REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL and JUDICIAL ETHICS with PRACTICAL EXERCISES

SBCA x UDM COLLABORATION MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS

Made by: UDM CBO Academics Committee

Consulting Professor: Hon. Placido Garcia III (Criminal Procedure)

DISCLAIMER: These questions and answers were written for informational purposes only and compiled in good faith.
They are meant to supplement and not replace legal knowledge acquired over the readers' law school endeavors.

While every care has been attempted in preparing these mock bars, the San Beda College Alabang School of Law
Centralized Bar Operations and Universidad de Manila Centralized Bar Operations make no representations and give
no warranties of whatever nature with respect to these suggested answers, including but not limited to the accuracy,
adequacy, or availability of any information or facts contained therein. Hence, under no circumstances shall both
institutions be held liable for misconception incurred due to the use of these materials or reliance on information
provided in them. Use of these materials and appurtenant information herein shall still be solely the readers' risk.

QUESTION #1. X is an assignee of a subdivision road lot. X applied for an Alteration Plan to consolidate the
subdivision lot. Subsequently, HLURB approved the Alteration Plan. The separate titles were cancelled and
new title, consolidating the lots, was issued to X. Y filed a complaint praying for the issuance of a
permanent cease and desist order preventing X from developing and fencing the road lot. HLURB issued a
cease and desist order against X. Without filing an appeal before the Office of the President, X filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. CA dismissed the petition outright for failing to exhaust
available administrative remedies.

Can X directly file a Rule 65 writ of certiorari without exhausting administrative remedies?

Suggested Answer: (Spouses Rodriguez v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 183324, June
19, 2019)

No. A writ of certiorari to issue, a petitioner must not only prove that the tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. Additionally, a
petitioner must also show that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
against what he perceives to be a legitimate grievance. Here, there is stll an available recourse affording
prompt relief from the injurious effects of the judgment or acts of a lower court or tribunal is considered a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #2. X filed a petition for suspension of payments with the SEC, which resulted in the execution
of a Restructuring Agreement between X and its creditors. Subsequently, the Restructuring Agreement was
approved by the SEC. Under the Restructuring Agreement, X acknowledged its indebtedness to Y, and bound
itself to pay the latter. X failed to settle its obligation and negotiated another moratorium on its payment
with Y. Y denied X’s plea for a Moratorium prompting X to filed a complaint with the RTC praying for the
re-accounting of its outstanding obligation. RTC granted X’s prayer to re-account for its outstanding
obligation. CA affirms ruling that SEC Petition does not preclude the RTC from taking cognizance of the RTC
Complaint. X argues that CA’s decision serves as the law of the case and precludes Y from assailing RTC’s
jurisdiction.

Is the CA correct when it ruled that RTC had jurisdiction to act on the RTC Complaint?
Suggested Answer: (Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Plast-Print Industries, G.R. No. 199308, June
19, 2019)No. RTC ordinarily exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Nevertheless, the scope of such general jurisdiction cannot be extended over matters falling
under the special jurisdiction of another court or quasi-judicial body. There is lack of jurisdiction over the
nature of the action where the type of action is reposed by law in certain other courts or in a quasi-
judicial body. Thus, the doctrine of the law of the case cannot be applied to serve as a bar against
jurisdictional challenges involving the subject matter or nature of the case; it cannot be applied to grant
jurisdiction which the law itself does not confer.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #3. This case involves a dispute over a certain condominium unit. Both X and Y had prior
marriages, and met and married after their respective spouses died. Y purchased the subject property
before her marriage to X. The two then executed an Ante-Nuptial Agreement which stated that their
properties would be governed by complete separation of properties. Y died, and her children from her
previous marriage, collectively Z, are claiming the subject property as their own, while X claims that he
bought the property using his own funds and thus has a claim over it. The RTC set a preliminary hearing,
however X failed to appear. X is now alleging that Z’s defense of waiver is an issue involving evidentiary
matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits. Is X correct?

