2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW

Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

CIVIL PROCEDURE

The liberality in the relaxation of the rules should be carefully weighed against the orderly
administration of justice.

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may
result in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed
except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of
an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed. Ramirez v. Elomina, G.R. No. 202661, March 17, 2021

Technicalities may be set aside if strict application of the same would defeat the disposition of
substantial justice.

It must be remembered that the rules of procedure was intended to facilitate the disposition of
justice and not to hinder it. In the case of Ben Line Agencies Phils., Inc. v. Madson,we have
reiterated this age-old doctrine, to wit: xxx [R]ules of procedure are designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice and that their rigid application resulting in technicalities tending to delay or
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided. In other words, procedural
rules are set in place to ensure that the proceedings are in order and to avoid unnecessary delays,
but are never intended to prevent tribunals or administrative agencies from resolving the
substantive issues at hand. Truly, the circumstances of the instant case do not call for a strict
application of the Rules of Court, especially considering that the basic tenets of due process were
observed during the proceedings. PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco, G.R. No. 196323,
February 8, 2021

It bears stressing at this point then that the rule, which states that 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.
Also, it must be stressed that petitioner had no participatory negligence in the dismissal of its
appeal. Hence, the ensuing dismissal of its appeal was completely attributable to the gross
negligence of its counsel. For said reason, the Court is not averse to suspending its own rules in
the pursuit of justice. Where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

of due process of law, or when the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client
who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence. All told,
petitioner should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of
his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Mega Fishing Corp. v. Estate of Gonzales,
G.R. No. 214781, March 9, 2022

Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this Court is improper because the
Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily
perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket.

Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue Writs of Certiorari has
been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated
in the petition, such as, (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. xxx Here, Palafox, Jr. filed his Petition
directly to this Court despite the concurrent jurisdiction of the appellate court. Significantly, he
did not bother to provide any reason or explanation to justify his noncompliance to the rule on
hierarchy of courts. Further, when he was required to reply to Sen. Angara's Comment containing
the latter's argument on the violation of hierarchy of courts, he simply manifested his adoption
of his previous arguments in the Petition. This constitutes a clear disregard of the hierarchy of
courts and merits the dismissal of the Petition. Palafox, Jr. v. Mendiola, G.R. No. 209551,
February 15, 2021

Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction.

As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case,
and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the
subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the
jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely
errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. Heirs of Borras v. Heirs of Borras,
G.R. No. 213888, April 25, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

A government instrumentality is exempt from payment of docket fees. Local governments and
government-owned or controlled corporations with or without independent charters are not
exempt from paying such fees.

At the crux of the present petition is the issue of whether or not BCDA is a government
instrumentality or a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). If it is an
instrumentality, it is exempt from the payment of docket fees. If it is a GOCC, it is not exempt and
as such non-payment thereof would mean that the tax court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
case and properly dismissed it for BCDA's failure to settle the fees on time. xxx [BCDA] is a
government instrumentality and consequently exempt from payment of docket fees under
Section 22, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, as amended: Section 22. Government exempt. — The
Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities are exempt from paying the legal
fees provided in the rule. Local governments and government-owned or controlled corporations
with or without independent charters are not exempt from paying such fees. Bases Conversion
and Development Authority v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 205466, January 11,
2021

At the outset, the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even
on appeal. Although this doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which
stemmed principally from the ruling in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (Sibonghanoy), this Court
maintains that the ruling in Sibonghanoy is the exception rather than the general rule.

In Calimlim v. Ramirez, we held that the ruling in Sibonghanoy is an exception to the general rule
that the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
appeal. The Court stated further that Sibonghanoy is an exceptional case because of the presence
of laches. Estoppel by laches may be invoked to bar the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in cases
in which the factual milieu is analogous to that in the cited case, i.e., where the issue of
jurisdiction was only raised for the first time in a motion to dismiss filed almost 15 years after the
questioned ruling had been rendered by the lower court. In applying the principle of estoppel by
laches in Sibonghanoy, we considered the patent inequity and unfairness of "having the
judgment creditors go up their calvary once more after more or less 15 years." In such
controversy, laches was clearly present; that is, lack of jurisdiction was raised so belatedly as to
warrant the presumption that the party entitled to assert it had abandoned or declined to assert
it. Talabis v. People, G.R. No. 214647, March 4, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

The determinative factor in violations of the rule against forum shopping is whether the
elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount
to res judicata in another.

