Arellano University School of Law

Center for Legal Education and Research

2. 2016 BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

1. LAST MINUTE TIPS
REMEDIAL LAW

1. What is the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an
administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact (Paloma vs. Mora, 470 SCRA 711).

2. What is the Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference?

No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decrees of another court with
concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction possessing equal power to grant injunctive relief or to pass upon
or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another court. This principle holds that
courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s orders (Lapulapu
Development and Housing Corp. v. Group Management Corp., G.R. No. 141407, September 9, 2002)

3. A company filed a complaint for sum of money against spouses H and W. W, in her answer,
alleged that H is already dead so she filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint failed to implead an indispensable party or a real party in interest hence the said
pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action. Is her contention tenable?

No, lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party is not one of those defenses considered waived under
Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in
order to prevent a waiver of the defense. (Boston Equity vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, June
19, 2013)

4. Distinguish Residual Jurisdiction from Residual Prerogative.

RESIDUAL JURISDICTION RESIDUAL PREROGATIVE

Section 9 of Rule 41 Section 1 of Rule 9:
i.e.: protective orders, approve compromises, (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
permit appeals of indigent litigants, order matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res judicata,
execution pending appeal, and allow the (4)prescription
withdrawal of the appeal
Available at a stage in which the court is Available on Appeal
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over
the case or the subject matter involved in the
appeal. This stage is reached upon the
perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon
the approval of the records on appeal, but prior
to the transmittal of the original records or the
records on appeal.
For the protection & preservation of rights of the To dismiss an action motu propio upon the
parties, pending disposition of the case on grounds (Katon vs. Palanca, G.R. No.
appeal 151149, September 7, 2004)

5. What are the criteria or tests that may be used in determining whether a counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive?

The criteria or tests that may be used in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive,
is summarized as follows:
a. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as defendant's
counterclaim?
d. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?

arellano C|L|E|A|R 1
(Alday vs. FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 138822. January 23, 2001)

6. May the adverse party’s witness be compelled to appear, testify and bring documents without
being served prior written interrogatories?

No, the Rules of Court provides that calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless
written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. One of the purposes of the above rule is to
prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct
of trial. (Spouses Afulugencia vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014)

7. Can a motion for interpleader be made an alternative defense in an answer? Can there be an
interpleader in a counterclaim or cross-claim or third party/fourth party complaint?

Yes. While the rules in special civil action and ordinary civil action do not expressly authorize the filing of
a complaint-in-interpleader as part of the answer, this does not mean, however, that the counter-
complaint/cross-claim for interpleader runs counter to general procedures. (Bank of Commerce vs.
Planters Development Bank and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. Nos. 154470-71 September 24,
2012)

8. May a party raise the issue of fraud in his motion to lift the preliminary attachment if such
fraud is also the cause of action in the main case?

No, he is not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the attachment the reason being that the hearing on such
a motion for dissolution of the writ would be tantamount to a trial of the merits of the action. In other
words, the merits of the action would be ventilated at a mere hearing of a motion, instead of at the
regular trial. (Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 139941. January 19, 2001)

9. The battered wife filed a petition for issuance of protection order with prayer for financial
support against her husband who is a retired enlisted personnel of the Philippine Army, which
the RTC granted. Can the Republic of the Philippines (the husband's employer) be ordered to
automatically deduct a percentage of the retirement benefits constituting the spousal
support?

Yes. R.A. 9262 or the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" declares that the
court shall order the withholding of a percentage of the income or salary of the respondent by the
employer, which shall be automatically remitted directly to the woman notwithstanding other laws to
the contrary. Although pursuant to Section13(l) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the right to receive
legal support, or money or property obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the
Government is exempt from execution, this is considered as exception to the general rule that
retirement benefits are exempt from execution. (Republic vs. Yahon, G.R. No. 201043 June 16, 2014)

10. Juan and Michelle were married and had two children. They separated because of
disharmonious relationship. Juan filed a Petition for the Custody of the Minors of their
children before the RTC of Makati. While the custody case was pending, Michelle filed a
Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order before the RTC in Muntinlupa. Is
Michelle guilty of forum shopping?