Suggested Answer: (Delgado v. GQ Realty Development Corp., G.R. No. 241774. September 25, 2019)

NO. X cannot now use his own act of not appearing and presenting evidence in the preliminary hearing as a
basis to argue that he was deprived the opportunity to produce evidence. He had every opportunity to do
so during the preliminary hearing, and it was his own decision not to attend it. Further, with respect to the
existence, genuineness, and due execution of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement, no further evidence is needed
to establish the same. Under Rule 8, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, whenever a defense is based upon a
written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument shall be set forth in the pleading and
the original or copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading, which shall be deemed part of the pleading.
According to the succeeding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed
admitted unless the adverse party, under oath specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be
the facts. In the instant case, it is not disputed that X failed to specifically deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the Ante-Nuptial Agreement. In fact, the existence of the Ante-Nuptial
Agreement was never questioned nor denied by X.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #4. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against A, alleging to be A’s employee and was
terminated due to old age. A asserted that X was not its employee but an employee of its operation
supervisor, that X violated company policy and that the disallowance to enter the slaughterhouse was not
an act of dismissal. During the trial, A failed to specifically deny that X was informed he could no longer
report for work on the specific date of termination. In the affidavit of the employee who has the authority
to discipline A mentioned instances where X was barred from entering but did not specifically state that he
was barred on the specific date of termination. Did A admit that X was terminated?

Suggested Answer:
Yes. By their silence, petitioners are deemed to have admitted the same. Section 11 of Rule 8 of the rules
of Court, which supplements the NLRC Rules, provides that an allegation not specifically denied is deemed
admitted (Masonic Contractor, Inc. v. Madjos, G.R. No. 185094, Nov. 25, 2009). In this case, A failed to
specifically deny that X was informed he could no longer report for work on the specific date of
termination. In the affidavit of the employee who has the authority to discipline A mentioned instances
where X was barred from entering but did not specifically state that he was barred on the specific date of
termination. Hence, there was an admission of X’s termination.
 ───※ ·❆· ※───
QUESTION #5. Company A is a private corporation engaged in the business of transmitting electric power
from generating plants to distributors. It alleged that in order to maintain one of its transmission line
projects, they needed a subject property which is part of an industrial park. This industrial park was
transferred to Company B, a state instrumentality, by virtue of PD 949.

Company A sought to expropriate the land, so it filed a Complaint for Expropriation against Company B. The
RTC ruled that Company A has a lawful right to expropriate the subject property upon the payment of just
compensation. Company B filed a Rule 45 Petition directly before the Court, raising the argument that the
expropriation of the property was invalid because the exercise of eminent domain was neither done
directly through Congress nor pursuant to a specific grant of authority. Was Company B correct in filing a
Rule 45 Petition directly before the Court?

Suggested Answer: (PNOC Alternative Fuels v. National Grid Corporation, G.R. No. 224936, September 04,
2019)

Yes. Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, in all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the
appeal shall be filed directly before the Court, not via a notice of appeal or record on appeal, but through
a petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45. In this case, the argument of Company B is
legal in nature. The Court will be able to decide on the validity of the assailed Order of Expropriation by
merely looking at the applicable law and jurisprudence on eminent domain, as well as the law granting
respondent NGCP the right of eminent domain, i.e., R.A. No. 9511. The Court need not review the evidence
on record to assess the correctness of the assailed Order of Expropriation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #6. If there are no qualified heirs, can the government initiate escheat proceedings over
the assets of the deceased? To whom, in particular, shall the estate of the deceased go and for whose
benefit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
If there are no qualified heirs, Rule 91, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that the Solicitor General
or his representatives in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, may file a petition with the Regional Trial
Court where the deceased last resided or in which he had estate, if he resided outside the Philippines,
setting forth the facts and praying that the estate of the deceased be declared escheated.

