ering

04)
06
medy
ow
ccause
ses
unc 7on
cessary
nd?
eged
ued
m
preme
Where
ha
lowed
nera
B
gment
rran 140189,
hivingSCRA
preRu asbecause,
2006
Extrinsic
e?
ear
mcna
d-2003
nned
w
ng
(2%)
Why?
ub
onary
ym
onex
and
offense
fac
yher
of
es hou
the
he
no
by
of
oin
to February
307
prosecu
for
nary
he
however
Cour
Two
par
pena
an
the
pr
nreason
(3%)
what
may
arres
C as
Judgment
Fraud
nwas 1996
charges
A
On
vhe
as
aus
unc
unc
ma expressly
ejectment
eRTC
in
search
ndays
has
order
on
he
yunc
fo
the
cause
and been
no
fac
As
enforcing
oon
and
of
Procedureon 28,2005;
for
pre excep
no
sare
law eand
(RTC)?
ows
such
as
af
searchedsreng
ywh on
gravebecause
warran
prov
Lack
escase
awfu
op adm
m
comm
man
aer
caseis us afa
are
ma Brocka
provided
ch vnary Chan
hand on ded
ATTACHMENT
agaheof
o[2%]
nthe
and he
fes
of —
been
against
ynrequhsasaJurisdiction.it
ac (b)
snsed
nra v.
arres
nc
heonjudgment?
yPres
certain vunc
can
house in
nrreparab
no resRTC
on
fa comm
on
den
sworn
sum
aand the Enr X, he
se ed adm
no
den
fof
(2 on he of
Rules,
na
waand
set of eRu
5%) Zamboanga
longer
andw
resident
hecannosexess ed
hou P10ofa192
wr
(Sec, b) of
hou
es bnspo failure
emen upon
facts, ence
eury
With
Thes000 abe 2, of
no
cehe
ssuenof
search aa o he
RA
mp
es
unc
me
es
rran
ezon
at
ile eavNorte,
comply
dence
en
orced
hou m
pps
no
47,
y en
1831997
court
pend
ng
awas
aona
nary
by
on?
nes
n
City,
bond G.R.
1990
with
QUESTION
exceed
by
has
of
ng
should
a
oa)nedRY
remedy
Requ
from Rules
Can he
No.requirement
the
motion
eged
he
from
n persona
un
pr unc
4w
persona
en
nc
sess
A 149253,
years
y
dow
the
es
of er OF
ha
pa
institute
gun on
comm
as
exemp
for
Civilng MTCof knowFACT
effec
of and
the
case sha
y n he
A April
Procedure.) o 2
five-year
ed the o
ed
s of edge
a
ssuance
he mon
wh Manila.
isa peace
be
by forum
SPO1
one 15, 2004;
proceedings?
Hepo evy
when e hsof gran
he ce
can
year on nagreemen
of shopping
period
The
fac
Underarres
Juan
uncthe r proper
a edmove
a before
s Uy v.is Land
judgment, cour
doubt on ed w
haSec
within
Ramos y for
B ashou
w of not
he he1or a ha ch
24, used by B n shoo ng A wh
See SecsSec 27 and
o Ru 3[2] e 112 Ar o Cons u on Sec
nk,
able G.R.by 136100,
mere July
amendment 2000). of the complaint or other
me]ference
oreover
ar
nves
es
ered
ich
ond
son o
Na
n
yNa
ng Ru
as
ac
me
s se zed arisesapar
ona
and
o
Secgae
ona 58
secur
on
judgment
onbe
5he
non
pr
Democra
Ru
15refers
arres
Democra
search
or
m
y e June
for
dur ngas he
b o d-2004
no
112
Ru ed
may o
e ce
he
was has c1991,
to search
113 a he c Fron
be saopre no
the truth comm
Fron
and prheenforced
sfac m ? annc
had par (4%) nary
w of or paon ncwh y ed not
hou or of
den case
by
he falsehoodch nves person
any as motion secur
house of of s
Sec o yet
ga se
a udgmen 5 sough
pure
awfu
f ng
on been
Ru has ha B bese a
y
iatory pleading, but shall be cause for the dismissal of
ecuted.
mbe
eady
es
rran
egedysrequmay
ca
en
Here
of
for
ed expired.
oaques
he
red
be
facts.na)
ned
person
heev
pohe
recovered
Inremedy
on July
ce
crunder
(Sec.
dence?
No
Sec
(Ramos eme
off
Madarang
5Remed 1996,
o6
v. of
b)
The cer hasof
RuSec
Pepsi-Colawh Ispermanen
former arres
eano
pena A
58he 12evLaw decided
GARNISHMENT
The
yof
arres
San ed us
and Bottling Ru
sAX amar reason yno been
new of eExam res to126ForaBsCo., Rule ra
aenforce
comm
37 sed
ega hw nPh 19 ha 39). ng ? nhc) a304 sthe
he
ed
he Under a 2006) )by: ) by: by:sirdondee@gmail.comsirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
by: ssirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
ssirdondee@gmail.com
ssirdondee@gmail.com
ssirdondee@gmail.com
srdondee@gma
sirdondee@gmail.com rdondee@gmaPage
rdondee@gma
rdondee@gma
rdondee@gma Page
com Page
com com com2
com Page
Page
Page
Page6Page 7ofPage Page
Page Page of of 66 815
10
11
13
16
21
27
30
34
38
41
42
45
47
44
32
50 19
29
33
36
1726
25
66
46
1437
66
43
28 9of 39 18
20 of 49 of 1224
35
of48
of23
66
ofof of
Jurisdiction;
Witness; 66 of666666 66
of 66
of 66
of of of
case.
was
wa
Ac 66defense
here
he
cWas
allow 66
attached,
Yes.possess
affairs.
Raphael 66
The
aThe 66
he 66
Examination
ved
being 66
ng
m he
aware Finality
Is was
sDemurrer
ground
The
heng aon no
mp
motion
the
Was rwhich
fsummary
areserved
FRESHaon
mo
merely
This
Judgment; ed
aappea
stating
aha
filed
MeTC
issued
stand
ha of
ca cour of phthe
onaofha
edhe
is by to
to an
she
is a
case, without prejudice, unless otherwise provided (Sec.&&AA (1997-2006
Remedial Bar
Bar
Ba Examination
Examination na on Q Q (1997-2006
1997 (1997-2006 (Sec. 3[b],
sgment
verse
ce
y
17] ce
c on
onaoff
per
rcums The
deb
par
cer
ods y
Pres
ancesf of
due
from
ed wo
denwhe
can Judgment
Witnesses
Katarungang
P
4.
law, n days
hdo
ov
o B ofudgmen
ma she be ngona had he C onconv PRODUCTION or
(2005) Ph
y
a
Remed(2002)
2001 ready
Prosecu ob no
c
Pambarangay; pp
ed gor
es of do
nes apsed TRO or
hom ng OR sof defendan
............................................................................................................ 2006 cand
mmune
he
Man Lupon;
............................................................................................................INSPECTIONde? ac he a Extent OF of Authority;
DOCUMENTS Man
distinguished
municipal
complaint
of
PERIOD
against
tantamount
did
the
dismiss
plaintiffs
or
for
nor
procedure
ma
demurrer
den
v
un
s
anheacEE
Evidence;ns
emen
Recons
n
nforman
censed
cour
any
grounds
not
ed
m
Interlocutory P
Pa ar off ov ng
Industries
had
u
and
C,p
he
should
have esce
eds
counsel.
had
a
Civil and
ofo ona
who
circuit
ha v
demurrer
against
dera
n if
d P pr
Order;to
andofev 32 15edosecuRoman
jurisdiction
po
it
from
speedy
no s
Case Remed
or he
be being
removal
dence
his
nce
issustainable?
on days
opera ce wo
ur
trial
caIso denied,
"Defense
granted.
Partial X on
title
REMEDIAL
f
vs. off
sd
he
the es
and
o
sber B's
days
ed A
w within
court
Corporation
f cev
coun
ons cers
Criminal AM O
47
thereto,
counterclaim
w
without
adequa
hou
sole
over
ng
he
Summary achmen
dence enses
gun 60Parties;
Jurisdiction
ear No
are
h
adm s
Explain.
erc
correct
over
may which
n
opped
heheir, Witness;
the
eave
er
Case RTJ
ahe
n and
e 2000
accused
LAW
pun move
cause,
m
h ed Prosecution
1999
remedy
on
Cebu
case
acquired
reg
Judgmentssfor in
a
to 93
ofserve
deemed
[2%]
sa of
shab
(2003)person
accoun
car on must
emen 904
file
its Utilized
which
to
cour
because
the
DY C may
he
contraryy be reconsider,
eruling?
n such y
the
perm
Comparethe of
February
documen
be
compulsory
payment
ng
as
aryhe and
(2004)be
heby Offenses
prescribes
of as
notice
conferred
property.
dr ordhere
affidavit
the
per
ordered
accused
ss h no venState
Why?
topr s
ve nary
After
od?
totalwas
s 28
and
ary
the
s the
of
by n
on ab
under 1
In
billion.
It
The
contribution
foreign
A.
not
Consequently,
copy
execu
d
on
order
Serv
If
or
ev
a)
a
cr
depos ncome
mprsso Yes
Was
m was
June
he
no
dence
appea
After
rendering
in
to
c.
4. the
alleged
from ce
nasonmen
plaintiff
veof the
ed
Certiorari
udgmen
accordance
the result
The
judgments.
ng
notHe
16he
here
of defau
ouwhich
docke presen
and
the he jurisdiction
date
Supreme prov
he Summons
he
in
announced
1999
proper
mo there
in of
wr
judgment
de
s sa the
p sued
ofamoun
the
gned the
respect
aof isa s
and
ed
decision,
under
on he ona
complaint
nega
up
with
On
acqu of
Annex
musttesting
receipt
Aaction
by for
Court ff
a
o
by
the
prov olocal preJune
of
s
onocopy
Rule
recover
dbas
tohe
Sec.
sesto
had
Ricky
X smna
be
10deemed
the cannot
defendant
his
Car
nce
from
of
prosecu
"A"
and
m should
the judgment
s
asof h 13 7(b)
65.
n ssa
become
must
for
between
years
hereof
s
nary
RTCs.
opponent's
X de os the
or
he
Ypublic
to
(CX’s)
of1999
the
he be
has of
Rule
he was
checr
always
wo join
o the
aOrder.
f considered
of
on
Courtycour
he
have
served
m rearm
in
prescribed
may
court
final,
achmen
udgmen
weeks
YYY
that
39
va
the
complaint
a pr
persona
na
n case
his the claim.wh
(1997
be
s
wa he
be
of d The
case
othe
two
on
a
shou
causes
take
upon y
proper?
proved.
af
Appeals,
deny
who
RTC
enforced
hear
ch
vedwritto served
on
mayor
VRIS
erf
court
In
Rulesbe
cases
bank
with
such
dinto
nds h and
ng
dheof
h hethe
be
he
of
for
he
s d s estimation
he 1
(e)
prejudice
judgment,
2
B
SUGGESTED Yes
cou A The petition
d he
mo be to even and, prosecu conv
the
ANSWER:
ANSWER on for if rights
therefore, o the
c the d
ed on dismissal
sm of
probate
of can sseach hethe on
re-f cap necessary
action
of
is he e not a a heground will yet
offense was nforma final.
involving
party. within of ack on the
for an of
FORWARD
When
Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). However, the trial ba When s a may matter a party of d be scret declared on: (Russell in default? v. Vestil,
(Sec. (2%) Rule 9); Legal interest against both; or Sec [Golez
Obosa23
(Sec. o
dcomp
mpm rtce oin
su
aher
arres
ned
a ncredofngfors has esofnc
(c)1 (2000)
Witness;
(2001)
fruit
P
OR
The
rDef
Upon afa no
ov ud The s of
THINGS.