Yes. A circumstance of forum shopping occurs when, as a result or in anticipation of an adverse decision
in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum through means other than appeal or
certiorari by raising identical causes of action, subject matter and issues. (Brown-Araneta vs. Brown,
G.R. No. 190814, October 9, 2013)

11. Is the non-joinder of indispensable parties a ground for dismissal of an action?

No, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of action. Section 11, Rule 3 of
the Rules of Court prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of non-joinder or misjoinder of
parties and allows amendment of the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, through motion or
order of the court on its own initiative. Only if plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party,
despite the order of the court, may it dismiss the action (Valdez-Tallorin vs. Heirs of Juanito Tarona,
G.R. No. 177429, Nov. 24, 2009).

12. What is the effect of not impleading indispensable parties?

Joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit,
the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the
judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void, with no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to

arellano C|L|E|A|R 2
 those present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the
petitioner/plaintiff. (Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo v. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer, G.R. No.
154745. January 29, 2004)

13. If a defendant files a motion to dismiss, does this automatically constitute voluntary
appearance that would place him under the jurisdiction of the court?

No. When one is asking for the dismissal of the case, he/she is not submitting himself/herself to the court.
The submission must be categorical and unequivocal for voluntary appearance to be considered as
placement of oneself to the jurisdiction of the court. Estoppel by jurisdiction must be unequivocal and
intentional. It would be absurd to hold that petitioner unequivocally and intentionally submitted itself to
the jurisdiction of the court by seeking other reliefs to which it might be entitled when the only relief
that it can properly ask from the trial court is the dismissal of the complaint against it. (Millenium
Industrial Commercial Corporation vs. Jackson Tan G.R. No. 131724. February 28, 2000).

14. What are the two aspects of Res Judicata?

BAR BY PRIOR JUDGMENT CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT

(Sec. 47 [b] of Rule 39) (Sec. 47 [c] of Rule 39)
There is identity of parties, subject matter, and There is identity of parties and issues in the
causes of action between the first case where first and second cases, but no identity of
the judgment was rendered and the second cause of action.
case that is sought to be barred.
The judgment in the first case constitutes an The first judgment is conclusive only as to
absolute bar to the second action. those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to
matters merely involved therein.

Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly

adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a competent
court in which judgment is rendered on the
merits is conclusively settled by the judgment
therein and cannot again be litigated between
the parties and their privies whether or not the
claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of
the two actions is the same.

15. Distinguish Criminal Contempt from Civil Contempt.

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CIVIL CONTEMPT

Any conduct directed against the authority or Failure to do something ordered by a court to
dignity of the court be done for the benefit of a party
Proceedings are to be conducted in accordance Generally held to be remedial and civil in their
with the principles and rules applicable to nature; that is, they are proceedings for the
criminal cases. The State is the real prosecutor. enforcement of some duty, and essentially a
remedy for coercing a person to do the thing
required
Initiated by the court or tribunal exercising the Should be instituted by an aggrieved party, or
power to punish a given contempt his successor, or someone who has a
pecuniary interest in the right to be protected.
Purpose is primarily punishment Purpose is primarily compensatory or
remedial
Exoneration amounts to an acquittal which is not Appealable
appealable

In Yasay vs. Recto; G.R. No. 129521 September 7, 1999:

16. Judge Caoibes issued an order requiring Sison, a traffic enforcer, who is not a party to a case
pending in his sala to appear before him and explain a traffic violation citation involving the
former’s son. Sison failed to appear hence the Judge cited him in indirect contempt, is the
Judge correct?

No, the respondent judge should have refrained from ordering the arrest and detention of the
complainant, since the incident involved his own son, and the matter was very personal to him. While
the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial
proceedings and to uphold due administration of justice, judges, however, should exercise their

arellano C|L|E|A|R 3
 contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing
their contempt powers for correction and preservation not for retaliation and vindication (Sison vs.
Judge Caoibes, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1771. May 27, 2004).

17. What is a sub judice rule?

The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to
avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the administration of justice. A
violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt. (P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan vs.
Diokno, G.R. No. 205956 dated February 12, 2014)

18. The Office of the Ombudsman charged Senator Enrile and several others with plunder in the
Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported involvement in the PDAF scam. He filed an
omnibus motion to post bail but it was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Is denial correct?

No, considering the following:

 The objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial. His social and
political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being
charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape is highly unlikely.
 The Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention
such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the
right to be admitted to bail.
 His poor health justifies his admission to bail.

(Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847 dated August 18, 2015)

19. Distinguish Certiorari as a Mode of Appeal (Rule 45) from Certiorari as a Special Civil Action
(Rule 65).

APPEAL BY CERTIORARI SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI

(RULE 45) (RULE 65)
Petition is based on questions of law Petition raises the issues as to whether the
lower court acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Involves the review of the judgment, award or May be directed against an interlocutory order
final order on the merits. of the court prior to appeal from the judgment
or where there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy
Must be made within 15 days from notice of May be filed not later than 60 days from
judgment notice of judgment, order or resolution sought
to be assailed
Stays the judgment, award or order appealed Does not stay the challenged proceeding
from unless a writ or preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order shall have been
issued
Prior filing of a motion for reconsideration is not Generally, motion for reconsideration is a
required condition precedent
The appellate court is in the exercise of its The higher court exercises original jurisdiction
appellate jurisdiction and power of review under its power of control and supervision
over the proceedings of lower courts. (San
Miguel Corp., et al. vs. Layos, Jr., et al., G. R.
No. 149640, Oct. 19, 2007)

20. If there is a pending unlawful detainer case and the same property subject thereon is
expropriated by the Government, what is the effect of that expropriation proceeding to the
unlawful detainer case?

The unlawful detainer case is suspended for a period of 1 year. But the unlawful or informal settlers will
have to pay the rental to the owner of the property also within that 1 year period. (Abad vs. Fil-Homes
Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 189239, November 24, 2010)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 4
21. Zacarias owned a parcel of land in Cavite. One day, she discovered that Anacay entered her
property and occupied the same hence she demanded the latter to leave the premises. Anacay
requested for time (until end of the year) to leave and Zacarias acceded to said request.
However, the said timeline has lapsed and yet Anacay still refused to vacate the disputed lot.
Hence, Zacarias filed an action for unlawful detainer, is she correct?

No. To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed acts of tolerance
must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered. If
the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry. If, however,
the entry is legal but the possession thereafter becomes illegal, the case is unlawful detainer.
Admittedly, no express contract existed between the parties. (Zacarias vs. Anacay, G.R. No. 202354,
September 24, 2014)

22. Distinguish Demurrer to Evidence in Civil Cases from Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal
Cases.

NATURE DEMURRER in CIVIL CASES DEMURRER in CRIMINAL CASES

Demurrer is a kind of a Motion to Dismiss. It is NOT a prohibited pleading under the
Rules on Summary Proceedings because (1) it similarly expedites the proceedings
and (2) it is not among those mentioned under prohibited pleadings
Similarities The ground is the same, that is, INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Only available AFTER the presentation of the evidence of the plaintiff or prosecution,
as the case may be
Court may either grant or deny the Demurrer
More difficult to file because the Easier to file because the prosecution is
plaintiff is only required to present his required to prove the guilt of accused
case by preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt
if DENIED - distinguish whether there had
been prior leave of court, thus: (1) if with
leave, accused may proceed with
If DENIED - plaintiff presents evidence
presentation of his evidence; (2) if without
leave, accused can no longer present his
Distinction evidence
s if GRANTED - accused is acquitted; order of
if GRANTED - the case is dismissed;
acquittal is NOT appealable; otherwise, it
order of dismissal is a FINAL order,
will be a violation of his right against double
hence appealable
jeopardy
if plaintiff appeals and the appellate
court REVERSES - defendant is no
longer allowed to present evidence.  
(Rule 33 and Section 23, Rule 119 of
the Rules of Court)

23. What are the six (6) requisites of a petition for declaratory relief?

a. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument,
statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
b. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial construction
c. There must have been no breach of the documents in question;
d. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one between persons
whose interests are adverse;
e. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
f. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or proceeding.
(Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing, G.R. No. 150806, January 28, 2008)

24. Does dismissal upon notice by plaintiff (right of the plaintiff to dismiss the complaint) applies
squarely in expropriation cases?

No. In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiff's matter of right to dismiss the complaint
precisely because the landowner may have already suffered damages at the start of the taking. The
plaintiff's right in expropriation cases to dismiss the complaint has always been subject to court
approval and to certain conditions. Also, the rules did not require the filing of an answer or summary
judgment in eminent domain cases, what was required is a motion to dismiss. (National Power
Corporation vs. the Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103442-45 May 21, 1993)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 5
25. Considering that decisions in small claims cases are immediately executory and
unappealable, what can be the proper remedy for an aggrieved party?