In Intramuros Administration v. Offshore Construction Development Co. (Intramuros), We

explained that "[f]orum shopping is the practice of resorting to multiple fora for the same relief,
to increase the chances of obtaining a favorable judgment." xxx In Orix Metro Leasing and
Finance Corp. v. Cardline, Inc., We pointed out that the "rule against forum shopping seeks to
address the great evil of two competent tribunals rendering two separate and contradictory
decisions. Forum shopping exists when a party initiates two or more actions, other than appeal
or certiorari, grounded on the same cause to obtain a more favorable decision from any tribunal."
Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 211563,
September 29, 2021

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.

In Spouses Reyes v. Spouses Chung, We explained the test to determine whether a party violated
the rule against forum shopping, to wit: It has been jurisprudentially established that forum
shopping exists when a party avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in
or already resolved adversely by some other courts. The test to determine whether a party
violated the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present,
or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Simply put,
when litis pendentia or res judicata does not exist, neither can forum shopping exist. Santos
Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 211563, September 29,
2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

The chairperson and president of a corporation may sign the verification and certification
without need of board resolution. Moreover, lack of authority of a corporate officer to
undertake an action on behalf of the corporation may be cured by ratification through the
subsequent issuance of a board resolution.

In Cagayan Valley Drug Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, this Court ruled that certain
officials or employees of a corporation can sign the verification and certification on its behalf
without need of a board resolution, such as but not limited to the chairperson of the board of
directors, the president of a corporation, the general manager or acting general manager,
personnel officer, and an employment specialist in a labor case. Moreover, the "lack of authority
of a corporate officer to undertake an action on behalf of the corporation may be cured by
ratification through the subsequent issuance of a board resolution, recognizing the validity of the
action or the authority of the concerned officer." Given the foregoing, Mr. Jorge, as the
chairperson and president of petitioner, is sufficiently authorized to sign the verification and
certification on behalf of Jorgenetics. Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corp. v. Thick & Thin Agri-
Products, Inc., G.R. Nos. 201044 & 222691, May 5, 2021

A variance in the date of the verification with the date of the Petition is not fatal to petitioner's
case.

TTAI alleges that the Petition in G.R. No. 222691 should be dismissed outright, since the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by Mr. Jorge and notarized a day
prior to the date of the Petition. This contention must fail. The purpose of a verification in the
petition is to secure an assurance that the allegations of a pleading are true and correct, are not
speculative or merely imagined, and have been made in good faith. To achieve this purpose, the
verification of a pleading is made through an affidavit or sworn statement, confirming that the
affiant has read the pleading whose allegations are true and correct of the affiant's personal
knowledge or based on authentic records. In connection thereto, a variance in the date of the
verification with the date of the petition is not necessarily fatal to Jorgenetics' case since the
variance does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no verification was made, or that the
verification was false. It does not necessarily contradict the categorical declaration made by
Jorgenetics in its affidavit that its representatives read and understood the contents of the
pleading. Jorgenetics Swine Improvement Corp. v. Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc., G.R. Nos.
201044 & 222691, May 5, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

Indispensable parties are parties whose legal presence in the proceeding is so necessary that
the action cannot be finally determined without them because their interests in the matter and
in the relief are so bound up with that of the other parties.

This Court has previously laid down the test to determine if a party is an indispensable party,
thus: An indispensable party is a party who has an interest in the controversy or subject matter
that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that
interest, a party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also
has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest
or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly
inconsistent with equity and good conscience. It has also been considered that an indispensable
party is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already
before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable. Further, an indispensable party is one
who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward. Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority v. Abragar, G.R. No. 201022, March 17, 2021

A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject
matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be
directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them.

Also, a person is not an indispensable party if his presence would merely permit complete relief
between him and those already parties to the action, or if he has no interest in the subject matter
of the action. It is not a sufficient reason to declare a person to be an indispensable party that his
presence will avoid multiple litigation. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v.
Abragar, G.R. No. 201022, March 17, 2021

The consequences of a finding on appeal that indispensable parties have not been joined.

There are two consequences of a finding on appeal that indispensable parties have not been
joined. First, all subsequent actions of the lower courts are null and void for lack of jurisdiction;
second, the case should be remanded to the trial court for the inclusion of indispensable parties.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. Abragar, G.R. No. 201022, March 17,
2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

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. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. Abragar,
G.R. No. 201022, March 17, 2021

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. Taningco v. Fernandez, G.R.
No. 215615, December 9, 2020

The determination of the propriety of substituted service effected is a question of law.