ne suppor
prosecu ng
ona such aagainst
conv Procedure
proper bank
1poisonous Remed
emporary persona
ed
.................................................................................................................
c on
Upon depos
on cour by es f (2006) tree ed
by Rece
res RY"s
motion know
san and
ra he veheroya n nforma cansworn
sh ngRTC edge
Sand
of p be es
............................................................................................
order
any 2001 offered
ganbayan ofon party (TRO) aga
an in ns
offense
showing evidence
wh (2%) Jose ch for
has
no good to 1996
Ru
the
(5%)
Did
if
effectsedence
P100,000.00
appeal
defendant
fundamental
amount
upon
by
or
Exp
course
canno
Man
no
as
wounds
correc
ev
D o 119
hav
method
a
the In
reconsideration
and
not?
prov
the
va In
Your a so
the
n cr
contents
ordered
dbe
of
ona
of
in a
Should
ng
deIs
of (5%) ong
failure
Because
serv of
en
a m
sherifffr
thecase
has
he
suppor
the
aw wa
denial
of for na
er end as
guarantee
n ce
he
con h RTC,
demand
ved
served
of
a enforcing
of
storage
AC's soprocedure
m he
of ned 47
YY he
Prosecu
ofwhile
en
the ismax of becounsel
penden searchPlea
summons
o h proper
denied,
by
demurrer
counted
on an
motion
original
open
s f 60and
mumoncharges
exclusive
gu the of
ed
of rheorphan
rights
on
gh e s
Guilty; aLocal
non-removal
CarsX filed
w
Mun
he y conduc
latter
he
percomp
to
" complaint.
on to
from
p eofh
to and
runk
o dismiss
may
Co
hus
ea to
or od
n 16
c
hinform
o
his
evidence
of an a aother
presen
has
pa
ms ed
Lesser
years
obtaining
Noe
and
correc
he
receiptx nfile
interest,
The
eav
answer ncompe
because
Coury n
possession
ch the sashou
except Amendments
the
(60)
advances
was ng
the aohe
off Offense
f ? in
dev sworn
d
counterclaim
ne
of Why?p
court
born
cers
special
damages
conv
a
tohe
redressseeks
dence
days enace
he ofthe
forcivil (2002)
plaintiffs
accused wr
found
no
sher where
for
of under
(5%)
of
c cause.
o orderfrom your en
304 11
consideration
project
action
damages
by
execution
denied
respect
made
con
fo
ob
fupon
for
b)
mo
accused
accoun
under ha ghed of
Reso
no SCRA
motion
ow
bagor (Sec.
of Rule
Sandiganbayan
identity
racon he h
o n ng
anhe his
has
appea
to
presen
m was
ac
Civil
ve
o res
or of
he 6)CX of
738,[1999]).
quash
the
was
he Revwithin
counse
motion
grounds
integral
been
for sa he
des
defendanRule
allegedly
no
of f hethree
the
om e cour
Procedure)
Mo issued
parties,
sed
ev
Perry
es f s was
set 34.)
In
he
Re rong
ss
five
possible
eddence a
on on
Pena
and
(3)
aside.
warranpart
on
urnh
moexecu
where
( w
inby
the
a years
)
s identity
o legitimate
w
from
the caused
eged
w Quash
h
case
his
(Id
on
thehe
ground
Code
thereof;
Two hou effect
against
ed
RTC he
and
) whcomplaint
court.
ohe
show
cour ha
arres
Commissioners
The
he
of any
suspend
RTC ch
under
by of
cr
that
Af
children
subject
by and
udgmen
mmed
the
As
con
ev
action
mheha
its
d and er the
d a nadence
Rule
cthe
verdict
rac
the
for
executor
proceed
r(2) vno
mo o
matter,
Order
aaof
was
withinwrit
ac
w epartition
of ob
for
that
Y he
ab
on acqu
y hdraw
latter’s
on
sided
upon
donewho
upon
ease
was
hadwas
ngs
gor
and
he
for
the y
or
to re s vs P.D. 9
jurisdiction
estate
murder ur of Coursd Rule No. c 3) 1508;
o
valued
n on subs Appea over of Sec. RTC. u ats he 415, 266
on sub200.000.00 of SCRA ec he Government
ma281 nforma er falls on Code for d within be hom of den 1991,
by aa
case
ed civil
andfor
cthe
B's
he
are ess
ffs
of
the ed de of
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
the exercise (See 2 its Talsan
sound When
What discretion,Enterprises, the
is the effect of an Order of Default? (2%) claim may Sec Inc. 6
choose is v. h Baliwag
not
rd par
to purely Ru Transit, e personal
120 Inc., and is not v. 2 Leonidas, So 107 situated SCRA as to187 (Russel (1981)]. be adversely v. Vestil, 304
affected Rev SCRA sed Ru 738 e
demen
cause o herhe
liberal and
persona
and wasoconsider
herno documen
G.R.
thereby prove
ANOTHER
Joaqu
sdefense
pun
cause
SUGGESTED
the
with
against
encroachment
next
returned
already
are
prosecute
was
rece
res
may
pend
conv proper
ur hrough
he gh sd
approva
des presen
amicable
45.No.
shab
indispensable
political
administrator
identity
the apar the
Chairman
nforma
five
ng
c c nphys
therefore, yse
..............................................................................................................
An ached
ed 126258,
Perry
become
n
of on
reso qualifying
Subs
amendment
extinguished, fary
e no
ANSWER:
unsatisfied,
Bu
his
years.
does couof ed
ca over
ANSWER
he
of byof when
u ev
stability
acan capab
settlement
complaint,
on and o on d July
causes
he Go,
no
u asummon
on dence
nfinal
a behedea
he
(Ruleparties.
ed the ur
cr circumstance
court
Marvin.
h
The comp
offense
of
or ex 8,
suff
but
as
Ru s eComprom
hees
mes
answer h
Serv
the 1999)
plaintiff’s
aand of
the and
s of
person
successor
c Af cour
the
esubstantial
39) ac39
may rec
plaintiff
action.
v nc
wasmanua
aplaintiff
comm
en
can
he
party ce eg
heer
nThe
That economic
charged
majority
sec den
us
case
X dueng
order
cour
for
because
nosaw under
signed
aga
because
36 sse on
doescauses
should lot.
(San is conv he
contracted
ear
longer
no
in ed
filed ns any
Agreemen
not
may perpe
In he the
voted
Diego noac no by
interest
er before
welfare
bound
c his
beof the
he
a information
Jose
sfprece
party whe
befon a
motion consua
action
a ed
v. answer,
to
substituteddefendan
e case
hs consu
amended
n awr ve
a alawyer,
tofor
uphold
nby of or
and
ff repXXX Lupon
cour umay
produce
with
for
and
was
the
the for
ng
ng
he
the
y
n he fe
or by onhe
their
goods.
re
subm
frus
bag
hanhis search
Summary
dismissing
death
action
with
complaint
Considering
whatever
attached
not
be
offended
no urn
granted
e
ceproper
con
ra s(1)
R.A.
invasion
or
[1999]; ALTERNAT
guard
SUGGESTED
Jurisdiction
The
because P15
those aed
ega
constitute
of
of
ored no
X aemenYes, 7160.)
property,
certiorari
par
000
proof
n kind,
hom
he
coun or warran
ansh
adv
Procedure
forroom
Corporation
andhe
nga
Copioso of that y
not?
because
00
udgmen
(Bustos no motion
damages
severa
c
erc VE
ce
case
a adirectNo
should
of p charg
attorney's
deof Pedro
ANSWER:
ANSWER o eged
Reason.
denial
I ANSWER
for
doub 47
and
v.
a serv w
was such
defendShe
and
the m for
Copioso,
v. s
upon
ng
contempt?
grave
k yabe
for
Lucero, ce
order be
continued
Metropolitan
e before
he
filed
meosprohibition
copy n e
because
of udgmen
(5%)
denied h aeopardy
does
fees,
a of a
motion
served
abuse
MTCs
ed cus
mse
demurrer
G.R. or
orney person
Prejudicial
coca
new
a you
thereof the heno od
(2%)
resolitigation
No. motion
f of
where to ha
ne
and
of
Moreover
a
correspond
s on exists
proper
trialshow ha
discretion
149243,
has occupy
u
Trialhe
fees
any
upon w
They eg
to has
v on he the
cr asZZ
o to
or hand
s in party
evidence
Courts expenses,
sub
me
ha
aRTC,
October exc
bas
these court
ye an
the Can
dismiss
motion
ng descr
her
tantamount
ng zed
ec
expenses Question
he
us s
showing
attaching
Sec pre-trial
h offense
disputed
a
in plaintiff
pena
of
has
ve
of
s unc
sher
28,2002;he
ached
Metrob6and
r
in for
gh
theng
be
and
he
car
he
ono eaff yof
A 3
SPECIAL
c. No. emporary The For court PROCEEDINGSfailure res shall ra n to order ng seasonably order the prosecutor s an file order his to Answer
investigate
.................................................................................................................................. ssued o despite Cabutihan good distribution
Under cause, C rcu or the ar other court No disposition
in 2-92 which A the or
scour action
en property ed ise353 pendingoJeopa in ba
61 the
ppened
ues
mpliance very he under
Goprosecuvs aCour h(a)
wr heirs
qualified
Actions;
Bar
(1999)
However,
Spec
Tagapamayapa
1
forec
(b)
ANOTHER
and
nation?
the
be
defendant
respect
an
to
CC,
Wha
served
confron
can
ev
Reso
by or he
ha mprghero f The
No
conform
changed
dence
order
betweenby
offense
contract.
CX no of
a
Appea
permit
deceased.for
he ed
u osure
sonmen
or his off Prior
s be
4% prov
Derivative
execu
ahead
ma
oned he
aga
a
Cardona,
The toherape ALTERNATIVE
requiring
over c s
denied
he the
served
feeof theof
erh requ
bua
with
executor r206
the
h Judgment
ns s
foreign
first sa a under
effec
m he ona
of
he
ofaction
on
n
m on w
inspectionmor
SCRASuit
....................................................................................................................................
C v Ac on cour
same fac s
MM E
Section
70 Secre
the he
persona
ob
can P50.000.
nd
w ec or
the e
January
hou
app he d
Phil, vs.
s R.A.
gage
ec
orrefersh
of men
d138 sm
plaintiff’s
and du
be vs.
nforma
canno
judgments
parties,Class
for
a
for ANSWER:
p
defendant
summons
aryca
administrator. h anymore
on
281 y ssa
oma
2,
filed he No.
Conclusiveness
wr of
and
opposed
s y annulment
1997
es
accoun on
ofby3,
InRule Suit
a
w
[1940]) order
rece
non-f
ab ofJus on8353.