Special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. (A.L. Ang Network vs. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804,
January 22, 2014)

26. What is the threshold amount in small claims cases?

Section 2 of the 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases provides that actions for
payment of money where the value of the claim does not exceed P200,000.00 exclusive of interest
and costs.

27. Is the final judgment in a petition for quo warranto decided against a public office binding
upon the latter’s successor in office?

No. Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer with regards to a public right, binds his successor in
office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does
not bind the respondent's successor in office, even though such successor may trace his title to the
same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an
officer as such, but always against the person — to determine whether he is constitutionally and
legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim.
(Mendoza vs. Allas, G.R. No. 131977, February 4, 1999)

28. Agapita filed a case for enforcement of Hawaii court’s judgment against Imelda. The trial court
issued a Summons to Imelda at Alexandra Homes, Pasig City. The Summons and a copy of
the Complaint were immediately served upon Macky, an alleged caretaker of Imelda at the
condominium unit. Imelda filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the
trial court over her person due to an invalid substituted service of summons. Did the court
acquire jurisdiction over the person of Imelda?

No. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or the defendant’s
voluntary appearance in court. In an action strictly in personam, personal service on the defendant is
the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person.
In the case, there is absence of material data on the serious efforts to serve the Summons on Imelda
in person. Efforts must be proved adequate, to reach the conclusion that personal service has
become impossible or unattainable outside the generally couched phrases of on many occasions
several attempts were made to serve the summons. (Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
130974, August 16, 2006)

29. How does a losing defendant stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an unlawful
detainer case?

The defendant in such a case may have such judgment stayed only by (a) perfecting an appeal; (b) filing
a supersedeas bond; and (c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable compensation for
the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the
defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the
judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being ministerial and imperative (Atty. Alconera vs.
Pallanan, A.M. No. P-12-3069, January 20, 2014 in relation to Ferrer vs. Judge Rabaca, A.M. No.
MTJ-05-1580 dated October 6, 2010).

30. What are the instances where a writ of execution may be appealed?

a. The writ of execution varies the judgment;

b. There has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust;
c. Execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
d. It appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court;
e. The terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation
thereof; or
f. It appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in
substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or
otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority;

(Parel vs. Heirs of Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No. 192217, March 2, 2011)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 6
31. Koruga is a minority stockholder of Banco Filipino. She filed a complaint before the RTC
against its board of directors alleging violation of the Corporation Code on issues of self-
dealing and conflicts of interest as well as in the “Receivership” and creation of a
management committee. Does RTC have jurisdiction to hear and decide a suit that seeks to
place the Bank under receivership?

No. Under receivership, Sections 29 and 30 of the New Central Bank Act should be followed. The
appointment of a receiver shall be vested exclusively with the Monetary Board. In view thereof, it is
the Monetary Board that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings for receivership of banks.
(Koruga vs. Arcenas, G.R. No. 168332 dated June 19, 2009)

32. Is joint adoption of husband and wife still required even if the adoptee is already above 18
years old?

Yes. It is true that when the child reaches the age of emancipation that is, when he attains the age of
majority or 18 years of age, emancipation terminates parental authority over the person and property
of the child, who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. However, parental
authority is merely just one of the effects of legal adoption enumerated under Article V of RA 8552.
Therefore, even if emancipation terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a
legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child (In Re: Petition for Adoption of
Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009).

33. JC, a 2-year old baby, was adopted by Cornelio. However, Cornelio died within two (2) years
from JC’s adoption. When JC attained the age of majority and gainfully employed, he met an
unfortunate event which led to his demise. Bernardino, the biological parent of JC, filed a
claim for death benefits under SSS. SSS denied the claim saying that Bernardino is no longer
considered as parent and primary beneficiary of JC as he was legally adopted by Cornelio. Is
the SSS correct?

