Remedial Law Bar Q & A

1. Distinguish between substantive law and remedial law.

Answer:
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights and obligations, the
violation of which gives rise to a cause of action. On the other hand, remedial law prescribes the method of
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion (cf. Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 540, 650 [1948]).

2. Evelyn filed a complaint for a sum of money against Joan but the complaint was later
dismissed for failure to prosecute “within a reasonable length of time.” Thereafter, Evelyn filed another case
based on the same facts against Joan. Joan moved to dismiss the same on the ground that the cause of action
therein is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata). Evelyn opposed the motion claiming that res judicata has
not set in since Joan was not served with summons and the complaint in the first case was earlier dismissed,
so that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person and, consequently, over the case. How
would you decide the motion of Joan? Explain.

Answer:
The motion to dismiss is denied. One of the essential requisites of res judicata is jurisdiction over the parties.
Inasmuch as Joan was not served with the summons in the first case which was earlier dismissed, the court
did not acquire jurisdiction over her person and, hence, the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of
another action against her. (Republic Planters Bank vs. Molina, September 28,1988)

3. A complaint filed for recovery of possession of real property also prayed for moral and
exemplary damages the amounts of which have been left to the court’s discretion, and for actual damages
the amount of which shall be proven at the trial. The docket fees for the action involving the real property
have been paid, but not those for the related damages, the amounts of which have not been specified.
(a) Did the court acquire Jurisdiction over the action?
(b) May the action be dismissed?

Answer:
(a) Yes, because the docket fees for the action involving the real property have been paid.
(b) No, because the court has acquired jurisdiction over the action. However, the claim for damages, as to
which no amounts were specified may be expunged, or the plaintiff may be allowed to amend the complaint
so as to specify the amount of damages and to pay the requisite fees within the prescriptive period. (Tacay v.
RTC, 180 SCRA 433)

4. A filed a complaint against Y with the RTC of Argao, Cebu, for payment of a promissory
note in the- sum of P50.000.00, for liquidated damages of P5.000.00 and attorney’s fees of P5.000.00. After
he filed his answer, Y died, but his lawyer did not file a motion to dismiss. In the meantime, Y*s widow filed
with the above court a special proceeding for the settlement of the intestate estate of Y. The widow, Z, was
appointed the administratrix of the estate. A filed in the civil case a motion to have Y substituted by the
administratrix; the latter did not object. The court granted the motion. Trial on the merits was had. In due
course, the court rendered a decision in favor of A. At the time it was rendered, the period to file claims in
the intestate estate of Y had already lapsed. The administratrix, X, did not appeal from the decision; and
after it became final. A moved for the execution of judgment, Z opposed the motion contending that the
decision is void because the claim does not survive. The case should have been dismissed upon the death of
Y since upon his death, the court lost jurisdiction over the case.
(a) Rule on the issue.
(b) If the opposition is without merit, can the writ of execution be validly issued?
(c) If it cannot be issued, what is the remedy of A?
Answer:
(a) Since Y died before final Judgment in the RTC, the action for money should have been dismissed and
prosecuted as a money claim against his estate. However, since the widow. Z, who was appointed
administratrix of the estate, did not object to the trial on the merits and did not appeal from the decision, she
is deemed to have waived the right to have the claim litigated in the estate proceedings. Moreover, she is
estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction. Hence, the decision is valid. (Sec. 21 of Rule 3; Ignacio v.
Pambusco, 20 SCRA 126; Echaus u. Blanco. 179 SCRA 22 704)
(b) No, because a Judgment for money cannot be enforced by a writ of execution against the estate of the
deceased which is in custodia legis. (Sec. 7 of Rule 39; Paredes v. Moya, 61 SCRA 527)
(c) His remedy is to file a money claim against the estate of Y based on the judgment. Although the period
for filing money claims has already lapsed, the same may be allowed before an order of distribution is
entered. (Secs. 2 and 5 of Rule 86; Echaus v. Blanco, supra)

5. What court has jurisdiction over an action for specific performance filed by a subdivision
homeowner against a subdivision developer? Choose the correct answer. Explain.
1. The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
2. The Securities and Exchange Commission
3. The Regional Trial Court
4. The Commercial Court or the Regional Trial Court designated by the Supreme Court to
hear and decide “commercial cases”

Answer:
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) that has jurisdiction over an action for specific
performance filed by a subdivision homeowner, who is a lot-buyer or the latter’s successor-in-interest, against
a subdivision developer (Manila Bankers v. Ng Kok Wei, 418 SCRA 454 [2001]).