Contrary to the Spouses Chua's claim, the determination of the propriety of substituted service
effected on the Go’s is a question of law. It is a question of what and how the law should be
applied. Hence, the petition is within the purview of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. We
have already thoroughly discussed in our assailed Decision that Deputy Sheriff Bienvenido Liboro
(Sheriff Liboro) did not exert serious efforts to personally serve the summons to the Go’s before
resorting to substituted service. Neither did he prove that he tried to personally serve the
summons to them on, at least, three separate instances, nor did he offer any justification why
personal service was ineffectual. Moreover, it must be stressed that Sheriff Liboro did not even
validate that "Patricio Alampay [Alampay] is a person of suitable age with full legal capacity x x x,
and is considered to have enough discernment to comprehend the import of the summons, and
fully realize the need to deliver the same to the Go’s at the earliest possible time for the person
to take appropriate action." Clearly, the substituted service of summons on the persons of the
Go’s is improper; hence, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. Ramos-Yeo v.
Spouses Chua, G.R. Nos. 236075 & 236076 (Resolution), April 18, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

Jurisdiction over the person of the respondent in a petition for TPO/PPO under RA 9262 can be
acquired through any of the means of serving summons under the Rules of Court.

In an action in personam such as a petition for TPO/PPO under RA 9262, the purpose of summons
is two-fold: (1) to notify the defendant that an action has been brought against him; and (2) to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. When the defendant does not voluntarily
submit to the court's jurisdiction or when there is no valid service of summons, any judgment of
the court which has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is null and void. In the case
at bar, the sheriff attempted to personally serve the summons, petition, and TPO in Jay's
residence and place of employment as per the Sheriff's Return. Sabado v. Sabado, G.R. No.
214270, May 12, 2021

Voluntary appearance cures an invalid service of summons.

In a catena of cases, this Court has ruled that voluntary appearance by the defendant results to
his submission to the court's jurisdiction. In G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. v. Tiara Commercial
Corporation, we held that: There is voluntary appearance when a party, without directly assailing
the court's lack of jurisdiction, seeks affirmative relief from the court. When a party appears
before the court without qualification, he or she is deemed to have waived his or her objection
regarding lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons. When a defendant, however,
appears before the court for the specific purpose of questioning the court's jurisdiction over him
or her, this is a special appearance and does not vest the court with jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant. Sabado v. Sabado, G.R. No. 214270, May 12, 2021

Motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata

Under the principle of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and
constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of
action. 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. All elements of
res judicata are present in the instant case. Anent the first and second elements, the Second
Order is a final judgment which has already attained finality and was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction. It is likewise undisputed that there is an identity of parties, subject

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

matter, and causes of action between Civil Case Nos. 21375 and 25981. Finally, the third element
of res judicata is present as the Second Order dismissing Civil Case No. 21375 operated as a
judgment on the merits. Here, the Second Order did not state that the dismissal of the complaint
is without prejudice. A dismissal based on any of the grounds in Section 3, Rule 17 operates as an
adjudication on the merits. Unless otherwise qualified by the court, a dismissal under said rule is
considered with prejudice, which bars the refiling of the case. Guided by the foregoing,
respondent was barred from reviving his action by filing a new complaint, which he did in Civil
Case No. 25981. In fine, the trial court in Civil Case No. 25981 correctly granted petitioner's
motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. Philippine National Bank v. Daradar, G.R. No.
180203, June 28, 2021

In any event, the question of whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute is
mainly addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

The true test for the exercise of such power is whether, under the prevailing circumstances, the
plaintiff is culpable for want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.
There must be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute. As to what constitutes an
"unreasonable length of time," this Court has ruled that it depends on the circumstances of each
particular case and that the sound discretion of the court in the determination of the said
question will not be disturbed, in the absence of patent abuse. xxx Similarly, herein respondent's
actions clearly demonstrate his lack of interest and due diligence to prosecute the case. He failed
to act on the First Order and allowed the trial court to issue its Second Order four years later.
Respondent's lack of interest and due diligence to prosecute his case is further highlighted by his
failure to assail the Second Order and the lapse of another four years before he filed another
complaint based on the same cause of action. All told, we find no compelling reason to disturb
the trial court's dismissal of respondent's complaint under Rule 17, Section 3. Philippine National
Bank v. Daradar, G.R. No. 180203, June 28, 2021

When the party-defendant is present, the absence of his counsel during pre-trial shall not ipso
facto result in the plaintiff's ex parte presentation of evidence.