No. Bernardina remains to be the parent and primary beneficiary of JC. Section 20 of the Domestic
Adoption Act provides that “if the petition for rescission is granted, the parental authority of the
adoptee’s biological parent or the legal custody is restored if the adoptee is still a minor or
incapacitated. The manner of terminating the adopter’s parental authority justifies the retention of
vested rights and obligations between the adopter and the adoptee, while the consequent restoration
of parental authority in favor of the biological parents, simultaneously, ensures the adoptee, who is
still a minor, is not left to fend for himself at such a tender age. (Bartolome v. SSS, G.R. No. 192531,
November 12, 2014)

34. What are the grounds by which annulment of judgment may be availed of?

There are two grounds by which annulment of judgment may be availed of:
a. extrinsic fraud, which must be brought four (4) years from discovery, extrinsic fraud, on the other
hand, is “[that which] prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the
court, or [that which] operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the
manner in which it is procured.” and
b. lack of jurisdiction, which must be brought before it is barred by estoppel or laches. Lack of
jurisdiction under this rule means lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject
matter, or lack of jurisdiction over the parties. (Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA 415, G.R. No.
188801 October 15, 2014)

35. The siblings together with their mother are fighting over certain parcels of land. Fearing that
the contested properties will be squandered, the mother filed with the RTC a petition to place
the controverted lots under receivership, alleging that she immediately needs her legal share
in the income of these properties for her daily sustenance and medical expenses. Is the
appointment for receivership proper?

No, receivership is a harsh remedy to be granted with utmost circumspection and only in extreme
situations. The alleged need for income to defray medical expenses and support is not a valid
justification for the appointment of a receiver. Financial need and like reasons are not found in Sec. 1
of Rule 59 which prescribes specific grounds or reasons for granting receivership. To avail this
remedy, there must be clear showing that the disputed properties are in danger of being lost or
materially impaired and that placing them under receivership is most convenient and feasible means
to preserve, administer or dispose of them. (Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde, G.R. No. 203585 dated
July 29, 2013)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 7
36. Spouses Supapo owned a land located in Quezon City which has an assessed value of
P39,980.00. During one of their visits, they saw two houses built and occupied on the said
land by Spouses de Jesus without their knowledge and permission. Hence they filed a
complaint for accion publiciana with the MTC. They also filed a criminal case against the latter
for violation of the “Anti-Squatting Law”. The court convicted the respondents but the latter
appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the Congress repealed the said law resulting in
the dismissal of the criminal case. Spouses de Jesus is now invoking res jusdicata as a
defense.

a. Does MTC have jurisdiction over the case?

Yes, Pursuant to (the amendment of) Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as
the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession
of real property is now determined by its assessed value. Since the assessed value of the subject
lot located in Metro Manila is P39,980.00 which is within the threshold amount lodged in the MTC,
it is properly cognizable by the MTC.

b. Is the complaint for accion publiciana barred by res judicata?

No, there is no identity of subject matter, parties and causes of action between the criminal case
prosecuted under the Anti-Squatting Law and the civil action for the recovery of the subject
property as discussed hereunder:
 No identity of parties. The criminal complaint, although initiated by the Spouses Supapo,
was prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. The accion publiciana, on the
other hand, was filed by and in the name of the Spouses Supapo.
 No identity of subject matter. The criminal case involves the prosecution of a crime under
the Anti-Squatting Law while the accion publiciana is an action to recover possession of the
subject property.
 No identity of causes of action. The people of the Philippines filed the criminal case to
protect and preserve governmental interests by prosecuting persons who violated the statute.
The Spouses Supapo filed the accion publiciana to protect their proprietary interests over the
subject property and recover its possession.

(Supapo vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356 dated April 20, 2015)

37. What is a “hot tub” hearing?

In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing the same issue at the same time to
explain each of their points in a discussion with a professional colleague. The objective is to achieve
greater efficiency and expedition, by reduced emphasis on cross-examination and increased
emphasis on professional dialogue, and swifter identification of the critical areas of disagreement
between the experts. (International Service for The Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc., v.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), et.al, G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015)

38. Alfredo was convicted of rape. He questioned the judgment, saying it is not valid because the
judge who penned the decision is different from the judge who heard the testimonies of the
witnesses. Thus, the judge was in no position to render the judgment, as he did not observe
firsthand their demeanor during trial. Is the accused correct?

No. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the occasion to observe
the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied on the records of the case, does not
render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
conclusion. (People vs. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010)

39. Do the rules on depositions in civil cases apply in criminal cases?

No. The procedure for taking depositions in criminal cases recognizes the prosecution's right to preserve
testimonial evidence and prove its case despite the unavailability of its witness. It cannot, however,
give license to prosecutorial indifference or unseemly involvement in a prosecution witness' absence
from trial. To rule otherwise would effectively deprive the accused of his fundamental right to be
confronted with the witnesses against him. (Harry Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 8
40. The deceased Enrile, then Secretary of DOTC, was charged of committing the offense in
relation to his office and taking advantage of the same, in conspiracy with accused, GO,
Chairman and President of PIATCO. Will the death of Enrile extinguish the criminal liability of
Go?

No. It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile’s death, there is no longer any public officer with whom
respondent can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not mean, however, that the allegation
of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already
expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His
death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between
him and private respondent. (People vs. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014)

41. In what cases shall the Sandiganbayan exercise exclusive original jurisdiction?

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised
Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in
the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission
of the offense:
i. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758);
ii. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
iii. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
iv. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
v. All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14
and 14-A, issued in 1986.

(Republic Act No. 10660 dated April 16, 2015)

42. Distinguish Judicial determination of probable cause from Executive determination of

probable cause.

Judicial Determination of Probable Cause Executive Determination of Probable Cause

the determination of probable cause for the determination of probable cause as basis for
purposes of an arrest warrant is judicial, the filing of the Information in court is executive,
performed by the judge to ascertain whether performed by the investigating officer to ascertain
the accused should be placed under the whether or not a criminal case must be filed in
court’s custody court against those whom he believes committed
the crime

refers to “such facts and circumstances that refers to such facts as are sufficient to engender
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent a well-founded belief that a crime has been
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the respondent is probably
committed by the person to be arrested” guilty thereof and should be held for trial

(Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41 dated January 21,
2015)

43. What are the four instances in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure where probable cause
is needed to be established?

a. In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer, to determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
b. In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of arrest or a
commitment order, if the accused has already been arrested, shall be issued and that there is a
necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice;

arellano C|L|E|A|R 9
 c. In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private person making a warrantless arrest
when an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
d. In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whether a search warrant shall be issued,
and only upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to
be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

(Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41 dated January 21,
2015)

44. Will a pending Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice concerning the finding of
probable cause suspend the issuance and implementation of warrant of arrest?

No. Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound
discretion of the court. Thus, the consequent implementation of a warrant of arrest cannot be deferred
pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary of Justice as to the finding of probable
cause, a function that is exclusive in nature. To defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest
would be an encroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the judge. (Viudez II vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 152889, June 5, 2009)

45. When should objections to warrantless arrest be raised?

Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made
before he enters his plea by filing a motion to quash; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
(People vs. Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012)

46. Andoy, a complainant in a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, contends that he
was denied due process because he was not given the chance to file a reply to the counter-
affidavit of the accused. Is his contention correct?

No. Because a preliminary investigation is not a proper trial, the rights of parties therein depend on the
rights granted to them by law and these cannot be based on whatever rights they believe they are
entitled to or those that may be derived from the phrase “due process of law”. A complainant in a
preliminary investigation does not have a vested right to file a Reply- this right should be granted to
him by law. There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the Complainant or
requires the prosecutor to observe the right to file a Reply to accused’s counter-affidavit. (Artillero vs.
Casimiro, G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2011).

47. Goldenway Corporation executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Equitable Bank over its
properties to secure the P2 million loan. The former failed to pay hence the latter foreclosed
and sold the properties. The corporation offered to redeem the properties but the Bank argued
that it can no longer be done as the certificate of sale had already been registered. Cite the
rule on redemption periods and rule on the contention of both parties.

Pursuant to Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 (The General Banking Law of 2000), juridical persons whose
property is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have the right to redeem the
property in accordance with this provision until, but not after, the registration of the certificate of
foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds which in no case shall be more than three (3)
months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. Since the certificate of sale had already been
registered, the Corporation cannot redeem the property anymore. (Goldenway Merchandising
Corporation vs. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540 dated March 13, 2013)

48. What are the requisites before an accused may become a State Witness?

 There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
 There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed,
except the testimony of the said accused;
 The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
 Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
 Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude (Sec.
17, Rule 119).

arellano C|L|E|A|R 10
49. Tomas Tuazon was charged of Drug Trafficking. The judge rendered a decision in favor of him
resulting in his acquittal, can that decision be appealed?

