SYLLABUS FOR THE 2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS • Patdu v.
Carpio-Morales GR 230171 (2021) – the proper mode to assail the
REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS WITH PRACTICAL
EXERCISES (25%)
NOTE: All Bar candidates should be guided that only laws, rules, issuances, and jurisprudence pertinent to the topics
in this syllabus as of June 30, 2022 are examinable materials within the coverage of the 2023 Bar Examinations.
PART ONE: REMEDIAL LAW
CHAIR’S CASES
• Ramirez v. Elomina GR 202661 (2021) - MR was filed out of time; appeal is
merely a statutory privilege
• Radaza v. Sandiganbayan GR 201380 (2021) – reiteration of Villa-Gomez v.
People handling prosecutor’s lack of prior written authority from the head
prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not affect the trial court’s
acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter acts as de facto officer coated
with a color of authority to exercise acts that remain valid and official; deficiency
remains formal, non-jurisdictional, and curable at any stage of the criminal
proceedings ***
• PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco GR 196323 (2021) – cancellation of
mortgage is a personal action (right to foreclose) no transfer or disposition of
real property rights; mortgagor is a real party-in-interest in a representative
capacity; authority to mortgage is act that would benefit the principal
• Pineda v. Miranda GR 204997 (2021) – revival of judgment is different and
distinct from the original judgment, cause of action is the decision itself and not
the merits of the action
• PNB v. Fontanoza GR 213673 (2022) – writ of possession is ex-parte. XPNs:
(a) gross inadequacy of the purchase price; (b) third party claiming right
adverse to the mortgagor; and (c) failure to pay surplus proceeds of the sale to
the mortgagor
• PNB v. Daradar GR 180203 (2021) – First Order of the RTC dismissing the case
provisionally without prejudice is void, hence did not attain finality; no
provisional dismissal in civil case; in the nature of an interlocutory order; Second
Order sans appeal became final and executory; adjudication on the merits
• People v. Tuyay GR 206579 (2021) – if the remedy of an appeal is available,
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 will not prosper as it is not a substitute for
a lost appeal; should have filed Petition for Review under Rule 45.
• People v. Sergio GR 240053 (2019) –Rule 23 ROC may be applied in criminal
cases in extra-ordinary circumstance and in the interest of justice; testimony
was in a form of a dying declaration and accused’s right to confrontation was
not violated ***
• People v. Sandiganbayan GR 239878 (2022) – there is inordinate delay taking
into the parameters in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (1) speedy disposition of
cases; (2) a case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint prior
to a conduct of a preliminary investigation; (3) courts must first determine which
party carries the burden of proof.
• People v. Mallari GR 197164 (2019) – receipt of the lawyer is receipt of the
party
RLN notes | Page 1 of 6
OMB’s finding of probable cause in criminal cases is by filing a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 before the SC, Sec 14 RA 6770 was struck down as
unconstitutional; If admin case, should file petition for review under Rule 43
before the CA
• Palajos v. Abad GR 226272 (2022) – possession in forcible entry cases refers
to prior physical possession or possession de facto; title is not an issue;
possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact
that a thing is subject to the action of one’s will or by the proper acts and legal
formalities established for acquiring such right
• Palafox v. Mendiola GR 209551 (2021) – applied hierarchy of courts;
exceptions: (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of
public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when
the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional
and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct
handling of the case ***
• Ngo v. Gabelo GR 207707 (2020) – referral of lupon to institute action is
precondition to filing of complaint in court – should now be alleged in affirmative
defense, MTD not allowed
• Morada v. Rias GR 222226 (2022) – Writ of Amparo should be dismissed. Third
and Fourth element were absent. (a) that there be an arrest, detention,
abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty; (b) that it be carried out by, or
with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization; (c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's
refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the
person subject of the amparo petition; and (d) that the intention for such refusal
is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period
of time
• Monterde v. Jacinto GR 214102 (2022) – remedy should be Rule 43 to be filed
before the CA; AM 99-2-02-SC any appeal by way of petition for review from a
decision, final resolution, or order of the Ombudsman in administrative cases,
or by way of special civil action relative to such decision, resolution, or order,
must be denied or dismissed
• Seming v. Alamag GR 202284 (2021) – the genuineness of the signature may
be proved in a manner provided by Section 22 Rule 132; there was no
comparison at all and no other evidence was presented to validate
• MRT v. Trackworks Rail Transit GR 204452 (2021) – while it is true that the
promulgation is moot, the rule admits certain exception as when the orders
complained of were completely null and void because it violated the doctrine of
judicial stability and litis pendencia***
• Mega Fishing Corp v. Estate of Gonzales GR 214781 (2022) – the mistakes
of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it
would result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where
the interest of justice so requires. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities
take a backseat against substantive rights of litigants. Corollary, if the strict
application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, this
Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules
of procedure.
