1. Questions of Law v.

Questions of Fact (2004)

Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al Pakino, filed with the RTC a complaint for
specific performance against Robert White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, 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 a complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion to
dismiss and, accordingly, 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 file an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). White moved for dismissal of the
appeal in 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.

ANSWER:

Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law.

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact, when the doubt or difference arises as
to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. (Mirant Philippines Corporation v. Sario, GR 197598,
21 November 2012).

Since the complaint was dismissed due to lack of appropriate board resolution from the board of
directors of Goodfeather Corporation, the appeal will necessarily involve a factual determination
of the authority to file the complaint for the said Corporation.

Hence, the appeal before the CA is correct.

2. Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals

Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review the Decisions in criminal and
administrative cases of the ombudsman? (2006)

ANSWER:

The Supreme Court has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Ombudsman in
criminal cases (sec. 14, RA 6770). In administrative and disciplinary cases, appeals from the
Ombudsman must be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.

3. Jurisdiction of Court of Tax Appeals

Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a complaint for refund of taxes paid, but it was
not acted upon. So, he filed a similar complaint with the Court of Tax Appeals raffled to one of
its Divisions. Mark’s complaint was dismissed. Thus, he filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Does the Court of appeals have jurisdiction over Mark’s
petition? (2006)

ANSWER:
No. The procedure is governed by section 11 of RA 9282. Decisions of a division of the CTA
must be appealed to the CTA En Banc. Further, the CTA now has the same rank as the Court of
Appeals and is no longer considered as a quasi-judicial agency. It is likewise provided in the
same law that the decisions of the CTA en banc are cognizable by the Supreme Court under Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court

 Angelina sued Armando before the RTC of Manila to recover the ownership and
possession of 2 parcels of land; one situated in Pampanga, and the other in Bulacan.
(2009)
a. May the action prosper?

ANSWER:

No, the action may not prosper, because under RA 7691, exclusive original jurisdiction in
civil actions which involve title to, or possession or real property or any interest therein is
determined on the basis of the assessed value of the land involved, whether it should be
P20,000 in the rest of the Philippines, outside if the Manila with courts of first level or with
the RTC.

The assessed value of the land in Pampanga is different from the assessed value of the land in
Bulacan. What is involved is not merely a matter of venue, which is waivable, but of a matter
of jurisdiction. However, the action may prosper if jurisdiction is not in issue, because venue
can be waived.

 On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on M/V 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., owner of M/V Atlantis, for recovery of damages
amounting to P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading (2010).

a. B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the ground that the RTC 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, and not the nature of the action, that governs jurisdiction.
Pass on the Motion to Dismiss.

ANSWER:
 5. Pre-trial agreement

Mayor TM was charged of malversation through falsification of official documents. Assisted by

Atty. OP as counsel de parte during pre-trial, he signed together with Ombudsman Prosecutor TC
a “Joint Stipulation of Facts and Documents”, which was presented to the Sandiganbayan.
Before the court could issued a pre-trial order but after some delay cause by Atty. OP, he was
substituted by Atty. QR as defense counsel. Atty. QR forthwith filed a motion to withdraw the
“Joint Stipulation”, alleging that it is prejudicial to the accused because it contains, inter alia, the
statement that the “defense admitted all the documentary evidence of the prosecution”, thus
leaving the accused little or no room to defend himself, and violating his right against self-
incrimination. Should the Court grant or deny QR’s motion? Reason (2004)

ANSWER:

The Court should deny QR’s motion.

If in the pre-trial agreement signed by the accused and his counsel, the accused admits
documentary evidence of the prosecution, it does not violate his right against self-incrimination.
His lawyer cannot file a motion to withdraw. A pre-trial order is not needed (Bayas v
Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA 415 [2002]). The admission of documentary evidence is allowed by
the rule (section 2, Rule 118; People v. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25 [1996]).

6. Demurrer to Evidence

 After the prosecution had rested and made with formal offer of evidence, with the court
admitting all of the prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence with
leave of court. The prosecution was allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court
allowed the demurrer, finding that the accused could not have committed the offense
charged. If the prosecution files a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the court
order granting the demurrer was not in accord with law and jurisprudence, will the
motion prosper? Explain your answer. (2009)

ANSWER:

No, the motion will not prosper.

With the granting of the demurrer, the case shall be dismissed and the legal effect is the acquittal
of the accused.

A judgement of acquittal is immediately executor and no appeal can be made therefrom.

Otherwise, the Constitutional protection against double jeopardy would be violated.

7. Judgement

 The information for illegal possession of firearm filed against the accused specifically
alleged that he had no license or permit to possess the calibre .45 pistol mentioned
therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the fact that the subject
firearm was lawfully seized by the police from the possession of the accused that is,
 while the pistol was tucked at his waist in plain view, without the accused being able to
present any license or permit to possess the firearm. The prosecution on such evidence
rested its case and within a period of five days therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to
evidence, in sum contending that the prosecution evidence has not established the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted of the offense
charged. The trial court denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused as
having waived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgement on the
basis of the prosecution of evidence. In due time, the court rendered judgement finding
the accused guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
imposing on him the penalty described therefore. Is the judgement of the trial court valid
and proper? Reason. (2004)

ANSWER:

Yes, the judgement of the trial court is valid.

The accused did not ask for leave to file the demurrer to evidence. He is deemed to have waived
his right to present evidence (section 2, Rule 119).

However, the judgement is not proper or is erroneous because there was no showing from the
proper office that the accused has a permit to own or possess the firearm, which is fatal to the
conviction of the accused (Mallari v. CA and People, 265 SCRA 456 [1996])

 AX was charged before the YY RTC with theft of jewelry valued at P20,000.00,
punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years of prison mayor under the Revised Penal
Code. After trial, he was convicted of the offense charged, notwithstanding the material
facts duly established during the trial showed that the offense committed was estafa,
punishable by imprisonment of up to eight years of prison mayor under the said Code. No
appeal having been taken therefrom, said judgement of conviction became final. Is the
judgement of conviction valid? (2004)

ANSWER:

Yes, the judgement of conviction for theft upon information for theft is valid because the court
had jurisdiction to render judgement. However, the judgment was grossly and blatantly
erroneous. The variance between evidence and the judgement of conviction is substantial since
the evidence is one for estafa while the judgement is one for theft. The elements of the two
crimes are not the same. One offence does not necessarily include or is included in the other
(section 5, Rule 120).