2001.
furn
c
Ricky
only De
hisof
copying hclaim (2005)servhe
shed
68.
to np a which
ce he
answer,
a
( ng
onhe
a ure
he egcase
appear
ng The
On
) ce
reasonab
and
Aggrieved,
[Ru ev and
(Sec. dur
theis
accused
mo arres
or
and
Crespo ng fache of
of
dencJuly
e wasa fruit,
Perry, alleged
cannot
ng
grounds
Sec
16,111 Judgment
photographing
on ory
ha
defendant personal
before
wr
adamagesofv
Rule ngproper
6,
he on
e
rep
4 sec wof X
Ifc 2001,
with
AB was
me
r
3)that
h h
y?
he
2 the
be
it
of f
a
PD he s a Ru
lackhe
and rsge
complaint
lack
orshabu
61
reconsideration.
to
criminal
served
position
costs,
party.
jurisdiction
pe
f
prosecu
When
or
aga nsna
on
G.R.made Yes,
Yes
Actions;
Pleadings;
subscr
a)
negotiations
Ac
a
sub
SUGGESTED
Manila
custody he Gawas
and
he
(Sec. ga ons
ached?
se
or case.
coca
on ec
(Secs
and
vez No. urthe
prosecu
f- because
excess
on fileda
on
14, bed
ed
over
P1M. Cause
n
v ncr
evsd
(Sec. A ne
L-2068,
of
Municipal
Commencemen
genu
4% v.
exercise
the Cour Amendment
Expan
her
Rule 1dence
c thesCOUNTERCLAIM
byLandcenter
am
[Neypes the ANSWER
as andunder
19[4] of
on of
motion
ground
a Its unde
na
on
ne a
o
57)
court
he o he
Action;
original
ev the n
compu
October ac
4 offended
the
(2%)
jurisdictional
ofover
ona earned
AppeaTheIn
)
dence
his
et. s ermCircuit
as
lower
BP emp of
(with
orchave of
al.of
Shou Joinder
Construction,
due Rulesfunctions
ofthird-party
129, sory
20, day
Complaint;
ned
o asc
complaint
a
s
vs. res of
and
an
47
237 an
court's Trial
par
supporting
o
1948).
as d v
me of
of of
offenses amoun
judicata.
he
officer coun serve
amended).phe Action
Ac
ousness yis
Prejudicial
Court.amount
v
aced f Courtanyany
383
on
therein, By
jurisdiction.
che claimant
and
erc ng
thereof. m (1999)
he SCRA D Leave
peace
Doub
cour claim
affidavits)
X a pun
s
thes was
agran ha m summons
dea
at
under mo
suff
Corporation the
purpose shab correct
Question
when
may off
this
because of which
rendered
h or c on Court
[2002]).
proper
(Sec. cer
arresen edeny
time
for
also
f shefor on
of in
or
by y
eddy1,a a
achmen
h he MM RTC 1606 res
because
No due
whether
Default;
poisonous
Under
(1997)
(2000)
Distinguish
action
Summons
A es ra
pre notice, nWa Remedies;
and Article
m or he he tree
1999 an nary not aA
oppos
accused
the ess doctrine
derivative was ahe
175 venue
....................................................................................................................................
nves A collusion
Substantial efwho declared
es of par
gave s ga depends thesuit
Ob yhe heased
on and ecbetween
Compliance sto
Family
from in was express
on that oof default
on ama
2000 rule class theCode,
the (2000)
nxCivil
consen of in
parties
adiscretion nhdwas
suit.
residence evidence athe he case exists,
ses
here action aparty instituted
that
us of otheto par cu omay because
(2003)
No
proceeding
defending
recons
a)
Spec 2004 her
ar As
a order
peace C dera heexpress
What
v partyAcewas anyon
voff to on is conv
cer yhear
may
was party
Fo the prov charged
ec March rule osu edthe toded of
47 eagainst
onproduce case. hom
w
200315 n14, Prejudicial
joinder h33 he fcon an he It de Ru
February and opposing and
has
enforcemen of es permit hence when
Question;
causes exclusive had party. the
he he
28
of of
Mogu
2 On
the
2
SUGGESTED
comm
pena
of
respect
it
enforced
and
files
alleged,
Exp
paymen
desp
showed
excess as he
nvoarge
mproper
was No any
ground 10
prevailing
paragraph] udgmen
a vto
anumber
as e n Because
Cancellation
y the
ng
151
of January
ed
designated
petition
to d of
amendedbe
inter
(3%) by and
y ha
the plaintiff
SCRA
jurisdiction he
gen ha ANSWER:
mpr
mere af
examined mp of
loan alia,
amoun s party
ha er
he 1990
mach
for effor
he
462 one
by or
sonmen
emen motion. butdocuments,Jose’s
that Correction;
offense
he
RAcertiorari
RTC 1987ed
ofasked
or s X
nery
not edp regarding
sub
made
he acqu
in
grave
No a withhas exceeds
fact
n and
had un
and
ec the
demurrer
7975 comm ff against
abuseo
no a
Entries
awfu
etc. equ
respect
had no Lupon
assured
( he
serve and The
his
moreor pmen
s
knowledge
he warehouse
encroached
) of ed order
the
sao
to cr en
Sand n
propertyto
years
he thehe
m ur any
ry Courtexecute
mDur
Registrysummons na
wr ev
anyganbayan
sd
partition even
bu
ha n
of
c of
dence
ng
on
case and afa
was
onthe A
(2005)
no
he he
his
tantamount alleged
summary
remedy
should
intervene
the
defendan
w
QR
W udgmen
mpr
Rule hamendment
hou
s n SUGGESTED
ADDITIONAL
necessar o
sonmen
mo f d
not
or
is that
f adv her
or
on?
f quo
eenjudgment
persona
........................................................................................
65)CA,
SCRA G.R. Peop
nd
685exceed file s grandparen
Raphael
Reason
No. no warranto,
ng
(15)
ngy is
1994 a ANSWER
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
arose to
141524, exceed
h
heseparate Tee
P400.000.00
ydays m confer
in accused
before (5%) of should
his
ou G not s
September ng R
herefrom
h action
jurisdiction
s hey
favor
mandamus.
ofserv s gu
r x gh have
and years
(Sec. ong toy upon d a of
o her
vindicate
s mo
incorporated
rema
2005] he
hru
connec
Sec{Garces
ofall o the
on offenseB.P. h n
2 usof scourt.
sRo
his ed w keep
his
Big.
v. A en
amend feclaim
charged
CourtNow in
claims.
129, and Is qu h 61
7691 his
ofto
ashe e he he o
nduc ed e her before quo
and This
against
and
excludes
For
No,
Evidence;
must
Suspension
Distinguish
SUGGESTED
ALTERNAT
either
Appeals;
a)
FG
under
Meanwhile,
amicable
w
ALTERNATIVE
SUGGESTED
pendency
hcomp
more
permit
which
(defendant’s)
income.
CD.
mortgage
wou
persona
As
pun
to smprov salack Ru houfa
ifun
na
he was
shab failure
dbe
Will he there
because
aeA
or
Escheat ure han
prosecu
him
nan
ona
Ifany
Period
Wha
entry
includes
or nsdenon ease
How
ysee
work
Admissibility;
brought aexcess
offended
afor
arres
esettlement
eave
theofdeed,
rucVE
the
ofois by
L hear
Bar
heer by
ANSWER:
Fotokina
ANSWER
’s
20 yof
B. evidence
cour conno
Criminal
ANSWER
ofshould
Proceedings
he ANSWER:
appear
petition
nda
action
mo hed
abode
upon
or
B.
saland.
mpr byK.J.
Hence,
Appeal;
heforec
years
andng collusion,
swithin
ssued
Marvin.
Sec
of he
rac court
ninwThe
prior
on
awyer
he
is
par for
fjurisdiction,
because
was
sonmen
Nunez he
is
Photocopies to
Action
effec
filed which
hou
designated
for15 w
osure
theng
Was
assum
secreFresh
ba
for
yfollowing
de the
Accordingly, cr
not
also file
judgment
itbecause his
(2002)
w was
certiorari
The
Rucourtofto
erm
m with
recovery
voa(1999)
should alifetime
ofsu
may
Period
hsha
he
ary
ew of
intervene
per
ngna an
required
denied
Sandof he
warran
absence
us no(2000)
joinder
119 the intended
hdraw
resolve
ofup
while od
Joaqu
have
nforma
ha
case answer
land
day,
from
befRule
be hefnon-compliance
prosper?
defendan
ganbayan of
RTC
abRu
offor
ed he
osubmitted
any he brought
den
br
the
been
feX
A's
estomoney
(2003)
nby of
or
ob
is
he propr
conclusiveness
ve
records
thegh Ion
cause
ef if
..................................................................................
aliability
earned
the
within
second ed
mistress
take
n..................................................................................................................................
ng of summons
poyears
obetween
comp
ga
derived
ythe was
petition
property correc
defendant
Explain.
motion?
years
111 Cr
State
dCar eupon
in
arising
cemen
on action
sscuss ym
have
for
afrom
nce
SCRA
the
into
no
the
On
isosof
for
na
inor
nof for
aby
based
who
nyabefore
for sale
from
amended
amend
is inspection
complaint
Defendant
the
mo
beyond
have
nforma onproperty
on Nos No. 3
ALTERNATIVE
ev
A
(b)
Yes.
Remedial
Family
After
So
(Sec.
jurisdiction
days
action?
P
SPO1
A
SUGGESTED
ADD
and
comp heng
heov dence
byhough
B
reasonab
ooncIt
borrowed saw
T
no or
140546An
6, The
ass or
P ona
for
servedis
adCourts
oran
ONALRule CNC (2%)
oB
Intervention
snot
March
nvsm oof
Law;
involved gupgrade
interpleadercommerce.
counterclaim
oapplication
Genera
answer
Remed
ance f6)of
47 Insshe gu
aein direct
Act
ANSWER:
ANSWER eConcept
and
ANSWER:
ed ffrom
doub
designated
all
mer
January
an 16
charges proper
(2001)
ofed es of
filed matters
orSec contempt
has
andhean murder
fcommences
Suppo
wand
or (2006)
gFebruary
he 3his
charge
will
his yof
aous?
20
na for been
hsecure
aga48 Ru
accord Deve
orney DYof
2003 documents.
claimhe Pre-Trial
Penden
opposition
ac ens asunder Wha
not
probate,
110from an no
is
filed, on
This
had
MTC writ
theopmen
ZZ
ng compulsory
for seunduly
he
1985
heybefore ncompe
ySec.
29
frus rong Lscan
Agreement
necessary he
storage ofac
mpos both
(withendays
Ru
ques he
(Rule
r12001
ra work
Bank on preliminary
es
sonof
the
Quezon he ed en
purpose ng
delay
testate oA
supporting Rule
oned
27).
because
fees for
hom
RTC plaintiff
(2004)
Cr
Feeon
reliefs, under
hough
of m 61The
h71,
quo cis
hand
C
and
orit
na
ngm he of de
m he y
contract, acquired
working
order to from as express a a clerk
to tainted it or that implied, orthe the polluted sala evidence and
of source. the the Judge defendant
Such before evidence is dies whom
not is his If
prejudice the action the affects
adjudication title to of or the possession rights or of
original real
orma on and he A 433gran
necessary
accused bIf
reglementary
freeware.
Article
consideration
If
is
of
RTC
mandamus
Defendant
on
wh
08
the
SUGGESTED
re
he
prepared
show
inspecting,
partition
counterclaimed
(2%)
(5%)
plaintiffs
ques
The
mus
your
pr
Procedure
the
DERIVATIVE
rep
the sIf
had
no
he
based
judgment
ab he
June e
other
errorson
1982 r ofng
Ion yeye
photocopies
Extra-judicial
ng
grounds akew heudgmen
1144
were
udgmen
o the
mayor asourcesscourawas
by
and 1996
a on
....................................................................................................................................
by
contracting
of for
I
been genera
no
partyX pre
Howeverwasplace
compel
se ANSWER:
end
measuring,has
law heof aaperiod,
receiveda only
he he
under
be denme
he n the
m record
prosecu
forwarded
sumready rendered
A
on of
ofo of
It
wawhere SUIT
Settlement
ha
against shown ynary
offended
counse
suppor of
asked
ano ed Civil
the
f
prosecu
y
the theacqu
the op
of k with may
official
Jose
one
he ed hean
fu ng
he her legal
of
money,
lower
is
ona
eithernon?
terms
surveying,sa for
COMELEC Court,
Code
adverse
o an
y r
venue
anunc
defendan
thea of crawas
for
o birth
d apar
ben
of suit
on
lawyer
pa such he un
Why?m
CodeIf
issues
receipts
heyour
court.
sarequires
be
of
Estate
cour a of yon
he
plaintiff
d but qucase?
na a
in
based
upon
awfu
CA
competheor
w othe
Decision
busy
Reso
equity
saccused
e
presen
or
for Sec
case
(5%)
oppos
’sNo freely
and
shou
PARTITION no
an
ghparties
(2005)to
(2%) y and
mo motion
ve(2%)
a
onde
agreement.
photographing
ve that
and
no
appea
en sffor
the
admission
4[c]
implement
aga
fee. her
d that
ree a
on
reasonab
ed
photocopies
of
wh
ce
on
he
person an evidence
ner
nquns of
consen
Igradua
resides.and the
damages
because
iswou
hav
mo copied
he
action
ch o h
oAf filed
LM,[d]
case
re RTC
ismnew s der
The
he
ngas
on n of
he
ey
thea nthe advances
affidavits)
such
summons
regard
he
o penaand defendant
but
129
Appeals,
(Rosario
consumma In
guard
1)
Certiorari;
injunction
is
What
b)
amend
warran
a)
intestate,
(MeTC-QC)
Modes
Ph
R.A.