Another Answer:
It is the RTC that has jurisdiction where the issue involved is an ordinary sale between buyer and seller.
“Mere assertion by the petitioner that it is a subdivision developer and the land involved is a subdivision lot,
will not automatically strip the trial court of its jurisdiction and authorize the HLURB to take cognizance of
the complaint" [Lacson Hermanos, Inc. v. Heirs of Ignacio, 462 SCRA 291 [2005J). The mere relationship
between the “Homeowner" and the Developer alone does not vest the HLURB with jurisdiction, but the
nature of the action which is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint. Jurisdiction of the
HLURB in cases of specific performance refers to complaints for compliance with contractual and statutory
obligations. The question does not specify what is the contractual stipulation or statutory obligation sought to
be performed. An action for specific performance is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation which falls
under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court unless it is shown that the action falls under the
jurisdiction of any other court or quasi-judicial agency like the HLURB.

6. Plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of money against defendant with the MeTC-Makati, the
total amount of the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation
expenses, and costs, being PI .000,000. In due time, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of the MeTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. After due hearing, the MeTC 11) ruled
that the court indeed lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; and (2) ordered that the
case therefore should be forwarded to the proper Regional Trial Court immediately. Was the court's ruling
concerning jurisdiction correct? Was the court’s order to forward the case proper? Explain briefly.

Answer:
Yes. The MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case because the total amount of the demand exclusive of
interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, was PI M. Its jurisdictional
amount at this time should not exceed P400,000.00 (Sec. 33 of B.P. Big. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691).
The court's order to forward the case to the RTC is not proper. It should merely dismiss the complaint.
Under Sec. 3 of Rule 16, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion or order the
amendment of the pleading but not to forward the case to another court.
 7. What courts have jurisdiction over the following cases filed in Metro Manila?
(a) An action for specific performance or. In the alternative, for damages In the amount of
P180,000.00
(b) An action for a writ of injunction.
(c) An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at P150.000.00.
(d) An action for Interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to receive
the amount of P190.000.00 from the plaintiff.
(e) A petition for the probate of a will involving an estate valued at P200.000.00.

Answer:
(a) An action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for damages in the amount of 180,000.00falls
within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila. Although an action for specific
performance is not capable of pecuniary estimation, since the alternative demand for damages is capable of
pecuniary estimation, it is within the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila. (Sec. 33
of BP 129 as amended by RA No. 7691; Cruz vs. Tan 87 Phil. 627).
(b) An action for injunction is not capable of pecuniary estimation and hence falls within the jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Courts.
(c) An action for replevin of a motorcycle valued at 150,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila (Sec. 33 of BP 129. as amended by RA No. 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 of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila. {Id.; Makati
Dev. Corp. v. Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA 401)
(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 (Id; Sec. 19(41 of BP 129, as amended).

Additional Answer:
(b) An application for a writ of preliminary injunction may be granted by a Municipal Court in an action of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer? (Sec. 33 of BP 129; Day vs. RTC of Zamboanga. 191 SCRA 610).

8. Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation. X Corporation and Y

Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three corporations claimed title and
right of possession over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain which of them was
entitled to the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court declaring that X
Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and executory. Raphael filed a complaint
against X Corporation for the payment of PI00,000.00 for storage charges and other advances for the goods.
X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged
that Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and
advances and that for his failure he was barred from interposing his claim. Raphael replied that he could not
have claimed storage fees and other advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet
certain as to who was liable therefore. Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

Answer:
The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for
interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances. They are part of Raphael’s cause of action which he
may not split. The filing of the interpleader is available as a ground for the dismissal of the second case. (Sec.
4, Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.) It is akin to a compulsory counterclaim which, if not set up, is
barred. (Sec. 2, Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The law also abhors the multiplicity of suits; hence,
the claim for storage fees should have been made part of his cause of action in the interest of complete
adjudication of the controversy and its incidents. [Arreza v. Diaz, 364 SCRA 88 [2001]).