No, because the accused would be subjected to double jeopardy. A final judgment may no longer be
altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law and regardless of what court, be it the
highest court of the land, rendered it. (Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 164195, October 12, 2010, 632 SCRA 727, 760)

50. What is the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment?

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer
be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact
or law; and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.
(NHA vs. CA, G.R. No. 173802, April 7, 2014)

51. What are the exceptions to the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment?

1. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust
and inequitable. (Villaruel vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 136726. September 24, 2003)
2. Correction of:
a. Clerical errors;
b. The so-called nunc pro tunc entries, a correction based on the records of the case, which
cause no prejudice to any party.
3. Annulments of judgment on the ground of:
a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. Extrinsic fraud;
c. Violation of due process – such as when a party is declared in default and made to pay
interest at a rate higher than that prayed for by the plaintiff.

52. What is the concept of interlocking confession?

It is composed of extrajudicial confessions independently made without the collusion which are identical
with each other in their materials respects and confirmatory of the other, are admissible as
circumstantial evidence against a co-accused implicated therein to show constitutes an exception to
the general rule that extrajudicial confession or admissions are admissible only against the declarant
himself. (People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009)

53. What is the Daubert Test and how is it applied in DNA evidence?

Daubert Test is the determination of the court whether the evidence would meet the applicable "general
acceptance" standard for the admission of expert testimony. The rule is that expert opinion based on
a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique is "generally accepted" as reliable in the
relevant scientific community.

Applying the Daubert Test in DNA evidence, the DNA evidence is relevant and reliable since it is
reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology. (Agustin
vs. CA, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005)

54. As a rule, an electronic document and the print out thereof are regarded as original
documents under the Best Evidence Rule. Thus, a scanned image of a paper-based document
is not an original document. Is this rule absolute?

No, the picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise ‘official ballots’
that faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast by the voter, as defined by Section 2(3) of R.A.
No. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof are the functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by
the voters and, thus, may be used for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest. That the
two documents—the official ballot and its picture image—are considered "original documents" simply
means that both of them are given equal probative weight. In short, when either is presented as
evidence, one is not considered as weightier than the other. (Maliksi vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 203302
dated April 11, 2013)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 11
55. Mr. X, a consultant for the World Bank, suddenly disappeared while attending a seminar in
Quezon City. Mrs. X, wife of Mr. X, filed a petition for the Writ of Amparo directed against PNP
Chief ABC. The Court of Appeals immediately granted the said petition. Does the grant herein
determine the criminal culpability of the PNP Chief ABC for the alleged enforced
disappearance of Mr. X?

No. The writ of amparo does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance,
rather, it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for
purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. The writ of amparo is
a protective remedy against violations or threats of violation against the rights to life, liberty and
security. (Razon vs. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009)

56. What if one person wanted to change the details of his birth certificate (to delete the date of
marriage of his parents, alleging that no such marriage took place), his first name and his
mother’s first name? Can he do all of these under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?

No, he must undergo two separate procedures. The change of first names must be done by the civil
registrar under R.A. 9048. Section 15 of the said law provides that clerical or typographical errors on
entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned
city civil registrar without need of a judicial order. On the other hand, the date of marriage of his
parents is substantial in nature which requires adversarial proceedings pursuant to Section 3, Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. (Onde vs. The Office of the Local Civil Registration of Las Piñas City, G.R.
No. 197174, September 10, 2014)

57. What is a Writ of Continuing Mandamus?

Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or
instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. (Sec. 4 [c] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Case)

A writ of continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with a final judgment
as it “permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to ensure the successful
implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision.” (Dolot vs. Paje, G.R. No. 199199,
August 27, 2013).

58. Discuss the Precautionary Principle.

Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible
damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid
or diminish that threat. (Section 4(f) of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases” dated April 13, 2010)

59. What is Epistolary Jurisdiction?

It was exercised by the Supreme Court in the case of Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected
Seascape Tañon Strait vs. Secretary Angelo Reyes (G.R. No. 180771 dated April 21, 2015) in
lowering the threshold for locus standi. It was opined that the principle of human stewardship over the
environment can be channelled thru a citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases. A citizen suit allows any Filipino to act as a representative of a party who has enforceable
rights under environmental laws before Philippine courts.