Procedure
SUGGESTED
..............................................................................................................
very
coun
property
nhe as
ng oHowaor
one In
ma
itNo. ypp
andcivil
much
and is
preliminary
to
erc he ansh
g
prescr distributed.
oappea
on
whichnes
7691). the
v.
259
the Ahis
should
na Mode
indirect
by a then was
coca
ed case,
where
Carandang,
that m
has
Amendmen
may wh
aggr pmotion.
concept
secured
mo
(DBP)
SCRA
whom may
ANSWER bed complaint,homsofarises nea
accused
for
itprov
the
by
the
e the
be
eved
may on nbe
Certiorari
contempt
is
the
an99 48
herefor maycus
sworngranted
records
injunction,
cIn his
right
cer
of
for
he
After defendant
out
brough two
(1996)]
de G.R.Pre-Trial;
Supe
value
nforma
she rep od
remedial recons
amoun
be of orar
failure (2006)
of
Noe
be
due
to
withaasks
within
No.
yIs ven
loans by
of
seducwr or It
eg of
served?
cons
inspect
Dnhearing,
he L-7076, has
Criminal
under
ngawhich
child
dera
on you aslaw?
is
of
he leave
en the
opposed
sa is
Even
Municipal
the
RTCfrom
udgmen on
deredP1s the
connectedd how
was and
on may
an
Exp (2%)
estate
s
Apriland
purviewprimarily
mRu
bysthe
“I Case right
a of
was naccusa
will 1997
herB?
family
emen
barred
a ebe
V
don’ court
verify
he
on
28,
of he
compu n court, vs.
Court
defec
does
rg
unc to
45 aonewith
notC
(5%) of
secured
1955)
he n
mo file
ached
Civil
caseson
issued e
knowySec
froma
61 du
r
thehe
ZZ in
not
be
sory the
of
for
by
ve a on any
a
entry of final judgment in the court in which the action no was The aano real action and jurisdiction is
inadmissible
fabricated.
case is pending, for having
informed emanated him Evidence of from the must
declarationspurious have origins.
to of be default. SUGGESTED
parties; ANSWER
by ma doub
declared eaaffidavits
ers minority heajudgment KJ egedcour (Sec. in shareholder3[E], nmay odefault. he Rulerece answer 9)ve In in due behalf
are nafor ev
deemed time, denceof amp KJ corporation because filed an original
b) demurrer A of to counterclaim
the evidence promissory without is note cdistinguished
leave so of that court. he from could
If his ndadh
Ru Case
upon
admitted
of
filiation 58 aaken (1997)
1997 in in aof Ru
a8public the es
were (though
........................................................................................................
acase. Cedocument vhof
attached Procedure The without or political
to the
private distinction) position stability dcon handwritten rover emust paper and ed
h3wr TA
as
pe
Explain
an
transaction
P500,000.00
changing
Man
in
While ngof aB was nabou
action
the cour oner
Rule T(b)
fac
aand abed aFamily
accused
each
as plaintiff entirelyshou
and
71. ofnby nmay or sdAbsen
and mode hresponden
oforcible
The dsn’ of
occurrence
sm
Courts deny
athe the
is 48
acase lawyer of ded
hom hcertiorari:
aother
entitled nature Au Provisional
QR
entry nof
or oma
hacng sof
are
canfor
ghe de RTC of to mo hn7Cour
rconstituting
and alsohe
for
P1,000,000.00,
the amend Rev
such on or
unlawful Dismissal
action?
designated be he ew of Ifhas
egthe case 6the na khe
Appea onhowever the
a4%subjecthe
Conv
par
complaint ang chcopy
detainer. (2002)
pre
payable
by swou ofes
subject cdor rbed
on
the dBof
of oain
here oHabeas SUGGESTED
exceed
because P100,000.00 acked ANSWER: (now ce P200,000.00).
nves ga on However Me surrender
SUGGESTED
contract.
b)
in
pre
aga
SUGGESTED
Lupon
dw
accused
property
special
resulting
charge
mo
been
2 ospos was anwhyh ro ns m
on ordinary
reasons ng
Man
no nary Xcivil
of o When
he before
Sec orThe
from w
suspend he
concerned
of accompan
defendan
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
ANSWER
accused
any Corpus
nves
somehou
herefrom
action accused
(4%) oOffice
civil add
un the arra
Ru he
designated ofga
proceed (1993)
casepr
alleged
under RA ona
fgnmen
117 ed
s fo andon
ed or soffrefused
sa by on the
mach
No
ow defendan
demand heapp
d
Rulengs ce an 02 relevant
encroachmentng Solicitor
was
demurrer
7975
udgmen heyJanuary
aff nery
where (5%) 69, for
davor charged provba
which objectsX summonsGeneral
...........................................................................................................................................
to and o2003.
w
of of obecause
execute
equ her vaca
hou
mer ng
conv
on w
cannot eaded
or pmen He for
his sdown(OSG),
hoperation c m rape
eave
was The he
filed he nthe
wo
lot.
on
be ar any interposing
an
considered
ccoura order
m ALTERNATIVE
subscr
poor
by
can
regard
2 va dhe
be ng ha unemp
who his
as
essmade charg he ed
proper?
he interference
of claim. d Iof ANSWER:
oyed
adm ng
and
he no answer file
amoun of
Raphael
Reason
ss person
young
evencharg
appea on petition swith for my fr Sec w
(5%) hend
replied can car
he sRGR ahear forcr oan Bwho
amended
”court
be meD
Ru ng offense
certiorari
who that (an
benef was a) ofheac The
Wha
charged defec
ua subscr
coordinate
ed nforma
could if value
byres
he 61 was
has
w den
not
heby Iton
used moved o oobtained to pending
Bar
Yes. intended
The
presented
On
such
Jurisdiction;
unverified
economic
submitted
instrument
offense
Ju
representing
aDoes
SUGGESTED
prem
settlement/agreement.
and
cserved
thereon.
joined
The
defendan
became
Sec he quash redress
Notice
her
rcums sd
bus
theby
acwhe
doctrine,
10case
plaintiffc
heThe
Habeas
ses defendant's
nessman
branches
with on
onsame
Sec
The
prior-judgment s
at
fances he of
correspond
(Sec.
pursuanther
in
na
wrongs
.................................................................................................................................
be brought o Ru
welfare
mere Comp
the
Habeas
courthe
motion
Incapable
within
signed
by
f7Appeal
accordance
ANSWER
other
first
e
Chairman
sCorpus hed nforma
filed
1,
day,
Ru
however,
c An6
Isjudgment,
time
sCourt
Ruleyfor v
plaintiff
ex erred
naenecessary
tofr
should
hom
awyer
he
committed
Corpus;
However
10
by of
answer
causes
14 an to
C A
appea
end
Cebu
spec
ac
of
Sec.
of
(1998)
on ng mes all
presented
lift
Pecuniary
years
the
Y.
udgmen
ex on10 c
such
iswith
on
Go, in
a)
does
a1, de
be
InCustody
the
nforma
knew
who
parte nation
in and
of
for
2003
onas those
from
issuing
Rule
from
cSIsha
filed
such
athe
opposeds death,
doctrine
order
an
vato
action.
not
against
damages
nce
non-cap hethe
was
motion
of nha
requirements
Estimation a are of
summons
plaintiff’s
ac
within
the
onhe
case,
action
apply
motion
Cagayan
conv
he it
Minors
of an Lupon
he the who
RTC
time
extraneous it,shallof con
default Order
the
...........................................................................................................................................
January 2003. aon
(See. was so
for a
effec
cde
wh for sixty
to
res
(2000)
for
petition
for
(2005)
5[b],On
onoffenseunder
rac
the
fextension
engaged
not
ch
action
be o
the
allegation
de ed desire
set
judicata,
which the
correct
cer
va ofRule
(60)
may
without
granting
right
unlawful
served
be
ofhe
Oro to
results
nfd? oath
on of
other
orar
the
ease
A
days
dismissed
be
Cour
the of
he
ng
2,)Is X
the
of nin
to
s wou to
from
have
set
of Day
1.
d(Acenas
jurisdiction.
toega
The
by
determined
4
Yes,
CROSSCLAIM
intelligently
agreemen demurrer
SUGGESTED
Dur
(Sec.33
disciplinary
The
matter
on
Supreme
before
this
cured
of
Modes
no
your
dec
have
n 1998
he o
claimed
ppossessCebu ma
wr
heac
different
Supreme
vs.
assume
ace
concept
ng
case
swithin
the
court's
adv been
on
of
a
RTC
on
prosecuon
on
of
oIIhof As ofcourt
he BPa
Intervenor’s
responsive cev. ofC
m
s
is
CourtMoand
the
Villegally
storage
on a
by
ofgned
persona
Court deeper
prepare
ANSWER:
order 129;
action.
dates.
me
hebe? r
Cour
P95,000.00
y)
rgmode denied,
on
achmen is
a
Zamboanga,
npresentof or
the Remedial
opposing he
ndoub
Cour
in
w correct
48
to
by
Exp o by
and
aof
coca to
assessed
fees
that
Quash
he
Both of ower
pleading
(Sec.
hAppeals,
washis
Remedies;
handle
Sec he
forward
aefof
declared appeal
ab she rights
pub he
ne sha a
nrules ed
16,7 understanding
in
answer.
have
eopardy
and f
isLaw
Appea
cross-claim
accused Gcour
party's
191
o has
noffense
(3%) w its
Rule
ya247 ounds
c
within
ng
value
Ru be
Family
is
dfor fromother the
in
lies
ruling.
fallen
SCRA610.
hreb)
proh
may
Void
prosecu the
served
e 3) f
on
sSCRA s
he
66 and
claim
case
default,
he ed
need
Reso
wh
ofat
1998
no the
Supposeits
bof cour Judgment
right
due.
March
advances Court
oan
the
ch w hMandamus
is
not
ed or to mps
jurisdiction.
Regional
(Sec.
773 sve ofghany
andh property.
verycounse
Is
se.g. the
drug A to
rece
Sec
[1995];2, eadedbe
he
pecun
favorabhe B cases
15 claim
defau
he does
Rule core
(2004)
present
RTC
phys proper
ved
obliged
during
4in mo cr fully
of
Trial
Upon61 lies
10,
dary
Sec. ofIn
mebe
his
of
by
he
not
caeedis
In
on a
but
which
directors
aCD’s
No notice
by
P
aside
While
an
The
(b)
As nsov ached the shall
sThe
affidavit
The he uor
mo onathe Supreme
bars
ed of
Marietta prosecu mo instead
refuse
owell
aggrava
on Remed
seorder
..........................................................................................................................
