Remedial Law

[This item has five questions.] Assume that you received an adverse decision and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Give the reglementary period for filing the following: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64.

[This item has two questions.] Fides filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the authority of the local government unit (LGU) to assess real property taxes (RPT) on a certain property she owns. She also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to restrain the LGU from collecting the RPT. The LGU moved to dismiss Fides’ case arguing that since the matter involves RPT, her remedy was to file an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. If the RTC issues an order denying the application for a WPI, and thereafter denies Fides’ subsequent motion for reconsideration, what is her remedy? Explain briefly.

[This item has two questions.] Fides filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the authority of the local government unit (LGU) to assess real property taxes (RPT) on a certain property she owns. She also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to restrain the LGU from collecting the RPT. The LGU moved to dismiss Fides’ case arguing that since the matter involves RPT, her remedy was to file an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. Is the LGU correct? Explain briefly.

Ricky, while driving his Maserati, smashes into the Toyota Vios of Dante. Immediately after the incident, Ricky offers to pay the value of the Toyota Vios. Dante still sued Ricky criminally for Reckless Imprudence because of Ricky’s wayward and speedy driving. During trial, Dante was called as witness to testify on Ricky’s offer to compromise as an admission of guilt. Ricky’s counsel objected. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain briefly.

Enumerate and describe three warrants that may be issued by the courts pursuant to the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants.

Police officers Miggy and Laida were involved in an alleged buy-bust operation against Mr. Magtalas, a suspected drug dealer. Mr. Magtalas maintained his innocence, asserting that the drugs were merely planted. He further claimed that he was unjustifiably beaten up by the police officers. Mr. Magtalas filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB-MOLEO) a criminal complaint for planting evidence which is punishable under Section 29 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165). Mr. Magtalas also filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Miggy and Laida in light of the unwarranted physical assault against him. The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) rendered a decision holding Miggy and Laida administratively liable for grave misconduct and accordingly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. A few weeks later, the OMB issued a separate resolution finding probable cause against them for violation of Section 29 of R.A. No. 9165. Aggrieved, Miggy and Laida filed before the Supreme Court the following: (i) a Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing the OMB’s decision finding them administratively liable for grave misconduct; and (ii) a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari assailing the OMB’s resolution finding probable cause against them. Were the remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida proper? Explain briefly.

Cain was indicted under an Information charging him with the crime of Murder. He was caught by the police in flagrante delicto as the incident happened in a public place with many witnesses present. Videos of the incident were also posted online which the judge was able to watch. During his arraignment, Cain pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) accepted the plea because it was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. The RTC directed the prosecution to present evidence to prove Cain’s guilt. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence during the scheduled hearings. The RTC then ruled and found Cain guilty beyond reasonable doubt based solely on his plea of guilt. Was Cain’s conviction proper? Explain briefly.

In a case for Estafa, the prosecution offered the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt signed by the accused showing personal receipt of the sum of money from the private complainant to prove the amount of damage. Accused objected to the offer of the photocopy on the sole ground that it is a mere reproduction of the original in violation of the original document rule. The court overruled the accused’s objection and admitted in evidence the photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt. Did the court err in admitting the photocopy? Explain briefly.

Notting Hill Corp. filed an action for forcible entry against the ten occupants of a parcel of land it owns. After the summary proceedings, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment against the ten defendants. The defendants filed a notice of appeal, but failed to file a supersedeas bond to stay the judgment to vacate. Upon Notting Hill Corp.’s motion, the MTC issued a writ of execution. When Hugh, the sheriff, was implementing the writ of execution, he discovered that the land was occupied by a number of families who all claimed that they were legitimate lessees of the ten defendants. Julia, one of the lessees, pleaded with Hugh, beseeching: “I’m just a lessee, standing in front of a sheriff, asking him to let me stay in my home.” May Hugh implement the writ of execution against the lessees? Explain briefly.

Isol, Inc. supplies rotisserie chicken products to the grocery section of shopping malls. It conducts kitchen operations in a refurbished house located in Palanan, a residential neighborhood. Rona, a resident of Palanan, filed an action against Isol, Inc. to enjoin the operations of its kitchen on the ground that it emits intolerable odors and violates laws on waste disposal. In the same action, Rona also seeks to have Isol, Inc.’s business permit revoked because an industrial facility is not allowed by law to be located in a residential neighborhood and Isol, Inc. failed to comply with sanitary inspection and other procedural and health requirements. In the complaint Rona filed, she likewise prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to stop the kitchen operations during the pendency of the case. Isol, Inc., in its verified answer, strongly opposed the prayer for WPI considering the huge financial disaster that it will suffer if the writ were to be issued, especially in light of the possibility that the suit could continue to be pending for more than a year. Based on the foregoing, may the WPI prayed for already be issued? Explain briefly.

Jimuel filed against his wife Jewel a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, alleging as ground therefor Jewel’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court denied the petition for insufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial. Much later, Jimuel again filed a petition against Jewel for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. This time, the basis of Jimuel’s petition was the absence of a marriage license at the time their marriage was celebrated. Upon Jewel’s motion, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata by virtue of the judgment in the first suit. Was the denial of the petition on the ground of res judicata proper? Explain briefly.

[This item has two questions.] Attorney Woo, the newly-hired lawyer of a law firm, booked Samurai Express, a duly accredited courier service within the National Capital Judicial Region, to serve a copy of a motion for reconsideration to Attorney Han, counsel for the adverse party, whose office is in the City of Manila. Attorney Han moved to deny the motion for failure to contain a written explanation as to why the motion was not served personally. What shall be considered as proof of service of this motion? Explain briefly.

[This item has two questions.] Attorney Woo, the newly-hired lawyer of a law firm, booked Samurai Express, a duly accredited courier service within the National Capital Judicial Region, to serve a copy of a motion for reconsideration to Attorney Han, counsel for the adverse party, whose office is in the City of Manila. Attorney Han moved to deny the motion for failure to contain a written explanation as to why the motion was not served personally. Was the motion for reconsideration properly served? Explain briefly.

Asya, Inc. sued Kobe, a resident of Bukidnon. To serve summons, the sheriff waited in the lobby of Makati Hotel (MH), where Kobe stays whenever he is in Manila. The sheriff failed to serve the summons because Kobe left the hotel for an emergency. Hours later, the sheriff asked the front desk about Kobe’s whereabouts and his room number. The hotel refused to disclose on grounds of confidentiality. The sheriff tried again the next day, but Kobe was in a conference until midnight. So, the following day, the sheriff left the summons and a copy of the complaint with MH’s chief security officer (CSO), even as the CSO refused because Kobe had already checked out by then. The sheriff thereafter filed his return, stating the dates, times and places of his attempts, the name of the CSO, and the fact that the complaint was served with the summons. When Kobe did not file an Answer, Asya, Inc. moved to declare him in default. Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Explain briefly.

Lebron, a Makati resident, obtained a Php 350,000.00 loan from a bank secured by a real estate mortgage (REM) over his lot located in Quezon City with an assessed value of Php 500,000.00. Lebron failed to pay despite written demands. The bank intends to file an action for judicial foreclosure of the REM. Where should the action for judicial foreclosure of the REM be filed and in which court? Explain briefly.

Mayor Dalupan, who was notorious for being involved in rigged public biddings, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Seeking to overturn his conviction, Mayor Dalupan filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on the 59th day from notice of the assailed Sandiganbayan ruling. Is the remedy availed of by Mayor Dalupan correct? Explain briefly.

Alex, Bobbie, and Gabbie were charged with the crime of Murder. Finding them to have acted in conspiracy, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of Homicide. Only Bobbie appealed the conviction with the Court of Appeals (CA). Consequently, an entry of judgment was issued as against Alex and Gabbie. Subsequently, the CA modified Bobbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder. In the same judgment, the CA likewise modified Alex and Gabbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder. Upon learning of the CA’s decision, Alex and Gabbie confronted Bobbie, saying: “Bakit ka pa ba nag-appeal? Tumaas tuloy ang sentensya namin. Nadamay pa kami!” Bobbie snapped back: “Bakit parang galit kayo? Pero bakit kasalanan ko? Parang kasalanan ko?” Was the CA correct in modifying the judgment as to Alex and Gabbie? Explain briefly.

Nysa was defrauded by Jackie resulting in damages to the former. Nysa filed a civil suit before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed her complaint. Within four years from Nysa’s discovery of the dismissal of her complaint, she filed, through her counsel, a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground of fraud. Should the CA give due course to Nysa’s petition? Explain briefly.

In December of 2021, Matibag Realty Corp. and Kasangga Construction Co. submitted their construction dispute to arbitration before the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). In March 2022, the CIAC arbitral tribunal rendered an award in favor of Kasangga Construction Co. What is Matibag Realty Corp.’s remedy? Explain briefly.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision against Kat. She received a copy of the decision on December 26, 2021. Kat’s counsel filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 by registered mail on January 10, 2022. The petition was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period. Kat’s counsel challenged the dismissal arguing that: (i) the intention was to pay the docket fees after the same is assessed upon the court’s receipt of the petition by registered mail; and (ii) the dismissal of the petition effectively rendered nugatory a party’s statutory right to appeal by registered mail under the rules. Kat’s counsel also added that she did not want to include cash money in the mail. Is Kat’s counsel correct? Explain briefly.

Gail filed a forcible entry complaint against Marianina before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC ruled in favor of Marianina. Gail appealed the MeTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied Gail’s appeal and sustained the MeTC. Gail then filed a notice of appeal with the RTC indicating that it is appealing the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). In her notice of appeal, Gail also requested the RTC to transmit the records of the case to the CA. Did Gail take the correct mode of appeal? Explain briefly.

[This item has five questions.] Assume that you received an adverse decision and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Give the reglementary period for filing the following: Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Ten days after service of summons, defendant Kay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for collection of sum of money against her on the ground of improper service of summons, on the basis of which the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Explain briefly.

Is a prior determination of the status as a legal heir in a separate special proceeding a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action seeking the protection and enforcement of ownership rights of such legal heir vested by the law of succession? Explain briefly.

[This item has five questions.] Assume that you received an adverse decision and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Give the reglementary period for filing the following: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

An Information for Murder was filed against the accused Demo and Onyok. It reads: “That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, without justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Angel Rosario, by then and there repeatedly hitting and beating his head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal injury which caused his death. Contrary to law.” The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. Is the accused correct? Explain briefly.

Namjoon, a Korean national, and Regine, a Filipina, were married in Makati City on February 14, 2012. Unfortunately, their relationship shortly turned sour and ended with a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea. The local court in Korea granted the divorce. Wanting to marry her new boyfriend Taehyung, Regine filed a petition for recognition of the foreign decree of divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu where she resides. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition contending that the proper remedy is a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which can only be filed in the RTC of Makati where the marriage was celebrated and recorded in the Civil Registry of Makati. Is the OSG’s contention tenable? Explain briefly.

[This item has five questions.] Assume that you received an adverse decision and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Give the reglementary period for filing the following: Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42.

[This item has five questions.] Assume that you received an adverse decision and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Give the reglementary period for filing the following: Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Klaus was drinking in front of his rented apartment when he suddenly heard a gunshot which came from inside the apartment owned by Luther. Klaus then saw Igor, a neighbor, going down the stairs and leaving the scene holding a gun. Klaus also witnessed Luther fall from the stairs with blood oozing from his chest. Vanya, Luther’s daughter, also rushed to Luther when he fell. During Igor’s trial for Murder, Vanya testified and presented a flash drive containing the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footages of the scene. Said footages showed a man appearing to be Igor, armed with a gun, proceeding up the stairs and entering Luther’s apartment. In the video, the same man was seen hastily leaving the premises. Vanya further testified that she was the one who transferred to the flash drive the video footages from the barangay-owned CCTV that was located outside their apartment. When the footages were played in court and an enlarged screenshot was presented, Vanya identified the shooter as Igor. The defense objected on the ground that Vanya was not the recorder of the video footages. Are the CCTV footages admissible as electronic evidence? Explain briefly.

Is the printout of a photograph from your mobile phone showing a fly in the soup you ordered admissible evidence in an action for damages against the restaurant owner? Explain briefly.

A search warrant was issued authorizing the police to search for and seize: “(a) documents that will show that the respondent is guilty of swindling and/or estafa; (b) copies of bounced checks; and (c) all other relevant matters.” Is the search warrant valid? Explain briefly.

A party, through counsel, filed a complaint to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage done by a creditor bank. The bank had already filed its answer. However, the counsel for the plaintiff felt that the judge was partial to the defendant’s counsel. Wanting to bolster the chances of winning for their client, the counsel for the plaintiff filed a second case against the same bank seeking to nullify the same extrajudicial foreclosure, but this time adding a prayer for the award of damages. The second case was raffled to another judge. The defendant bank’s counsel then moved to dismiss the second case. Will the motion prosper? Explain briefly.

On her deathbed, your grandmother revealed to you that in 1994, she and her family won a civil action for damages against a former President for human rights atrocities committed against them during martial law. The judgment was never appealed. Your grandmother informed you that she never had the judgment executed because she wanted this to be her parting gift for you when she passed. She said that she also felt the need to wait for one of her grandchildren to become a lawyer. It so happened that you have just passed the #BestBarEver2020_21. Your grandmother spent her last moments narrating how she had been arrested by the military during martial law, and was then tortured and raped while under detention. She emphasized that her case was not unique, and that until now, she was yet to receive an apology from any member of the former President’s family. With her last breath, she instructed you not to let her experience happen again. Her parting words to you were: “Never again!” Is an action for revival of judgment the proper remedy to enable the judgment’s execution? Explain briefly.

Inspired by the movie On The Job, the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, without any court order, transferred 10 persons deprived of liberty to an agricultural farm in Davao del Norte to plant camote. The owner of the agricultural farm promised to ensure that the persons deprived of liberty would not escape and would always wear the proper uniforms. Two of these 10 persons deprived of liberty found a way to approach you and suggested that you file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus on their behalf. The persons deprived of liberty added that they had no family in Davao and that their families had no means to visit them there. Is a petition for the writ of habeas corpus the proper remedy for their case? Explain briefly.

Will a petition for mandamus lie to compel the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to convene representatives of neighboring countries similarly situated with the Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West Philippine Sea? Explain briefly.

In an Information, a man was charged with having forcible carnal knowledge of a 16-year-old woman. The Information did not contain any allegation concerning the victim’s relationship with the accused. During the direct examination of the victim, the prosecution was able to elicit information that the accused was the 16-year-old woman’s father. The defense counsel failed to object to the testimony, having also been surprised by the revelation. After trial, the judge convicted the accused of simple rape and imposed the corresponding penalty. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, claiming that the accused should be convicted of qualified rape and not simple rape because the relationship between the victim and the accused was proven, even as it had not been alleged in the Information. Is the prosecution legally correct? Explain briefly.

