]
Witness; Utilized State Witness;
(2005)
administrator
Nestor died intestate by way in of2003, offset?
leaving Why?no [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2006)
As counsel
(2)
(2%)
debts. Suppose
How may Dshisadministrator
estate be settled did by not 1. Yes. W, oftheanlive-in
accused charged
partner of A, with
has
allege any claim against X by homicide, you are convinced
the personality to file the petition that he can for
his heirs who are of legal age andway haveof
offset, canANSWER:
Ds administrator be utilized
habeas corpus asbecause
a stateit maywitness.
be What
filed by
SUGGESTED
legal capacity? Explain. (2%) prosecute the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the decedent
claim in an independent left no will and no debts,
proceeding/ why/ procedure
"some will in
person youhis take? (2.5%)
behalf." (Sec. 3. Rule
As counsel of an accused charged with
and
(3%) the heirs are all of age, the parties 102. Rules of Court.)
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.
 by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 62 of 66
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
questioned in such criminal action? (2%)
a. In order that a lost or destroyed will
may be allowed, the following must be
1
complied the execution and validity of the Intestate Proceedings; Debts of the Estate
with:
same should be established;
2 the will must have been in existence proceedings, submitted a project of
at the time of the death of the testator, or partition to the partition, two lots were
shown to have been fraudulently or assigned to C, who immediately entered
accidentally destroyed in the lifetime of the into the possession of the lots. Thereafter,
testator without his knowledge; and
3 its provisions are clearly and of his estate were filed in the RTC-Quezon
distinctly proved by at least two credible City. Ds administrator then filed a motion
witnesses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) No, because since the claim of X was
disallowed, there is no amount against
which to offset the claim of Ds
administrator.
(2) Yes, Ds administrator can prosecute
the claim in an independent proceeding
since the claim of X was disallowed. If X
had a valid claim and Ds administrator
did not allege any claim against X by way
of offset, his failure to do so would bar his
claim forever. (Rule 86, sec. 10).
(2002)
A, B and C, the only heirs in Ds intestate
C died and proceedings for the settlement
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the administrator
The motion of Cs estate.should
of Ds administrator How
should the RTC-Manila resolve
be granted. The assignment of the two the motion
of Dstoadministrator?
lots C was premature Explain.because
(3%) the
debts of the estate had not been fully
(1967)].
paid. [Rule 90, sec. 1; Reyes v. Barreto-
Judicial 19Settlement
Datu, SCRA 85 of Estate
(2005)
State the 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
G.R. No. where
128314,he used
Mayto 29,
live. (Jao 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 Wills
the
(1999)testate or intestate proceedings of
What are the requisites in order that a
either. (Sees. 1 and 2, Rule 73, Rules of
lost
Court)
or destroyed Will may be allowed?
(2%)
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
administratormind, of executed a last will
said estate. and testament
S, the surviving
of intestate proceedings, a will is found in English, opposed
spouse, a language the spokenpetition
and written andby him A's
and it is submitted for probate? Explain. proficiently.
application He to disposed
be appointed of his estate consisting of
the administrator
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. eachTheto 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 sole
suspended until the will is probated. Upon heir of D, executed an Affidavit of
inlaw. He named his best friend, Cancio Vidal, as
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 Estate with
(2001)
The rules on special proceedings then sold the entire estate toprobate
the proper court a petition of X. Was of the
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:
her late husband
is obliged to file atopetition
herself
executor. What are the two exceptions to legal?
for
1. [3%]
probate and for accepting
Yes, unless it is shown that the court or refusing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
said requirements? (5%) the trust withinits
gravely-abused thediscretion
statutory in period of 20
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 the original it appears
copy of that the lastthe
minors(Sec.are represented
6, Rule 76 of by thetheir
Rulesjudicial
of or spouse
will andhas neglectedwas
testament to apply
lost, forcanletters
Cancio of
legal representatives
Court) duly authorized for administration
compel Susan within
to produce thirty a (30)copydaysin from
her
the purpose,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the parties may without the death
possession
Gaspay, Jr. of
vs.the
to
Courtdecedent.