60. What is the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) defense?

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution or the government has taken or may
take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of
environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and shall be governed by these Rules. (Section 1,
Rule 6 of Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

61. Is a Forfeiture case for the recovery of unlawfully acquired properties absorbed in a Plunder
case thereby nullifying a Writ of Attachment duly issued by the court in the plunder case?

No. A forfeiture case under RA 1379 arises out of a cause of action separate and different from a plunder
case, thus negating the notion that the crime of plunder absorbs the forfeiture case. The civil liability
for forfeiture cases does not arise from the commission of a criminal offense such as plunder. The
action of forfeiture arises when a public officer or employee acquires during his incumbency an
amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion of his salary and to his other lawful income.

arellano C|L|E|A|R 12
 Such amount of property is them presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. If the public
official is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in
question, then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of
such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State. Thus, the filing of a
forfeiture suit will proceed independently of any criminal proceeding. (Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009)

62. What is Sexual Abuse Shield Rule?

Under Section 30(a) of A.M. No. 004-07-SC, otherwise known as the Child Witness Rule, the following
evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(a) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(b) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.

However, by way of exception, paragraph (b) of the same Rule provides that evidence of specific
instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was
the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.

63. What is the Two-Fold Task of the Prosecution?

On one hand, he is bound by his oath of office to prosecute persons where the complainant’s evidence is
ample and sufficient to show prima facie guilt of a crime. Yet, on the other hand, he is likewise duty-
bound to protect innocent persons from groundless, false, or malicious prosecution. (Baviera vs.
Paglinawa, GR No. 168380 dated 8 February 2007)

64. In an appeal under Rule 43, is the failure to attach certified copies of the material portions of
the record referred to in the petition is a sufficient ground for dismissal?

Yes, the rule clearly requires the petition for review to be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from,
together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other
supporting papers. The requirement is intended to immediately enable the CA to determine whether
to give due course to the appeal or not by having all the material necessary to make such
determination before it. This is because an appeal under Rule 43 is a discretionary mode of appeal,
which the CA may either dismiss if it finds the petition to be patently without merit, or prosecuted
manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration; or may process by requiring the respondent to file a comment on the petition, not a
motion to dismiss, within 10 days from notice. (Maniebo vs. CA, GR No. 158708, 10 April 2010)

65. May the issuance of writ of possession be enjoined by an injunction?

No, the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of
course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. No discretion
is left to the trial court. To emphasize the writs’ ministerial character, the Supreme Court had in
previous cases disallowed injunction; that issuance of the same may not be stayed by a pending
action for annulment of mortgage or the foreclosure itself. (LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs.
Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 167998 dated April 27, 2007)

66. The Court granted Susan's petition for support pendente lite against Danilo. The adjudged
support was intended primarily for food, household expenses such as salaries of drivers and
house helpers, and also petitioner’s scoliosis therapy sessions. In the course of accounting,
the Court allowed as deduction to the monthly support the two expensive cars for his children
including maintenance cost, travel expenses of Susan and the children, and other non-
grocery items. Is the Court correct? 

No. The court should not have allowed all the expenses incurred by respondent to be credited against the
accrued support pendente lite. Hence, the value of two expensive cars Danilo bought for his children
plus their maintenance cost, travel expenses of petitioner and Angelli, purchases through credit card
of items other than groceries and dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as these bear no
relation to the judgment awarding support pendente lite. Allowing huge deductions from the accrued
monthly support of Susan and her children completely ignores the unfair consequences to
them. (Lim-Lua v  Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013)   
 
67. What are the remedies of a third party deprived of his property? 

Section 16 of Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the remedies of
either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken hold of the property not
belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent "separate action" to vindicate his claim

arellano C|L|E|A|R 13
 of ownership and/or possession over the property. (Villasi  vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 190106
dated  January 15, 2014) 

68. Is there a right to informational privacy with respect to photos posted in Facebook? 
 
None, a person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends to forsake and renounce all
privacy rights to such imagery. Although the photos are viewable by “friends only”, it does not
necessarily bolster that digital images under this setting remain to be outside the confines of the
zones of privacy in view of the sheer number of Facebook “friends” and the facility in which photos
can be shared even to those who are not “friends.” (Vivares  vs. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No.
202666, September 29, 2014) 

HAIL TO THE CHIEFS!

arellano C|L|E|A|R 14