ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

20 1 6 B AR O P E R AT I O N S C O M M I S S I O N

LAST MINUTE TIPS

REMEDIAL LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. What is the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction?

Courts will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of
an administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact (Paloma vs.
Mora, 470 SCRA 711).

2. What is the Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-Interference?

No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment or decrees of
another court with concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction possessing equal power to grant
injunctive relief or to pass upon or scrutinize and much less declare as unjust a judgment
of another court. This principle holds that courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction
cannot interfere with each other’s orders (Lapulapu Development and Housing Corp. v.
Group Management Corp., G.R. No. 141407, September 9, 2002)

3. A company filed a complaint for sum of money against spouses H and W. W, in her
answer, alleged that H is already dead so she filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the complaint failed to implead an indispensable party or a real party
in interest hence the said pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action. Is
her contention tenable?
No, lack of jurisdiction over the person of a party is not one of those defenses considered
waived under Section 1 of Rule 9, such defense must be invoked when an answer or a
motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent a waiver of the defense. (Boston Equity vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173946, June 19, 2013)

4. Distinguish Residual Jurisdiction from Residual Prerogative.

RESIDUAL JURISDICTION RESIDUAL PREROGATIVE
Section 9 of Rule 41 Section 1 of Rule 9:
i.e.: protective orders, approve (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject
compromises, permit appeals of indigent matter, (2) litis pendentia, (3) res
litigants, order execution pending appeal, judicata, (4) prescription
and allow the withdrawal of the appeal
Available at a stage in which the court is Available on Appeal
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction
over the case or the subject matter involved
in the appeal. This stage is reached upon
the perfection of the appeals by the parties
or upon the approval of the records on
appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the
original records or the records on appeal.
For the protection & preservation of rights of To dismiss an action motu propio upon
the parties, pending disposition of the case the grounds (Katon vs. Palanca, G.R. No.
on appeal 151149, September 7, 2004)

5. What are the criteria or tests that may be used in determining whether a
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive?
The criteria or tests that may be used in determining whether a counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive, is summarized as follows:
a. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

b. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
c. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as
defendant's counterclaim?
d. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?
(Alday vs. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, G.R. No. 138822. January 23, 2001)

6. May the adverse party’s witness be compelled to appear, testify and bring
documents without being served prior written interrogatories?
Yes, the Rules of Court provides that calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not
allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. One of the
purposes of the above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is
there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. (Spouses Afulugencia vs.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014)

7. Can a motion for interpleader be made an alternative defense in an answer? Can

there be an interpleader in a counterclaim or cross-claim or third party/fourth party
complaint?
Yes. While the rules in special civil action and ordinary civil action do not expressly
authorize the filing of a complaint-in-interpleader as part of the answer, this does not
mean, however, that the counter-complaint/cross-claim for interpleader runs counter to
general procedures. (Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Development Bank and Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. Nos. 154470-71 September 24, 2012)

8. May a party raise the issue of fraud in his motion to lift the preliminary attachment
if such fraud is also the cause of action in the main case?
No, he is not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the attachment the reason being that the
hearing on such a motion for dissolution of the writ would be tantamount to a trial of the
merits of the action. In other words, the merits of the action would be ventilated at a mere
hearing of a motion, instead of at the regular trial. (Chuidian vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
139941. January 19, 2001)

9. The battered wife filed a petition for issuance of protection order with prayer for
financial support against her husband who is a retired enlisted personnel of the
Philippine Army, which the RTC granted. Can the Republic of the Philippines (the
husband's employer) be ordered to automatically deduct a percentage of the
retirement benefits constituting the spousal support?
Yes. R.A. 9262 or the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004"
declares that the court shall order the withholding of a percentage of the income or salary
of the respondent by the employer, which shall be automatically remitted directly to the
woman notwithstanding other laws to the contrary. Although pursuant to Section13(l) of
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the right to receive legal support, or money or property
obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the Government is exempt from
execution, this is considered as exception to the general rule that retirement benefits are
exempt from execution. (Republic vs. Yahon, G.R. No. 201043 June 16, 2014)