be ofsubmitted (Sec. 238
Appeals. 6, to
Rule the
SCRA 78,
b. No. The
securing lettersallowance of the will divide
of administration, from SUGGESTED
Rules
ALTERNATIVE
probate
163.) ANSWER:
of Court;
ANSWER:
court. (2%)
which no appeal was taken is conclusive Yes,
S, theCancio
surviving can spouse,
compel Susan shouldto produce
have been
the estate among themselves by means of
as to its due execution. the copy administratrix
appointed in her possession. of the A person
estate, in
public instrument filed in(Sec.the 1office
of Rule of 75.)
the
Due execution includes a finding that the having
as muchcustody
as she enjoysof the firstwill preference
is bound to in
register of deeds, or should they disagree,
will mayis genuine deliver
(Sec.
such 6(a) the
of Rule
appointment same 78,
under to the
Rules the
of rules.court of
they do so in and not a action
an ordinary forgery. of Court.)
Accordingly, the due execution of the will competent jurisdiction or to the executor,
partition. If there is only one heir, he may SUGGESTED ANSWER:
cannot as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 75, Rules of
adjudicateagain to himselfbe the questioned
entire estate in by a 2.
Can No. An
the probate affidavit courtof self-adjudication
appoint the widow is
subsequent proceeding, not even in a Court.
means
Probate ofaction
ofan Will
affidavit filed in the office of allowed only if the
as executor of the will? (2%) affiant is the sole heir
criminal
the register of for forgery
deeds. TheofBulacan,
the will.
parties ordiedthe of the. deceased.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Sec. 1, Rule 74, Rules of
(2003)
A, a resident of Malolos,
sole heir shall file simultaneously abound Yes, the
Court). probate
In this case,courtA alsocan appoint
claims to bethe an
leaving an estate located in Manila, worth
with the register of deeds, in taking
an amount widow as executor of
heir. Moreover, it is not legal because the will if the
P200,000.00. In what court, into
equivalent to the value of the personal executor
there is does not qualify,
already a pending as when he is
juridical
consideration the nature of jurisdiction
property incompetent, refuses the trust, or fails to
and of asvenue, certifiedshouldto under the oathprobate
by the proceeding for the settlement of the
parties
SUGGESTED and conditioned
ANSWER: upon the payment Venue;
estate. Special Proceedings
give bond (Sec. 6, Rule 78, Rules of Court).
proceeding on the estate of A be (1997)
The
of probate
any just (4%) proceeding
claim that may on be the filed
estate of
later. Give the
Can the proper
widow venue and her for children
the following settle
instituted? extrajudicially amonga) themselves the
A
Theshould
fact ofbe theinstituted
extrajudicial in the Municipal
settlement or special proceedings: A petition to
(b) Whenever the gross value of the
Trial Court
administration of Malolos, Bulacan which has estate of the deceased?
declare as escheated a parcel of land (2%)
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 or general
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
venue
consecutive becauseweeks. A was
(Sec. 1 a
of resident
Rule 74, of
Rules or persons entitled to the property.
to appear to the RTC having jurisdiction of
b) the A existence
petition of forthetheWill. No will shall
appointment of an
7691;
Malolos
of Sec.
Court) at1the
of Rule
time 73).
of his death. (Sec. 33
or the estate by the petition of an pass either
administrator realoveror personal
the land estate
and unless
building
of
(1)BP 129 as
month amended by RA
of nor
interested
Probate more than
person
Will and three
upon(3)hearing,
months (Sec.
it is by1, Rule and
proved 75, Rules
allowed of in the proper
left
Court). an American citizen residing in
from
which
(2005) the
shalldatebe of
heldthe not last
less
After Lulu's death, her heirs brought her publication
than one of a court
California, who had
Can the widow and her children initiatebeen declared an
notice
last will to a lawyer to obtain theira
which shall be published once
incompetent by an American
a separate petition for partition of the court.