• Spouses Liu v. Espinosa GR 238513 (2019) – SC is not a trier of facts. Re-
examination of facts for the findings of the MTCC and RTC are in conflict with
RLN notes | Page 2 of 6
 that of the CA (factual-issue bar rule); elements of unlawful detainer (a) Initially,
possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of
the plaintiff; (b) Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (c
Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived
the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (d) Within 1 year from the last
demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint for ejectment.
• Meralco v. AAA Cryogenics GR 207429 (2020) – SC is not a trier of facts.
Exceptions: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when
the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to those
of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the
petitions as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondent; and (1) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
• Linden Suites v. Meridien Far East Properties GR 211969 (2021) – doctrine
of separate juridical personality finds no application in the case at bar; remedy
is to file motion for the examination of judgment debtor***
• Leones v. Corpuz GR 204106 (2021) – final and executory Decision in Court
may be modified by compromise agreement that was voluntary, freely, and
intelligently executed by the parties, and not contrary to law, morals, good
customs and public policy
• Land Bank v. Spouses De Jesus GR 221133 (2021) – status quo order is in
the nature of a “cease-and-desist order” and is “intended to maintain the last,
actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things which preceded the
controversy”; only SC may issue status quo order; no urgency for prayer for PI;
revisit the requisites of issuance of writ of preliminary injunction
• Land Bank v. Quilit GR 194167 (2021) – DARAB being a quasi-judicial agency
has no power to exercise certiorari as it belongs only to the court of justice;
executive encroachment into the judiciary; it violates the separation of powers
and unconstitutional
• Philam Homeowners v. De Luna GR 209437 (2021) – the CA, in its judicial
review pursuant to Rules 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, is nonetheless
empowered to examine the records and evaluate the pieces of evidence in order
to confirm their materiality and significance, and to disregard the labor tribunal's
factual findings whenever its conclusions were not substantiated by the evidence
on record
• Land Bank v. Del Moral GR 187307 (2020) – res judicata requisites are
present. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must
concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it
must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases,
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action
• Villaroman v. Estate of Arciaga GR 210822 (2021) – res judicata requisites
are present. For a claim of res judicata to prosper, the following requisites must
concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it
RLN notes | Page 3 of 6
must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases,
identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action
• Tiña v. Sta. Clara Estate GR 239979 (2020) – MTC in ejectment case can
resolve the issue of ownership; the adjudication of the issue of ownership is only
provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title
to the property
• TESDA v. Abragar GR 201022 (2021) – failure to implead an indispensable
party. The joinder of all indispensable parties is a condition sine qua non for the
exercise of judicial power. While the failure to implead an indispensable party is
not per se a ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said party
may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just, it remains
essential — as it is jurisdictional — that any indispensable party be impleaded
in the proceedings before the court renders judgment. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those
present.
• Taningco v. Fernandez GR 215615 (2020) - Notice to counsel is notice to
parties. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and
notices must be made upon said attorney. Notice sent to counsel of record binds
the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse
judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting
aside a judgment, valid and regular on its face.
• Santos Ventura v. Mabalacat Institute GR 211563 (2021) – no forum
shopping. The elements of forum shopping are: (i) identity of parties, or at least
such parties representing the same interest; (ii) identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for, the latter founded, on the same facts; and (iii) any judgment
rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action; any
judgment rendered in ejectment cases of forcible entry or unlawful detainer will
not amount to res judicata in a civil case of collection of sum of money for unpaid
rent of the same property and vice versa.
• Silva v. Lo GR 206667 (2021) – partition case has 2 phases: determination of
coownership and actual partition
• Sabado v. Sabado GR 214270 (2021) – Jay voluntarily submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed the Entry of Appearance with
Opposition to the Issuance of the PPO on January 17, 2013. By seeking
affirmative relief in his opposition without objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial
court, he thereby voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction. The trial court
acquired jurisdiction over Jay through his voluntary appearance when he sought
the lifting of the TPO and the denial of the issuance of PPO in his opposition,
without raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction over his person. By such conduct,
he can no longer subsequently object to the court's jurisdiction.