10. Juan and Michelle were married and had two children. They separated because of
disharmonious relationship. Juan filed a Petition for the Custody of the Minors of
their children before the RTC of Makati. While the custody case was pending,
Michelle filed a Petition for Temporary and Permanent Protection Order before the
RTC in Muntinlupa. Is Michelle guilty of forum shopping?
Yes. A circumstance of forum shopping occurs when, as a result or in anticipation of an
adverse decision in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum
through means other than appeal or certiorari by raising identical causes of action,
subject matter and issues. (Brown-Araneta vs. Brown, G.R. No. 190814, October 9,
2013)

11. Is the non-joinder of indispensable parties a ground for dismissal of an action?

No, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of action.
Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court prohibits the dismissal of a suit on the ground of
non-joinder or misjoinder of parties and allows amendment of the complaint at any stage

2
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

of the proceedings, through motion or order of the court on its own initiative. Only if
plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party, despite the order of the court, may it
dismiss the action (Valdez-Tallorin vs. Heirs of Juanito Tarona, G.R. No. 177429, Nov.
24, 2009).

12. What is the effect of not impleading indispensable parties?

Joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable
parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a
case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, with no
authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present. The
responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.
(Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo v. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer, G.R. No. 154745.
January 29, 2004)

13. If a defendant files a motion to dismiss, does this automatically constitute

voluntary appearance that would place him under the jurisdiction of the court?
No. When one is asking for the dismissal of the case, he/she is not submitting
himself/herself to the court. The submission must be categorical and unequivocal for
voluntary appearance to be considered as placement of oneself to the jurisdiction of the
court. Estoppel by jurisdiction must be unequivocal and intentional. It would be absurd to
hold that petitioner unequivocally and intentionally submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the
court by seeking other reliefs to which it might be entitled when the only relief that it can
properly ask from the trial court is the dismissal of the complaint against it. (Millenium
Industrial Commercial Corporation vs. Jackson Tan G.R. No. 131724. February 28,
2000).

14. What are the two aspects of Res Judicata?

BAR BY PRIOR JUDGMENT
(Sec. 47 [b] of Rule 39)
There is identity of parties, subject matter,
and causes of action between the first case
where the judgment was rendered and the
second case that is sought to be barred.
The judgment in the first case constitutes
an absolute bar to the second action.
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT
(Sec. 47 [c] of Rule 39)
There is identity of parties and issues in
the first and second cases, but no identity
of cause of action.
The first judgment is conclusive only as to
those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as
to matters merely involved therein.

Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly

adjudicated or necessarily involved in the
determination of an action before a
competent court in which judgment is
rendered on the merits is conclusively
settled by the judgment therein and
cannot again be litigated between the
parties and their privies whether or not the
claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter
of the two actions is the same.

15. Distinguish Criminal Contempt from Civil Contempt.

In Yasay vs. Recto; G.R. No. 129521 September 7, 1999:
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CIVIL CONTEMPT
Any conduct directed against the authority Failure to do something ordered by a
or dignity of the court court to be done for the benefit of a party
Proceedings are to be conducted in Generally held to be remedial and civil in
accordance with the principles and rules their nature; that is, they are proceedings
applicable to criminal cases. The State is for the enforcement of some duty, and
the real prosecutor. essentially a remedy for coercing a
person to do the thing required

arellano c|l|e|a|r 3
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

Initiated by the court or tribunal exercising Should be instituted by an aggrieved

the power to punish a given contempt party, or his successor, or someone who
has a pecuniary interest in the right to be
protected.
Purpose is primarily punishment Purpose is primarily compensatory or
remedial
Exoneration amounts to an acquittal which Appealable
is not appealable

16. Judge Caoibes issued an order requiring Sison, a traffic enforcer, who is not a
party to a case pending in his sala to appear before him and explain a traffic
violation citation involving the former’s son. Sison failed to appear hence the
Judge cited him in indirect contempt, is the Judge correct?
No, the respondent judge should have refrained from ordering the arrest and detention of
the complainant, since the incident involved his own son, and the matter was very
personal to him. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to
preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold due administration of justice, judges,
however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost
restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and
preservation not for retaliation and vindication (Sison vs. Judge Caoibes, A.M. No. RTJ-
03-1771. May 27, 2004).