Pre-trial serves a significant purpose in court proceedings. It simplifies, abbreviates and expedites
the trial, if not the entire process of administering and dispensing justice. For this reason, the
parties and their counsels cannot take this stage for granted as it is more than just a part of
procedural law or its technicality. Accordingly, Section 4 and Section 5, Rule 18 of the Revised
Rules of Court mandate the appearance of the parties and their counsels, and the consequences
for their failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial. xxx Prior to the amendments brought

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

about by A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC which became effective on May 1, 2020, there was an apparent
confusion with regard to the effect of a non-appearance in pre-trial. xxx With the advent of AM
19-10-20-SC, said Section 5 has been clarified by already including the word counsel and putting
the conjunctive word and, to the effect that it is only when both the party-litigant (plaintiff or
defendant) and his counsel fail to appear in pre-trial that there be the concomitant consequence
of either a dismissal (plaintiff and counsel were absent), or presentation of evidence ex
parte (defendant and counsel were absent). Gemina v. Heirs of Espejo, Jr., G.R. No. 232682,
September 13, 2021

No other procedural law principle is more settled than that once a judgment becomes final, it
is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal, except only for correction of
clerical errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or
where the judgment itself is void.

Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of
courts should become final at some definite time fixed by law. After all, the very object for which
courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies. Here, respondent did not move for
the reconsideration of the Second Order nor appeal the same, thus allowing it to become final
and executory. On this score, the Second Order is already beyond the power of the courts to
amend or revoke. Philippine National Bank v. Daradar, G.R. No. 180203, June 28, 2021

A final and executory decision is immutable.

A decision or order becomes final and executory if the aggrieved party fails to appeal or move for
a reconsideration within 15 days from his or her receipt of the court's decision or order disposing
of the action or proceeding. Thus, under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a decision or
order that has attained finality can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law and whether it be made by the court
that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. The doctrine is grounded on public policy
and sound practice which must not simply be ignored. It is adhered to by the courts to end
litigations albeit the presence of errors. xxx The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability
of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments. Taningco v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
215615, December 9, 2020

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

Settled is the rule that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and
may be attacked anytime. It creates no rights and produces no effect.

It remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the proper forum is crucial, as the decision of a
court or tribunal without jurisdiction is a total nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is
no judgment at all. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no
legal effect. Metro Rail Transit Development Corp. v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising,
Vending and Promotions, Inc., G.R. No. 204452, June 28, 2021

The RTC as the judgment court has supervisory control over the execution of its judgment.

It is settled that the court which rendered the judgment has supervisory control over the
execution of its judgment. It does not, however, give the court the power to alter or amend a
final and executory decision in the absence of the recognized exceptions, namely: (a) if there is a
need to correct clerical errors which cause no prejudice to any party, (b) void judgments, and (c)
if circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and
inequitable. In Carpio v. Doroja, the Court ruled that the deciding court has supervisory control
over the execution of its judgment: A case in which an execution has been issued is regarded as
still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit. There is no
question that the court which rendered the judgment has a general supervisory control over its
process of execution, and this power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact
and law which may be involved in the execution. Linden Suites, Inc. v. Meridien Far East
Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 211969, October 4, 2021

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts,
while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts.

For a question to be one of law, its resolution must not involve an examination of the probative
value of the evidence presented by the litigants, but must rely solely on what the law provides
on the given set of facts. If the facts are disputed or if the issues require an examination of the
evidence, the question posed is one of fact. The test, therefore, is not the appellation given to a
question by the party raising it, but whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without
examining or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a
question of fact. An examination of the present petition shows petitioner essentially challenging
the dismissal of the case based solely on the premise that a ruling on ownership in an ejectment
case is merely ancillary to resolve the issue of possession and should not bind the title or

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

ownership of the land. This is clearly a question of law which calls for an examination and
interpretation of the prevailing law and jurisprudence. Tiña v. Sta. Clara Estate, Inc., G.R. No.
239979, February 17, 2020

Time and again, the Court has declared that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a
part of due process.

It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with
the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the
requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so . . . leads to the loss of the right to appeal," such as
the instant case. Ramirez v. Elomina, G.R. No. 202661, March 17, 2021

The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.
However, this rule admits of certain exceptions.