Upon learning of her husband’s death, the wife and their daughter went to a funeral parlor where the husband’s remains lay. The husband had been killed in a military encounter in the hinterlands. He had been suspected as one of the members of an insurgent group, which had been yearning for the violent overthrow of the status quo for more than 50 years. Upon arriving at the funeral parlor, the wife and the daughter found that the premises were guarded by heavily armed individuals clad in military uniform. These individuals accosted the wife and the daughter when they attempted to approach the husband’s casket. The two were then interrogated for almost an hour. Fearing for their lives, the wife and the daughter hurriedly left after the interrogation. On their way home, they noticed a red car following them. The same car, which carried individuals sporting crew cuts, parked in front of their home for several days. The daughter noted the car’s license plate and called the local police for assistance. The local police simply laughed at her, saying that they should just cooperate with the military and reveal all that they knew or they would also suffer the same fate as her father. Will a petition for the writ of amparo prosper for the wife and the daughter? Explain briefly.

The spokesperson of a special unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines announced in a television interview that the Armed Forces was putting all progressive and left-leaning party-list representatives under surveillance for alleged links to the ongoing insurgency. An outspoken and progressive party-list representative approaches you for advice on how to discover the information that the Armed Forces may have collated through the surveillance operations. Will a petition for the writ of habeas data be the proper remedy? Explain briefly.

The last day of a losing party to file a notice of appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals fell on June 12, a legal holiday. The day after, or on June 13, the counsel for the losing party moved that the period within which to file a notice of appeal be extended for 10 days, citing the counsel’s “humongous” case load, among others. On June 23 that same year, without the motion for extension being acted upon, the counsel for the losing party filed a notice of appeal. Should this appeal be dismissed? Explain briefly.

Two years after receiving a copy of a decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court, a party engaged a counsel and asked them to work on reopening the case. The party explained that it took two years to find the best legal counsel available, and that counsel had to await two years to pass the #BestBarEver2020_21. After perusing the judgment and the case records, the counsel filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the trial judge improperly assessed the evidence and misapplied a doctrine long adopted by the Supreme Court. Will the petition for annulment of judgment prosper? Explain briefly.

Can dolphins be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation that will affect a biodiverse coral reef? Explain briefly.

Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor’s seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA. When he was arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead “guilty,” provided that his sentence be substantially reduced. Both AAA’s mother and the prosecutor were amenable to the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered a plea of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced straight penalty of only ten (10) years of imprisonment, as agreed upon. Assuming that Mr. W was once more charged with the crime of Rape committed against AAA based on the same incident, may Mr. W validly invoke the defense of double jeopardy through a motion to quash and will such motion prosper? Explain.

AAA, a ten (10)-year old minor, was sleeping inside her room when she was awakened by her uncle, Mr. G, who was reeking of alcohol and was already on top of her. After Mr. G succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, the former immediately left the latter’s room. Thereafter, AAA rushed into the room of her mother, MMM, and spontaneously and frantically reported the incident. Eventually, Mr. G was arrested and was indicted for the crime of Rape. During trial, MMM was presented as a witness to testify on what AAA reported to her and AAA’s gestures and disposition at that time. Mr. G’s counsel objected to MMM’s testimony on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. The prosecutor countered that the subject of MMM’s testimony may be admitted as an independently relevant statement and as part of the res gestae. May MMM’s testimony be admitted on the ground that it constitutes an independently relevant statement? Explain.

Distinguish the following: Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) and Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD).

Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his old friend, Mr. Y. In order to ensure that Mr. Y would not be able to file a responsive pleading and much more, participate in the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y’s counsel, Atty. Z, who deliberately let the case proceed as such without his client’s knowledge. Eventually, judgment was rendered on March 1, 2016 in Mr. X’s favor, a copy of which was received by Atty. Z on April 4, 2016. Bothered by his conscience, Atty. Z brought the copy of the decision to Mr. Y on June 1, 2016, thereby surprising the latter and causing him grief. Meanwhile, the decision became final and executory in due course on April 19, 2016. Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights, which culminated on August 15, 2016 when he, as represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a satisfactory explanation as to why he directly resorted to a petition for annulment of judgment, when he could have filed a petition for relief from judgment. What are the differences between a petition for relief from judgment and a petition for annulment of judgment in terms of grounds and periods to file?

A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr. T by his employer for allegedly stealing company property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T’s former supervisor, Mr. V, to the stand and attempted to question him on similar incidents also involving Mr. T with his previous employer. Mr. T’s counsel objected to the question, invoking the rule on res inter alios acta. In response, the prosecutor argued that the question should be allowed since he was trying to establish Mr. T’s habit of stealing things from the workplace. Assuming that the prosecution presents evidence on the bad moral character of Mr. T, may the same be admitted in the present case? Explain.

A criminal complaint for Theft was filed against Mr. T by his employer for allegedly stealing company property. During trial, the prosecutor called Mr. T’s former supervisor, Mr. V, to the stand and attempted to question him on similar incidents also involving Mr. T with his previous employer. Mr. T’s counsel objected to the question, invoking the rule on res inter alios acta. In response, the prosecutor argued that the question should be allowed since he was trying to establish Mr. T’s habit of stealing things from the workplace. Should the objection of Mr. T’s counsel be sustained? Explain.

In a case for Attempted Parricide brought against Mr. M by his wife, Mrs. N, their son, C, was called as a witness for the prosecution. Mr. M’s counsel objected, invoking the filial privilege rule. Meanwhile, in a separate case for Serious Physical Injuries also brought against Mr. M, but this time by his son, C, Mrs. N was called to testify against Mr. M. Mr. M’s counsel objected, invoking the marital disqualification rule. Should the objections of Mr. M’s counsel in both cases be sustained? Explain.

In a case for specific performance and damages, plaintiff Q presented photocopies of the contracts he had executed with defendant R for the purpose of establishing their existence. Defendant R’s counsel objected to the admission of said photocopies, invoking the best evidence rule. Assuming that the best evidence rule applies, under what circumstances will the photocopies be admissible in evidence?

In a case for specific performance and damages, plaintiff Q presented photocopies of the contracts he had executed with defendant R for the purpose of establishing their existence. Defendant R’s counsel objected to the admission of said photocopies, invoking the best evidence rule. Should the objection of defendant R’s counsel be sustained? Explain.

Ms. A filed a petition for a writ of amparo, claiming that she was being threatened by Mr. B, her ex-boyfriend, with whom she has a child out of wedlock, named C. Ms. A alleged that since she started dating someone else, Mr. B began stalking her, parking his car on the street outside her house, and watching her house until the wee hours of the morning. She thus feared for her life. Assuming that Mr. B took away C without Ms. A’s knowledge and consent, what is the proper remedy for Ms. A to immediately recover C’s custody? Explain.

Ms. A filed a petition for a writ of amparo, claiming that she was being threatened by Mr. B, her ex-boyfriend, with whom she has a child out of wedlock, named C. Ms. A alleged that since she started dating someone else, Mr. B began stalking her, parking his car on the street outside her house, and watching her house until the wee hours of the morning. She thus feared for her life. Is Ms. A entitled to a writ of amparo? Explain.

As a result of an anonymous complaint, Mr. J, a local public official, was held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in Administrative Case No. 1234. As such, he was imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The Ombudsman also found probable cause to indict him for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” in Criminal Case No. 4321. Mr. J moved for the reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision but was denied. Unperturbed, Mr. J filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision in Administrative Case No. 1234 and Criminal Case No. 4321. However, the CA dismissed the petition outright, holding that such petition constitutes an improper remedy to assail the administrative and criminal aspects of the aforementioned Ombudsman ruling. Was the CA’s dismissal of Mr. J’s petition correct? Explain.

Mr. H filed a complaint against Mr. I to recover the amount of P500,000.00 based on their contract of services. In his answer, Mr. I admitted that he has yet to pay Mr. H for his services based on their contract but nevertheless, interposed a counterclaim alleging that Mr. H still owed him rental arrearages for the lease of his apartment also amounting to P500,000.00. It has come to Mr. H’s attention that Mr. I did not pay any filing fees when he filed his answer. As such, Mr. H moved to dismiss the counterclaim. In response to Mr. H’s motion, Mr. I averred that the non-payment of filing fees was purely based on inadvertence and that the said filing fees had already been paid as of date, as evinced by the official receipt issued by the clerk of court therefor. Should Mr. I’s counterclaim be dismissed? Explain.

Mrs. G defaulted in the payment of her loan obligation with Z Bank. As such, Z Bank extra-judicially foreclosed Mrs. G’s mortgaged property and sold it at public auction where it emerged as the highest bidder. Eventually, a certificate of sale was issued in Z Bank’s favor, and title to the property was later consolidated under the bank’s name. Claiming that Z Bank used fraudulent machinations in increasing the interest and penalty charges on the loan, thereby making it impossible for her to pay, Mrs. G filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for cancellation of consolidation of ownership over a real property with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Z Bank. Immediately thereafter, the RTC issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Z Bank from disposing of the foreclosed property or taking possession thereof. Did the RTC err in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction ex parte? Explain.

Mrs. E filed a complaint for sum of money against Mr. F in the amount of P1,000,000.00 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After due proceedings, the RTC ruled in favor of Mrs. E, and since no appeal was interposed thereto, the ruling became final and executory as evinced by an Entry of Judgment dated July 2, 2012. However, Mrs. E was unable to immediately move for the execution of said judgment because she had a work engagement overseas. On June 29, 2017, Mrs. E returned to the country and, on the same day, filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution before the RTC. On July 7, 2017, the RTC granted the motion, and consequently, issued a writ of execution in Mrs. E’s favor. Was the RTC’s issuance of the writ of execution procedurally infirm? Explain.

Mr. C sued Mr. D for reconveyance of property and damages, claiming that Mr. D, through fraud and forgery, was able to obtain the title to Lot No. 1234, which was previously registered in Mr. C’s name. The complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court. Instead of filing an answer, Mr. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. In opposition, Mr. C argued that lack of cause of action is not a ground for a motion to dismiss as the ground provided under Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court is failure to state a cause of action. Distinguish the concepts of lack of cause of action and failure to state a cause of action. Based on this distinction, is Mr. C’s opposition tenable? Explain.

Ms. A filed a complaint for damages against Ms. B, alleging that Ms. B negligently caused the demolition of her house’s concrete fence, the top half of which fell on the front portion of Ms. A’s car and permanently damaged its engine. In her answer, Ms. B denied any personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. A’s car, averring that she merely acquiesced to the advice of her contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be collected from it. Thereafter, Ms. A filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that Ms. B’s statement in her answer is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. B opposed the motion, reiterating her defense in her answer which purportedly rendered judgment on the pleadings improper. Ms. B also moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co., which she alleged is an indispensable party to the case. Assuming that XYZ Construction Co. is an indispensable party, is its non-joinder a ground for the dismissal of the case? Explain.

Ms. A filed a complaint for damages against Ms. B, alleging that Ms. B negligently caused the demolition of her house’s concrete fence, the top half of which fell on the front portion of Ms. A’s car and permanently damaged its engine. In her answer, Ms. B denied any personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. A’s car, averring that she merely acquiesced to the advice of her contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be collected from it. Thereafter, Ms. A filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that Ms. B’s statement in her answer is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. B opposed the motion, reiterating her defense in her answer which purportedly rendered judgment on the pleadings improper. Ms. B also moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co., which she alleged is an indispensable party to the case. Is XYZ Construction Co. an indispensable or a necessary party? Explain.

Ms. A filed a complaint for damages against Ms. B, alleging that Ms. B negligently caused the demolition of her house’s concrete fence, the top half of which fell on the front portion of Ms. A’s car and permanently damaged its engine. In her answer, Ms. B denied any personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. A’s car, averring that she merely acquiesced to the advice of her contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be collected from it. Thereafter, Ms. A filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that Ms. B’s statement in her answer is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. B opposed the motion, reiterating her defense in her answer which purportedly rendered judgment on the pleadings improper. Ms. B also moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co., which she alleged is an indispensable party to the case. Is Ms. A’s motion for judgment on the pleadings proper? Explain.

ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. sued Mr. X before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for collection of unpaid association dues. Mr. X filed a motion to dismiss solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes among homeowners and their associations. The RTC denied Mr. X’s motion, maintaining that it has jurisdiction over the case. This prompted Mr. X to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying his motion to dismiss. Assuming that Mr. X’s motion was instead granted by the RTC, what is the proper remedy of ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. to challenge the RTC ruling? Explain.

ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. sued Mr. X before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for collection of unpaid association dues. Mr. X filed a motion to dismiss solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes among homeowners and their associations. The RTC denied Mr. X’s motion, maintaining that it has jurisdiction over the case. This prompted Mr. X to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying his motion to dismiss. Is Mr. X’s chosen remedy of certiorari and direct recourse to the Supreme Court proper? Explain.

Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his old friend, Mr. Y. In order to ensure that Mr. Y would not be able to file a responsive pleading and much more, participate in the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y’s counsel, Atty. Z, who deliberately let the case proceed as such without his client’s knowledge. Eventually, judgment was rendered on March 1, 2016 in Mr. X’s favor, a copy of which was received by Atty. Z on April 4, 2016. Bothered by his conscience, Atty. Z brought the copy of the decision to Mr. Y on June 1, 2016, thereby surprising the latter and causing him grief. Meanwhile, the decision became final and executory in due course on April 19, 2016. Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights, which culminated on August 15, 2016 when he, as represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a satisfactory explanation as to why he directly resorted to a petition for annulment of judgment, when he could have filed a petition for relief from judgment. Was the CA’s dismissal of Mr. Y’s petition for annulment of judgment proper? Explain.

Ms. R received a subpoena ad testificandum from a Regional Trial Court (RTC) directing her to appear and testify in a case. Despite notice and without any sufficient justification, Ms. R failed to appear. This prompted the RTC to issue a show-cause order directing Ms. R to explain, within ten (10) days, why she should not be cited for contempt for her non-appearance despite receipt of the subpoena. Ms. R, however, did not file her comment. After due hearing with notice to the parties, the RTC cited her in indirect contempt, and consequently, ordered her arrest. Ms. R moved to quash the warrant issued for her arrest, claiming that a formal charge should have been filed against her, and that the same should have been docketed and prosecuted as a separate case against her. She thus claimed that since this procedure was not followed, the order citing her in contempt is null and void. Is Ms. R’s contention tenable? Explain.

Ms. R received a subpoena ad testificandum from a Regional Trial Court (RTC) directing her to appear and testify in a case. Despite notice and without any sufficient justification, Ms. R failed to appear. This prompted the RTC to issue a show-cause order directing Ms. R to explain, within ten (10) days, why she should not be cited for contempt for her non-appearance despite receipt of the subpoena. Ms. R, however, did not file her comment. After due hearing with notice to the parties, the RTC cited her in indirect contempt, and consequently, ordered her arrest. Ms. R moved to quash the warrant issued for her arrest, claiming that a formal charge should have been filed against her, and that the same should have been docketed and prosecuted as a separate case against her. She thus claimed that since this procedure was not followed, the order citing her in contempt is null and void. What is the proper mode of appeal should Ms. R decide to assail her contempt citation? Will the filing of such appeal automatically result in the suspension of the execution of judgment? Explain.

In a neighborhood bicycle race, Mr. A bumped the bicycle of one of his competitors, Mr. B, in order to get ahead. This caused the latter to lose control of the bike which hit the concrete pavement and sent Mr. B crashing headfirst into the sidewalk. By the time the organizers got to him, Mr. B was dead. Law enforcement authorities who witnessed the incident arrested Mr. A without a warrant, and immediately brought him to the inquest prosecutor for the conduct of an inquest. Thereafter, an Information for Homicide was filed by the inquest prosecutor without the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The next day Mr. A requested for the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Is the inquest prosecutor’s filing of the Information without the conduct of preliminary investigation proper?