Appea
A files prayer sdthatan the
action requ adeemed
he for second
on of
ognmen answer of
to
dres
was
or es be
merit
foreclosure
in oaccused
sm ng sue, default TRO
the Iallowed
quash on
in
perfec in
action
css w sahe the
rcums her vs
yseems
attached
Municipal and he orderon real
aed
argue hewhen
bas
place ofto othe
ance us
preponderance
as s28,
continue
party
nforma
mortgage or Quo
of
dcounterclaim,
to ground
there
of
sso
oha
Trial
1997
of resolution
he
work
it. in
he O ve un he is
interest
defense
on
CourtKJ
Rules
until
appe awfu
andthat identity
he moin 2006
shou however
wr his
Makati of
orderingan
of
entry
against onsought
being
enby dha
Civilfailure
of he
ryno
be
oh06
upon of finaltobeCourt
he one
accused
(2) is
Yes,
procedural
when
protected
1.
evidence.
1 The party the the defendantadm in If due respondent against
a48
his the sce
separateprocess, Search
demurrer he is jurisdiction anot Warrant;
documen which unlawfully
co-party
proceedings. required is granted means Motion aryallow therefore
arising
to aand
excludes
evdeny to law Quash
dence amendments
on which
out
under appeal of another
(2005) of
of hears
oath the the
byhe
und ha he prosecu
the judgment.
parties,
f
Republic
AB
the
action
case.
detainer
has
ground
(a)
In
1
upon
no.
hand,
RTC
refusing
furn
Also,
time
under
Procedure,
assailed
D
answer
ev
City,
attached
pre
den
suspend
f
B,
exclude
obligations.
not
basis
settlement/agreement?
mp
n
he
he
he
w comp
fferen
ng
dence
ng
thehe
not
pre-
Can 1 emen
sa
corporation
ed
tom
the
prosecu
They
h
hou
ure
to aissues
Habeas
as
On
the
Ru
her
of
plaintiff
comp
Intestate
the nary
pay
natural
accrues.
m?prescribed.
was
r
subject
rep
because
X
suffered
Tha
answer to
a
ex filed
(Sec.
vs.
...............................................................................................................
to
foreign
main s
court a
aarra
manufac
ed
causesudgmen
as
estranged
no A
no
Ar
can
con
Exp
e
mandamus
execute
65
the
CDy
cr
eave
a due
Court
a
I Corpus
a
on
it
During ce
wou
as
4.
mes
he
favorable
deny
nan
29
son
chawith
achmen
Proceedings TROn
have
es
A a
does
matter
the
itself
motion
factors
rendered the to
judgments
wh
touched
There
of n
no.
from
Rule
wh
order
of C
s received
of’s of
hd
the
ur
eng
ng
how
fraud
v
(2003)
(2%)
action
appea
full ch
notpersuasive
Municipal
o
defendant’s
rev
from
s make
2
husband
abode
e
A’s
ng
Appeals
(Lint
does
65)
and
Code
the
e
wa
under
for
his
that
(3%)
sufficiently
ng
shou
wou
ewabec
contemplate
judgment
he
amount
judgment
wans p
such
,father,
and a
(2002) cause while
answer
v. he
not
a
ns
men
he
has
prov
from
proceedings,
should d
s
a
oa
Lim-Yu,
b) he fo
he and
Carlo be
lie
us
show
by
puno
ur influence
Trial
h o of
for
What has
sRTC
the
on
the
owden
to
quo
in
sd a cogent
obtained
be
under
ona he
Molinathe
a
action.
be
the
the
enforce
on
barged
c
ang
operation
favor
Court
spec
he
...........................................................................................................................................
ve s
pertain he the
eaded a eden heof
rec same ha hru no
presen
d
toa raisev order from
different Decision
s
agu
search
second
ed
G.IL
ha order
genu
on
meritorious
n
should d
of ground
spec
reasons
mortgage
a
oath,
partition
considered due
but
an
quas
the sm no
Philippine
of
(268
f
of
y reason
fac
(Sec.
No.
on
conf
neness
edby
on
issue
within
(2%)
into
they
contractual
a
Tra
should
ssa
plaintiff?
offense
s
-re-c
venues
stating
138343,
be me
of
cour
of
but the
SCRA
n
49[b]
majority
which
onw armed
c
of her
are
he
had
debt
thisor
the
of
v to
on
he
the
and in
d
plaintiff
defense.a be
w
v sfiled
h
or
complaint
w
mo h
n
on
1997
1,
(Ong
reasons
Corporation
The
(2.5%) the
cour
cer
copy
not
require
to
treated
determining
supp
Venue
(1)
SUGGESTED
ass
and
comm
and
Metropolitan
before
Jurisdiction
substantially
from
Default
Spec
Demu
transaction
prosecu Yes
cus
Under
parties
of
conditions
attorney’s
for
Bar
n
mp
file
Rule
ur
of
both
s orar
stating
DBP
app
mo
genuineness
od
Rules
proper.
v.
a
plaintiff,
hear eaded
of
Wha
emen
es
ance
forthe
The
D and
the
or
e
49
Peonly
19,
Examinations
Tating,
itSec.
(2000)
C an of loans?
a
ed
on
G
(4%)
v
he
for
and
ngon o
the sona
f
condemns,
1997
interpleader
cab he
use
of
vs.
Trial;
of
whom
no
Ev
ve
eged
pendency
Ac
a
that
aga
udgmen
may
fees,
ounder
marr
are
v.
ed
or3
It
one
and
ANSWER Civil
o
such
its
the
Court
e
Venuecour
Trial
dence
p dealt
keep
149 wo
altering
Courtand
ons
theof
should
Ac
Rules
an
does d
ns
Trial
ead
theo
occurrence
Explain.
y he
andthe
served
age
sm
the
Rule
litigation
of
Procedure;
adjudication
complaint
jurisdictional
ons
ac
SCRA
h (2) nf
YY Ru
Court.
Mandamus
appellate
proper
requ
of
court
(2006)
enjoyment of mng
her
Con
of
suppressed
which
in
no ss
of
due
cer
of
court
he
with?
on
identity
because cmerely
Appeals
grounds 1997
Appeals,
Civile
by
16, the
Absentia;
prov
ed
ch
s ac
v
(2%)
on
s
for
265,
he
a
his f
has
Sec
execution
y
65
her
o
no
ca
es achmen
against
Procedure.)
on
proceeds
that
the
cannot
expenseso
d
nature
ahe
Remington
court
(3%)
ud
[1987])
r
ded
2006
found
motion
of
11
eCa
e ofdismiss
of
to
SPS
no
he
G.R.
mer a
o and
the
court
ofhe
amount,
h
c
is
adverse
he [a] a
the
quash
Automatica
a
was
s
cour
parties
A
ha
age
acquirethe
A
No.
of
reverses or
presence
of
b)
(an
o
use
right
r
r no
forec
Ru
upon
andserved
ower
maygh
and
a
Supreme for
the
mo
tosayits
not
2004
ous
theIndustrial
ean
the
ac
subject
133657,
Under
genuine
of
par s in
B122the
excluded
n
or
aga
dismiss
osure on
Informa
ua
of
yet
inquiry
Review
promissoryva
because
dismiss
costs; jurisdiction
trend.
complaint.
absen
coca
child
y
cour
cause
the
upon
office Ru
ns
of
recovery
was
herse
ad
res
May
Court.
certain
matter
of what
issue
ne
es
order
Sales
62
se
The
these
third
and
of
and
eas
a?
den se
are
or
o
the of
he
to
29,
f
f-
sas
on
he
hor y o f e he 2ac c)
de
A
A
fact?
January
ev
repor
hab
moaning
and
court nformahere ernaerm Is
dence
on 27, mer
ua Reasonwascer
sdenied
jurisdictions.
for ned?
ve
1997 If
ofIs
2003onde for
Joaqu Answers
scer orar
you
the nosummonsbecause
Rule 4%
ensued
nquen briefly.
he
the and,
law. orar pr were naccusedunder
27 or
motion (People on ?Rules
The ga ofordemand
(5%)
the
Reason The 19requ hRu
hered has of sJanuary
judge
case
v. on Peop ecour
fa
Civil red comm 65
the (5%) for
ure for Procedure.)
ew ohe ground
vs he hbe
2003,
renderedahis med
Fores you proper mach
sum served
.................................................................................................................................
ohe
filed grant
that 269 vaca cr
nery
of remedy?
aitSCRA
udgmenme upon moneyTeshould
Motion na he
aggrava
and s orev asfinaledrenders
dence
to X
aaswho
[2%]
rea ve ato
Quezon [2%]
unc res and before
es The
was any den
ea edcr ZZ liableCmaterial thesm ofmmor y)na Ange
sssed
expiration gage
therefor.rape The The case fact eshe Judge
benef C
wsmp and
of ynessed
strial,
charges
Resolve Sec the
ead borrowed
ofw thus
7
pend time
ng heby as the aga
a(2%) ng concluded
branchparto
A soyour P300
answer.
motion
ns napp Ru
and cour e hyomu 00057 m B wh 62
owith thatua 00
C ch
as D .
conduc a pre mmot
shall
198.)
due
of
(1)
February
62 including It
within
SUGGESTED
former
Conviction
Thereafter,
1
However,
(b)
house
in
a
Commissioners
parcel
rule,
deciding
Explain.
course
was
defendan
prem
Why?
SUGGESTED
for
conv
equ
by nforma
he ready
nary said The
reg
he is
execu
comm
be Rule
in
Intestate
subject
cses?
Reconsideration
on
pmen
fifteen
of
(2%)
cnves become
answer
emen
of
to ng fac
The specially
enforced
nforma
(2%)
rcums on
Paranaque
a 19,
actioninterest
dec
39;
on
if land
who he
case.ef
ANSWER
hclaimsed
ANSWER:
ANSWER to
ga otheof
2001)
ary ha(15)
Sec,
Proceedings;
care
m went
herw
won his
filed
vthe of sa
(1998)
permanen was on
per
located
A 47
action
and
Car On , in
he days
thed reasonsCity,
requirements
case [b]
while
may
decision
beforea con
abroad.
se od
ofsubs
the wr other
os
of
manifestation
appea theof intended
from rac
is manner
infnew
be
abducted
Debts
nera of acanno
appea based
for he
charges
ed
fDecision.
defau f
umore After
Taytay, notice
a
shouldRule
CLASS he
ed
ng ed prescr his
of
by
FGt? achmen ofp provided
e 39).
the
for on
bea
their
Anfailure
n(2
not
Rule
CX of
.............................................................................
her that
be
corof
n p
Rizal SUIT
the
cons
Estate
aOn 5%) he
the
ff
return
appealater
based
ms for
n
six-year
ve was
Chairman
aga 39, s judgment
open
Ca
to in
deceased?
13
deemed
dered
per with is
than
(2002)
ns
Sec.
ha a the
served
fileamba
byon
January law
od week filed
andold
record
MM 120
the rules
as
an
for
48he Go o students
later,for
on
for 2002),either
defendan
note,
Cr
Distinguish
action.
Actions;
which
SUGGESTED
Defendant
In
AX
2)
Parties;
accused
and
(a)
SUGGESTED
(Sec.
action
family ncr m
In1996
..................................................................................................
are
2.
plaintiff
from
2
SUGGESTED
aSUGGESTED
defendan hree
heCourt hough
m na
renders
considered7
frcase Can a still,
appea
because
(3)
If fA
of na
end such
of Real
cases (Sec.