17. What is a sub judice rule?

The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing
the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect
contempt. (P/Supt. Hansel M. Marantan vs. Diokno, G.R. No. 205956 dated February 12,
2014)

18. The Office of the Ombudsman charged Senator Enrile and several others with
plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of their purported involvement in the
PDAF scam. He filed an omnibus motion to post bail but it was denied by the
Sandiganbayan. Is denial correct?
No, considering the following:
 The objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during the trial. His
social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities
upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape is highly
unlikely.
 The Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person
under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty.
These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
 His poor health justifies his admission to bail.
(JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 213847 dated August 18,
2015)

19. Distinguish Certiorari as a Mode of Appeal (Rule 45) from Certiorari as a Special
Civil Action (Rule 65).
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF
(RULE 45) CERTIORARI
(RULE 65)
Petition is based on questions of law Petition raises the issues as to whether
the lower court acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Involves the review of the judgment, award May be directed against an interlocutory
or final order on the merits. order of the court prior to appeal from the
judgment or where there is no appeal or
any other plain, speedy or adequate
remedy
Must be made within 15 days from notice of May be filed not later than 60 days from

4
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

APPEAL BY CERTIORARI SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF

(RULE 45) CERTIORARI
(RULE 65)
judgment notice of judgment, order or resolution
sought to be assailed
Stays the judgment, award or order Does not stay the challenged proceeding
appealed from unless a writ or preliminary injunction or a
temporary restraining order shall have
been issued
Prior filing of a motion for reconsideration is Generally, motion for reconsideration is a
not required condition precedent
The appellate court is in the exercise of its The higher court exercises original
appellate jurisdiction and power of review jurisdiction under its power of control and
supervision over the proceedings of lower
courts. (San Miguel Corp., et al. vs.
Layos, Jr., et al., G. R. No. 149640, Oct.
19, 2007)

20. If there is a pending unlawful detainer case and the same property subject thereon
is expropriated by the Government, what is the effect of that expropriation
proceeding to the unlawful detainer case?
The unlawful detainer case is suspended for a period of 1 year. But the unlawful or
informal settlers will have to pay the rental to the owner of the property also within that 1
year period. (Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 189239,
November 24, 2010)

21. Zacarias owned a parcel of land in Cavite. One day, she discovered that Anacay
entered her property and occupied the same hence she demanded the latter to
leave the premises. Anacay requested for time (until end of the year) to leave and
Zacarias acceded to said request. However, the said timeline has lapsed and yet
Anacay still refused to vacate the disputed lot. Hence, Zacarias filed an action for
unlawful detainer, is she correct?
No. To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed
acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is
later sought to be recovered. If the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed
against the intruder is forcible entry. If, however, the entry is legal but the possession
thereafter becomes illegal, the case is unlawful detainer. Admittedly, no express contract
existed between the parties. (ZACARIAS vs. ANACAY, G.R. No. 202354, September 24,
2014)

22. Distinguish Demurrer to Evidence in Civil Cases from Demurrer to Evidence in

Criminal Cases.
NATURE DEMURRER in CIVIL CASES DEMURRER in CRIMINAL CASES
Demurrer is a kind of a Motion to Dismiss. It is NOT a prohibited pleading
under the Rules on Summary Proceedings because (1) it similarly
expedites the proceedings and (2) it is not among those mentioned under
prohibited pleadings
Similarities
The ground is the same, that is, INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
Only available AFTER the presentation of the evidence of the plaintiff or
prosecution, as the case may be
Court may either grant or deny the Demurrer
More difficult to file because the
Easier to file because the prosecution
plaintiff is only required to present
is required to prove the guilt of
his case by preponderance of
accused beyond reasonable doubt
evidence
if DENIED - distinguish whether there
Distinctions
had been prior leave of court, thus:
If DENIED - plaintiff presents (1) if with leave, accused may
evidence proceed with presentation of his
evidence; (2) if without leave,
accused can no longer present his