Thus, the subsequent promulgation of the RTC's June 14, 2012 Decision renders the Petition for
Certiorari superfluous and warrants its dismissal. However, this rule admits of certain exceptions
as held in Enriquez v. Rivera, to wit: The general rule is that certiorari will not lie as a substitute
for an appeal, for relief through a special action like certiorari may only be established when no
remedy by appeal lies. The exception to this rule is conceded only "where public welfare and the
advancement of public policy so dictate, and the broader interests of justice so require, or where
the orders complained of were found to be completely null and void, or that appeal was not
considered the appropriate remedy, such as in appeals from orders of preliminary attachment or
appointments of receiver." (Fernando v. Vasquez, L-26417, 30 January 1970; 31 SCRA 288). For
example, certiorari maybe available where appeal is inadequate and ineffectual (Romero Sr. v.
Court of Appeals, L-29659, 30 July 1971; 40 SCRA 172). Metro Rail Transit Development Corp. v.
Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc., G.R. No. 204452, June 28,
2021

Annulment of judgment may either be based on the ground that a judgment is void for want of
jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud. It is a remedy in equity so
exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting.

Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction
over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim. In a petition for

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse
of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means absence
of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because
the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of
the action or subject matter is conferred by law. The petitioner cannot rely on jurisdictional
defect due to grave abuse of discretion, but on absolute lack of jurisdiction. The concept of lack
of jurisdiction as a ground to annul a judgment does not embrace grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Heirs of Borras v. Heirs of Borras, G.R. No. 213888,
April 25, 2022

The lack of jurisdiction envisioned in Rule 47 is the total absence of jurisdiction over the person
of a party or over the subject matter.

When the court has validly acquired its jurisdiction, annulment through lack of jurisdiction is not
available when the court's subsequent grave abuse of discretion operated to oust it of its
jurisdiction. Heirs of Borras v. Heirs of Borras, G.R. No. 213888, April 25, 2022

Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides for the remedy of annulment of judgment with the
appellate court of the judgments, final orders, and resolutions of the RTCs in civil actions for
which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate
remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

Significantly, Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules limits the ground for the action of annulment of
judgment to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. xxx Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner." On the
other hand, "[t]he overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in court." At this
juncture, worth reiterating is the rule that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was
availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Ancheta
v. Cambay, G.R. No. 204272, January 18, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 13 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

The remedy of annulment of judgment, albeit a "last remedy," is not an alternative remedy to
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or a petition for relief.

It must show or allege that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of petitioner. Notably, we have
held in Jose v. Intra Strata Assurance Corporation that "it is only extrinsic fraud, not lack of
jurisdiction, which is excluded as a valid ground for annulment if it was availed of, or could not
have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief." This is because a judgment
rendered without jurisdiction by the trial court is fundamentally void or non-existent, and
therefore, can be "assailed at any time either collaterally or by direct action or by resisting such
judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked." Ancheta v. Cambay,
G.R. No. 204272, January 18, 2021

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

Cases involving the propriety of the issuance of ancillary writs, as mere adjuncts to the main
suit, become moot and academic upon disposal of the main action.

TROs and WPIs "constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action"
and are "preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights" of the parties. They
are ancillary because "they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main
action." Ancillary writs are not causes of action in themselves; they are mere adjuncts to the
main suit with the sole object of preserving the status quo until the merits of the case can be
heard. Being ancillary in nature, the existence of a main action or proceeding is a condition sine
qua non before a WPI or TRO may lie. xxx Thus, any preliminary writ cannot survive the resolution
of the main case of which it is an incident because an ancillary writ "loses its force and effect
after the decision in the main petition." When a main action is dismissed, any provisional remedy
in this case is dissolved. It then follows that once a decision disposing of the main case becomes
final and executory, any disposition by a court on the propriety of a TRO and WPI issued in the
case serves no practical purpose and renders such a disposition moot and academic. Banco
Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200642, April 26,
2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 14 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

A TRO and WPI issued by a court without jurisdiction over the main case are void for want of
jurisdiction.

[T]he void nature of all proceedings xxx extends to the issuance of any ancillary writs, such as the
TRO and WPI in the instant case. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the instant Petition has not
been rendered moot, it should still be dismissed since the TRO and WPI issued by the trial court
are void for want of jurisdiction. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200642, April 26, 2021

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

A petition for declaratory relief is an action instituted by a person interested in a deed, will,
contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question
of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute
and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder.