Rule 91, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that once a judgment has been rendered in escheat
proceedings, the properties of the deceased shall be assigned as follows: (a) personal estate to the
municipality or city where he last resided in the Philippines; (b) real estate to the municipalities or cities
in which the same is located; and (c) if the deceased never resided in the Philippines, the whole estate may
be assigned to the respective municipalities or cities where the same is located. Such estate shall be for
the benefit of public schools, and public charitable institutions and centers in said municipalities or cities.

(2018 Bar Question)

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #7. Eliza obtained a loan of P3 Million from Hamilton Bank. Aside from executing a promissory
note in favor of Hamilton Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot as
security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Hamilton Bank filed an action
against Eliza to foreclose the real estate mortgage. A month after, and while the foreclosure suit was
pending, Hamilton Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of P3 Million against Eliza based on
the same promissory note previously executed by the latter. In opposing the motion of Eliza to dismiss the
second action on the ground of splitting of a single cause of action, Hamilton Bank argued that the ground
relied upon by Eliza was devoid of any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate
contracts, namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the deed of real estate
mortgage. Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, there is a splitting of a single cause of action. Under the Section 4, Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, there is a splitting of a single cause of action if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of
the same cause of action. Here, both suits, the foreclosure and the collection suit, arose from the same
cause of action, that is, the non-payment by Eliza of her P3 million loan from Hamilton Bank. The fact that
the two actions were based on separate contracts is irrelevant, what matters is that both actions arose
from the same cause of action. Therefore, splitting of a single cause of action exists in the present case.

(2017 Bar Question)

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #8. Joaquin files a Complaint against Ulpiano for recovery of title and possession of land
situated in Muntinlupa with the RTC of Pasig. B files a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue. The RTC
Pasig Judge denies B's Motion to Dismiss, which obviously was incorrect. Alleging that the RTC Judge
"unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office", Ulpiano files a Petition for Mandamus against the judge. Will Mandamus lie? Reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, Mandamus will not lie, as it is only a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. In the
case of Paloma v. Mora, the Supreme Court held that a dismissal of a case on improper venue is not a
ministerial duty, but is discretionary in nature. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a
discretionary duty. Therefore, mandamus will not lie in the present case.

(Nilo Paloma v. Danilo Mora, G.R. No. 157783,September 23, 2005). (2012 Bar Question)

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #9. X, employee of A, was terminated by A. X filed a case for illegal dismissal. NLRC ruled in
favor X but was reversed on MR. On Dec. 3, 2014, X received the copy of the resolution. X filed the petition
for certiorari under Ruel 65 with CA on Feb. 2, 2015 (Monday). CA dismissed because it was filed beyond the
deadline of 60 days or until Feb. 1, 2015 (Sunday).

Was the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed out of time with the CA?

Suggested Answer:
No. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment
or resolution sought to be assailed (Rules of Court, Rule 65, § 4). When the last day for filing falls on a
Sunday, the petition may be filed on the next working day (Dela Rosa v. Michaelmar Philippines, Inc. G.R.
No. 182262, April 13, 2011). In this case, X received the copy of the NLRC Resolution on Dec. 3, 2014.he
had 60 days or until Feb. 1, 2015 to file the petition for certiorari under Rule 65. However, Feb. 1, 2015 fell
on a Sunday so deadline for filing the petition or certiorari was the next business day or on Feb. 2, 2015. X
filed it on Feb. 2, 2015. Hence, it was timely filed.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #10. The RTC granted the application for registration of title filed by Spouses X and Y. Upon
appeal by oppositors, the Court of Appeals granted the appeal and set aside the application for registration
of title granted to Spouses X and Y. The oppositors filed a petition for partial review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, seeking the review of evidence they adduced
before the RTC to prove that the land applied for by Spouses X and Y overlap with their Torrens Titles.

Should the review of facts under a Rule 45 petition be granted?

Suggested Answer: (Fil- Estate Management, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. 192393, March 27,
2019.)