In a neighborhood bicycle race, Mr. A bumped the bicycle of one of his competitors, Mr. B, in order to get ahead. This caused the latter to lose control of the bike which hit the concrete pavement and sent Mr. B crashing headfirst into the sidewalk. By the time the organizers got to him, Mr. B was dead. Law enforcement authorities who witnessed the incident arrested Mr. A without a warrant, and immediately brought him to the inquest prosecutor for the conduct of an inquest. Thereafter, an Information for Homicide was filed by the inquest prosecutor without the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The next day Mr. A requested for the conduct of a preliminary investigation. Is Mr. A’s request permissible? Explain.

Mr. P was charged with Plunder before the Sandiganbayan along with several government officials. Before his arraignment, he filed a petition for bail. This was objected to by the prosecution which insisted that he should first be arraigned before he applies for bail, considering that grant of bail will result in the accused fleeing the court’s jurisdiction. When is bail a matter of right before conviction?

Mr. P was charged with Plunder before the Sandiganbayan along with several government officials. Before his arraignment, he filed a petition for bail. This was objected to by the prosecution which insisted that he should first be arraigned before he applies for bail, considering that grant of bail will result in the accused fleeing the court’s jurisdiction. Is the objection of the prosecution valid? Explain.

In an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mr. C was charged with Carnapping for supposedly taking the motorcycle of Mr. O and joyriding with it around the city. When Mr. C was arraigned, he entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charge. After the prosecution rested its case, Mr. C proceeded to file a demurrer to evidence. The demurrer was denied by the RTC. Would Mr. C be allowed to present evidence in his defense after the denial of his demurrer? Explain.

In an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mr. C was charged with Carnapping for supposedly taking the motorcycle of Mr. O and joyriding with it around the city. When Mr. C was arraigned, he entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charge. After the prosecution rested its case, Mr. C proceeded to file a demurrer to evidence. The demurrer was denied by the RTC. Assuming that the demurrer was granted by the RTC and the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration thereto is denied, what is the prosecution’s further procedural recourse? Explain.

Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor’s seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA. When he was arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead “guilty,” provided that his sentence be substantially reduced. Both AAA’s mother and the prosecutor were amenable to the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered a plea of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced straight penalty of only ten (10) years of imprisonment, as agreed upon. Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty for Mr. W? Explain.

AAA, a ten (10)-year old minor, was sleeping inside her room when she was awakened by her uncle, Mr. G, who was reeking of alcohol and was already on top of her. After Mr. G succeeded in having carnal knowledge of AAA, the former immediately left the latter’s room. Thereafter, AAA rushed into the room of her mother, MMM, and spontaneously and frantically reported the incident. Eventually, Mr. G was arrested and was indicted for the crime of Rape. During trial, MMM was presented as a witness to testify on what AAA reported to her and AAA’s gestures and disposition at that time. Mr. G’s counsel objected to MMM’s testimony on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. The prosecutor countered that the subject of MMM’s testimony may be admitted as an independently relevant statement and as part of the res gestae. May AAA’s statement to MMM be admitted on the ground of res gestae? Explain.

Mr. H filed a complaint against Mr. I to recover the amount of P500,000.00 based on their contract of services. In his answer, Mr. I admitted that he has yet to pay Mr. H for his services based on their contract but nevertheless, interposed a counterclaim alleging that Mr. H still owed him rental arrearages for the lease of his apartment also amounting to P500,000.00. It has come to Mr. H’s attention that Mr. I did not pay any filing fees when he filed his answer. As such, Mr. H moved to dismiss the counterclaim. In response to Mr. H’s motion, Mr. I averred that the non-payment of filing fees was purely based on inadvertence and that the said filing fees had already been paid as of date, as evinced by the official receipt issued by the clerk of court therefor. What is the nature of Mr. I’s counterclaim? Is the payment of filing fees required for such counterclaim to prosper? Explain.

Ms. N initiated a special proceeding for the correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), impleading only the Local Civil Registrar therein. In her petition, Ms. N sought to change the entry in her birth certificate with respect to the date of her parents’ marriage from “May 22, 1992” to “not married.” The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that Ms. N’s parents should have been impleaded in the proceeding. In response, Ms. N argued that this was not necessary since it was an entry in her own birth certificate which she intended to change. Hence, it was a matter personal to her, and as such, the participation of her parents in the case could be dispensed with. Is Ms. N’s position correct? Explain.

Distinguish the following: Writ of kalikasan and writ of continuing mandamus.

Spouses Dondon and Donna Dumdum owned a residential lot in Dapitan City. Doy Dogan bought said lot and took possession thereof with the promise to pay the purchase price of Php 2 million within a period of six (6) months. After receiving only Php 500,000, spouses Dumdum executed the deed of absolute sale and transferred the title to Doy Dogan. The balance was not paid at all. Spouses Dumdum, through counsel, sent a demand letter to Doy Dogan for him to pay the balance of Php 1.5 million plus interest of Php 150,000. Doy Dogan responded in a letter by saying that “while the remaining balance is admitted, the interest charge is excessive.” There being no payment, spouses Dumdum filed with the RTC of Dapitan City a complaint of reconveyance with damages against Doy Dogan. In his answer, Doy Dogan raised, by way of affirmative defense, that the purchase price had been fully paid and for this reason the complaint should have been dismissed. Spouses Dumdum then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the RTC of Dapitan City. The court awarded Php 1.5 million actual damages representing the balance of the purchase price, Php 200,000 as moral damages, Php 200,000 as exemplary damages, Php 90,000 as interest, Php 50,000 as attorney’s fees, and Php 5,000 as cost of suit. Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings?

Danica obtained a personal loan of Php 180,000 from Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal monthly installments of Php 10,000 until fully paid. In order to complete her payment at an earlier date, Danica instead paid Php 20,000 monthly, and continued doing so until the 18th month, which payments Dinggoy all accepted. Later on, she realized that she had overpaid Dinggoy by 100% as she should have already completed payment in nine (9) months. She demanded the return of the excess payment, but Dinggoy completely ignored her. Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases by filing before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) a statement of claim, together with the required documents. Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i) Revised Rules on Summary Procedure; (ii) the Rules of Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) the regular procedure for civil cases?

In 2015, Dempsey purchased from Daria a parcel of land located in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. The latter executed a deed of absolute sale and handed to Dempsey the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 covering the property. Since he was working in Manila and still had to raise funds to cover taxes, registration and transfer costs, Dempsey kept the TCT in his possession without having transferred it to his name. A few years thereafter, when he already had the funds to pay the transfer costs, Dempsey went to the Register of Deeds of Dumaguete and discovered, that, after the sale, Daria had filed a petition for reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 777 which the RTC granted. Thus, unknown to Dempsey, Daria was able to secure a new TCT in her name. What is Dempsey’s remedy to have the reconstituted title in the name of Daria nullified?

Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses Dake and Donna Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of Php 250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from Daribell, but alleged that they could not remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claim that they made previous payments in the amounts of Php 110,000 and Php 20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after account verification. In a written manifestation, spouses Demapilis states that, in order to buy peace, they were willing to pay the sum of Php 250,000 but without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging that the total purchases of construction materials were Php 280,000 and only Php 20,000 had been paid. Daribell also served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for admission asking them to admit to the genuineness of the statement of accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as to the value of the principal obligation and the amount paid as stated in the amended complaint. Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The amendment modified the period covered and confirmed the partial payment of Php 110,000 but alleged that this payment was applied to the spouses’ other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated that the principal amount remained unchanged. Can the amendment of the complaint be allowed if it substantially alters the cause of action?

Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses Dake and Donna Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of Php 250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from Daribell, but alleged that they could not remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claim that they made previous payments in the amounts of Php 110,000 and Php 20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after account verification. In a written manifestation, spouses Demapilis states that, in order to buy peace, they were willing to pay the sum of Php 250,000 but without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging that the total purchases of construction materials were Php 280,000 and only Php 20,000 had been paid. Daribell also served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for admission asking them to admit to the genuineness of the statement of accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as to the value of the principal obligation and the amount paid as stated in the amended complaint. Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The amendment modified the period covered and confirmed the partial payment of Php 110,000 but alleged that this payment was applied to the spouses’ other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated that the principal amount remained unchanged. Is the request for admission deemed abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the second amended complaint?

Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), Daniel and Debbie in the RTC of Manila for recovery of sum of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2017, Debra obtained a loan from Dorton in the amount of Php 10 million with interest of 9% per annum. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note (PN) payable on demand signed by Daniel and Debbie, the principal stockholders of Debra, who also executed a surety agreement binding themselves as sureties. Copies of both the PN and the surety agreement were attached to the complaint. Dorton further alleged that it made a final demand on March 1, 2018 for Debra and the sureties to pay, but the demand was not heeded. Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the affirmative defense, that while the PN and the surety agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were uncertain whether the signature on the documents were theirs. The PN and the surety agreement were pre-marked during pre-trial, identified but not authenticated during trial, and formally offered. Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision?

Dominic was appointed special administrator of the Estate of Dakota Dragon. Delton, husband of Dakota, together with their five (5) children, opposed the appointment of Dominic claiming that he (Dominic) was just a stepbrother of Dakota. After giving Dominic the chance to comment, the court issued an Order affirming the appointment of Dominic. What is the remedy available to the oppositors?

Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a search warrant before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his application that a certain alias Django was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet located at Dillian’s Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses and thereafter issued the search warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Can the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila be enforced in Laguna?

Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a search warrant before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his application that a certain alias Django was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet located at Dillian’s Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses and thereafter issued the search warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Can the legal concept of “venue is jurisdictional” be validly raised in applications for search warrants?

Dominic was appointed special administrator of the Estate of Dakota Dragon. Delton, husband of Dakota, together with their five (5) children, opposed the appointment of Dominic claiming that he (Dominic) was just a stepbrother of Dakota. After giving Dominic the chance to comment, the court issued an Order affirming the appointment of Dominic. If there are no qualified heirs, can the government initiate escheat proceedings over the assets of the deceased? To whom, in particular, shall the estate of the deceased go and for whose benefit?

In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dave and Daryll. They were arrested and placed on inquest before the Prosecutor Danilo Doon who ordered their continued detention. Thereafter, the information for the sale and distribution of shabu was filed in court. When arraigned, Dave and Daryll pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-trial, counsel for both of the accused raised, for the first time, the illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded to the trial. After trial, the court scheduled the promulgation of judgment with notice to both the accused and their counsel, Atty. Dimayuga. During the promulgation, only Dave and Atty. Dimayuga were present. Both the accused were convicted of the crime charged. Was the challenge to the validity of the arrest timely raised?

In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dave and Daryll. They were arrested and placed on inquest before the Prosecutor Danilo Doon who ordered their continued detention. Thereafter, the information for the sale and distribution of shabu was filed in court. When arraigned, Dave and Daryll pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-trial, counsel for both of the accused raised, for the first time, the illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded to the trial. After trial, the court scheduled the promulgation of judgment with notice to both the accused and their counsel, Atty. Dimayuga. During the promulgation, only Dave and Atty. Dimayuga were present. Both the accused were convicted of the crime charged. What is the remedy available to Daryll, if any, to be able to file an appeal?

In 2007, the Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position and discharging the functions of his office until he is able to successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, he continued to exercise his functions as CA Justice. Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through a verified request, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter’s capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s citizenship was still being litigated in another case. When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to order him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that, at the time of J. Dong’s appointment as CA Justice, his birth certificate indicated that he was a Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino citizen. May the OSG be compelled, in an action for certiorari, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong?

In 2007, the Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court (Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the appointment was announced, several groups questioned his qualification to the position on the ground that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen. In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining him from accepting the appointment or assuming the position and discharging the functions of his office until he is able to successfully complete all the necessary steps to show that he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. However, he continued to exercise his functions as CA Justice. Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer, asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through a verified request, to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter’s capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J. Dong’s citizenship was still being litigated in another case. When the OSG refused to initiate a quo warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong. The petition for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J. Dong, while the petition for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong asked the Court to order him to cease and desist from further exercising his powers, duties and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances, Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that, at the time of J. Dong’s appointment as CA Justice, his birth certificate indicated that he was a Chinese citizen and his bar records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino citizen. Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality to initiate the action for certiorari and prohibition against J. Dong?

Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with Dindo. He was rushed to the emergency room of the Medical City where he was examined and treated by Dr. Datu. As he was being examined, a plastic sachet appearing to contain shabu fell from Dodo’s jacket which was on a chair beside him. Dodo was thus arrested by the same policemen who assisted him to the hospital. At Dodo’s trial, the public prosecutor called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the public prosecutor asked Dr. Datu as to what he saw in the emergency room, Dodo’s counsel objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege rule. How would you rule on the objection?

Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution calls Danilo, a police officer, who interviewed the victim, Drew, shortly after the shooting. Danilo’s testimony is being offered by the prosecution for purposes of proving that (i) Drew is now dead; (ii) while in the emergency room, Drew was posting his medical condition on Facebook and was “liking” the posts of his Facebook friends; (iii) Drew asked the nurse for water but was refused because he was bleeding, which subsequently angered Drew; and (iv) that before dying, Drew signed a statement in which he identified Denny as the shooter. Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible?

Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law student who sidelines as a call center agent. Dave offers the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is known in the community as a decent and discerning person. The prosecution presents a rebuttal witness, Dovie, who testifies that, if Dave was reputed to be a good person, the reputation was a misperception because Dave had been previously convicted of homicide. Is Dovie’s testimony admissible as to the character of Dave?

Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in Quezon City, applied for overseas employment in Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad, Dino Dy, head of the family, discovered that all his wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo’s instagram account and in one instance saw Danjo wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a complaint for qualified theft against Danjo with the Office of the Prosecutor (OP), Quezon City. The subpoena with the affidavit-complaint was served on Denden, Danjo’s wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was filed by Danjo who continued to work in Riyadh. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the OP found probable cause against Danjo and subsequently filed the information for qualified theft before the RTC of Quezon City. The court likewise found probable cause and issued on 2016 a warrant for Danjo’s arrest. Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was lurking outside the Dy’s house, which was only about 100 meters away from the police station, SPO1 Dody recognized Danjo. Realizing that the police station had a copy of Danjo’s warrant of arrest, SPO1 Dody immediately pursued and arrested Danjo. Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo upon his return?

Dick Dixson had sons with different women — (i) Dexter with longtime partner Delia and (ii) Dongdong and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his property titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia, who, in turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After the death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and Dingdong to sign an agreement and waiver of their right to Dick’s estate in consideration of Php 45 million. As Dexter reneged on his promise to pay, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for annulment of the agreement and waiver. The summons and complaint were received by Dalia, the housemaid of Dexter, on the day it was first served. Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to dismiss. Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new complaint against Dexter for annulment of the agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his answer, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a motion to withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed without prejudice. An order was issued granting the motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis that the summons had not yet been served on Dexter. Dexter filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He argued that the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” of Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in view of the previous dismissal of the first case. Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal with prejudice?

Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in Quezon City, applied for overseas employment in Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad, Dino Dy, head of the family, discovered that all his wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo’s instagram account and in one instance saw Danjo wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a complaint for qualified theft against Danjo with the Office of the Prosecutor (OP), Quezon City. The subpoena with the affidavit-complaint was served on Denden, Danjo’s wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was filed by Danjo who continued to work in Riyadh. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the OP found probable cause against Danjo and subsequently filed the information for qualified theft before the RTC of Quezon City. The court likewise found probable cause and issued on 2016 a warrant for Danjo’s arrest. Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was lurking outside the Dy’s house, which was only about 100 meters away from the police station, SPO1 Dody recognized Danjo. Realizing that the police station had a copy of Danjo’s warrant of arrest, SPO1 Dody immediately pursued and arrested Danjo. Was the warrant of arrest issued against Danjo who was not in the Philippines valid?

On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucio, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order granting the ex-parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order, together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint and summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ. If Dodong posts a counter bond, is he deemed to have waived any of his claims for damages arising from the issuance of the Order and writ of attachment?

The municipality of Danao, Cebu, was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of miners from Denmark visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In partnership with the municipal mayor, the Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land by cutting all the trees before starting their mining operations. The local DENR, together with the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan against the municipal mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu. What is the Precautionary Principle?

The municipality of Danao, Cebu, was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of miners from Denmark visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In partnership with the municipal mayor, the Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land by cutting all the trees before starting their mining operations. The local DENR, together with the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a petition for writ of kalikasan against the municipal mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu. Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu?

Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the marriage collapsed, Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Manila. Drylvik, on the other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from the German Family Court. The decree, in essence states: “The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is granted to the father.” Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on the ground that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving his marriage to Dara. Dara objected, saying that while she was not challenging the divorce decree, the case in the RTC still had to proceed for the purpose of determining the issue of the children’s custody. Drylvik counters that the issue had been disposed of in the divorce decree, thus constituting res judicata. Is a foreign divorce decree between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse, uncontested by both parties, sufficient by itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry pertaining to the spouses’ marriage?

Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, in Dusseldorf, Germany. When the marriage collapsed, Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Manila. Drylvik, on the other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from the German Family Court. The decree, in essence states: “The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx before the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the children Diktor and Daus is granted to the father.” Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila on the ground that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving his marriage to Dara. Dara objected, saying that while she was not challenging the divorce decree, the case in the RTC still had to proceed for the purpose of determining the issue of the children’s custody. Drylvik counters that the issue had been disposed of in the divorce decree, thus constituting res judicata. Should Drylvik’s motion to dismiss be granted?

Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against spouses Dake and Donna Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction materials in the sum of Php 250,000. In their answer, spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from Daribell, but alleged that they could not remember the exact amount since no copies of the documents were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless claim that they made previous payments in the amounts of Php 110,000 and Php 20,000 and that they were willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness after account verification. In a written manifestation, spouses Demapilis states that, in order to buy peace, they were willing to pay the sum of Php 250,000 but without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint, alleging that the total purchases of construction materials were Php 280,000 and only Php 20,000 had been paid. Daribell also served upon the spouses Demapilis a request for admission asking them to admit to the genuineness of the statement of accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as to the value of the principal obligation and the amount paid as stated in the amended complaint. Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The amendment modified the period covered and confirmed the partial payment of Php 110,000 but alleged that this payment was applied to the spouses’ other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated that the principal amount remained unchanged. Can the facts subject of an unanswered request for admission be the basis of summary judgment?

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan in connection with the sequestered assets and properties of Demo Companies Inc. (Demo) and impleaded its officers and directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as defendant, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter, the Republic filed an amended complaint naming Demo as additional defendant, which amendment was later admitted. Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the Republic to clarify certain matters in its amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted the motion. Upon submission of the bill of particulars by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the answers in the bill of particulars were indefinite and deficient responses to the question of what the alleged illegally acquired funds or properties of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. What can the defendant, in a civil case, do in the event that his motion for a bill of particulars is denied?

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan in connection with the sequestered assets and properties of Demo Companies Inc. (Demo) and impleaded its officers and directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as defendant, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter, the Republic filed an amended complaint naming Demo as additional defendant, which amendment was later admitted. Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the Republic to clarify certain matters in its amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted the motion. Upon submission of the bill of particulars by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the answers in the bill of particulars were indefinite and deficient responses to the question of what the alleged illegally acquired funds or properties of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. Was the Sandiganbayan correct in dismissing the case?

Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased to Digna Corporation (Digna) a parcel of land located in Diliman, Quezon City. During the term of the lease, Digna was informed by DBS Banking Corporation (DBS) that it has acquired the leased property from the former owner Dory, and required Digna to pay the rentals directly to it. Digna promptly informed Dory of DBS’ claim of ownership. In response, Dory insisted on its right to collect rent on the leased property. Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental payments, Digna filed a complaint for interpleader in the RTC of Manila. Digna prayed that it be allowed to consign in court the succeeding monthly rentals, and that Dory and DBS be required to litigate their conflicting claims. It later appeared that an action for nullification of a dacion en pago was filed by Dory against DBS in the RTC of Quezon City. In said case, Dory raises the issue as to which of the two (2) corporations had a better right to the rental payments. Dory argued, that, to avoid conflicting decisions, the interpleader case must be dismissed. Does the action for nullification of the dacion en pago bar the filing of the interpleader case?

Don Deles, a contractor, was sued together with Mayor Dante Dungo and Congressman Dal Dilim for malversation of public funds before the Office of the Ombudsman. Danny Din, a material witness of the complainant Diego Domingo, was hired as an engineer by a construction company in Qatar, and had to depart in two (2) months. To perpetuate Danny Din’s testimony, Diego Domingo applied for his conditional examination before the Sandiganbayan. Should the application for conditional examination of Danny Din be granted?

On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucio, Sheriff of the RTC of Makati, served the Order granting the ex-parte application for preliminary attachment of Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order, together with the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1, 2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint and summons in connection with the same case. The counsel of Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ. Can the preliminary attachment issued by the Court in favour of Dinggoy be dissolved? What ground/s can Dodong’s counsel invoke?

Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an action before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of Directors (BOD) to hold the annual stockholders’ meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by Darwinkle Inc.’s By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction to use as record date April 30, 2017. The complaint alleged, among others that, the refusal to call the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in the plan of the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15, 2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute the complainants’ shareholdings and ease them out of the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount of Php 7,565 as filing fees based on the assessment of the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They averred that the filing fees should have been based on the actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc. and David, which were collectively worth Php 450 million. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to dismiss?

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of Php 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public. Should the complaint be verified or is the certification sufficient?

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of Php 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public. Was the action properly instituted before the RTC of Davao City?

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of Php 25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public. Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa or for prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case?

Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical injuries allegedly committed against Darvin. During the pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for damages based on the injuries he had sustained. Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out that when the criminal action was filed against him, the civil action to recover the civil liability from the offense charged was also deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of the separate civil action was the very same act that gave rise to the criminal action. Rule on Tomas’ motion to dismiss, with brief reasons.

What is the mode of appeal applicable to the following case, and what issues may be raised before the reviewing court/tribunal? The judgment or final order of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

What is the mode of appeal applicable to the following case, and what issues may be raised before the reviewing court/tribunal? The decision or final order of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Teddy filed against Buboy an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of a commercial lot. After having been told by the wife of Buboy that her husband was out of town and would not be back until after a couple of days, the sheriff requested the wife to just receive the summons in behalf of her husband. The wife acceded to the request, received the summons and a copy of the complaint, and signed for the same. If Buboy files a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the twin grounds of lack of jurisdiction over his person and prescription of the cause of action, may he be deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court? Explain your answer briefly. (3%)

Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was searched immediately after the arrest, the officer found and recovered 10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest, Boy Maton was watching a basketball game being played in the town plaza, and he was cheering for his favorite team. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not guilty when he was arraigned. During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the information on the ground that the facts revealed that he had been illegally arrested. He further moved for the suppression of the evidence confiscated from him as being the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton, explained that at the time the motions were filed Boy Maton had already waived the right to raise the issue of the legality of the arrest. The trial court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy Maton, as the accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest before entering his plea to the information. Hence, the trial court opined that any adverse consequence of the alleged illegal arrest had also been equally waived. Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (5%)

Teddy filed against Buboy an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of a commercial lot. After having been told by the wife of Buboy that her husband was out of town and would not be back until after a couple of days, the sheriff requested the wife to just receive the summons in behalf of her husband. The wife acceded to the request, received the summons and a copy of the complaint, and signed for the same. Was there a valid service of summons upon Buboy? Explain your answer briefly.

What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following case? Explain briefly your answer. An action filed on November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served upon and received by him on July 6, 2016.

On the basis of an alleged promissory note executed by Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter filed a complaint for P950,000.00 against the former in the RTC of Davao City. In an unverified answer, Harold specifically denied the genuineness of the promissory note. During the trial, Harold sought to offer the testimonies of the following: (1) the testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove the forgery of his signature; and (2) the testimony of a credible witness to prove that if ever Harold had executed the note in favor of Ramon, the same was not supported by a consideration. May Ramon validly object to the proposed testimonies? Give a brief explanation of your answer.

Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of P750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC in Quezon City for the latter’s alleged breach of their contract of services. Salvador promptly filed his answer, and included a counterclaim for P250,000.00 arising from the allegedly baseless and malicious claims of Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer mental anguish. Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, Abraham filed a motion to dismiss vis-a-vis the counterclaim on that ground. Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed? Explain your answer.

In an attempt to discredit and impeach a Prosecution witness in a homicide case, the defense counsel called to the stand a person who had been the boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of the Prosecution witness for 30 years. One question that the defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness was: “Can you tell this Honorable Court about the general reputation of the prosecution witness in your community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies?” Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose your objection to the question of the defense counsel? Explain your answer.

Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to collect P350,000.00, an amount representing the unpaid balance on the price of the car Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a jurisdictional error in filing the complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a notice of dismissal before she was served with the answer of Yana. The RTC issued an order confirming the dismissal. Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana based on the same cause of action this time in the MeTC of Makati City. However, for reasons personal to her, Agatha decided to have the complaint dismissed without prejudice by filing a notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana. Hence, the case was dismissed by the MeTC. A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the same MeTC. May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha’s third complaint? Explain your answer.

Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Louie. When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate the property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an action for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to answer the complaint within the reglementary period. Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. Should the motion be granted? Explain your answer.

Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest, Venancio told the attending physician, in a very feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had shot him. Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver was lying on the bed beside him. In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all the statements of Venancio admissible as dying declarations? Explain your answer.

Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of the DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso, and Mr. Pork Chop, a private contractor, were both charged in the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) under a conspiracy theory. While the charges were undergoing investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman, Engr. Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop immediately filed a motion to terminate the investigation and to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that because he was charged in conspiracy with the deceased, there was no longer a conspiracy to speak of and, consequently, any legal ground to hold him for trial had been extinguished. Rule on the motion to terminate filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief reasons.

Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from executing a promissory note in favor of Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot as security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month after, and while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of P3 Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously executed by the latter. In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of a single cause of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid of any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate contracts, namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the deed of real estate mortgage. Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.

Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition of a large tract of land located in Oriental Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants but did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two sisters who were permanent residents of Australia. Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case without impleading all indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint. Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your answer.

After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan returned to the Philippines to retire in Manila, the place of his birth and childhood. Ten years before his retirement, he bought for cash in his name a house and lot in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he learned that his house and lot were the subject of foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC Bank on the basis of a promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage he had allegedly executed in favor of ABC Bank five years earlier. Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the promissory note and deed of mortgage were supposedly executed, Evan forthwith initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that the subject documents be declared null and void. ABC Bank filed a motion to dismiss Evan’s complaint on the ground of improper venue on the basis of a stipulation in both documents designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the event of litigation between the parties arising out of the loan and mortgage. Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your answer.

Give a brief answer: When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead of a preliminary investigation?

Give a brief answer: What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?

Police officers arrested Mr. Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth P5,000.00 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation. At the trial of Mr. Druggie for violation of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr. Druggie had engaged at the time of his arrest in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs. Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine peso bills. Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain your answer.

Give a brief answer: What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts?

A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on September 20, 2017 by the RTC against defendant Jeff enjoining him from entering the land of Regan, the plaintiff. On October 9, 2017, upon application of Regan, the trial court, allegedly in the interest of justice, extended the TRO for another 20 days based on the same ground for which the TRO was issued. On October 15, 2017, Jeff entered the land subject of the TRO. May Jeff be liable for contempt of court? Why?

Answer briefly: What is a tender of excluded evidence?

Answer briefly: Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a private person may make a valid warrantless arrest.

Answer briefly: When is bail a matter of judicial discretion?

Answer briefly: What elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction?

Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance praying for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who, upon realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition to have the judgment annulled for lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer. (4%)

What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following case? Explain briefly your answer. A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller’s contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed value of P15,000.00.

Judgment was rendered against defendant Jaypee in an action for unlawful detainer. The judgment ordered Jaypee to vacate and to pay attorney’s fees in favor of Bart, the plaintiff. To prevent the immediate execution of the judgment, would you advise the posting of a supersedeas bond as counsel for Jaypee? Explain your answer briefly.

Juancho entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned under an information for homicide. To determine the penalty to be imposed, the trial court allowed Juancho to present evidence proving any mitigating circumstance in his favor. Juancho was able to establish complete self-defense. Convinced by the evidence adduced by Juancho, the trial court rendered a verdict of acquittal. May the Prosecution assail the acquittal without infringing the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy in favor of Juancho? Explain your answer.