The said action must comply with the following requisites: (1) the subject matter of the
controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order
or regulation, or ordinance; (2) the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful
and require judicial construction; (3) there must have been no breach of the documents in
question; (4) there must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one
between persons whose interests are adverse; (5) the issue must be ripe for judicial
determination; and (6) adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of
action or proceeding. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc., G.R.
No. 219340 (Resolution), April 28, 2021

Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.

The Court shall not tire in calling out the usual propensity of some litigants in confounding errors
of judgment for errors of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is an error committed by a court
within its jurisdiction that is reviewable by appeal. Mere allegations of wrongful conclusions
based on the facts and the law or supposed misappreciation of evidence do not, by themselves,
rise to the level of grave abuse of discretion against the trial court. xxx The rationale of this rule
is that, when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not
deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. Otherwise, every
mistake made by a court will deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment will be a
void judgment. On the other hand, errors of jurisdiction are those done outside and in excess of

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 15 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

a trial court's jurisdiction and committed in grave abuse of discretion that are properly reversible
by certiorari. The abuse of discretion should clearly be grave, following the definition long-
formulated by jurisprudence. Radaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021

An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such
act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction."

The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion
and hostility." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly
extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From
the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only
strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could
manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. Radaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380,
August 4, 2021

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

For the issuance of a Writ of Amparo, it is not sufficient that a person's life is endangered. It is
even not sufficient to allege and prove that a person has disappeared. It has to be shown by
the required quantum of proof that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the government or a political organization, and that
there is a refusal to acknowledge the same or to give information on the fate or whereabouts
of the missing persons.

In the instant case, the Court agrees with the RTC that Morada failed to prove by substantial
evidence her claim of enforced disappearance. Morada's petition is mainly anchored on the
alleged rumor which circulated in their community that Johnson was killed and his dead body
was mixed in cement. However, said allegation lacked corroborations. The presentation of
testimonial, documentary or at least circumstantial evidence could have made a difference in
light of the denials made by the respondents as regards Morada's claims, as well as the
documentary evidence, showing that Johnson is no longer in the charge of the barangay.
Morada's continued reliance on mere rumors and speculations, without presenting any clear and
independent evidence showing that there was a threat to Johnson's life, liberty, and security,
even prior to his arrest or that he was physically harmed by the respondents while in detention,

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 16 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

does not amount to substantial evidence. Not only did Morada fail to substantiate any
extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance in this case, she also miserably failed to show any
government participation or acquiescence in any killing or disappearance. Morada v. Rias, G.R.
No. 222226, February 14, 2022

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Denials of a motion to quash are improper subjects of a petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court.

Foremost in our rules of criminal procedure is that motions to quash are interlocutory orders that
are generally unreviewable by appeal or by certiorari. If the motion to quash is denied, it means
that the criminal Information remains pending with the court, which then must proceed with the
trial to determine whether the accused is innocent or guilty of the crime charged against him.
Only when the court promulgates a final judgment of conviction can the accused question the
deficiencies of the Information by raising them as errors by the trial court and as an additional
ground for his exoneration in his appeal. Jurisprudence explains the reason for the rule: The
reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from
interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must
necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of
the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case should necessarily be
delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary
expenses; for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be
raised by him and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. Radaza v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021

A petition for certiorari, pertaining to the regularity of a preliminary investigation, becomes

moot after an information is filed and a trial court issues an arrest warrant upon finding
probable cause against the accused.

By analogy, the same rationale should be applied in this case. This is because the Sandiganbayan
acts as a "trial court" in resolving criminal cases against government officials or employees. The
Sandiganbayan is a special court tasked to hear and decide cases against public officers and
employees[,] and entrusted with the difficult task of policing and ridding the government ranks
of the dishonest and corrupt. Province of Bataan v. Casimiro, G.R. Nos. 197510-11 & 201347,
April 18, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 17 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

Lack of authority of an officer to file an Information, while a ground for quashal, is not a
jurisdictional defect.