arellano c|l|e|a|r 5
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

NATURE DEMURRER in CIVIL CASES DEMURRER in CRIMINAL CASES

evidence

if GRANTED - accused is acquitted;

if GRANTED - the case is
order of acquittal is NOT appealable;
dismissed; order of dismissal is a
otherwise, it will be a violation of his
FINAL order, hence appealable
right against double jeopardy
if plaintiff appeals and the
appellate court REVERSES -
defendant is no longer allowed to
present evidence. (Rule 33 and
Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules
of Court)

23. What are the six (6) requisites of a petition for declaratory relief?
a. The subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance;
b. The terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and require judicial
construction
c. There must have been no breach of the documents in question;
d. There must be an actual justiciable controversy or the "ripening seeds" of one
between persons whose interests are adverse;
e. The issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and
f. Adequate relief is not available through other means or other forms of action or
proceeding. (Almeda vs. Bathala Marketing, G.R. No. 150806, January 28, 2008)

24. Does dismissal upon notice by plaintiff (right of the plaintiff to dismiss the
complaint) applies squarely in expropriation cases?
No. In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiff's matter of right to
dismiss the complaint precisely because the landowner may have already suffered
damages at the start of the taking. The plaintiff's right in expropriation cases to dismiss
the complaint has always been subject to court approval and to certain conditions. Also,
the rules did not require the filing of an answer or summary judgment in eminent domain
cases, what was required is a motion to dismiss. (National Power Corporation vs. the
Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103442-45 May 21, 1993)

25. Considering that decisions in small claims cases are immediately executory an
unappealable, what can be the proper remedy for an aggrieved party? Special civil
action of certiorari under Rule 65. (A.L. Ang Network vs. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804,
January 22, 2014)

What is the threshold amount in small claims cases? Section 2 of the 2016 Revised
Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases provides that actions for payment of money
where the value of the claim does not exceed P200,000.00 exclusive of interest and
costs.

26. Is the final judgment in a petition for quo warranto decided against a public office
binding upon the latter’s successor in office?
No. Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regard to a public right binds his
successor in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases. A
judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's successor in office, even
though such successor may trace his title to the same source. This follows from the
nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but
always against the person — to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally
authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays
claim. (Mendoza vs. Allas, G.R. No. 131977, February 4, 1999)

27. Agapita filed a case for enforcement of Hawaii court’s judgment against Imelda.
The trial court issued a Summons to Imelda at Alexandra Homes, Pasig City. The

6
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

Summons and a copy of the Complaint were immediately served upon Macky, an
alleged caretaker of Imelda at the condominium unit. Imelda filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over her person due
to an invalid substituted service of summons. Did the court acquire jurisdiction
over the person of Imelda?
No. Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either upon a valid service of summons or
the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court. In an action strictly in personam, personal
service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of
the summons to the defendant in person. In the case, there is absence of material data
on the serious efforts to serve the Summons on Imelda in person. Efforts must be proved
adequate, to reach the conclusion that personal service has become impossible or
unattainable outside the generally couched phrases of on many occasions several
attempts were made to serve the summons. (MANOTOC vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
130974, August 16, 2006)

28. How does a losing defendant stay the immediate execution of a judgment in an
unlawful detainer case?
The defendant in such a case may have such judgment stayed only by (a) perfecting an
appeal; (b) filing a supersedeas bond; and (c) making a periodic deposit of the rental or
reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency
of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a
ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect
being ministerial and imperative (Atty. Alconera vs. Pallanan, A.M. No. P-12-3069,
January 20, 2014 in relation to Ferrer vs. Judge Rabaca, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580 dated
October 6, 2010).

