Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman.

My name is Larry Lawyer, and I am

representing the plaintiff, Jessica Smith. We are here today to decide if the
defendant, John Smythe, is liable for damages caused to Ms. Smith’s vehicle as a
result of a car accident that took place on June 15, 2003. On that day, Ms. Smith
was driving her car down Main Street when the defendant smashed his car into
Ms. Smith’s car. We will provide police reports that show that Mr. Smythe was
driving without a valid driver’s license, and that he was intoxicated at the time
of the accident. In addition, we will provide the compelling eyewitness
testimony of Ms. Sarah Crown, who saw the defendant’s car run through a red
light and strike Ms. Smith’s car

rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions

governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but

pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be

allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of

action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies

therein; and

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for

recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of

jurisdiction. (5a)

SECTION 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of

causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A

misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the

initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)

RULE 3

Parties to Civil Actions

SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. —

Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be

parties in a civil action. The term “plaintiff” may refer to the claiming

New York Convention – Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of

Foreign

Arbitral Awards adopted by the United Nations on 10 June 1958 at New York
City

EO 1008 (series of 1985) – Creating an Arbitration Machinery in the Construction

Industry of the Philippines

II. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (“ADR”)

What is alternative dispute resolution?

Any process or procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other than

by

adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an officer of a government agency

… in

which a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues,

which includes

arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, mini-trial, or any

combination thereof.c. Executive Order No. 78

IV.

Commercial Arbitration

a. 1985 UNICITRAL Model Law on International

Commercial Arbitration

V.
Adoption by the Judiciary of the ADR System

a. A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC

“Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution”

Books Recommended:

1. The ADR and the Arbitration Law by Genry Lito L. Festin

2. Codal/Special Law Provisions

3. Philippine 1987 Constitution

Basis of Grades:

1. Major Examinations

2. Recitations

3. Attendance

COURSE OUTLINE IN PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (PALETH)

(A review of Legal Ethics)

Definition of terms
Lawyer’s Oath
Rule 138 to 139 of the Rules of Court (Admission to the practice of law)
 Review of CANON 1 TO 22 OF THE CPR
Cases to study:
Quilban vs Robinol, 171 SCRA 768 (Quantum meruit)
Baustista vs Gonzales 182 SCRA 151 (Champertous contracts)
PP vs Daban 43 SCRA 187 (counsel de officio/friends of the court)
In re: Basa 41 Phil 275 (Moral turpitude)
Melendres sa Decena 176 SCRA 662 (GOOD MORAL
CHARACTER)
Ulep vs Legal Clinic, Inc. 223 SCRA 378
Cayetano vs Monsod 201 SCRA 210 (Practice of law)
Duties of an Attorney (Sec. 20 Rulen138, Rules of Court
(Lawyer’s Oath)
In re: Echiverri, 67 SCRA 467
Concerned Citizen vs Elma, 241 SCRA 84
In re: Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424
Rayos-Ombac vs Rayos 285 SCRA 93
In re: Vailoces 117 SCRA 1
In re: Parcasion 69 SCRA 336
In re: Rovero 101 SCRA 797
Tucay vs Tucay 318 SCRA 229

Treason, defined.

Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a

person who owes allegiance to it. (63 C.J. 814)

Nature of the crime.

Treason, in its general sense, is the violation by a subject of his

allegiance to his sovereign or to the supreme authority of the State. (U.S.

vs. Abad, 1 Phil. 437)

The offender in treason is either a Filipino citizen or a resident

alien.

Under the first paragraph of Art. 114, the offender in treason must

be a Filipino citizen, as he should not be a foreigner. Before Art. 114 was

amended by Executive Order No. 44, it was not possible under the Revised

Penal Code to punish for treason, resident aliens who aided the enemies.

Now, as amended, the Revised Penal Code punishes a resident alien who

commits treason. (People vs. Marcaida, 79 Phil. 283)

How to prove that the offender is a Filipino citizen.

When the accused is allegedly a Filipino, his being a Filipino citizen

may be proved by his prison record which sets out his personal circumstances

properly identified as having been filled out with data supplied by the

accused himself. (People vs. Martin, 86 Phil. 204; People vs. Morales, 91

Phil. 445)
The citizenship of the accused may also be proved by the testimony

of witnesses who know him to have been born in the Philippines of Filipino

parents. (People vs. Flavier, 89 Phil. 15)

Law on treason is of Anglo-American origin.

The Philippines Law on treason is of Anglo-American origin and so we

have to look for guidance from American sources on its meaning and scope.

(People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil. 566)

Allegiance defined.

The first element of treason is that the offender owes allegiance to the

Government of the Philippines.

By the term "allegiance" is meant the obligation of fidelity and

obedience which the individuals owe to the government under which they

live or to their sovereign, in return for the protection they receive. (52 Am.

Jurisdiction

2.1 Over the parties

2.1.1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired

2.1.2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired

2.2 Over the subject matter

2.2 1. Meaning of jurisdiction over the subject matter

2.2 2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction

2.2 3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment

Q (2012): Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of judgment. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of

its jurisdiction. Such an error does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and is

correctible only by appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction is one which the court

acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an error renders an order or

judgment void or voidable and is correctible by the special civil action of

certiorari. (Dela Cruz vs. Moir, 36 Phil, 213; Cochingyan vs. Claribel, 76 SCRA

361; Fortich vs. Corona, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624; Artistica Ceramica, Inc.

vs. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc., G.R. Nos. 167583-84,

June 16, 2010).

2.2 4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined

2.2 5. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction

2.2 6. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction

2.2 7. Objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter

2.2 8. Effect of estoppel on objections to jurisdiction

2.3. Over the issues

2.4 Over the res orproperty in litigation

2.5. Jurisdiction of courts

2.5.1. Supreme Court

2.5.2. Court of Appeals

2.5.3. Court of Tax Appeals

2.5.4. Sandiganbayan

Q(2012): A criminal case should be instituted and tried in the place where the

offense or any of the essential elements took place, except in:

a) Estafa cases;

b) Complex crimes;
c) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;

REMEDIAL LAW

1. General Principles

1.1. Concept of remedial law

1.2. Substantive law vis-a-visremedial law

1.3. Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

1.3.1 Limitations on the rule-making power of the Supreme Court

1.3.2. Power of the Supreme Court to amend and suspend procedural rules

1.4. Nature of Philippine courts

1.4.1. Meaning of a court

1.4.2. Court as distinguished from a judge

1.4.3. Classification of Philippine courts

1.4.4. Courts of original and appellate jurisdiction

1.4.5. Courts of general and special jurisdiction