Earlier jurisprudence had viewed the lack of authority by the officer filing the Information under
paragraph (d) of Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court as a non-waivable ground additional to
paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of the same provision. It was the prevailing principle that an
Information filed by an officer who had no authority to do so shall be considered jurisdictionally
infirm for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the subject matter or the
offense. The ratio underlying this principle was that an Information filed without such proper
authorization was a defective Information, and a defective Information can never be the basis of
a valid conviction. However, this legal maxim set by jurisprudence has already been rendered old
and obsolete with the advent of Gomez v. People. It was therein held that a handling prosecutor's
lack of prior written authority from the head prosecutor in the filing of an Information does not
affect a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the
accused. Such handling prosecutor who filed an unauthorized Information but without bad faith
or criminal intent is considered as a de facto officer coated with a color of authority to exercise
acts that remain valid and official. Radaza v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 201380, August 4, 2021

Interestingly, nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a
deposition, of a prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by
final judgment and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the
testimony of such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take a testimony of
a witness who is unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country.
Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.

Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, the
Court holds that it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is
compelling reason. In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court had relaxed the procedural rules by
applying suppletorily certain provisions of the Rules on Civil Procedure in criminal proceedings.
On that score, the Court finds no reason to depart from its practice to liberally construe
procedural rules for the orderly administration of substantial justice. xxx Hence, the taking of
testimony of Mary Jane through a deposition by written interrogatories is in order. People v.
Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October 9, 2019

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 18 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

The deposition by written interrogatories in criminal proceedings is pursuant to the right to due
process of the accused.

Furthermore, to disallow the written interrogatories will curtail Mary Jane's right to due process.
The benchmark of the right to due process in criminal justice is to ensure that all the parties have
their day in court. It is in accord with the duty of the government to follow a fair process of
decision-making when it acts to deprive a person of his liberty. But just as an accused is accorded
this constitutional protection, so is the State entitled to due process in criminal prosecutions. It
must likewise be given an equal chance to present its evidence in support of a charge. Here, the
trial court acted within its jurisdiction when it granted the taking of Mary Jane's deposition by
written interrogatories. The grant of the written interrogatories by the Indonesian Government
perceives the State's opportunity to present all its desired witnesses in the prosecution of its
cases against Cristina and Julius. It is afforded fair opportunity to present witnesses and evidence
it deem vital to ensure that the injury sustained by the People in the commission of the criminal
acts will be well compensated and, most of all, that justice be achieved. Hence, the right of the
State to prosecute and prove its case have been fully upheld and protected. xxx Indeed, for justice
to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The
interests of society and the offended parties which have been wronged must be equally
considered. Verily, a verdict of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice, and an acquittal is
not necessarily a triumph of justice; for, to the society offended and the party wronged, it could
also mean injustice. Justice then must be rendered even-handedly to both the accused, on one
hand, and the State and offended party, on the other. People v. Sergio, G.R. No. 240053, October
9, 2019

EVIDENCE

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish its cause of action by a preponderance
of evidence, or that "evidence which is of greater weight or is more convincing than that which is in
opposition to it."

Preponderance of evidence "does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means that the testimony of one
side is more believable than that of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on one side than on
the other." The guidelines in the determination of preponderance of evidence are provided under Section
1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. xxx Thus, the determination of preponderance of evidence depends
greatly on the credibility of the witnesses. Hence, in the evaluation of their testimonies, We must be
guided by the well-settled doctrine that "[w]hen it comes to [the witnesses'] credibility, the trial court's
assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence." Cathay Pacific Steel
Corp. v. Uy, Jr., G.R. No. 219317, June 28, 2021

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 19 of 20
 2023 BAR REVIEW REMEDIAL LAW
Handout No. 8
CHAIR’S CASES

Burden of Proof and Burden of Evidence

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defenses by the amount of evidence required by law. xxx Further, it is a
basic principle that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Meanwhile, burden of
evidence is "that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the trial to
create a prima facie case in his favor or to overthrow one when created against him." Similarly,
it is elementary that the burden of evidence shifts from party to party depending upon the
exigencies of the case. In the present case, and guided by the foregoing, it is clear that the burden
of proof is not shifted to Ante. Contrary to his assertions, only the burden of evidence is shifted,
which requires him to present evidence that weighs in his favor to counteract the findings of SDT.
This, nevertheless, does not require him to prove his innocence; i.e., that he did not do the
infractions charged. The distinction between the two lies in the subtle but important detail that
Ante may successfully overthrow SDT's prima facie case against him, without necessarily proving
his innocence. In other words, Ante may adduce defenses or exculpatory evidence on his behalf;
and if sufficient, would defeat the case against him. Ante v. University of the Philippines Student
Disciplinary Tribunal, G.R. No. 227911, March 14, 2022

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 20 of 20