Maka
Third-Party
or
Procedure
judgment d
Rule
an
If is days
she
s(Matute
on the
Congress
daXXfrom
ac
was
a he
claim, jurisdiction
Actions
was other
ANSWER:
no
judgment
ANSWER:
entitled
he ANSWER
accused
complaint
3,
by
6).
be
cres In uaof H
original
-bound
before
only
vbe
Rule
Bu
Informa cer
ask
pub
divulgedraff s
the
den
only
declared
Claim
y due
vs. is & deny
ab for dhed
the
Personal
awyer
10,entitled.
passed
orar
rece
for
non-compliance
to c who
Court sof
after
49
(2005)
for
he pay from
cannot
action
1977
determining
course eave
ved
prosecu
judgment
yon (2%)
me the
da the
hereupon Pasay
aspec ng
wasinprovinces
canno
he
of Repub e venue?
Actions
sYY
Rules (Sec.f or
plaintiff,
motion
of
Appeals,be
default
he
opassenger
no Venue
sen
and
f
or
of
heng
hear
was
Cin amended
of of
summons
2, e (2006)
f c
the
accompan he
enced of contemplates
by e
Rule
move
yssued a
Civil
he
his
courAc
prevang by
the
or a
filing
26 a
crInhfavor counterclaim
demurrer
the mo of65).
meSec
SCRA mo
NoProcedure;
the
defendant
order
soan
to
plaintiff
he who,
PBU
for
ed (1997)
on
fees.
renderedhasonIn
ed 4 confer
dea
on 8189 uponRTC
as 62
Ru
order this
for
oan
768;no
by the an
me
he
ha a o o ea
A
prosecuting
have
regarding
Yes In
As
ahead
aggrava
days
pertains
have
order
Ac
with
continuous
or
son,
was
answer
f(b)
Discovery;
SUGGESTED
appea
assessed
sons
ng naprevailing
ato not admbeen
Percival,
from
us or
the
comp
he
Maka
Judicialof he BP22
plaintiffs
to
sauthorized
on
quo
ng
value resolution
Modes;
deemedhe udgmen
set
edthe
case
.........................................................................................................................................................
apossession
murder
receipt ex
time,
ANSWER: C order
summons
Settlement C
for
andhe
controversy vance
municipal
of crSubpoena Ac
ygenu
still
allegation as
h(SQO)
hearing.
brought
by
perfec
of
P20,000.00. me charge against
no
of
of
Jose
appealed
on the the
well neness
of
redeemed
undecided,
of dconv ur ned
were
court
ddoes
COMELEC
Order. the
Estate
Duces
On
the
as
hadno.
Tagay sof
the
sd
no as cwasand
status cB
his
theon
from,
childnc
1,
no
and
estate
ocommon
on
affec
noTecum
The on
(2005)
moves uded
due defendant’s
defendant
ay
defenses.
he he
onger
for
cannot
of to
prescr over
court En execu
C
appe
he
an
he
his
(1997) 2001
received
to of
hef
Banc
suff
na
yyaillegitimate or ur
should
dismiss
be
the
deceased
he
where
ohometown
bed an on ure
does
upon
sd
Will to
cmotion,
filed
general who
w
en
denial
hereof
ced
oppose
There
of the not
no hon
the
have
in
an aeperson. o of
respec
reasons.
commenced
order thew v.
jurisdiction
from The
with
even
Certiorari
opportunity
a. Heirs
SUGGESTED
P
What
case,
therein.
(RTC).
orecons
pub
(B.P.Blg.
ALTERNAT
A
ev
loses
amendmen
SUGGESTED ov
herw
(4%)
hdraw
obtained
dence samended of
cthe ona
Pablo
his hng do proceed
hMarcelino
uderase sof The
Plaintiff
129, A order
right Remed
wHe as
Appeals,
A appea
you
known
VE yon to
has
counterclaim
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
aofSec.
feon
ANSWER: apre-
bus
ANSWERrule
to saexcept
money
ngs
mode
nforma
for mean
not
he es
33,
Serv scourt
deemedwasPagobo
present ras son
heard
280
dno aA as
aga
unlawfully
productionnformaed ce of sm
allowedSCRA
achmen
he where
order
amended)requ
judgment byJOINDER ns
on ns appeal
before
is
on Vo
evidence.
ssed
ofor a)
an against
ohave
red
he 870
on er there
sobut
he 1999
real
49
consumma
to
po
because
and sno
yexcluded is
judgment
[1997]).
wh on
against
onvesw present
Reg
wa OF
(Rule
ce
governed
was
chargean fe needed
actions;
inspection board eved
for
sand
of
opposing
was CAUSES
nnone
raB. Fabian
33). edhis
he
evidenceA he onhe
s412.)After
suff hom w
recovery
escape
by
rendered
to
and
rBayas
spec bus
ofAc
gh begin Rule
from
hparty
casks che
the OF
b)
theon
en of
in
ahe de
ov e
nforma on as requ cease
1
Conclusiveness
(Sec.
The very
of
accoun
ALTERNAT
law,
B
Exp
2003,
2
answer
Judgment;
Pasay
therefore,
petitioner's
Sa
3If
declaring Secsudgmen
oIYes urn
the
D red
were
aIn
20,
rules
claim
7
d n defendant
City
and
andno for often,
Rules
ng
by Tha
The
case
(2%) he
Judgment the
f
he
him8
ofVE
s des and
because
of
hehe
motionvo
ed adm
Sec
ANSWER
procedure,
rcourt
udge
party
s a
Ruof
he
hed
defendant
in a
damages
a 8because
X
order
cr ss oncour
default.
es
er’s
of are
oCourtMun
declared
the
accused
for m
in
on
filed
hIWills
the
Ru of
w
such
na mor eCour
plaintiff
mus new
justice
c
abuse
Pleadings
s
judgment recipients
110
is
he
nce
which
a
no
pa
ac
The
a
gage Motion
the
trial
valid,
be s
Rev
case?
on
no
gran
Is Tr and
vo
motion is plaintiff
found doess sed
(2005)
aga or
establishes
ndeba
from
un
nvo
d(2%)
ega
because
equity.
T
Ru
precludes
scre
reconsideration
ns
Cour
withdrawing
ary no
na
es
ve
edness
nto
Manila
o in
A
sdeny set
on
d of
an
arres
mohave
Cr
However,
default
ex rec
although
certain
renders
aside
or m
ssue
for deliberately
.......................................................................................................................
In
while
on
na ac
prev
thehe his
on
he he
ono
Ifs m
filedof
ous arh y
in swith. 45
(Albert
ACTION
amendment
matter
agreemen
15
dec
been
(b)
cer
JURISDICTION
S
a)
personal
udgmen
car
nce ofThe
The
by
ar
escapes
f waca In
thev. of
her
he
Courtdistorted
vedon
University
records
action?
Acosta-Ofalia
h
is
d law
ha
Rules
grandparen
supp s rec
that
he ha ord s could he the
rec a
par
reserved
ng here
emen
(2%)
a
treats
of case
Publishing,
party pre Apleading
Court declare
exam
child
es s vs.
as
a
soofsha m
may notes
no
s Sundiam,
pay to
p the a
na pu
nary
which
and
B
ead
the
in
be a
ega ain
he
on
power f
family
one
ed
ng
amount
governed
separa enot
default
ou
allows D 85
from charges
necess was
pleading
The
ha s SCRA
of to
es ga e
cases thecforward
"of
because
appeal
adm no f by
on nghe
vy ed other
damages
XXCourt for
assert,
ss hashe
se
in
par
ac
accoun ha on from
62
B Ru
the
onbeen
for
es
to
of
did
he
in
edefault cMay damages be cfor aorar med by acourt apar ycounsel pre ud eced by yaof
Sand the ganbayan
Office 391 Election SCRA 415 2002}
warran ess arresMontilla, interest
comp
sufficiently
of
rendered Procedure
the
child,
offense
in
motion
was
In
action
requisites
d)
SUGGESTED
w
notice
you no
nforma
udgmenof an
or he ma
petition.
he
Baguio
aexceptional
hou AX
were no ex
the
Probate
sub
admiralty
on
nand of onin
had
cour
W
to orA doub
G.R.on
vama craactionbehalf
ec
the
for Mo
lift
nsued
appeal
he hou me
raise
as for
City.
judgment
nudgmen d? efavor
ANSWER: of
No.
So ma eonover
ythe
ground
proving
excess ye IsLost
XX mus should
case
re
cases of
any coan
hef
eopardy
123872, in been
er
he orderof Quash
Despite
aor many
Corpora issue
ed
ofen
orderev
hereof
A filed
thatbe
sthe sthe
which
Genera comm
have ova
person
dence
of
January (1999)
sac persons
odged
2000
foreign
ed of
because
the bydefault
he
ur
to dbeen
Marietta's
upon
court fact,
onis osd A
case
file because
from ed
ssue
udgmen
counse cIw
appealable.
(XXC)
a30,1998) against so because
brought
he
judgment.
may prosper?
he
should
aevadedon hof
makes numerous
he
Motionapprova fhe pleas,he
accused
ars
...................................................................................................................................
es
for consider Y mmed afa rhe
he
during
have
corpora cour afor
he
case
Explain.
Since
Shipping
Pursuant ra cannot
ofng
Peop that
Carlocourawr
been
sed Newhad
the
was
hehe
ethe heon it
yin nrecord
norownedhe The while
from
originalsupport
1996
accoun
(b)
SUGGESTED
finality
presen
cr
case
SUGGESTED
recoverable,
agree
not
Ba
on
of Bohevme P1 Supposemotion
cano
you
obtain
App
Summary to ac
rdocumen frus a5oprov
aof aanother
ev cross-claim
of mofof
on
thereof.
parr
sue
cafor vfara dence
she the
Chu
on writto
of dANSWER:
he
his
ANSWER
andedon ns
he cng and dismiss
Venuecer
de?
can fa
court.
Procedurehom
ead
decision,
of 148
(Rule
case
(pr complaint.
be aSec
preliminary sued
(2)
nncisof
SCRA head
c2002
8,
swas
against
23 of
compu
de omov
paasec. eoRegistrar.
plaintiffs
such
nthe
accordingly doeswounds
541 Ru
n8).
foreseen he ng
he Photocopies er aecomp
injunction
cr no
for
1987
C co-party.
119 za
mnmo yeres he
na hepon issued
of The
oPeopaon ace sus
amendmen
Inordering
Manake casesof
or seoremedy
saga of
ahe
(Sec. aof should
vgenera
ahe ned aFns
temporary
wo ecaccused
official
writ du
a"should
8,
ores a) as
62ons
Rule
ZZ
that
Soon
ong yof of
not
In a
spsuff
do mean
EVIDENCE
Ricky
the
In
escaped ng counterclaim. me
complaint or from Marvin undo ega for
ng Was are was
recovery
confof from the nemen rendered
plaintiff
................................................................................................................................................................ Batangas
sissue of as real validly n1985 by property,
he he declared
sen case cour ence the of has This conduc
decide he Supreme car should ed case bu Is on shad he Cour
only the Informa
reg merits, be ered true, revon
while us vo ew nhas however, d?
VENUE he he[3%] name )dec refers when sCourt he eon to fr bank
50 thethe
end
m nary nves ga is
Ru
May
relitigation
summary
2
hav
allege
unenforceab
appeal unscrupulous
due
ALTERNAT
dec
a)
was
BC
lifetime
refused
pr
(3%)
d
on
Lines
brought
to
cr
political
organ
City.
execu
defendan
Trial ur a sm m maeer’s
Yes,
impracticable
sd
appea
these
on
time
are
ng 8opposed
(Sec. nas Probate
ssed
bthe
c lack
zed fac
Tor
(whose
ory?
which before
bounc
Car
ur
wasthe
charged The
on
in of after
to
provisions,
ac
stability
5, ’s procedure
f
OSG
VE
esd
b of
before
the
Rule ofos
Lupon
Y.
ed
on o
under eadmof
return
ev ANSWER
by
c
taken,
mo
he ov notice
ng
knowledge
principal aWill
RTC he
n
In
n
2,) on
to
dence
B
Sec
representBw and
attached.
particular
ss
render
due
on check
defau
d join on
such
heis
(2003)ohn
fparties on
an of
their
Ph 5 requires
the
because correct
the
mpose
132
economic
ng of
me
Ru
oofwou
the
mus
all law
accused
actionofficesega ppcase,Onbecause
of ground
e as
nof
child.judgment.
udgmen
he
fsby
Chairman
On ne be
the
57
Sec parties,
dbashe
merely
he
in
possess
for schools
the
prosecu
he 20 n
mortgage
However
welfare
9 max da
refusingthat
aws wrin
summons
Marietta,
the Ru action e a another
(Sec.
the onit
mum
............................................................................................................................................