No. It is a settled ruled that the Court is not a trier of facts. Although there are recognized exceptions to
this rule, the petitioners-oppositors failed to cite any applicable exception. As provided in Section 6, Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, a review by the Court is not a matter of right, but of its sound discretion. It will be
granted only when there are special and important reasons. Petitioners have failed to prove that the RTC
and the CA decided not in accord with the law or jurisprudence, nor it have departed from the usual and
accepted course of judicial proceedings.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #11. For over a year, Nena had been estranged from her husband Eliazo because of the latter’s
suspicion that she was having an affair with Vlodomir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Taguig. Nena
lived in the meantime with her brother in Makati. One day, the house of Nena’s brother inexplicably burned
almost to the ground. Nenita and her brother were caught inside the house but Nena survived as she fled in
time, while her brother tried to save belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed. As she
was running away from the burning house, Nena was surprised to see her husband also running away from
the scene. Dr. Kwak, Eliazo’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Eliazo medically
consulted after the fire, also saw Eliazo in the vicinity some minutes before the fire. Coincidentally, Fr.
Farriols, the parish priest who regularly hears Eliazo’s confession and who heard it after the fire, also
encountered him not too far away from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson and at his trial,
the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nena, the doctor and the priest-confessor, who all
saw Eliazo at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire.

May the testimony of Nena be allowed over the objection of Walter?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Nenita’s testimony should be disallowed. Rule 130, Section 22 of the Rules of Court provides that neither
the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against
the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. In the present case, the exception does not
apply as the criminal case is not against Nenita, and her sister is neither her direct ascendant or
descendant. Therefore, the Marital Disqualification Rule should apply, and her testimony be disallowed.

(2013 Bar Question)

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #12. A, B, and C inherited a lot from their parents as co-owners. A TCT was issued in the name
of C. A and B had filed a complaint against C for annulment of deed (Civil Case 1). C manifested that he
had entered into a compromise agreement with his other siblings. And since no answer was received from
C, the court concluded that a compromise agreement was forged among them, dismissing the case: The
western portion to B; the middle portion to A and the eastern portion to C. However, said portions were
never actually partitioned, leaving the title still registered in C’s name. A died leaving the lot to her son D
by virtue of a Deed of Donation. D’s wife E owed F, an heir of C, evidenced by a Kasunduan. E’s heir, G,
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. RTC found that judgment on the pleadings was proper and res
judicata attached in the present case in view of the proceedings in Civil Case.

Did res judicata attach?

Suggested Answer:
No. The judgment or final order rendered by a Philippine court or judge, having jurisdiction to render the
judgment or order, has the effect of res judicata or bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment.
The requisites of res judicata are the following: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) the court that
rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there is — between the first and the second actions — an identity of parties, subject matter and cause
of action.

Here, first there was no judgment on the merits in the prior case because there was no compromise
agreement that was judicially approved, thus no judgment was entered in the prior case; Second, there is
no identity of causes of action because the prior case concerned the ownership of the subject lot, whereas
the present case also involves possession and consignation. Hence, res judicata may not be applied.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #13. On his way to the Taylor Swfit’s Eras World Tour in the Philippine Arena, on board a public
transport bus as a passenger, Police Inspector Holmes of the Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed
robbery while the bus was traversing NLEX. His alertness and training, enabled him to foil the robbery and
to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while frisking him, discovered another handgun
tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns and the malefactor was later charged with the separate
crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearms.

May the charges of robbery and illegal possession of firearm be filed directly by the investigating prosecutor
with the appropriate court without a preliminary investigation?

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes. Since the offender was arrested in flagrante delicto without a warrant of arrest, an inquest proceeding
should be conducted and thereafter a case may be filed in court even without the requisite preliminary
investigation. Under Section 6, Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure, when a person is lawfully arrested
without a warrant involving an offense that requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without a need for such investigation provided an inquest has
been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In this case,the investing prosecutor may file the charges
if he conducted the inquest proceeding.