Alternative Answer:
The motion to dismiss should not be granted. Raphael not being a party to the case cannot file a counter
complaint. A complaint for interpleader which is a special civil action is merely an action for the parties to
interplead among themselves. The claim for storage fees is a separate and distinct cause of action. It is an
ordinary action for collection which cannot be joined in a special civil action. (Sec. 5(b) Rule 2)
 9. PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In his answer, DY incorporated a counterclaim for
damages against PX and AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit, alleging in said counterclaim, inter alia, that
AC, as such counsel, maliciously induced PX to bring the suit against DY despite AC’s knowledge of its utter
lack of factual and legal basis. In due time, AC filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim as against him on
the ground that he is not a proper party to the case, he being merely plaintiff ’s counsel. Is the counterclaim
of DY compulsory or not? Should AC’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or not? Reason.

Answer:
Yes. The counterclaim of DY is compulsory because it is one which arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party 's claim and does not require
for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.(Sec. 7 of
Rule 6). The motion to dismiss of plaintiff ’s counsel should not be granted because bringing in plaintiff ’s
counsel as a defendant in the counterclaim is authorized by the Rules. Where it is required for the grant of
complete relief in the determination of the counterclaim, the court shall order the defendant's counsel to be
brought in since jurisdiction over him can be obtained. (Sec. 12 of Rule 6; Aurelio v. Court of Appeals 196
SCRA 674 [1994]); and other cases). Here, the counterclaim was against both the plaintiff and his lawyer
who allegedly maliciously induced the plaintiff to file the suit.

Alternative Answer:
The counterclaim should be dismissed because it is not a compulsory counterclaim. When a lawyer files a
case for a client, he should not be sued on a counterclaim in the very same case he has filed as counsel. It
should be filed in a separate and distinct civil action. (Chavez v. Sandiganhayan, 193 SCRA 282 [1991]).

10. SPO1 CNC filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court in Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a sworn
written statement duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu City') with the offense
of slight physical injuries allegedly inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of Quezon City). The Judge of the
branch to which the case was raffled thereupon issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed by
the Rule on Summary Procedure in criminal cases. Soon thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the
case for the reason that it was not commenced by information, as required by said Rule. Sometime later,
based on the same facts giving rise to the slight physical injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed with the same
MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide against the same RGR. In due time, before arraignment,
RGR moved to quash the information on the ground of double jeopardy and after due hearing, the Judge
granted his motion. Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries proper? Was the grant of
the motion to quash the attempted homicide information correct? Reason.

Answer:
Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries is proper because in Metropolitan Manila and
in chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by information. (Sec. 11, Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure). No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information on the ground of
double jeopardy was not correct, because there was no valid prosecution for slight physical injuries.

11. In a complaint for recovery of real property, the plaintiff averred, among others, that he is the
owner of the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed by the defendant in his favor. Copy of the
deed of sale was appended to the complaint as Annex “A" thereof. In his unverified answer, the defendant
denied the allegation concerning the sale of the property In question, as Well as the appended deed of sale,
for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof. Is it proper for the
court to render judgment without trial? Explain.

Answer:
Defendant cannot deny the sale of the property for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof. The answer, being defective, amounts to an admission. (Phil. Advertising
Counselors, Inc. v. Revilla, 52 SCRA 246 [19731; Sec. 10, Rule 8,1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Moreover,
the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale can only be denied by the defendant under oath and
failure to do so is also an admission of the deed. (Sec. 8, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Hence, a judgment
on the pleadings can be rendered by the court without need of a trial. (Gutierrez v. Court of Appeals, 74
SCRA 127 [1976]).

12. Jojie filed with the Regional Trial Court of Laguna a complaint for damages against Joe.
During the pre-trial, Jojie and her counsel (sic) 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 hired Jose as his counsel. What are the
remedies available to him? Explain.

Answer:
Under the present rule, there can be no judgment by default by mere failure of the defendant to appear in
the pre-trial. The only consequence of such failure to appear is that the plaintiff can present his evidence ex
parte and the court may render judgment on the basis thereof (Sec. 5, Rule 18 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure). The following are the remedies available to Joe:
(a) motion for reconsideration;
(b) motion for new trial;
(c) appeal;
(d) petition for relief from a judgment of default;
(e) annulment of judgment under Rule 47; and
(f) certiorari under Rule. 65.