State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). (5%)

Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila. The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, 2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount of P1 Million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final demand on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal prayed that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount of P1 Million plus interests. In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted that she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out that the PN did not provide the due date for payment, and that the loan has not yet matured as the maturity date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that there is no genuine issue presented by the parties’ submissions. Royal opposed the motion on the ground that the PN’s maturity is an issue that must be threshed out during trial. Distinguish “Summary Judgment” and “Judgment on the Pleadings.” (2.5%)

Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of money against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila. The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, 2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount of P1 Million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007 (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final demand on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal prayed that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay the amount of P1 Million plus interests. In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted that she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed out that the PN did not provide the due date for payment, and that the loan has not yet matured as the maturity date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings on the ground that there is no genuine issue presented by the parties’ submissions. Royal opposed the motion on the ground that the PN’s maturity is an issue that must be threshed out during trial. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2.5%)

Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against Arthur King and/or Estate of Arthur King for reconveyance of a lot declared in the name of Arthur King under TCT No. 1234. The complaint alleged that “on account of Arthur King’s residence abroad up to the present and the uncertainty of whether he is still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served with summons by publication.” Summons was published and nobody filed any responsive pleading within sixty (60) days therefrom. Upon motion, defendants were declared in default and judgment was rendered declaring Tristan as legal owner and ordering defendants to reconvey said lot to Tristan. Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Arthur King’s estate, filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA praying that the decision in favor of Tristan be declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction. He claims that the action filed by Tristan is an action in personam and that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over defendants Arthur King and/or his estate. On the other hand, Tristan claims that the suit is an action in rem or at least an action quasi in rem. Is the RTC judge correct in ordering service of summons by publication? Explain. (5%)

John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Anne on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. He obtained a copy of the confidential psychiatric evaluation report on his wife from the secretary of the psychiatrist. Can he testify on the said report without offending the rule on privileged communication? Explain. (5%)

The information against Roger Alindogan for the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code avers: “That on or about 10:30 o’clock in the evening of February 1, 2010 at Barangay Matalaba, Imus, Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design, through force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter, Rose Domingo, a minor of 11 years old, either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.” The accused wants to have the case dismissed because he believes that the charge is confusing and the information is defective. What ground or grounds can he raise in moving for the quashal of the information? Explain. (5%)

Under Section 5, Rule 113 a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense has just been committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. A policeman approaches you for advice and asks you how he will execute a warrantless arrest against a murderer who escaped after killing a person. The policeman arrived two (2) hours after the killing and a certain Max was allegedly the killer per information given by a witness. What does “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it” mean? (2.5%)

Under Section 5, Rule 113 a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense has just been committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. A policeman approaches you for advice and asks you how he will execute a warrantless arrest against a murderer who escaped after killing a person. The policeman arrived two (2) hours after the killing and a certain Max was allegedly the killer per information given by a witness. How long after the commission of the crime can he still execute the warrantless arrest? (2.5%)

Chika sued Gringo, a Venezuelan, for a sum of money. The Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) rendered a decision ordering Gringo to pay Chika P50,000.00 plus legal interest. During the pendency of the appeal before the RTC, Gringo died of acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis. Atty. Perfecto, counsel of Gringo, filed a manifestation attaching the death certificate of Gringo and informing the RTC that he cannot substitute the heirs since Gringo did not disclose any information on his family. As counsel for Chika, what remedy can you recommend to your client so the case can move forward and she can eventually recover her money? Explain. (5%)

Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case, testified and completed his testimony on direct examination in 2015. Due to several postponements by the accused, grounded on his recurring illness, which were all granted by the judge, the cross-examination of Pedro was finally set on October 15, 2016. Before the said date, Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge Pedro’s testimony on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation and the right to cross-examine the witness. The prosecution opposed the motion and asked that Pedro’s testimony on direct examination be admitted as evidence. Is the motion meritorious? Explain. (5%)

The officers of “Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc.” engaged your services to file an action against ABC Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABC’s toxic mine tailings were accidentally released from its storage dams and were discharged into the rivers of said town. The mine tailings found their way to Calancan Bay and allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon. The damage to the crops and loss of earnings were estimated at P1 Billion. Damage to the environment is estimated at P1 Billion. As lawyer for the organization, you are requested to explain the advantages derived from a petition for writ of kalikasan before the Supreme Court over a complaint for damages before the RTC of Marinduque or vice-versa. What action will you recommend? Explain. (5%)

Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation. They were terminated on the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed production quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC decision was assailed in a special civil action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification and certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the verification and certification, while Atty. Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of defective verification and certification. Decide with reasons. (5%)

Miguel filed a Complaint for damages against Jose, who denied liability and filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. In an Order received by Jose on January 5, 2015, the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss. On February 4, 2015, Jose sought reconsideration of that Order through a Motion for Reconsideration. Miguel opposed the Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that it was filed out of time. Jose countered that the 15-day rule under Section 1 of Rule 52 does not apply where the Order sought to be reconsidered is an interlocutory order that does not attain finality. Is Jose correct? Explain. (5%)

Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget, and Philippine National Police before the RTC of Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing their duties has resulted in serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the degradation of the marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water quality to Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that the cleanup of the lake is not a ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to perform the same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision declaring that it is the duty of the agencies to clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent writ of mandamus ordering said agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law relating to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay. What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2.5%)

What is the “one day examination of witness” rule pursuant to the said 2004 Guidelines? Explain. (2.5%)

Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint for the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he signed in favor of Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the consequent foreclosure and auction sale of his mortgaged Makati property. Galaxy filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that the complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati since the complaint involves the ownership and possession of Eduardo’s lot. Resolve the motion with reasons. (5%)

Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint for mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget, and Philippine National Police before the RTC of Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of defendants in performing their duties has resulted in serious deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the degradation of the marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs prayed that said government agencies be ordered to clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water quality to Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the Philippine Environment Code. Defendants raise the defense that the cleanup of the lake is not a ministerial function and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to perform the same. The RTC of Laguna rendered a decision declaring that it is the duty of the agencies to clean up Laguna de Bay and issued a permanent writ of mandamus ordering said agencies to perform their duties prescribed by law relating to the cleanup of Laguna de Bay. Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? Explain. (2.5%)

Suppose that after the title to the lot has been consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, said buyer sold the lot to a third party without first getting a writ of possession. Can the transferee exercise the right of the auction buyer and claim that it is a ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession in his favor? Briefly explain. (2%)

After the period of redemption has lapsed and the title to the lot is consolidated in the name of the auction buyer, is he entitled to the writ of possession as a matter of right? If so, what is the action to be taken? (2%)

Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an extra-judicial foreclosure entitled to a writ of possession even before the expiration of the redemption period? If so, what is the action to be taken? (1%)

Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto knew that Juan was going to file the case so he went out of town and temporarily stayed in another city to avoid service of summons. Juan engaged the services of Sheriff Matinik to serve the summons but when the latter went to the residence of Roberto, he was told by the caretaker thereof that his employer no longer resides at the house. The caretaker is a high school graduate and is the godson of Roberto. Believing the caretaker’s story to be true, Sheriff Matinik left a copy of the summons and complaint with the caretaker. Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Discuss the requirements for a valid service of summons. (5%)

Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children ages 15, 12 and 7, who are studying at public schools. They have a combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 and they stay in an apartment in Manila with a monthly rent of P5,000.00. The monthly minimum wage per employee in Metro Manila does not exceed P13,000.00. They do not own any real property. The spouses want to collect a loan of P25,000.00 from Jojo but do not have the money to pay the filing fees. If the spouses do not qualify under Rule 141, what other remedy can they avail of under the rules to exempt them from paying the filing fees? (2.5%)

Spouses Marlon and Edith have three (3) children ages 15, 12 and 7, who are studying at public schools. They have a combined gross monthly income of P30,000.00 and they stay in an apartment in Manila with a monthly rent of P5,000.00. The monthly minimum wage per employee in Metro Manila does not exceed P13,000.00. They do not own any real property. The spouses want to collect a loan of P25,000.00 from Jojo but do not have the money to pay the filing fees. Would the spouses qualify as indigent litigants under Section 19, Rule 141 on Legal Fees? (2.5%)

What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (5%)

Briefly explain the procedure on “Admission by Adverse Party” under Rule 26 and the effect of failure to file and serve the request. (2.5%)

Pedro and Juan are residents of Barangay Ifurug, Municipality of Dupac, Mountain Province. Pedro owes Juan the amount of P50,000.00. Due to nonpayment, Juan brought his complaint to the Council of Elders of said barangay which implements the bodong justice system. Both appeared before the council where they verbally agreed that Pedro will pay in installments on specific due dates. Pedro reneged on his promise. Juan filed a complaint for sum of money before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Pedro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the case did not pass through the barangay conciliation under R.A. No. 7160 and that the RTC, not the MTC, has jurisdiction. In his opposition, Juan argued that the intervention of the Council of Elders is substantial compliance with the requirement of R.A. No. 7160 and the claim of P50,000.00 is clearly within the jurisdiction of the MTC. As MTC judge, rule on the motion and explain. (5%)

Briefly explain the procedure on “Interrogatories to Parties” under Rule 25 and state the effect of failure to serve written interrogatories. (2.5%)

What is the “most important witness” rule pursuant to the 2004 Guidelines of Pretrial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures? Explain. (2.5%)

AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape filed against BB states: “On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter’s will and consent.” After the prosecution had rested its case, BB’s counsel filed with leave a demurrer to evidence, seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecutor failed to present any evidence on BB’s minority as alleged in the Information. Should the court grant the demurrer? (3%)

Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00. Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action? (2%)

Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00. At the trial, Borrower’s lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter, Borrower’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)

Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the foreclosure of real estate mortgage against siblings Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners of the property and co-signatories to the mortgage deed. The siblings permanently reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. Sheriff Pluto went to the hotel and personally served Scylla the summons, but the latter refused to receive summons for Charybdis as she was not authorized to do so. Sheriff Pluto requested Scylla for the email address and fax number of Charybdis which the latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in his return of the summons, stated that “Summons for Scylla was served personally as shown by her signature on the receiving copy of the summons. Summons on Charybdis was served pursuant to the amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the summons and complaint on defendant’s fax number as evidenced by transmission verification report automatically generated by the fax machine indicating that it was received by the fax number to which it was sent on the date and time indicated therein.” Circe, sixty (60) days after her receipt of Sheriff Pluto’s return, filed a Motion to Declare Charybdis in default as Charybdis did not file any responsive pleading. Should the court declare Charybdis in default? (2%)

Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the foreclosure of real estate mortgage against siblings Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners of the property and co-signatories to the mortgage deed. The siblings permanently reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. Sheriff Pluto went to the hotel and personally served Scylla the summons, but the latter refused to receive summons for Charybdis as she was not authorized to do so. Sheriff Pluto requested Scylla for the email address and fax number of Charybdis which the latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in his return of the summons, stated that “Summons for Scylla was served personally as shown by her signature on the receiving copy of the summons. Summons on Charybdis was served pursuant to the amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the summons and complaint on defendant’s fax number as evidenced by transmission verification report automatically generated by the fax machine indicating that it was received by the fax number to which it was sent on the date and time indicated therein.” Scylla seasonably filed her answer setting forth therein as a defense that Charybdis had paid the mortgage debt. On the premise that Charybdis was properly declared in default, what is the effect of Scylla’s answer to the complaint? (2%)

Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children filed with the RTC designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO, Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 1987 Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the motion for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court judge reasoned that Family Courts are without jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a special court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262? (3%)

Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant. Should the complaint be dismissed? (3%)

Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant. If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded as a party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his interest? (2%)

Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a motion to order Ernesto to submit himself for mental and physical examination which the court granted. After Ernie’s lawyer completed the presentation of evidence in support of the petition and the court’s ruling on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto’s lawyer filed a demurrer to evidence. Ernie’s lawyer objected on the ground that a demurrer to evidence is not proper in a special proceeding. Was Ernie’s counsel’s objection proper? (2%)

Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition to the petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a motion to order Ernesto to submit himself for mental and physical examination which the court granted. After Ernie’s lawyer completed the presentation of evidence in support of the petition and the court’s ruling on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto’s lawyer filed a demurrer to evidence. Ernie’s lawyer objected on the ground that a demurrer to evidence is not proper in a special proceeding. If Ernesto defies the court’s order directing him to submit to physical and mental examinations, can the court order his arrest? (2%)

A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a major watershed. The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a portion located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people’s organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the area where the alleged actionable neglect or omission subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the petition? (3%)

A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a protected area since it was a major watershed. The protected area covered a portion located in Municipality A of the Province I and a portion located in the City of Z of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people’s organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain located in the City of Z of Province II was extremely damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts, Inc. (WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB). Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus against RD-DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal the issuance of the ECC and to exhaust administrative remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations. Should the court dismiss the petition? (3%)

Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million based on the latter’s promissory note. The complaint alleges, among others: 1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed promissory note; 2) The promissory note reads: “Makati, Philippines, Dec. 30, 2014. For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises to pay plaintiff P1 million, twelve (12) months from the above indicated date without necessity of demand. Signed Defendant.” A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex “A.” Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others: 1) Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant did not execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff; or 2) Defendant has paid the P1 million claimed in the promissory note (Annex “A” of the Complaint) as evidenced by an “Acknowledgment Receipt” duly executed by plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his spouse signing as witness. A copy of the “Acknowledgment Receipt” is attached as Annex “1” hereof. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that defendant’s answer failed to tender an issue as the allegations therein on his defenses are sham for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer tendered an issue. Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (3%)

Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 million based on the latter’s promissory note. The complaint alleges, among others: 1) Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as evidenced by a duly executed promissory note; 2) The promissory note reads: “Makati, Philippines, Dec. 30, 2014. For value received from plaintiff, defendant promises to pay plaintiff P1 million, twelve (12) months from the above indicated date without necessity of demand. Signed Defendant.” A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex “A.” Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others: 1) Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth being defendant did not execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff; or 2) Defendant has paid the P1 million claimed in the promissory note (Annex “A” of the Complaint) as evidenced by an “Acknowledgment Receipt” duly executed by plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his spouse signing as witness. A copy of the “Acknowledgment Receipt” is attached as Annex “1” hereof. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there are no longer any triable genuine issues of facts. Should the court grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment? (3%)

Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a parcel of land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00 down payment upon signing and the balance payable in twelve (12) monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin paid the down payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments when he found out that Neil had sold the same property to Yuri for P1.5 million paid in cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, filed an answer-in-intervention as he had already obtained a TCT in his name. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all the installments due, the cancellation of Yuri’s title, and Neil to execute a deed of sale in favor of Aldrin. When the judgment became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the installments but the latter refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of the former. Aldrin filed a “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution” with proper notice of hearing. The petition alleged, among others, that the decision had become final and executory and he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it lacked the required certification against forum shopping. Should the court grant Neil’s Motion to Dismiss? (3%)

Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a parcel of land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00 down payment upon signing and the balance payable in twelve (12) monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin paid the down payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments when he found out that Neil had sold the same property to Yuri for P1.5 million paid in cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, filed an answer-in-intervention as he had already obtained a TCT in his name. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering Aldrin to pay all the installments due, the cancellation of Yuri’s title, and Neil to execute a deed of sale in favor of Aldrin. When the judgment became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the installments but the latter refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of the former. Aldrin filed a “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution” with proper notice of hearing. The petition alleged, among others, that the decision had become final and executory and he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it lacked the required certification against forum shopping. Despite the issuance of the writ of execution directing Neil to execute the deed of sale in favor of Aldrin, the former obstinately refused to execute the deed. What is Aldrin’s remedy? (2%)

Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage, solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up his business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City. As Hades’ lawyer, what petition should you file in order that your client can avoid prosecution for bigamy if he desires to marry Hestia? (2%)

Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage, solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up his business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City. In what court should you file the petition? (1%)

Hades, an American citizen, through a dating website, got acquainted with Persephone, a Filipina. Hades came to the Philippines and proceeded to Baguio City where Persephone resides. Hades and Persephone contracted marriage, solemnized by the Metropolitan Trial Court judge of Makati City. After the wedding, Hades flew back to California, United States of America, to wind up his business affairs. On his return to the Philippines, Hades discovered that Persephone had an illicit affair with Phanes. Immediately, Hades returned to the United States and was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, California, a court of competent jurisdiction against Persephone. Hades desires to marry Hestia, also a Filipina, whom he met at Baccus Grill in Pasay City. What is the essential requisite that you must comply with for the purpose of establishing jurisdictional facts before the court can hear the petition? (3%)

An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC judge, after personally evaluating the prosecutor’s resolution, documents and parties’ affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Rapido’s lawyer examined the rollo of the case and found that it only contained the copy of the information, the submissions of the prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest. Immediately, Rapido’s counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant for being void, citing as grounds: a) The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct a searching examination of the prosecution witnesses in violation of his client’s constitutionally-mandated rights; b) There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued the arrest warrant. May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido’s counsel? State your reason for each ground. (4%)