29. What are the instances where a writ of execution may be appealed?
 the writ of execution varies the judgment;
 there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable
or unjust;
 execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
 it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court;
 the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for
interpretation thereof; or
 it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is
defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt
has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority;
(Parel vs. Heirs of Simeon Prudencio, G.R. No. 192217, March 2, 2011)

30. Koruga is a minority stockholder of Banco Filipino. She filed a complaint before
the RTC against its board of directors alleging violation of the Corporation Code
on issues of self-dealing and conflicts of interest as well as in the “Receivership”
and creation of a management committee. Does RTC have jurisdiction to hear and
decide a suit that seeks to place the Bank under receivership?
No. It is not the Interim Rules of Procedure on Intra-Corporate Controversies, or Rule 59
of the Rules of Civil Procedure on Receivership, that would apply to this case. Instead,
Sections 29 and 30 of the New Central Bank Act should be followed. The appointment of
a receiver shall be vested exclusively with the Monetary Board. In view thereof, it is the
Monetary Board that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings for receivership of
banks. (Koruga vs. Arcenas, G.R. No. 168332 dated June 19, 2009)

31. Is joint adoption of husband and wife still required even if the adoptee is already
above 18 years old?
Yes. It is true that when the child reaches the age of emancipation that is, when he
attains the age of majority or 18 years of age, emancipation terminates parental authority
over the person and property of the child, who shall then be qualified and responsible for
all acts of civil life. However, parental authority is merely just one of the effects of legal
adoption enumerated under Article V of RA 8552. Therefore, even if emancipation
terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a legitimate child of the
adopter with all the rights of a legitimate child (In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P.
Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009).

arellano c|l|e|a|r 7
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

32. JC, a 2-year old baby, was adopted by Cornelio. However, Cornelio died within two
(2) years from JC’s adoption. When JC was attained the age of majority and
gainfully employed, he met an unfortunate event which led to his demise.
Bernardino, the biological parent of JC, filed a claim for death benefits under SSS.
SSS denied the claim saying that Bernardino is no longer considered as parent
and primary beneficiary of JC as he was legally adopted by Cornelio. Is the SSS
correct?
No. Bernardina remains to be the parent and primary beneficiary of JC. Section 20 of the
Domestic Adoption Act provides that “if the petition for rescission is granted, the parental
authority of the adoptee’s biological parent or the legal custody is restored if the adoptee
is still a minor or incapacitated. The manner of herein terminating the adopter’s parental
authority justifies the retention of vested rights and obligations between the adopter and
the adoptee, while the consequent restoration of parental authority in favor of the
biological parents, simultaneously, ensures the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left to
fend for himself at such a tender age. (Bartolome v. SSS, GR NO. 192531, November 12,
2014)

33. What are the grounds by which annulment of judgment may be availed of?
There are two grounds by which annulment of judgment may be availed of: extrinsic
fraud, which must be brought four (4) years from discovery, and lack of jurisdiction, which
must be brought before it is barred by estoppel or laches. Lack of jurisdiction under this
rule means lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject matter, or lack of
jurisdiction over the parties. Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is “[that which] prevents a
party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or [that which]
operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it
is procured.” (Castro vs. Gregorio, 738 SCRA 415, G.R. No. 188801 October 15, 2014)

34. The siblings together with their mother are fighting over certain parcels of land.
Fearing that the contested properties would be squandered, the mother filed with
the RTC a petition to place the controverted lots under receivership, alleging that
she immediately needs her legal share in the income of these properties for her
daily sustenance and medical expenses. Is the appointment for receivership
proper?
No, receivership is a harsh remedy to be granted with utmost circumspection and only in
extreme situations. The alleged need for income to defray medical expenses and support
is not a valid justification for the appointment of a receiver. Financial need and like
reasons are not found in Sec. 1 of Rule 59 which prescribes specific grounds or reasons
for granting receivership. To avail this remedy, there must be clear showing that the
disputed properties are in danger of being lost or materially impaired and that placing
them under receivership is most convenient and feasible means to preserve, administer
or dispose of them. (Tantano vs. Espina-Caboverde, G.R. No. 203585 dated July 29,
2013)

35. Spouses Supapo owned a land located in Quezon City which has an assessed
value of P39,980.00. During one of their visits, they saw two houses built and
occupied on the said land by Spouses de Jesus without their knowledge and
permission. Hence they filed a complaint for accion publiciana with the MTC. They
also filed a criminal case against the latter for violation of the “Anti-Squatting
Law”. The court convicted the respondents but the latter appealed. During the
pendency of the appeal, the Congress repealed the said law resulting in the
dismissal of the criminal case. Spouses de Jesus is now invoking res jusdicata as
a defense.