SCRA
judgment the are 162 had
action in
order
January became p of
ng
number
However
Manila)
enforcement
e Go 41 on
eaded
is was
of
for submission
of to one
of
2,
he
deed
of
a has
the
before and and
was Rule
execute
filed
f
through
2003, final hear
X
spec
action
defau which
rearms
ha
in
that o
nation mos
since
been a the
no
has 45)
the ng
before
he
of
f is
the on s students.
c A such
G.R.
be
269 1judgment,
the
The
6) Jurisdiction;
hear
Family
In
SUGGESTED
wrongfu
Fabian
receipts
Pursuan
resu
ALTERNATIVE
requ
SUGGESTED
execution
plaintiff
case
restraining
If
years hen
hereaf a The
granted
an doub
cour
SCRA
Wou
No.ng
alternative
criminal
motion red
ofwhere of
nforma
because
Code
is
non-paymen
er
requ
L-19118,
nforma eShare
a
and
dcshallhe RTC
to
for
62o final to
because
here
order your
he
dachmenANSWER:
ANSWER eopardycase,
s dfile
ary
todismiss
ANSWER:
ook the
1997 on
Judge
(2002)
or
original
rong
ofRTC-Manila
es ono
have
order
handle
January
answer
on
ev
from anhe heof
otherwise
the
enforcement
n bringingto
cure
dence
he
o even
should
mpac
Bernardo
was of action
ordered
heav pub of
accused
judgment
rhe
As
the Family
be
30,
he others
aCOMELEC
copies resolution
farra
he
c fRTC
1965).
prov
yhe
be
of
oan
ed
anofin join
he defec
owed
prosecu
v
he same?
absen
Court
granted.
thereof.
c quo
plaintiffs
he Cour udgmen
ded
of
can encyas
summarily
ndprohibiting to
sm co he
by
A
of this
many
warrantoof
affidavits
Exp
acases
obtainor o
ssa
Raphael
approved
n of
f ons thehe are
Conformably
RTC-Manon
presenhe
counsel
Appea
eaof he rus causesshall
nca leavework
be
the
or
adverse (a) serv
against
(2%)
he in
second ged
ween
s were
63
judge
na
be
ashis
278
case
he
of of
he
ce of n aa
the proh
between
of
ser
3
he
needed
August
of
favor
default?
plaintiff
The
vaf
3
SUGGESTED
proper
received
(c)
under
prescribed.
counsel,
conver
charge udgmen oer heacourt
position
ous
should ed
Assum
of
nforma Ph
he y
settlement/agreement
Admissibility
Probate ed
ory
pena
an o
Joaqu
Why?
The averred,
25,
he
servedthe
notice
filed
The arra
finds
bewas
have o
pp or cond
papers,
ANSWER:
ng
Informa of
done
proof ysame
1999,
onnes
first
con
manda n(5%)
gnmen
a Will
gross and
bu
of
sufficiently
mposab
personal
among
petition
prepared
(1998)
ha en
how
ons
s
beyond (2005) the
cannot anyway
his
which
he
y o ory
on on re-servehe
and
same
evidence
Sa e
others,
having
knowledgefor on s reasonab urn on
generally
XXXbecause
is Sand
gnedb a
representative
an a
habeas
you
no
ver
theano he
an he
that
been
offense different
submitted
ganbayan f
refu
man ye
prosecu
...............................................................................................................................................
ha by
wr y e
date ed
as
he
h............................................................................................................................................
unc vew re hou the
corpus
doub befef
declared
erroneous
he to a
eisna
fes
answer form va
of
sa
RTCwhether
the
A ed
who
Prov
or
cause
availed
execution
dTRO
with dhas ng
against
entry
cowner
has osin
us may
ncpar
m?
no
the
The of
hehefsdefault,
he
no a of
of
cafor
moreason conven
a a.
Appeals,
12.
accused
action
have
defendant
SCRA
The
No
substantial
place
Pleadings;
(2)
mo
P
dealt
court
Parties;
name
paragraph
presented
Vo
ev
with o
he
Sec REAL
sued
hAFTER
dence
appea
The
bus
er
conv
on
m?
sher 2 the to
s with
incorporated
782against
o A ence
as
Death and Exp defendant
has
Two file
ffs in
Reg
Ru ACTIONS
said
was
Sandiganbayan,
JUDGMENT
hein
he
1997
change
Amendment
of a
on?
the
utmost the
neg aeadump
of grounds
may
the
s
marrn
Pablo
On
ready
court,
118a writ,
aken
[3%]
suit
demurrer
ra However
Party; (2%)
gence in or
may
counterclaim
on age
Peop
cross-exam
have maybeen
for
ruck
the
by alteration
are
confidentiality.
his Effect
identified BUT ofoand cer
n
e
A
file beactions
usurping
sheriffquash
against
complaint to ha
vno
on
Complaint;
the BEFORE
he
(1998)
filed. tochappened
afHernandez
evidence. Iden
ca
s
he
motion
gned ogged
na
RTC inan
recover
udgmen
a is
bye
leviedan
Dec
In
ng
the
affecting
the forw
on Informa
authorized
f (Sec.criminal
ITS To
or
(b)
opposing
plaintiff
ca n to
hou
cour
sinterpleader
cause
office.If the
wh
h
260upon on
he
other
he sConform
FINALITY,
dismiss he
12,
s no
w
title
following
re obhas
e
SCRA
of on aFamily
actions,
obtains
Sys
onurn
endar
hcourts
action
proper
he by
ec
certain
(Sec. to
party,
nare
orney
been50
63 the
bus the
em or
w/
on
he
his
the
ha
25 he
5,
JURISDICTION
RTC,
not
the capable Davao The adm
ofCity, pecuniary ss the on court mus estimation issuedbe made a subpoena w as hOna it he involves e ass
duces
v s ance of h comp aSec n 7 o Ru co e ec 117 2000 he oan Ru es from o Cr X m na n
orma on? Exp a nRTC
(a)
sue
var on
action.
position
No,
of
signed
Abrogar
thatjudgment.
compe
and
SUGGESTED
2
when
performance
court
(5%)
of
correc
3
Yes,
P
cour
substitute
comp
sought
Actions;
citing
Prosecu
ALTERNAT
Carlo
tecum
primarily
SUGGESTED
within
notice
udgmen
ur
o
e(5%) yhethe
ud
Yes
sd or
ance
he
foreign
the
Rule
of
good there these
notwithstanding
denied
caccomp
ha
Admissibility
Probatethe
defend
in
of en
former
the it you
said
because
aCause
(Sec.
isnng
Sec
The
Tha
paper
plaintiff
directing
10 oron
GM
3) X
? for
beQues
the
andor a for he
already
rule VE
Why?
had
years
majority?
(Sec can
Af
is
over
judgment
ANSWER
are
7
ANSWER:
49
ex
ween
determination
ndependen
ANSWER not of
when
reso
A’s
property
of
No
o
aANSWER
Court
are he
for 20 he on
smust
as
will
substantial
[c]
lost
that
er Will
cr
Ru
acon
Action;
capable
he
reserv
2, andwas
(3%)
the
197393
Motion
days (2002)
Y,ready
proper
me
arra
he
from
relevant s
uofaccused
accused
E beyond
e
appeal
(2006)
the
he ofec
Rule
he
bepu
117
es
on former
benefit
case
(5%) thenot
because
that
men
Splitting
gnmen
ev
bybe
may
fhFebruary
admissible
ng
motion
Appeals
Cuyos
a the
a ofssued
been
counse
of
ed
36)
for
venue
to
er
sunder
validly
dence
president
of
virtue
s
his
compliance
hthecommvs shou
Rule richly
being
he
ethe
time of
be
no vn
fa
Reconsideration
shereditary ec
(1999)
Hence, Spec
he
bu
position
frtoperiod
all.
Garc
by
in
brought
gh
case.
ed
ssue
39;
Rules
ed
men
and
correc
he
d23 of
declared
sdidset
the in
before
takenhave
ed
Manila
(Sec.
r
he o
csec.
ahe
............................................................................................................................................... 1985
of
aaside
oMoreover
evidence.
con
Pe AB
right
de
nRTC
on
of
............................................................................................................................................
not
he 160 40,frewarded
withhe
is
deed
12,
rights47fbeen
because
the
at into
opre- he
erac
sixrs
deny
ver
contrary
udgmen
SCRA offense
mance
to aof
[c]
41,
he
inmay
Rule
had
any ccharged
60
the of judicial
separa
months
RTC
shipping rof
compel
and
T-sh
and vdays
of(Sec.
42,
ground
default. ahe
3)under
action be
up
time
sale
rule.
new
302
a sa
2000
It 43
BC
not
r
to represen
case
X’s
wh
made
of 9seto
is
he
s
enandeme by
for onor
45.
at Rules.
he
or
may
claim
du
a)
SUGGESTED
from
defendant
for
charg
before
reg
however,
Remedial
Evidence
possession
whenever
complaint
c)
sums:
66)
Courts
provided
leave
SUGGESTED
Rule
A
witness
(VRIS)
was
on
properties
Procedure
petition
plaintiff
1996 GodfyTha
filedshe
emen
defense
rs
ng
Ange sno
proceeding
he
filefor ng
erroneousAct of (1)
Where par
madefor
he
a(2004)
he
No,
Profstorage
for
reason
venue
of aD
ary
Lawin
complaint
stand
es that
court
rave
under
for
authorized
ed
he he of
because
certiorari.
po
P200,000.00
ANSWER
udgmen
motion
1997) ANSWER
ofec
wof
because
C aof
damages,
shall
realper
fac
it
conv heaven.
genu
such
is is
ce hfees
the
y?
in
because
he is he
ng
B'sand
that
Iwha
and sod
homha
jurisdictional.
asked
property
the
of
required
cdefense
serve
for
and
for
on
ne
amount
if
by
rssued
charged
rule
name.
may
branch
onahisA the
casecnew
no
to the
marked
effor law
EDSA
de
fa“Af
advances,
onand
of here beon
was
be
motion
or
refusal
demurrer
C
the during
recovery
for
nv
ed
toand
an
he
cou
of It an
trial
(c)
filed
as
do rendered
erthe
ojoinder
ascertainedwas
Jurisdiction
law
the
accused
aRu
ohmay
no
higher
owards
serve donasis
he
your
interest
overdue theto
no ons
the
aSupreme
of
on sAbe pay
no
which
grant fa was
dismiss
to
of
third-party the
amounts also
commenced
the
pendency
be
exhibits.
he
arres
cons of
show oure
If
he interests
therein
evidence
ownership
sha
Maka
conv of
summons
by
found
arres
plaintiff
grounds
promissory
pre-qua
isyou
prescribes
parties ohas
Court udgmen
aof
nguno
complete
trial
dvery
cappear
ed
matter
eclaim
ed
dwhichof
were
been
from
50
63
Said
due
The
be
you
an by
tois
of
fy
the
ofby
of
on
n
isa
accoun
Motion
executed to by w
Withdraw the no de erm
Notice ne of whe Appeal. her or no
Plaintiff cr A m nona e Quezon
deb
of
the
substantial nforma
he he awyer
substantive
method w
arres C h on n ofy justice
ng as heV n
off requ rg
law;
enforcing percers n and red a od cour by
wha
venue,
ha prevent spec sa the or wasn’ac d f cour
of ed
rights delay e shou
procedural
your sn may or heand d
car?” he
you
obtaining dec equally app
If s
law.akeyou on y
Rule
A
of
worth
convoath
December
w
Although
good
proba
If
cPleadings;
Doub
4
Any
be
from
anytime
a)
wh
found
SUGGESTED
him
Know
company,
merely
accrues.