(2013 Bar Question)

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #14. Distinguish a writ of Kalikasan from a writ of continuing mandamus.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A writ of kalikasan is a legal remedy designed to protect and preserve the constitutional right of the people
to a balanced and healthful ecology. It is invoked in cases involving environmental issues, such as the
violation of environmental laws, damage to ecosystems, or threats to the environment. The writ of
kalikasan aims to safeguard and ensure the effective enforcement of environmental laws, and it can be
sought by individuals, groups, or even government entities. On the other hand, writ of continuing
mandamus is a legal remedy that compels a public official or government agency to perform an act or duty
mandated by law and to continue performing it until the judgment or order is fully satisfied. It is usually
invoked in cases where there is a prolonged and continuous violation or non-compliance with a clear legal
duty or obligation by a government agency. The writ of continuing mandamus aims to ensure the ongoing
performance of an obligation or duty by the concerned government entity or official.

(2019 Bar Question)

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #15. Spouses X and Y filed a complaint for Rescission of Sale and Real Estate Mortgage against Z
and A Bank. During the pendency of said case, the Monetary Board of the BSP issued a resolution prohibiting
A Bank from doing business and placed it under receivership and, later, under liquidation.

Pursuant to Sec 30 of RA 7653, or the New Central Bank Act, a Petition for Assistance in Liquidation was
filed by A Bank’s liquidator with the RTC. Meanwhile, in the case of Spouses X and Y against Z and A Bank,
Spouses X and Y received a decision in their favor. Thereafter, A Bank received a Notice of Garnishment and
attached to said Notice were the Entry of Final Judgment and Writ of Execution in relation to the case filed
by Spouses X and Y. A Bank filed a Motion to Lift with prayer to direct the Spouses X and Y to file a
judgment claim in the Liquidation Court. The RTC lifted the Notice of Garnishment and Writ of Execution
against A Bank; however, it later reversed itself upon the grant of Spouses X and Y’s Motion for
Reconsideration. A Bank received another Notice of Garnishment which prompted A Bank to file a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with Prayer for Issuance of TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction before the CA. The CA issued resolutions denying A Bank’s application for TRO and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. A Bank then filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the SC, wherein it contends that the CA erred
in denying its application for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, which was ancillary to its Petition
for Certiorari.

Is A Bank correct?

Suggested Answer: (Prime Savings Bank v. Spouses Santos, G.R. No. 208283, Jun. 19, 2019)

No. The rule is that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs appeals from judgments or final orders, not
interlocutory orders. An interlocutory order cannot be the subject of appeal until final judgment is
rendered for one party or the other. Therefore, in the instant case, the Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by A Bank was the wrong remedy. The resolutions issued by the CA
are mere interlocutory orders, dealing with A Bank’s application for issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, which is a mere ancillary prayer attached to the main case of the Certiorari
Petition, which sought the reversal of the RTC’s Order allowing the execution and garnishment of A Bank’s
assets.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #16. Atty. Potter, a lawyer and a notary public, notarized a document already prepared by
spouses Ron and Hermione when they approached him. It is stated in the document that Ron and Hermione
formally agreed to live separately from each other and either one can have a live-in partner with full
consent of the other. What is the liability of Atty. Potter, if any?

Suggested Answer: (1998 Bar, In Re Santiago, 70 Phil. 661 Panganiban vs. Borromeo; 58 Phil. 367, In re
Bucana, 72 SCRA 14)

Atty. Potter may be held administratively liable for violating Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility - a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the leg system. An agreement between two spouses to live separately from each other and
either one could have a live-in partner with full consent of the other, is contrary to law and morals. The
ratification by a notary public who is a lawyer of an illegal or immoral contract or document constitutes
malpractice or gross misconduct in office. He should at least refrain from its consummation.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #17. Atty. Gastador was one of Town Bank's valued clients. In recognition of his loyalty to the
bank, he was issued a gold credit card with a credit limit of P250,000.00. After two months, Atty. Gastador
exceeded his credit limit, and refused to pay the monthly charges as they fell due. Aside from a collection
suit, Town Bank also filed a disbarment case against Atty. Gastador. In his comment on the disbarment case,
Atty. Gastador insisted that he did not violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, since his obligation to
the bank was personal in nature and had no relation to his being a lawyer.