• Jorgenetics v. Thick and Thin Agri GR 214270 (2021) – voluntarily submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the court if they seek affirmative relief from the
court; order dismissing an action for lack of jurisdiction over the parties to the
case is cognizable under a special civil action for certiorari; under the new
amendment, it is an affirmative defense; the chairperson and president of a
corporation may sign the verification and certification without need of board
RLN notes | Page 4 of 6
 resolution, under the new amendment, proof of such authority must be attached same by deliberately diverting the delivery of the goods covered by the L/Cs to
to the pleading a location different from that indicated in the sales invoice. This act of
• Inter-Island Information System v. CA GR 187323 (2021) – wrong mode of misappropriation demonstrates a clear intent of fraud.
appeal; an extraordinary remedy of certiorari will not lie if there is a plain, • Calubad v. Aceron and Soriano GR 188029 (2020) – An action for annulment
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner should of judgment is an independent action where the judgment or resolution sought
have availed of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and not a petition to be annulled is rendered and is not an appeal of the judgment or resolution
for certiorari under Rule 65 as its petition was dismissed by the appellate court therein.
based on Section 3 of Rule 117 which is an adjudication on the merits and not • Brual v. Brual GR 205451 (2022) - while it not necessary that a notice of appeal
merely an interlocutory order. and a record of appeal be filed simultaneously, the is unequivocal that the notice
• Heirs of Casino v. DBP GR 204052-53 (2020) – res judicata is present of appeal and record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the notice of
• Harbour Center v. La Filipina GR 240984 and 241120 (2021) – petition for judgment or final order; should have filed both within the period prescribed by
indirect contempt is civil in nature does not constitute double jeopardy the rules.
• Gemina v. Heirs of Espejo Jr GR 232682 (2021) – only when both the party- • Gaoiran v. CA GR 215925 (2022) – reconstitution of title; certificate of title
litigant (plaintiff or defendant) and his counsel fail to appear in pre-trial that cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for annulment of judgment under
there be the concomitant consequence of either a dismissal (plaintiff and counsel Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
were absent), or presentation of evidence ex parte (defendant and counsel were • Ancheta v. Cambay GR 204272 (2021) – Lack of jurisdiction being a valid
absent). ground for annulment of a judgment, and one which may negate the court's
• Gabutina v. Office of the Ombudsman GR 205572 (2020) - If admin case, acquisition of jurisdiction, including defective service of summons, it is a well-
should file petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA founded cause for an action for annulment of a judgment.
• EastWest Banking Corp v Cruz GR 221641 (2021) – determination whether
the complaint state a cause of action is an issue of law which must be brought ***possible Bar exam question per Judge Gito
up by way of Petition for Review under Rule 45 as the allegations in the
complaint are deemed hypothetically admitted already
• Dy Buncio v. Ramos GR 206120 (2022) – petition for Certiorari was improper;
Buncio to await DARAB’s resolution whether an agrarian dispute exists; If admin
case, should file petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA ***
• Dumaran v. Llamedo GR 217583 (2021) – writ of attachment; (1) non-
payment of a debt or non-performance of an obligation does not automatically
equate to a fraudulent act; (2) 2 remedies a party can avail of to discharge their
attached property (a) make a cash deposit equal to the claim or give a counter-
bond which will take place of the attached property; (b) file a motion to
discharge the attachment on the following grounds – improperly issued,
improperly enforced or bond was not sufficient
• CIR v. Standard Insurance Co, Inc. GR 219340 (2021) – RTC does not have
jurisdiction to hear and decide petition for declaratory relief the subject of which
is tax laws or legislation prohibited by Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 55 ***
• COA v. Pampilo GR 188760 (2020) – an action for declaratory relief may no
longer be allowed considering that private respondents are actually asking RTC
to determine whether there was a violation of Section 11 of RA 8479, for which
the Big 3 may be prosecuted and found criminally liable. And since there is
already an alleged breach, it cannot be the subject of a declaratory relief. RTC
therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the Amended
Petition.
• Chua v. China Banking Corp GR 202004 (2020) – grounds for issuance of writ
of attachment; A perusal of the allegations in the affidavit reveals fraud in the
violation of trust receipt agreements. According to China Bank, it advanced a
total of ₱189 Million as payment for the goods of Nestle in favor of Interbrand.
These goods are considered highly saleable thus they naturally expected
immediate and regular remittance of the sales proceeds. However, instead of
remitting the sales proceeds to China Bank, Interbrand misappropriated the

RLN notes | Page 5 of 6 RLN notes | Page 6 of 6