2003

I. JUDICIAL AUTONOMY & IMPARTIALITY

In rendering a decision, should a court take into consideration the possible effect of its
verdict upon the political stability and economic welfare of the nation?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because a court is required to take into consideration only the legal issues and the
evidence admitted in the case. The political stability and economic welfare of the nation are
extraneous to the case. They can have persuasive influence but they are not the main
factors that should be considered in deciding a case. A decision should be based on the law,
rules of procedure, justice and equity. However, in exceptional cases the court may consider
the political stability and economic welfare of the nation when these are capable of being
taken into judicial notice of and are relevant to the case.

II. JURISDICTION; INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

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 P 19,000.00. 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 over the case.

On 13 February 2003, A filed with the MTC a motion to declare B in default. The motion was
opposed by B on the ground that his Petition for Certiorari was still pending.

(a) Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint correct?
(b) Resolve the Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was not correct. Although the
assessed value of the parcel of land involved was P19,000.00, within the jurisdiction of the
MTC of Manila, the action filed by A for Specific Performance against B to compel the latter
to execute a Deed of Conveyance of said parcel of land was not capable of pecuniary
estimation and, therefore, the action was within the jurisdiction of RTC. (Russel v. Vestil,
304 SCRA 738; Copioso v. Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, October 28, 2002; Cabutihan v.
Landcenter Construction, 383 SCRA 353)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If the action affects title to or possession of real property then it is a real action and
jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property. It is within the jurisdiction
therefore of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) The Court could declare B in default because B did not obtain a writ of preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order from the RTC prohibiting the judge from
proceeding in the case during the pendency of the petition for certiorari. (Sec. 7 of Rule 65;
Diaz v. Diaz, 331 SCRA 302)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The Court should not declare B in default in as much as the jurisdiction of MTC was put in
issue in the Petition for Certiorari filed with the RTC. The MTC should defer further
proceedings pending the result of such petition. (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 421)

III. APPEALS, PERIOD OF APPEAL; FRESH PERIOD RULE

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, 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 A's Motion for Reconsideration and X's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal.
Plaintiff A received the Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on 03 February 2003
and files his Notice of Appeal on 05 February 2003. The court denied due course to A's
Notice of Appeal on the ground that the period to appeal had already lapsed.

(a) Is the court's denial of X's Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal proper?
(b) Is the court's denial of due course to A's appeal correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) No, the court's denial of X's 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 court's denial of due course to A's 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 file his notice of appeal on
February 5, 2003, or only two (2) days later.