13. Mario was declared in default but before judgment was rendered, he decided to file a motion
to set aside the order of default.
(a) What should Mario state in his motion in order to Justify the setting aside of the order of
default?
(b) In what form should such motion be?

Answer:
(a) In order to justify the setting aside of the order of default, Mario should state in his motion that his failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense.
[Sec. 3(b) of Rule9,1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
(b) The motion should be under oath. (Id.)

14. A complaint was filed by the counsel for Superior Sales (an entity without a distinct juridical
personality) against Mr. Garcia on a money claim for goods delivered. Mr. Garcia did not file a motion to
dismiss. Eventually, trial was held and his liability was established through several invoices, each of which
uniformly- showed on its face that Mr. Tan is the proprietor of Superior Sales. After Superior Sales had
rested its case. Mr. Garcia filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that, since there is actually no person
properly suing as plaintiff, no relief can be granted by the court. On the other hand, the counsel for Superior
Sales filed a motion to amend the complaint to make it conform to the evidence, that the real party plaintiff
is Mr. Tan. The court denied said motion on the ground that it was filed too late and instead, dismissed the
case. Did the court act correctly? Explain.

Answer:
No, the court erred in denying the motion to amend the complaint and dismissing the case. The mistake in
the name of the plaintiff (which should have been Mr. Tan instead of Superior Sales which had no juridical
personality) was cured by the presentation of evidence (without objection) that Mr. Tan is the proprietor of
Superior Sales. Hence the amendment of the complaint to conform to the evidence was proper, and even if
no amendment was made, it would not affect the result of the trial on the issue of the real party in interest.
(Sec. 5 of Rule 10)

15. X, an illegitimate child of Y, celebrated her 18th birthday on May 2, 1996. A month before
her birthday. Y died. The legitimate family of Y refused to recognize X as an illegitimate child of Y. After
countless efforts to convince them, X filed on April 25, 2000 an action for recognition against Z, wife, of Y.
After Z filed her answer on August 14, 2000, X filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a
motion to admit the said amended complaint impleading the three (3) legitimate children of Y. The trial
court admitted the amended complaint on August 22, 2000. What is the effect of the admission of the
amended complaint? Has the action of X prescribed?

Answer:
No. The action filed on April 25, 2000 is still within the four-year prescriptive period which started to run on
May 2, 1996. The amended complaint impleading the three legitimate children, though admitted on August
22, 2000 beyond the four-year prescriptive period, retroacts to the date of filing of the original complaint.
Amendments impleading new defendants retroact to the date of the filing of the complaint because they do
not constitute a new cause of action. (Verzosa u. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 100 (1938]). 87 (Note: The
four-year period is based on Article 285 of the Civil Code)

Alternative Answer:
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, if an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the
action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court. (Sec. 5 of Rule 1). Consequently,
the action of X has prescribed with respect to the three (3) legitimate children of Y who are indispensable
parties.

Another Alternative Answer:

Under Article 175 of the Family Code, the action must be brought within the lifetime of X if the action is
based on a record of birth or an admission of filiation In a public document or a private handwritten
instrument signed by Y. In such case, the action of X has not prescribed. However, if the action is based on
the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, the action should have been
brought during the lifetime of Y. In such case, the action of X has prescribed.

16. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

Summons may be served by mail.

Answer:
FALSE. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, on Summons, provide only for serving Summons (a) to the defendant
in person; or (b) if this is not possible within a reasonable time, then by substituted service in accordance with
Sec. 7 thereof; or (c) any of the foregoing two ways is not possible, then with leave of court, by publication in
accordance with same Rule.

Alternative Answer:
TRUE, but only in extraterritorial service under Sec. 15 of the Rule on Summons where service may be
effected “in any other manner the court may deem sufficient".