The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Information. Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? (2%)

The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Information. Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the Information? (3%)

The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the treasurer who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding the treasurer from the Information. Can the Special Prosecutor move for the discharge of the budget officer to corroborate the testimony of the treasurer in the course of presenting its evidence? (2%)

Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and PO2 Romulus proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by PO2 Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1 Remus took the young lady’s statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions and she was paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. PO2 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station’s jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung’s lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment. Did the court properly impose that bail condition? (3%)

Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and PO2 Romulus proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by PO2 Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1 Remus took the young lady’s statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions and she was paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. PO2 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station’s jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung’s lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment. Before arraignment, Oasis Jung’s lawyer moved to quash the other four separate informations for violation of the child abuse law invoking the single larceny rule. Should the motion to quash be granted? (2%)

Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and PO2 Romulus proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen. Asked by PO2 Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1 Remus took the young lady’s statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions and she was paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. PO2 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station’s jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung’s lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment. After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis Jung still question the validity of his arrest? (2%)

Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime’s motion. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime’s motion. On October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the private prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015. What is the remedy available to the prosecution from the court’s order granting Jaime’s motion for new trial? (3%)

Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime’s motion. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime’s motion. On October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the private prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015. In what court and within what period should a remedy be availed of? (1%)

Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime’s motion. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime’s motion. On October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the private prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015. Who should pursue the remedy? (2%)

Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan’s cellphone worth P20,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who narrated therein how Pedro stole Juan’s cellphone. At the trial, Pedro’s lawyer objected to the prosecution’s use of judicial affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the offense with which his client was charged. Is Pedro’s lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Mario? (2%)

Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan’s cellphone worth P20,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who narrated therein how Pedro stole Juan’s cellphone. At the trial, Pedro’s lawyer objected to the prosecution’s use of judicial affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the offense with which his client was charged. Is Pedro’s lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Juan? (2%)

Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan’s cellphone worth P20,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who narrated therein how Pedro stole Juan’s cellphone. At the trial, Pedro’s lawyer objected to the prosecution’s use of judicial affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the offense with which his client was charged. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, Prosecutor Marilag orally offered the receipt attached to Juan’s judicial affidavit, which the court admitted over the objection of Pedro’s lawyer. After Pedro’s presentation of his evidence, the court rendered judgment finding him guilty as charged and holding him civilly liable for P20,000.00. Pedro’s lawyer seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision asserting that the court erred in awarding the civil liability on the basis of Juan’s judicial affidavit, a documentary evidence which Prosecutor Marilag failed to orally offer. Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious? (2%)

Water Builders, a construction company based in Makati City, entered into a construction agreement with Super Powers, Inc., an energy company based in Manila, for the construction of a mini hydro electric plant. Water Builders failed to complete the project within the stipulated duration. Super Powers cancelled the contract. Water Builders filed a request for arbitration with the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC). After due proceedings, CIAC rendered judgment in favor of Super Powers, Inc. ordering Water Builders to pay the former P10 million, the full amount of the down payment paid, and P2 million by way of liquidated damages. Dissatisfied with the CIAC’s judgment, Water Builders, pursuant to the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR Rules) filed with the RTC of Pasay City a petition to vacate the arbitral award. Super Powers, Inc., in its opposition, moved to dismiss the petition, invoking the ADR Rules, on the ground of improper venue as neither of the parties were doing business in Pasay City. Should Water Builders’ petition be dismissed? (3%)

AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape filed against BB states: “On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter’s will and consent.” At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. BB’s counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a competency examination on the witness, a requirement before the rule cited can be applied in the case. Is BB’s counsel correct? (3%)

AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape filed against BB states: “On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter’s will and consent.” In order to obviate the counsel’s argument on the competency of AA as prosecution witness, the judge motu proprio conducted his voir dire examination on AA. Was the action taken by the judge proper? (2%)

Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for him to approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but the latter found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police officer, “Sir, may problema po ba?” Instead of replying, the police officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail. What is the remedy available to Hercules to secure his immediate release from detention? (2%)

Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for him to approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but the latter found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police officer, “Sir, may problema po ba?” Instead of replying, the police officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail. If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for warrantless search, as counsel for the police officer, what defense will you raise for the dismissal of the complaint? (3%)

Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for him to approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but the latter found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police officer, “Sir, may problema po ba?” Instead of replying, the police officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail. If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the police officer, will he have a cause of action? (3%)

The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental organization — Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining engineer of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members. Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation. Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC, raised among their defenses that they are not agents of the State; hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition. Is their defense tenable? (3%)

The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental organization — Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining engineer of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members. Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation. Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the Court of Appeals, raised as their defense that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that ALMA cannot file the petition because of the earlier petition filed by Mayumi with the RTC. Are respondents correct in raising their defense? (3%)

The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental organization — Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining engineer of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members. Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation. Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and APKA. Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil actions against Mapusok. How will the cases affect the amparo petition she earlier filed? (1%)

Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited the property after she took a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house on her property. Both Estrella and John were residents of the same barangay. To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the other hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of ownership and submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Estrella. After the filing of John’s answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one of ownership and not of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on the assessed value of the property, it was the court of proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment declaring John as the owner of the land and, hence, entitled to the possession thereof. (4%) Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not?

A was adopted by B and C when A was only a toddler. Later on in life, A filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as he wanted to reassume the surname of his natural parents because the surname of his adoptive parents sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his business and social life. The adoptive parents gave their consent to the petition for change of name. May A file a petition for change of name? If the RTC grants the petition for change of name, what, if any, will be the effect on the respective relations of A with his adoptive parents and with his natural parents? Discuss. (4%)

Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies under each of the following situations: (6%) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss and, further proceedings, including trial on the merits, are conducted until the RTC renders a decision in favor of Mr. Avenger, what will be the remedy/remedies of Ms. Bright?

Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies under each of the following situations: (6%) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss, what will be her remedy/remedies?

Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited the property after she took a long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house on her property. Both Estrella and John were residents of the same barangay. To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the other hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of ownership and submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale between him and Estrella. After the filing of John’s answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one of ownership and not of possession. Hence, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on the assessed value of the property, it was the court of proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a judgment declaring John as the owner of the land and, hence, entitled to the possession thereof. (4%) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the assessed value of the property, the case was within its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was originally filed with it? Why or why not?

Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies under each of the following situations: (6%) If the RTC grants Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss and dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action, what will be the remedy/remedies of Mr. Avenger?

Parol evidence is an: (1%) (A) agreement not included in the document (B) oral agreement not included in the document (C) agreement included in the document (D) oral agreement included in the document.

Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr. Jachin before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Mr. Jachin actively participated in every stage of the proceedings knowing fully well that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the action. In his mind, Mr. Jachin was thinking that if the MeTC rendered judgment against him, he could always raise the issue on the jurisdiction of the MeTC. After trial, the MeTC rendered judgment against Mr. Jachin. What is the remedy of Mr. Jachin? (1%) (A) File an appeal (B) File an action for nullification of judgment (C) File a motion for reconsideration (D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage with Hope. When Faith found out about the second marriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011. Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in the criminal case should be suspended because if his first marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it will have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of bigamy. Decide. (4%)

Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision. Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humpty’s motion for execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with the CA another case, this time a special civil action for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a violation of the rule against forum shopping considering that two (2) actions emanating from the same case with the RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (4%)

Which of the following decisions may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that the issues to be raised on appeal involve purely questions of law) (1%) (A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (B) Decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. (C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission. (D) Decision of the Office of the President.

Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for specific performance against Robert White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, Robert White filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of the appropriate board resolution from the Board of Directors of Goodfeather Corporation to show the authority of Al Pakino to represent the corporation and file the complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing more could be done by Al Pakino before the RTC, he filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert White moved for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same involved purely a question of law and should have been filed with the Supreme Court (SC). However, Al Pakino claimed that the appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law because there must be a factual determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file the complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (4%)

Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom Wallis had told Debi Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their marriage because he was already fed up with her irrational and eccentric behaviour. However, in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the correct residential address of Debi Wallis was deliberately not alleged and instead, the residential address of their married son was stated. Summons was served by substituted service at the address stated in the petition. For failure to file an answer, Debi Wallis was declared in default and Tom Wallis presented evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted to have the RTC judgment reversed and set aside. If you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy or remedies will you take? Discuss and specify the ground or grounds for said remedy or remedies. (5%)

A vicarious admission is considered an exception to the hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover: (1%) (A) admission by a conspirator (B) admission by a privy (C) judicial admission (D) adoptive admission

A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition for Bail was denied after a summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had established a strong evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown that no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on the evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. (6%) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of homicide and the accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail?

A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition for Bail was denied after a summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had established a strong evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown that no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on the evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. (6%) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the incident?

A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the court had already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in the information did not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied the motion on the ground that it had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the accused should be under the custody of the court since the crime charged was non-bailable. The accused’s lawyer counter-argued that the court can rule on the motion even if the accused was at-large because it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. According to said lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the custody of the court because what was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail, not a Petition for Bail. If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should the accused undertake? (2%)

A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the court had already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in the information did not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied the motion on the ground that it had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the accused should be under the custody of the court since the crime charged was non-bailable. The accused’s lawyer counter-argued that the court can rule on the motion even if the accused was at-large because it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. According to said lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the custody of the court because what was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail, not a Petition for Bail. If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion? (3%)

Plaintiff filed a complaint denominated as accion publiciana, against defendant. In his answer, defendant alleged that he had no interest over the land in question, except as lessee of Z. Plaintiff subsequently filed an affidavit of Z, the lessor of defendant, stating that Z had sold to plaintiff all his rights and interests in the property as shown by a deed of transfer attached to the affidavit. Thus, plaintiff may ask the court to render: (1%) (A) summary judgment (B) judgment on the pleadings (C) partial judgment (D) judgment by default

The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite preliminary investigation, found probable cause to charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero, a private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended). Before the information could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an ambush. This, notwithstanding, an information was filed against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero. At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the Information, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that with the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public officer charged in the information. Is the motion to quash legally tenable? (4%)

When a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction, renders an adverse judgment in an application for land registration, the aggrieved party’s remedy is: (1%) (A) ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court (B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals (D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals

A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at the international airport. In one of the routinary inspections of packages waiting to be sent to the United States of America (USA), the dog sat beside one of the packages, a signal that the package contained dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the package and found two (2) kilograms of cocaine. The owner of the package was arrested and charges were filed against him. During the trial, the prosecution, through the trainer who was present during the incident and an expert in this kind of field, testified that the dog was highly trained to sniff packages to determine if the contents were dangerous drugs and the sniffing technique of these highly trained dogs was accepted worldwide and had been successful in dangerous drugs operations. The prosecution moved to admit this evidence to justify the opening of the package. The accused objected on the grounds that: (i) the guards had no personal knowledge of the contents of the package before it was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not cross-examine the dog. Decide. (4%)

Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment agency where they both applied for overseas employment. They exchanged pleasantries, including details of their personal circumstances. Fortunately, Mary Jane was deployed to work as front desk receptionist at a hotel in Abu Dhabi where she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed marriage, to which she readily accepted. Unfortunately for Shiela May, she was not deployed to work abroad, and this made her envious of Mary Jane. Mary Jane returned to the Philippines to prepare for her wedding. She secured from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage. It turned out from the NSO records that Mary Jane had previously contracted marriage with John Starr, a British citizen, which she never did. The purported marriage between Mary Jane and John Starr contained all the required pertinent details on Mary Jane. Mary Jane later on learned that Shiela May is the best friend of John Starr. As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her predicament. What legal remedy will you avail to enable Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan Ahmed? (4%)

A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the police served the warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned to look at other portions of the premises around the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped in newsprint. He took it and this was later used by the authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-asin objected to the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was illegally seized. Is the objection of Ass-asin valid? (4%)

Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over a commercial building where the former conducted his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June 2013 despite King Kong’s written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013. (4%) If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for sum of money during that time, will the action be dismissible upon Prince Chong’s death during the pendency of the case?

Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King Kong over a commercial building where the former conducted his hardware business. The lease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year period commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was appointed administrator of the estate of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for the months of January to June 2013 despite King Kong’s written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for rescission of contract with damages and payment of accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013. (4%) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?

Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon. On his return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a demand letter duly received by Agente, sought to recover the amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he had used it for the construction of his own house. Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum of money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The court granted the ex-parte motion and issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon Bayani’s posting of the required bond. Bayani prayed that the court’s sheriff be deputized to serve and implement the writ of attachment. On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served upon Agente the writ of attachment and levied on the latter’s house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the Sheriff served on Agente summons and a copy of the complaint. On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an Answer with Motion to Discharge the Writ of Attachment alleging that at the time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued, he has not been served with summons and, therefore, it was improperly issued. (4%) Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly executed?

Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon. On his return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a demand letter duly received by Agente, sought to recover the amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he had used it for the construction of his own house. Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum of money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The court granted the ex-parte motion and issued a writ of preliminary attachment upon Bayani’s posting of the required bond. Bayani prayed that the court’s sheriff be deputized to serve and implement the writ of attachment. On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served upon Agente the writ of attachment and levied on the latter’s house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the Sheriff served on Agente summons and a copy of the complaint. On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an Answer with Motion to Discharge the Writ of Attachment alleging that at the time the writ of preliminary attachment was issued, he has not been served with summons and, therefore, it was improperly issued. (4%) Is Agente correct?

Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of America (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen, executed a notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State of California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was survived by his niece Anastacia, an American citizen residing at the condominium unit of Johnny located at Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City; a younger brother, Bartolome, who manages Johnny’s fish pond in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and a younger sister, Christina, who manages Johnny’s rental condominium units in Makati City. Johnny’s entire estate which he inherited from his parents is valued at P200 million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix of his will. (4%) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix of Johnny’s notarial will?

Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of America (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen, executed a notarial will in accordance with the laws of the State of California, USA. Johnny, at the time of his death, was survived by his niece Anastacia, an American citizen residing at the condominium unit of Johnny located at Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City; a younger brother, Bartolome, who manages Johnny’s fish pond in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and a younger sister, Christina, who manages Johnny’s rental condominium units in Makati City. Johnny’s entire estate which he inherited from his parents is valued at P200 million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix of his will. (4%) Can Johnny’s notarial will be probated before the proper court in the Philippines?

Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City against Jose Penduko, a news reporter of the Philippine Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Parañaque City. The complaint alleged, among others, that Jose Penduko wrote malicious and defamatory imputations against Co Batong; that Co Batong’s business address is in Makati City; and that the libelous article was first printed and published in Parañaque City. The complaint prayed that Jose Penduko be held liable to pay P200,000.00, as moral damages; P150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and P50,000.00, as attorney’s fees. Jose Penduko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: 1) The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of P350,000.00 fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City. 2) The venue is improperly laid because what the complaint alleged is Co Batong’s business address and not his residence address. Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss proper? (4%)

As a rule, courts may not grant an application for provisional remedy without complying with the requirements of notice and hearing. These requirements, however, may be dispensed with in an application for: (1%) (A) writ of preliminary injunction (B) writ for preliminary attachment (C) an order granting support pendente lite (D) a writ of replevin

Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, over a residential house in Las Piñas City. The lease contract provided, among others, for a monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of America (USA) but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage the property and file and defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the rentals due for five (5) months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (6%) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-year period within which to file the action?

Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, over a residential house in Las Piñas City. The lease contract provided, among others, for a monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of America (USA) but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage the property and file and defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the rentals due for five (5) months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (6%) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you recommended?

Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City, over a residential house in Las Piñas City. The lease contract provided, among others, for a monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of America (USA) but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage the property and file and defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the rentals due for five (5) months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (6%) What judicial remedy would you recommend to Maria?

An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-dating of an order, judgment or document filing be entered or recorded in a judgment is: (1%) (A) pro hac vice (B) non pro tunc (C) confession relicta verificatione (D) nolle prosequi

While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind the bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized as his neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was already in agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter. PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasa’s rescue. Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria, kept mentioning to PO2 Asintado "Si Rene, gusto akong patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!" When PO2 Asintado was about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said "Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene." The following day, Rene learned of Kulasa’s death and, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press which goes: "I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may take one’s life away, I hope and pray that justice will be served the right way. God bless us all. (Sgd.) Rene" The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of PO2 Asintado’s testimony, Kulasa’s statements, and Rene’s statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the following errors: The trial court erred in holding that Rene’s statement to the press was a confession which, standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant conviction. Resolve. (4%)

While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself behind the bushes and saw a man beating a woman whom he recognized as his neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was already in agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter. PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasa’s rescue. Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria, kept mentioning to PO2 Asintado "Si Rene, gusto akong patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!" When PO2 Asintado was about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said "Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene." The following day, Rene learned of Kulasa’s death and, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press which goes: "I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of innocence until my guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Although I admit that I performed acts that may take one’s life away, I hope and pray that justice will be served the right way. God bless us all. (Sgd.) Rene" The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis of PO2 Asintado’s testimony, Kulasa’s statements, and Rene’s statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the following errors: The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 Asintado’s testimony, as the latter did not have any personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and violated Rene’s right to due process when it considered Kulasa’s statements despite lack of opportunity for her cross-examination. Resolve. (4%)

McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. In one incident, he drove his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its driver and passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver died, while two (2) of the passengers suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed against McJolly. One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property, and two, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. The latter case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. He was meted out the penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was also set for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Resolve. (4%)

Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the court announced that the case was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently, the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment which were duly received. On promulgation day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to satisfactorily explain their absence when queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered the Clerk of Court to proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all the accused. With respect to Balatong and Labong, the judge ordered that the judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary period a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court favorably granted the motion of Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (4%) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide?

Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the court announced that the case was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently, the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment which were duly received. On promulgation day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to satisfactorily explain their absence when queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered the Clerk of Court to proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all the accused. With respect to Balatong and Labong, the judge ordered that the judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary period a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court favorably granted the motion of Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong. (4%) Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration?

For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her husband Walter because of the latter’s suspicion that she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her sister tried to save belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed. As she was running away from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Walter medically consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered him not too far away from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest-confessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire. May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the objection of Walter? (3%)

As a new lawyer, Attorney Novato limited his practice to small claims cases, legal counseling and the notarization of documents. He put up a solo practice law office and was assisted by his wife who served as his secretary/helper. He used a makeshift hut in a vacant lot near the local courts and a local transport regulatory agency. With this practice and location, he did not have big-time clients but enjoyed heavy patronage assisting walk-in clients. What legal remedy, if any, may Attorney Novato pursue for a client who loses in a small claims case and before which tribunal or court may this be pursued? (4%)

As a new lawyer, Attorney Novato limited his practice to small claims cases, legal counseling and the notarization of documents. He put up a solo practice law office and was assisted by his wife who served as his secretary/helper. He used a makeshift hut in a vacant lot near the local courts and a local transport regulatory agency. With this practice and location, he did not have big-time clients but enjoyed heavy patronage assisting walk-in clients. What role can Attorney Novato play in small claims cases when lawyers are not allowed to appear as counsel in these cases? (3%)

For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her husband Walter because of the latter’s suspicion that she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her sister tried to save belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed. As she was running away from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Walter medically consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered him not too far away from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest-confessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire. May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest-confessor, be allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)

For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her husband Walter because of the latter’s suspicion that she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her sister tried to save belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed. As she was running away from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Walter medically consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also encountered him not too far away from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest-confessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire. May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist, be allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)

On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing Makati. His alertness and training enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while frisking him, discovered another handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns and the malefactor was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearm. May the charges of robbery and illegal possession of firearm be filed directly by the investigating prosecutor with the appropriate court without a preliminary investigation? (4%)

On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing Makati. His alertness and training enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while frisking him, discovered another handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns and the malefactor was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearm. Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the felon for criminal processing? To Silang, Cavite where he is bound; to Makati where the bus actually was when the felonies took place; or back to Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which court has jurisdiction over the criminal cases? (3%)

You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Angela has posted bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Angela revealed to you that she has not been investigated for any offense and that it was only when police officers showed up at her residence with a warrant of arrest that she learned of the pending case against her. She wonders why she has been charged before the Sandiganbayan when she is not in government service. What "during-trial" remedy can you use to allow an early evaluation of the prosecution evidence without the need of presenting defense evidence; when and how can you avail of this remedy? (4%)

You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Angela has posted bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Angela revealed to you that she has not been investigated for any offense and that it was only when police officers showed up at her residence with a warrant of arrest that she learned of the pending case against her. She wonders why she has been charged before the Sandiganbayan when she is not in government service. What "before-trial" remedy would you invoke in Angela’s behalf to address the fact that she had not been investigated at all, and how would you avail of this remedy? (4%)

While leisurely walking along the street near her house in Marikina, Patty unknowingly stepped on a garden tool left behind by CCC, a construction company based in Makati. She lost her balance as a consequence and fell into an open manhole. Fortunately, Patty suffered no major injuries except for contusions, bruises and scratches that did not require any hospitalization. However, she lost self-esteem, suffered embarrassment and ridicule, and had bouts of anxiety and bad dreams about the accident. She wants vindication for her uncalled for experience and hires you to act as counsel for her and to do whatever is necessary to recover at least Php 100,000 for what she suffered. What action or actions may Patty pursue, against whom, where (court and venue), and under what legal basis? (7%)

The spouses Juan reside in Quezon City. With their lottery winnings, they purchased a parcel of land in Tagaytay City for P100,000.00. In a recent trip to their Tagaytay property, they were surprised to see hastily assembled shelters of light materials occupied by several families of informal settlers who were not there when they last visited the property three (3) months ago. To rid the spouses’ Tagaytay property of these informal settlers, briefly discuss the legal remedy you, as their counsel, would use; the steps you would take; the court where you would file your remedy if the need arises; and the reason/s for your actions. (7%)

At the Public Attorney’s Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases involving indigents. In one other case, an indigent mother seeks assistance for her 14-year old son who has been arrested and detained for malicious mischief. Would an application for bail be the appropriate remedy or is there another remedy available? Justify your chosen remedy and outline the appropriate steps to take. (3%)

At the Public Attorney’s Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases involving indigents. Still in another case, this time for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution has rested but you saw from the records that the illegal substance allegedly involved has not been identified by any of the prosecution witnesses nor has it been the subject of any stipulation. Should you now proceed posthaste to the presentation of defense evidence or consider some other remedy? Explain the remedial steps you propose to undertake. (3%)

At the Public Attorney’s Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases involving indigents. In another case, also for qualified theft, the detained young domestic helper has been brought to court five times in the last six months, but the prosecution has yet to commence the presentation of its evidence. You find that the reason for this is the continued absence of the employer-complainant who is working overseas. What remedy is appropriate and before which forum would you invoke this relief? (3%)

At the Public Attorney’s Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases involving indigents. In one criminal action for qualified theft where you are the defense attorney, you learned that the woman accused has been in detention for six months, yet she has not been to a courtroom nor seen a judge. What remedy would you undertake to address the situation and what forum would you use to invoke this relief? (3%)

While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home to Quezon City from his work in Makati, Gary figured in a vehicular mishap along that portion of EDSA within the City of Mandaluyong. He was bumped from behind by a Ford Expedition SUV driven by Horace who was observed using his cellular phone at the time of the collision. Both vehicles — more than 5 years old — no longer carried insurance other than the compulsory third party liability insurance. Gary suffered physical injuries while his Nissan Patrol sustained damage in excess of Php 500,000. If Gary chooses to file an independent civil action for damages, explain briefly this type of action: its legal basis; the different approaches in pursuing this type of action; the evidence you would need; and types of defenses you could expect. (5%)

While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home to Quezon City from his work in Makati, Gary figured in a vehicular mishap along that portion of EDSA within the City of Mandaluyong. He was bumped from behind by a Ford Expedition SUV driven by Horace who was observed using his cellular phone at the time of the collision. Both vehicles — more than 5 years old — no longer carried insurance other than the compulsory third party liability insurance. Gary suffered physical injuries while his Nissan Patrol sustained damage in excess of Php 500,000. As counsel for Gary, describe the process you need to undertake starting from the point of the incident if Gary would proceed criminally against Horace, and identify the court with jurisdiction over the case. (3%)

Yvonne, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate relationship abroad with a friend, Percy. Although Yvonne comes home to Manila every six months, her foreign posting still left her husband Dario lonely so that he also engaged in his own extramarital activities. In one particularly exhilarating session with his girlfriend, Dario died. Within 180 days from Dario’s death, Yvonne gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of Dario contemplate criminally charging Yvonne for adultery and they hire your law firm to handle the case. Is a civil action to impugn the paternity of the baby boy feasible, and if so, in what proceeding may such issue be determined? (5%)

Yvonne, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate relationship abroad with a friend, Percy. Although Yvonne comes home to Manila every six months, her foreign posting still left her husband Dario lonely so that he also engaged in his own extramarital activities. In one particularly exhilarating session with his girlfriend, Dario died. Within 180 days from Dario’s death, Yvonne gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of Dario contemplate criminally charging Yvonne for adultery and they hire your law firm to handle the case. Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option to bring? (3%)

Alfie Bravo filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan, a complaint for a sum of money against Charlie Delta. The claim is for Php1.5 Million. The complaint alleges that Charlie borrowed the amount from Alfie and duly executed a promissory note as evidence of the loan. Charlie’s office secretary, Esther, received the summons at Charlie’s office. Charlie failed to file an answer within the required period, and Alfie moved to declare Charlie in default and to be allowed to present evidence ex parte. Ten days later, Charlie filed his verified answer, raising the defense of full payment with interest. If declared in default, what can Charlie do to obtain relief? (4%)

Alfie Bravo filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan, a complaint for a sum of money against Charlie Delta. The claim is for Php1.5 Million. The complaint alleges that Charlie borrowed the amount from Alfie and duly executed a promissory note as evidence of the loan. Charlie’s office secretary, Esther, received the summons at Charlie’s office. Charlie failed to file an answer within the required period, and Alfie moved to declare Charlie in default and to be allowed to present evidence ex parte. Ten days later, Charlie filed his verified answer, raising the defense of full payment with interest. Was there proper and valid service of summons on Charlie? (3%)

What are the jurisdictional facts that must be alleged in a petition for probate of a will? How do you bring before the court these jurisdictional facts? (3%)

A files a Complaint against B for recovery of title and possession of land situated in Makati with the RTC of Pasig. B files a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue. The RTC Pasig Judge denies B’s Motion to Dismiss, which obviously was incorrect. Alleging that the RTC Judge "unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office", B files a Petition for Mandamus against the judge. Will Mandamus lie? Reasons. (3%)

Where and how will you appeal the following: (1) An order of execution issued by the RTC. (1%) (2) Judgment of RTC denying a petition for Writ of Amparo. (1%) (3) Judgment of MTC on a land registration case based on its delegated jurisdiction. (1%) (4) A decision of the Court of Tax Appeal’s First Division. (1%)

Briefly discuss/differentiate the following kinds of Attachment: preliminary attachment, garnishment, levy on execution, warrant of seizure and warrant of distraint and levy.

X, an undersecretary of DENR, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds allegedly committed when he was still the Mayor of a town in Rizal. After arraignment, the prosecution moved that X be preventively suspended. X opposed the motion arguing that he was now occupying a position different from that which the Information charged him and therefore, there is no more possibility that he can intimidate witnesses and hamper the prosecution. Decide. Suppose X files a Motion to Quash challenging the validity of the Information and the Sandiganbayan denies the same, will there still be a need to conduct a pre-suspension hearing? Explain.

Discuss the three (3) Stages of Court Diversion in connection with Alternative Dispute Resolution.

A sues B for collection of a sum of money. Alleging fraud in the contracting of the loan, A applies for preliminary attachment with the court. The Court issues the preliminary attachment after A files a bond. While summons on B was yet unserved, the sheriff attached B’s properties. Afterwards, summons was duly served on B. B moves to lift the attachment. Rule on this.

Plaintiff files a request for admission and serves the same on Defendant who fails, within the time prescribed by the rules, to answer the request. Suppose the request for admission asked for the admission of the entire material allegations stated in the complaint, what should plaintiff do?

Counsel A objected to a question posed by opposing Counsel B on the grounds that it was hearsay and it assumed a fact not yet established. The judge banged his gavel and ruled by saying "Objection Sustained". Can Counsel ask for a reconsideration of the ruling? Why?

A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out. Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in this way: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- Ho Pia and Sio Pao, Accused. [Criminal Case No. 007, for Violation of R.A. 9165] TO ANY PEACE OFFICER, Greetings: It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath PDEA Director Shabunot that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Section 18 and 16 of R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or control, in a two (2) door apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, undetermined amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing implements and paraphernalia which should be seized and brought to the undersigned, You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search, at any time in the day or night, of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the abovementioned personal property, and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs. Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012. (signed) Judge XYZ Suppose an unlicensed armalite was found in plain view by the searchers and the warrant was ordered quashed, should the court order the return of the same to the Chinese nationals? Explain your answer. (3%)

A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out. Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in this way: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- Ho Pia and Sio Pao, Accused. [Criminal Case No. 007, for Violation of R.A. 9165] TO ANY PEACE OFFICER, Greetings: It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath PDEA Director Shabunot that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Section 18 and 16 of R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or control, in a two (2) door apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, undetermined amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing implements and paraphernalia which should be seized and brought to the undersigned, You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search, at any time in the day or night, of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the abovementioned personal property, and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs. Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012. (signed) Judge XYZ Suppose the search warrant was served on March 15, 2012 and the search yielded the described contraband and a case was filed against the accused in RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and you are the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, what will you do? (3%)

A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out. Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in this way: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus- Ho Pia and Sio Pao, Accused. [Criminal Case No. 007, for Violation of R.A. 9165] TO ANY PEACE OFFICER, Greetings: It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath PDEA Director Shabunot that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Section 18 and 16 of R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or control, in a two (2) door apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, undetermined amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing implements and paraphernalia which should be seized and brought to the undersigned, You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search, at any time in the day or night, of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the abovementioned personal property, and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs. Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012. (signed) Judge XYZ Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search warrant. (3%)

A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out. Describe the procedure that should be taken by the judge on the application. (2%)

A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out. What documents should he prepare in his application for search warrant? (2%)

A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out. Where can he file an application for search warrant? (2%)

X was arrested, en flagrante, for robbing a bank. After an investigation, he was brought before the office of the prosecutor for inquest, but unfortunately no inquest prosecutor was available. May the bank directly file the complaint with the proper court? If in the affirmative, what document should be filed?