week for three
respective shares consecutive
in the estate. weeks The 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
will residing
and testament in Pampanga.
by the court? (2%)
province, and after such
distributing Lulu's estate in accordance other notice to SUGGESTED
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ANSWER:
interested
SUGGESTED persons
ANSWER: as
with the terms of her will. Is the act ofthe court may (a)
No,The the venue
widowofand the her
escheat proceedings
children cannot
No.
direct,Nothe
the lawyer will,
court shall
correct? may pass
Why?proceedeither
(2%) real or
summarily, of a parcel of land
file a separate petition for in this case is the
partition
Rules of Court)
personal
without estate
the unless itofisanproved
appointment executor and or place where the deceased
pending the probate of the will. Partition last resided.
(Sec.
allowed 1, inRule
administrator, the75,properRulescourt.
to settle of
the estate. (Sec. 2 (Sec. 1. Rule
Settlement of Estate; Administrator
Rule 75,
is a mode Rulesof91,
ofRules
Court).
settlement of Court).
of the estate (Sec.
Court)
of Rule 74, (b) The venue for the appointment of an
(1998)
A, claiming 1,
Probate of to Willbe an illegitimate child of Probate of Will; over
administrator Mandatory
land and Naturebuilding of an
the
(2006)
Sergiodeceased
Punzalan, D, Filipino,
instituted50anyears Intestate
old, (2002)
American citizen residing in California,
proceeding
married, andtoresiding settle the estateAlabang
at Ayala of the
declared Incompetent
latter.
Village,He also prayed
Muntinlupa thatofhe be
City,
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 administrative case. The team of investigators
Pampanga is the RTC of the place in recommended to the Ombudsman that AG be
which the petitioner resides. (Sec. 1. Rule preventively suspended for a period not
99) 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 Pleadings AG moved to reconsider the order on the
(2004)
Charged 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 countervailing evidence; and (c) he was a
ground that the officer who filed the career executive service officer and under
information had no authority to do so. The Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service
MeTC denied the motion on the ground Law), his preventive suspension shall be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that it is a prohibited motion under the for
The a motion
maximum period
should be of three for
denied months.
the
said Rule. The accused thereupon filed Resolve with reasons the motion of
following reasons:
with the RTC in Manila a petition for respondent
1 AG. (5%)
The Office of the Special Prosecutor
certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the does not have exclusive authority to
nullification of the MeTC's denial of his conduct a preliminary investigation of the
motion to quash. The RTC in due time criminal case but it participated in the
issued an order denying due course to the investigation together with the Deputy
certiorari petition on the ground that it is Ombudsman for the Military who can
not allowed by the said Rule. The accused handle cases of civilians and is not limited
forthwith filed with said RTC a motion for to the military.
reconsideration of its said order. The RTC 2 The order of preventive suspension
in time denied said motion for need not wait for the answer to the
reconsideration
SUGGESTED ANSWER: on the ground that the
administrative complaint and the
The
same RTC's orders
is also denying due
a prohibited course
motion to the
under the
petition for certiorari as well as denying the submission of countervailing evidence.
said Rule. Were the RTC's orders denying (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No. 13903, September 10,
motion
due coursefor 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.of
Fabros, 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
(2005)
Regional 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
Remedial Law Bar Examination Q & A (1997-2006) by: sirdondee@gmail.comPage 66 of 66
of Manila shall deliver its 5-hectare lot in decree or executive order can mandate
Sta. Rosa, Laguna originally intended as that the determination of just
a residential subdivision for the Manila compensation by the executive or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
City Hall employees. Explain. (5%) legislative departments can prevail over
Yes, Congress may enact a law G.R.
the No. L-59603,
court's April 29,1987;
findings (Export Sees. 5 to 8
Processing
expropriating property provided that it is Rule
Zone 67,1997
AuthorityRules of Civil Procedure). In
v. 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
(2001)
Governor 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
mandatory. 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; Law September
No. 13903, Expropriating 10, Property
1999; Layno v.
Sandiganbayan,
(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 toDondee
1997-2006 Updated by UST, the City