17. Is pre-trial mandatory in all trial courts? Explain.

Answer:
Pre-trial is mandatory in all trial courts in civil cases. (Sec. 1 of Rule 30). However, in criminal cases, pre-trial
may be held only when the accused and his counsel agree. (Sec. 1 of Rule 118). In summary procedure, a
preliminary conference is held in both civil and criminal cases. (Sec. 6 and 13)

18. Give three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil case.

Answer:
Three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil case are as follows:
(a) The pre-trial in a criminal case is conducted only “where the accused and counsel agree" (Rule 118, Sec.
1): while the pre-trial in a civil case is mandatory. (Sec. 1 of former Rule 20; Sec. 1 of new Rule 18).
(b) The pre-trial in a criminal case does not consider the possibility of a compromise, which is one important
aspect of the pre-trial in a civil case. (Sec. 1 of former Rule 20; Sec. 2 of new Rule 18).
(c) In a criminal case, a pre-trial agreement is required to be reduced to writing and signed by the accused
and his counsel (See: Rule 118, Sec. 4); while in a civil case, the agreement may be contained in the pre-trial
order. (Sec. 4 of former Rule 20; See 7 of new Rule 78).

19. What is reverse trial and when may it be resorted to? Explain briefly.

Answer:
A reverse trial is one where the defendant or the accused present evidence ahead of the plaintiff or
prosecution and the latter is to present evidence by way of rebuttal to the former’s evidence. This kind of
trial may take place in a civil case when the defendant’s Answer pleads new matters by way of affirmative
defense, to defeat or evade liability for plaintiffs claim which is not denied but controverted. In a criminal
case, a reverse trial may take place when the accused made known to the trial court, on arraignment, that he
is to adduce affirmative defense of a justifying or exempting circumstance and thus impliedly admitting the
act imputed to him. The trial court may then require the accused to present evidence first, proving the
requisites of the justifying or exempting circumstance he is invoking, and the prosecution to present rebuttal
evidence controverting the same.

20. After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action before the ZZ Regional Trial Court has completed
presentation of his evidence, defendant without prior leave of court moved for dismissal of plaintiff s
complaint for insufficiency of plaintiff s 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 plaintiff s complaint, with the costs taxed against him. It is so
ordered." Is the order of dismissal valid? May plaintiff properly take an appeal? Reason.

Answer:
The order or decision is void because it does not state findings of fact and of law, as required by Sec. 14,
Article VIII of the Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. Being void, appeal is not
available. The proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65.

Another Answer:
Either certiorari or ordinary appeal may be resorted to on the ground that the judgment is void. Appeal, in
fact, may be the more expedient remedy.

Alternative Answer:
Yes. The order of dismissal for insufficiency of the plaintiff ’s 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 on appeal, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. (Id.)

21. On July 15,2009, Atty. Manananggol was served copies of numerous unfavorable judgments
and orders. On July 29, 2009, he filed motions for reconsideration which were denied. He received the
notices of denial of the motions for reconsideration on October 2,2009, a Friday. He immediately informed
his clients who, in turn, uniformly instructed him to appeal. How, when and where should he pursue the
appropriate remedy for each of the following:
(a) Judgment of a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction
dismissing his client’s application for land registration?
(b) Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying his client’s petition for a Writ of
Habeas Data?
(c) Order of a Family Court denying his client’s petition for Habeas Corpus in relation to
custody of a minor child?
(d) Order of the RTC denying his client’s Petition for Certiorari questioning the Metropolitan
Trial Court’s (MeTC’s) denial of a motion to suspend criminal proceedings?
Answer:
(a) By notice of appeal, within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from, to the Court
of Appeals;
(b) By verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, with the modification that appellant may raise
questions of fact or law or both, within 5 work days from date of notice of the judgment or final order to the
Supreme Court (Sec. 19, A.M. No. Q8-1-16SC);
(c) By notice of appeal, within 48 hours from notice of judgment or final order to the Court of Appeals (Sec.
14, RA No. 8369 in relation to Sec 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court);
(d) By notice of appeal, within 15 days from notice of the final Order, to the Court of Appeals (Magestrado
v. People, 527SCRA 125 [2007J].

22. A default judgment was rendered by the RTC ordering D to pay P a sum of money. The
judgment became final, but D filed a petition for relief and obtained a writ of preliminary injunction staying
the enforcement of the judgment. After hearing, the RTC dismissed D's petition, whereupon P immediately
moved for the execution of the judgment in his favor. Should P’s motion be granted? Why?

Answer:
P’s immediate motion for execution of the judgment in his favor should be granted because the dismissal of
D’s petition for relief also dissolves the writ of preliminary injunction staying the enforcement of the
judgment, even if the dismissal is not yet final. [Golez v. Leonidas, 107 SCRA 187 (1981)].