Mr. Sheriff attempts to enforce a Writ of Execution against X, a tenant in a condominium unit, who lost in an ejectment case. X does not want to budge and refuses to leave. Y, the winning party, moves that X be declared in contempt and after hearing, the court held X guilty of indirect contempt. If you were X’s lawyer, what would you do? Why?

A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC Cars for P5.0M. ABC Cars, before delivering to A, had the car rust proofed and tinted by XYZ Detailing. When delivered to A, the car’s upholstery was found to be damaged. ABC Cars and XYZ Detailing both deny any liability. Who can A sue and on what cause(s) of action? Explain.

A, a resident of Quezon City, wants to file an action against B, a resident of Pasay, to compel the latter to execute a Deed of Sale covering a lot situated in Marikina and that transfer of title be issued to him claiming ownership of the land. Where should A file the case? Explain.

Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment.

What do you understand about the "precautionary principle" under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases? (5%)

Discuss the "chain of custody" principle with respect to evidence seized under R.A. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. (5%)

A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At the time when the warrant of arrest was issued, he was confined in the hospital and could not obtain a valid clearance to leave the hospital. He filed a petition for bail saying therein that he be considered as having placed himself under the jurisdiction of the court. May the court entertain his petition? Why or why not? (5%)

After an information for rape was filed in the RTC, the DOJ Secretary, acting on the accused’s petition for review, reversed the investigating prosecutor’s finding of probable cause. Upon order of the DOJ Secretary, the trial prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information which the judge granted. The order of the judge stated only the following: "Based on the review by the DOJ Secretary of the findings of the investigating prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, the Court agrees that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused to sustain the allegation in the information. The motion to withdraw Information is, therefore, granted." If you were the private prosecutor, what should you do? Explain. (5%)

Azenith, the cashier of Temptation Investments, Inc. (Temptation, Inc.) with principal offices in Cebu City, is equally hated and loved by her co-employees because she extends cash advances or "vales" to her colleagues whom she likes. One morning, Azenith discovers an anonymous letter inserted under the door of her office threatening to kill her. Azenith promptly reports the matter to her superior Joshua, who thereupon conducts an internal investigation to verify the said threat. Claiming that the threat is real, Temptation, Inc. opts to transfer Azenith to its Palawan Office, a move she resists in view of the company’s refusal to disclose the results of its investigation. Decrying the move as a virtual deprivation of her employment, Azenith files a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin Temptation, Inc. from transferring her on the ground that the company’s refusal to provide her with a copy of the investigation results compromises her right to life, liberty and privacy. Resolve the petition. Explain. (5%)

Name two instances where the trial court can hold the accused civilly liable even if he is acquitted. (2%)

Enumerate the requisites of a "trial in absentia" (2%) and a "promulgation of judgment in absentia" (2%).

While window-shopping at the mall on August 4, 2008, Dante lost his organizer including his credit card and billing statement. Two days later, upon reporting the matter to the credit card company, he learned that a one-way airplane ticket was purchased online using his credit card for a flight to Milan in mid-August 2008. Upon extensive inquiry with the airline company, Dante discovered that the plane ticket was under the name of one Dina Meril. Dante approaches you for legal advice. Suppose an Information is filed against Dina on August 12, 2008 and she is immediately arrested. What pieces of electronic evidence will Dante have to secure in order to prove the fraudulent online transaction? (2%)

While window-shopping at the mall on August 4, 2008, Dante lost his organizer including his credit card and billing statement. Two days later, upon reporting the matter to the credit card company, he learned that a one-way airplane ticket was purchased online using his credit card for a flight to Milan in mid-August 2008. Upon extensive inquiry with the airline company, Dante discovered that the plane ticket was under the name of one Dina Meril. Dante approaches you for legal advice. What is the proper procedure to prevent Dina from leaving the Philippines? (2%)

What is "res judicata in prison grey"? (2%)

Sal Mineo died intestate, leaving a P1 billion estate. He was survived by his wife Dayanara and their five children. Dayanara filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration. Charlene, one of the children, filed an opposition to the petition, alleging that there was neither an allegation nor genuine effort to settle the estate amicably before the filing of the petition. Rule on the opposition. (5%)

Pedrillo, a Fil-Am permanent resident of Los Angeles, California at the time of his death, bequeathed to Winston a sum of money to purchase an annuity. Upon Pedrillo’s demise, his will was duly probated in Los Angeles and the specified sum in the will was in fact used to purchase an annuity with XYZ of Hong Kong so that Winston would receive the equivalent of US$1,000 per month for the next 15 years. Wanting to receive the principal amount of the annuity, Winston files for the probate of Pedrillo’s will in the Makati RTC. As prayed for, the court names Winston as administrator of the estate. Winston now files in the Makati RTC a motion to compel XYZ to account for all sums in its possession forming part of Pedrillo’s estate. Rule on the motion. (5%)

Czarina died single. She left all her properties by will to her friend Duqueza. In the will, Czarina stated that she did not recognize Marco as an adopted son because of his disrespectful conduct towards her. Duqueza soon instituted an action for probate of Czarina’s will. Marco, on the other hand, instituted intestate proceedings. Both actions were consolidated before the RTC of Pasig. On motion of Marco, Duqueza’s petition was ordered dismissed on the ground that the will is void for depriving him of his legitime. Argue for Duqueza. (5%)

Policemen brought Lorenzo to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and requested one of its surgeons to immediately perform surgery on him to retrieve a packet of 10 grams of shabu which they alleged was swallowed by Lorenzo. Suppose the PGH agreed to, and did perform the surgery, is the package of shabu admissible in evidence? Explain. (3%)

In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asks accused Darwin if he had been previously arrested for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As defense counsel, you object. The trial court asks you on what ground/s. Respond. (3%)

X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-year old lad. He was read his Miranda rights immediately upon being apprehended. In the course of his detention, X was subjected to three hours of non-stop interrogation. He remained quiet until, on the 3rd hour, he answered "yes" to the question of whether "he prayed for forgiveness for shooting down the boy." The trial court, interpreting X’s answer as an admission of guilt, convicted him. On appeal, X’s counsel faulted the trial court in its interpretation of his client’s answer, arguing that X invoked his Miranda rights when he remained quiet for the first two hours of questioning. Rule on the assignment of error. (3%)

Marinella is a junior officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who claims to have personally witnessed the malversation of funds given by US authorities in connection with the Balikatan exercises. Marinella alleges that as a result of her exposé, there are operatives within the military who are out to kill her. She files a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo against, among others, the Chief of Staff but without alleging that the latter ordered that she be killed. Atty. Daro, counsel for the Chief of Staff, moves for the dismissal of the Petition for failure to allege that his client issued any order to kill or harm Marinella. Rule on Atty. Daro’s motion. Explain. (3%)

In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence showing that the semen found in the private part of the victim was not identical with that of the accused’s. As private prosecutor, how will you dispute the veracity and accuracy of the results of the DNA evidence? (3%)

Dominique was accused of committing a violation of the Human Security Act. He was detained incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and subjected to water torture. He later allegedly confessed his guilt via an affidavit. After trial, he was acquitted on the ground that his confession was obtained through torture, hence, inadmissible as evidence. In a subsequent criminal case for torture against those who deprived him of sleep and subjected him to water torture, Dominique was asked to testify and to, among other things, identify his above-said affidavit of confession. As he was about to identify the affidavit, the defense counsel objected on the ground that the affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the objection be sustained? Explain. (3%)

On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a text message, which Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading: "Honey, pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k." Suppose Mabini’s objection in question A was sustained. The prosecution thereupon announced that it would be presenting Emilio’s wife Graciana to identify Emilio’s cellphone bearing Gregoria’s text message. Mabini objected again. Rule on the objection. (2%)

As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he saw an "owner-type jeepney" approaching him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle were up to no good, he darted into a corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle — elements from the Western Police District — gave chase and apprehended him. The police apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a Swiss knife in his secret pocket, and detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and body-search legal? (3%)

Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1,000,000 from antique collector Benjamin. Mercedes issued a postdated check in the same amount to Benjamin to cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin deposited it but it was dishonored. As despite demands, Mercedes failed to make good the check, Benjamin filed in January 2009 a complaint for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Davao. Mercedes filed in February 2009 her Answer with Counterclaim, alleging that before the filing of the case, she and Benjamin had entered into a dacion en pago agreement in which her vintage P1,000,000 Rolex watch which was taken by Benjamin for sale on commission was applied to settle her indebtedness; and that she incurred expenses in defending what she termed a "frivolous lawsuit." She accordingly prayed for P50,000 damages. Suppose there was no Counterclaim and Benjamin’s complaint was not dismissed, and judgment was rendered against Mercedes for P1,000,000. The judgment became final and executory and a writ of execution was correspondingly issued. Since Mercedes did not have cash to settle the judgment debt, she offered her Toyota Camry model 2008 valued at P1.2 million. The Sheriff, however, on request of Benjamin, seized Mercedes’ 17th century ivory image of the La Sagrada Familia estimated to be worth over P1,000,000. Was the Sheriff’s action in order? (3%)

Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1,000,000 from antique collector Benjamin. Mercedes issued a postdated check in the same amount to Benjamin to cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin deposited it but it was dishonored. As despite demands, Mercedes failed to make good the check, Benjamin filed in January 2009 a complaint for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Davao. Mercedes filed in February 2009 her Answer with Counterclaim, alleging that before the filing of the case, she and Benjamin had entered into a dacion en pago agreement in which her vintage P1,000,000 Rolex watch which was taken by Benjamin for sale on commission was applied to settle her indebtedness; and that she incurred expenses in defending what she termed a "frivolous lawsuit." She accordingly prayed for P50,000 damages. Benjamin soon after moved for the dismissal of the case. The trial court accordingly dismissed the complaint. And it also dismissed the Counterclaim. Mercedes moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal of the Counterclaim. Pass upon Mercedes’ motion. (3%)

Charisse, alleging that she was a resident of Lapu-Lapu City, filed a complaint for damages against Atlanta Bank before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, following the dishonor of a check she drew in favor of Shirley against her current account which she maintained in the bank’s local branch. The bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, but it was denied. It thus filed an Answer. Suppose the judge correctly denied the second motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of Charisse, ordering the bank to pay her P100,000 in damages plus legal interest. The judgment became final and executory in 2008. To date, Charisse has not moved to execute the judgment. The bank is concerned that its liability will increase with the delay because of the interest on the judgment award. As counsel of the bank, what move should you take? (3%)

Charisse, alleging that she was a resident of Lapu-Lapu City, filed a complaint for damages against Atlanta Bank before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, following the dishonor of a check she drew in favor of Shirley against her current account which she maintained in the bank’s local branch. The bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, but it was denied. It thus filed an Answer. Suppose Charisse did not raise the "omnibus motion rule," can the judge proceed to resolve the motion to dismiss? Explain. (3%)

Charisse, alleging that she was a resident of Lapu-Lapu City, filed a complaint for damages against Atlanta Bank before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, following the dishonor of a check she drew in favor of Shirley against her current account which she maintained in the bank’s local branch. The bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, but it was denied. It thus filed an Answer. In the course of the trial, Charisse admitted that she was a US citizen residing in Los Angeles, California and that she was temporarily billeted at the Pescado Hotel in Lapu-Lapu City, drawing the bank to file another motion to dismiss, this time on the ground of improper venue, since Charisse is not a resident of Lapu-Lapu City. Charisse opposed the motion citing the "omnibus motion rule." Rule on the motion. (3%)

X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate to his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his Certification Against Forum Shopping, V made no mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta. Maria. Atty. L offered in the criminal case his affidavit respecting what he witnessed during the incident. X’s lawyer wanted to cross-examine Atty. L who, however, objected on the ground of lawyer-client privilege. Rule on the objection. (2%)

X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate to his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his Certification Against Forum Shopping, V made no mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta. Maria. X moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case to await the decision in the civil case. For his part, Y moved for the suspension of the civil case to await the decision in the criminal case. Which of them is correct? Explain. (2%)

X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate to his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his Certification Against Forum Shopping, V made no mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta. Maria. Suppose only X was named as defendant in the complaint for damages, may he move for the dismissal of the complaint for failure of V to implead Y as an indispensable party? (2%)

X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate to his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his Certification Against Forum Shopping, V made no mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta. Maria. Instead of filing an Answer, X and Y move to dismiss the complaint for damages on the ground of litis pendentia. Is the motion meritorious? Explain. (2%)

X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V, who suffered physical injuries including a fractured wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate to his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his Certification Against Forum Shopping, V made no mention of the pendency of the criminal case in Sta. Maria. Is V guilty of forum shopping? (2%)

Anabel filed a complaint against B for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Candaba, Pampanga. After the issues had been joined, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction after noting that the action was one for accion publiciana. Anabel appealed the dismissal to the RTC which affirmed it and accordingly dismissed her appeal. She elevates the case to the Court of Appeals, which remands the case to the RTC. Is the appellate court correct? Explain. (3%)

On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/N Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/N Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading. On July 21, 2009, B Lines served on A a "Notice to Take Deposition," setting the deposition on July 29, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. at the office of its counsel in Makati. A failed to appear at the deposition-taking, despite notice. As counsel for B Lines, how would you proceed? (3%)

On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a text message, which Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading: "Honey, pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k." A subpoena ad testificandum was served on Gregoria for her to be presented for the purpose of identifying her cellphone and the text message. Mabini objected to her presentation on the ground of marital privilege. Resolve. (3%)

On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/N Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/N Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading. The MeTC denied the Motion in question A. B Lines thus filed an Answer raising the defense that under the Bill of Lading it issued to A, its liability was limited to P10,000. At the pre-trial conference, B Lines defined as one of the issues whether the stipulation limiting its liability to P10,000 binds A. A countered that this was no longer in issue as B Lines had failed to deny under oath the Bill of Lading. Which of the parties is correct? Explain. (3%)

On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/N Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/N Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading. B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the ground that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over "all actions in admiralty and maritime" claims. In his Reply, A contended that while the action is indeed "admiralty and maritime" in nature, it is the amount of the claim, not the nature of the action, that governs jurisdiction. Pass on the Motion to Dismiss. (3%)

On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a text message, which Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading: "Honey, pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k." Suppose that shortly before he expired, Emilio was able to send a text message to his wife Graciana reading "Nasaksak ako. D na me makahinga. Si Mabini ang may gawa ni2." Is this text message admissible as a dying declaration? Explain. (3%)

On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution introduced on December 11, 2009 a text message, which Mabini’s estranged wife Gregoria had sent to Emilio on the eve of his death, reading: "Honey, pa2tayin u ni Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi k." If Mabini’s objection in question B was overruled, can he object to the presentation of the text message on the ground that it is hearsay? (2%)