Is Atty. Gastador correct? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer: (2017, 2005 Bar; Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 7.03)
Atty. Gastador is not correct. A lawyer should act according to the standards of the legal profession even in
his personal acts. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely affects his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #18. Butch was accused of estafa by Michelle, the wife of Judge Alavendro, for misappropriating
the ring she entrusted to him. Since Judge Alavendro was present when Michelle handed the ring to Butch,
he was compelled by his wife to testify as a witness for the prosecution in the criminal case. Did the Judge
commit any violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Judge Alavendro violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 4, Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides that "Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any
manner with the case." (Sec. 4 Canon 4, New Code of Judicial Conduct) Judge Constantino's appearance as
a witness in the criminal case in which his wife was the offended party is violative of this rule. It may also
be violative of Section 3, Canon 1, which provides that "judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner
the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency". (Sec. 3 Canon
1, New Code of Judicial Conduct)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Judge Alavendro did not violate the New Code of Judicial Conduct. As provided for in the case of Perez
and Ronquillo vs. Judge Costales, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1876, it was held that Judge Costales may not be
held administratively liable for participating in a criminal action filed by his wife as a witness as such is not
prohibited by the Code of New Judicial Conduct so long as the Judge does so in his personal capacity,
without using his influence, resources, and time as a Judge in his participation as a witness to the case.

In the case at bar, Judge Alavendaro, having personal knowledge of the transaction between his wife
(Michelle) and Butch, may be made to testify as a witness in the case filed by Michelle so long as Judge
Alavendaro does so in his personal capacity and does not use his influence, time, and resources as a Judge
in order to affect the case in any manner.

(2016 Bar Examinations)

───※ ·❆· ※───
QUESTION #19. Ian Alba owns a house and lot at No. 9 West Aguila, Green Cross Subdivision, Quezon City,
which he leased to Jun Miranda for a term of two years starting May 1, 2006, at a monthly rental of
P50,000. Jun defaulted in the payments of his rentals for six (6) months, from January 1, 2007 to June 30,
2007. Prepare a demand letter as lawyer of Ian Alba addressed to Jun Miranda preparatory to filing an
ejectment case.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

30 June 2007

JUN A. MIRANDA
No. 9 West Aguila, Green Cross Subdivision,
Quezon City

RE: DEMAND TO PAY RENT & VACATE THE PROPERTY

Dear, Jun A. Miranda,

I write to you on behalf of Mr. Ian Z. Alba regarding the above-referenced matter for the subject
property located at:

No. 9 West Aguila, Green Cross Subdivision, Quezon City

Under your lease agreement with Mr. Alba, your monthly rent of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 50,000.00)
was supposed to be paid every 1st day of the month. However, your last rental payment was made on
December 1, 2006. As of this date you have missed six (6) monthly rental payments amounting to THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 300,000.00).

Due to the foregoing, Mr. Alba hereby makes a final demand upon you to pay THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (PHP 300,000.00) and to vacate the property within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this demand
letter, otherwise Mr. Alba would be constrained to institute the appropriate civil complaint against you. I
will also hold you liable for interest, damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses that Mr. Alba may incur
arising from your unlawful detainer of his property.

If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact me at 0908-233-4100.

Thank you and we expect your prompt compliance.

Atty. Francisco H. Solaiman

───※ ·❆· ※───

QUESTION #20. Simply draft a verification and certification against forum shopping

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, (Name) of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of (Address), subscribing under oath, hereby
depose and state:

1) That I am the petitioner in the above-mentioned case;

2) That I caused the preparation of the above petition and understood the contents thereof;
3) That the facts stated in the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
authentic records;
4) That I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issue raised in this
petition in any court, tribunals or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein.
5) That If I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending after
its filing, I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___________ day of _____________________,
20_____.

________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ______________ in the ______________, Philippines,
affiant presented to me his competent proof of identity on the date and place as indicated
above.

Notary Public

Doc. No. __________

Page No. __________
Book No. __________
Series of 2023

-END-