Summons
ac
f vmotion
ha
1988 ha the hThe
ssueder39).
he
ch
on to
qua
ac
ehe
cob Revised
the on
Jeopa
Admissibility
Probate
herenoting
ng ev
ohe
produce
for ou onpe
themo on
ec
What
Under by
karma. the
after ffor
Amendment
dec dence
es date
chargeparo ed
genuineness
wha
was to24, on
sbare The
was dy
ANSWER: on
ha
on
afa
he motion
of de
extension
Rule
that
subs appear is respass
eof
2002
Will;
notice
1999 the
their
served
CA
ocour
for may adefendant
o of
the
Jose right aor
(2004)
no on
shean case
the
approvehe cer
ffirst, gu
of
derivative
is un
under
Mandatory
Summary
rule
son,
within ed
and
proceed pr
Prov
aon has
oof
unverified,
aComplaint; on sowed
orar
or dwe
ega fur cond
snc in he demand no underhis
her Sa
aysuit
Nature ng
toMatter
mer of favor.
no
sona
urn the rong Ru
...............................................................................................................................................
but
tosettlement and theagainst
Sec
before real
he time
ncetestify before
been which
he 15
corpora Procedure).
lower
due hecomprom
property. dthe do atfile
splitting
Prosecuev within
isjudgment.
execution
Ru
to courtsnghe
the(2002) ace
dence noanswer
anof
epay
on
pardon
ra eearres
orepresentative
110
Copy
s and
answer
If
trial
Resolve
fo65
Photocopies
Right her se and vaca which
or acash
isthe fssued attached
beyond
ehan
(2005)
sfimpleaded
cause
you
had had
for of
andone
of
ofeaermay
ed
Resolve
amount cher
been
the
by
the
wereon
by
the
and vto
he
of
for
no f the brelief
as a(Fortune (a)
were
fraud,
offense
...............................................................................................................
ed bar Remed
Yes
filed,
During
verified
obey
b)
note,
complied
denied,
land
documents
and
forego
parr
over
b)
October hes un NO The Iproper
defendan
damages
opany
wou
obviously
us
cbagainst the
said (2)
in es
de? ng because
daccident, trial,
Motors,
he
anopetition
identityandffor
Suppose
7, the Appea
of
dfac
order
with; ab P80,000.00
off has
were
properties
2004,
adv herthe B edetermination
she ce
shou
may
plaintiff
determinable as
Inc.
of
the
who se
of
Secomistake,
grounds
amongfor
offered
prosecu
at pro SC
he keathe be
parties he
v.
right
d8:30 genera
review
14
was no
par ec Appea
CA,he cwas
claiming m
court
on o2ao'clock
for
bypre nor
to
F medat
G.
represented
hers on
es Afin
excusable the
Ar sraising
rearms able
dismissal
of the
ru R.
for
present
plaintiff
dud
ofor
child
er an by
dcwere
CA
epurchase
No.
the time
ce ethat
in
the
no
toorphan
hecer
III aan Exp
the
2002
76431,
only
and
he
par
present,
of
sproduction
negligence,
evidence
counterclaim,
du Cons
andpub
B byprovided
orar the
poffense
pu
morning. os yquestions
yafamily
ahad of
her pricepre
Octoberfiling
nycave
admitted
es u16 ew sabff Un
bcounsel ud
withoutproper
on
in
already dd
nwh
inyears of
cases
of and
50
63
shed
Mapa
May
ced
orhishe
the
16,
ngthe
of
of
the
in ch aa
received
Cause
to
deed he the SC of ofmotion action
sale
The the was SQO is vs. verified.Order
Action
aappended sudgmen w (1997) hou The denying to answer
the
any Sec complaint
prescr 5 his containsRu pved Motion ve as what Annex
per od for
the were (Sec.
1989; promotefor
Consequen
Jurisdiction
redress
Judgment;
P
complaint.
by D’so eagehe ba a 7
Tadistinctly Rule of
awrongfu ?
orney for V oC Exp
Rule the Soundness;
4,rg
They m their y
Sec. may n
na 65;
laudableawou a n
are heCase
1). Diaz
invasion
acourt n (3%) be
d
part
achmencour he you v.
Attachment
vs not
objective
of mean
Diaz, C ob ordered
Raphael's
(Bustosvn be ec 331
Case
even me conferred
(2002) oSCRA
ofv. espec
1997
causehe he
Lucero, the forec
ques 302 rules
of by [2002].
action
G.R. osure
on? which consent No. h
Why?
which sa he is sdafe
premof
be
suit,
es mortgage
due. BB
4
(2)
Yes,
reasonab
Jurisdiction
Katarungang
ac
D
accused
Parties;
Lupon
Motion.
action
party
au
to
Joaqu
bring
motion.
d
Reconsideration
Distinguish
motion n
he
he echn
rec
o afa hor The
official
was on
filed
regain
per
ma
f111
defendanjust the
or
es
Admissibility;
Settlement
ses ca separa
Death
and
respondent
with
(Sec. n’s wh yex
od
on
to
wr
charged
is Tha
w
Ru
(2%)
OSG
(2%) ae(deed,
like
Wou (1997)
lift
comp
yocustody.
Sec
of
him
2, doub
es
Amendmen
Pambarangay;
receipts
ehou
authorized
parte its
awyersof
Cause awas emay
oappea
gn
Rule
the d he
2saeffect
class
he yof
Cr
several which ayou
oParty;
and w
he
and
on (Sec. chen
Admission
and
order
Estate
warran
m
of
nRu
mproper represent
68) andrcums
She
wha hproper
suit. na
need
03of for on
faction
cons eproceeded
Effect
2001
he
s5documents.
is to
e70
The YYY
of
ofegh
Objective
affidavits
Procedure(2001)
the
alleged
Februaryan cour
not
he ac
der
ec
ances
Cas
default
yofactionable
sRule
(1999)
remedy
execute.
from
the
deemed
court men
phys
be
respective
nforma
on had mp Guilt;
san
serv canno COMELEC
set
65), of
in(1999)
one
action
oemen
wou vs are
no
and
ca
gravely
2003 ce
nfor Requirements
hear
the he
Tomass wa
while
(Sec. on he
not
for
ye
of ega
ddocument.
the
ed
nrights
accused
petition as
summons
and
MTCon
ur
you he
....................................................................................................................................
because hearing. exp admissible
417,underhef
abused
affidavit
Serv
Chairman
ywhen
es
appea cr conv
0was
filed red of m
SCRAnthat
Local
ake orng
(2006)
the
the
The
As he
na
he
he
Bes
on
his
of
shaosecond,
cits s descase Parada
vcourt
of
law
motion
he
a)
Rules
objection
inspection
shall
computer,
SUGGESTED
X.
necessar
evidence
Fo
on
Some
transferred
ALTERNATIVE
defendant
SUGGESTED
through
prob
of
foan Cour
here
In
ev
ok Ph
he
1.]
b)
........................................................................................
defense. he shall
agreemen
em
may
not vs
the
dence-
na me mor
for opp
Wha
waiver
sIfby
of was fon
yVenerac noof
Appeabe be
reconsideration
(3)
his
course
order
properly neathe
feed gaged
eTha
ANSWER
nc
ANSWER
the
the the
er n-ch the
pleaded
appea
set
ANSWER:dec Na he
divulged
demurrer
uponudesare
P150,000.00
same
as ng theforth.
spromissory
joinder
based onpart
comp of
ared
efona
214 heoand take
hea
he
269
he
by Sec
the
defendant's to
he
as
on
court,
cour
SCRA
of
chon Po
he to an
aoffense modes
unless
shallSCRA
he
him.
venue
Inan the 1defendant
trial, on
d?w he affirmative
oce
evidence but
herse
note.
pappealfor
ha417 basis
nn ry
not
(5%)
the
aRu
same
A 371 ha
B
venuenwhere ng
counsel
charged
ng
1992
eof
necessary
forec
ground
include
damages
moved fff
[Rule
died. 65
of 1997 he
bfrom facis in
TY appea
ndependen
he which
dder
may The
can
osure
defense
29
granted,
accused an
sHowever,
to to nudgmen
However
case of special
so
said
Sec.
gbe to w
A be ejectment
and
purpose excessive
vhe
denythe
esa fhisng
waived,
ohe
hhas
3(c)].
brought in
eehe
former
order? hasaRTC yrcivil
with
51
64 carhe
bthe
the
hasks of
no
is
of
sehe Xsof
"A" athereof. In his unverified answer, the defendant (5%) to
L-2068, The
G may
secure
vegrandparen urabplaintiff not
October
hree a be
just, dm split. 20,
?sactions speedy obtained
nc 1948; Hence, ons and First when
be inexpensive
ahor Lepanto the warehouseman Ceramics, disposition Inc. v. of
and
without Ju
ground
before
no
X
Judgment;
On
ALTERNAT
1991)
What
case
MTC
pWhen
Government
SUGGESTED nd for
eaded ysd ce
May
ca may cSettlement
murder
fA of
Admissibility;
ecourts
A
He pfor on
the of proof
no 12, is
ahe
(buyer)garn be
Execution
ex FnCode
VE non-paymen
pfailure RTC na 2005,
probabeaded
gu
ANSWER: ssued
ANSWER shmen
have
fspeedy the
of yof ed ywo
failedonotwithstanding
Document;
loss pending
Estate;
the ano aground w aJudgmen
jurisdictionobject
yto par
plaintiff
of
he
and?to guofhou mo of
the
arra
payAppeal
Administrator
fsuch cu yNot
adequa gh aoriginals.
ren
on
of theand ar
gnmen bond
2005
nfiled raisedaexpfyover
(2002) )that
for
the sre
remaining wenbefore
elonger aaga eased A in
(1998)
complaint
remedy w his
the
recons (Sec.nsTRO
the
Katarungang
ohou summons position
on JJ
Pleading
following dera dof nAf ines er
the
onaer is (2004) appea her
(a) adverse
Supreme
answer
case,
(4)
and
The
r.............................................................................................................
balancearecords
3comply ba ra Af sher
Rule heor
ng of acquitted P100,000.00
No
sof he...................................................................................
authority
damages, actions
Court nevidence osd which soCour
sTY’s of The
and cor
insufficient hgh
should no the
yor on the may ss(2%)
Informa
judge. Th
showing
apossess
over because
for
prosecution not sinclude
speedy evidence sgoverned
attorney’s
declare
(Id.) he on au she that offense faween
canno
and cannot Bor writ szed
counterclaim. plaintiff
by no
fees
the
in adequa aby be
charged
special
default
appeal. of
decision pre-
ncompe and heaamended epreliminary
served rRu rules,saThe
litigation
inasmuch remedy This
or en esC n but
afinal
51
64 A
on
or
he is oaoe
EVIDENCE
[Amante
e261to
discretion parties
(a)
the
C
despite
preserve
even
emerit
Notice emenher On Iesaca
plaintiff’s
lower Prosecu off vs.
what
sof her ha of cercourtvs Sunga,
amounting
Appealwha Cuevas
efforts,
per he valid
suffor allegation
is ever
od who to64
not
cSuspens on had
en comply
SCRA
125
she cr imp has 05 mes SCRA
remaaExp could
lack no.
leaded.
ready 192
February can with are ahnor (1975)].
3352, no
ng auY no