Does MTC have jurisdiction over the case? Yes, Pursuant to (the amendment of)
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of
real property is now determined by its assessed value. Since the assessed value of the
subject lot located in Metro Manila is P39,980.00 which is within the threshold amount
lodged in the MTC, it is properly cognizable by the MTC.

8
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

Is the complaint for accion publiciana barred by res judicata? No, there is no identity
of subject matter, parties and causes of action between the criminal case prosecuted
under the Anti-Squatting Law and the civil action for the recovery of the subject property
as discussed hereunder:
 No identity of parties. The criminal complaint, although initiated by the Spouses
Supapo, was prosecuted in the name of the people of the Philippines. The accion
publiciana, on the other hand, was filed by and in the name of the Spouses Supapo.
 No identity of subject matter. The criminal case involves the prosecution of a crime
under the Anti-Squatting Law while the accion publiciana is an action to recover
possession of the subject property.
 No identity of causes of action. The people of the Philippines filed the criminal case
to protect and preserve governmental interests by prosecuting persons who violated
the statute. The Spouses Supapo filed the accion publiciana to protect their
proprietary interests over the subject property and recover its possession.
(Supapo vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356 dated April 20, 2015)

36. What is a “hot tub” hearing?

In a "hot tub" hearing, the judge can hear all the experts discussing the same issue at the
same time to explain each of their points in a discussion with a professional colleague.
The objective is to achieve greater efficiency and expedition, by reduced emphasis on
cross-examination and increased emphasis on professional dialogue, and swifter
identification of the critical areas of disagreement between the experts.
(INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH
APPLICATIONS, INC., v. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES), ET.AL,
G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015)

37. Alfredo was convicted of rape. He questioned the judgment, saying it is not valid
because the judge who penned the decision is different from the judge who heard
the testimonies of the witnesses. Thus, the judge was in no position to render the
judgment, as he did not observe firsthand their demeanor during trial. Is the
accused correct?
No. The fact that the trial judge who rendered judgment was not the one who had the
occasion to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied on the
records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the
evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion. (People vs. Alfredo, G.R. No.
188560, December 15, 2010)

38. Do the rules on depositions in civil cases apply strictly in criminal cases?
No. The procedure for taking depositions in criminal cases recognizes the prosecution's
right to preserve testimonial evidence and prove its case despite the unavailability of its
witness. It cannot, however, give license to prosecutorial indifference or unseemly
involvement in a prosecution witness' absence from trial. To rule otherwise would
effectively deprive the accused of his fundamental right to be confronted with the
witnesses against him. (Harry Go vs. People, G.R. No. 185527, July 18, 2012)

39. The deceased ENRILE, then Secretary of DOTC, was charged of committing the
offense in relation to his office and taking advantage of the same, in conspiracy
with accused, GO, Chairman and President of PIATCO. Will the death of Enrile
extinguish the criminal liability of Go?
No. It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile’s death, there is no longer any public
officer with whom respondent can be charged for violation of R.A. 3019. It does not
mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved
or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the
death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor
did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent.
(People vs. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014)

In what cases shall the Sandiganbayan exercise exclusive original jurisdiction?

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials

arellano c|l|e|a|r 9
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting

or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
i. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director
and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.
6758);
ii. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
iii. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
iv. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice
to the provisions of the Constitution; and
v. All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed
by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in
relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos.
1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
(Republic Act No. 10660 dated April 16, 2015)

40. Distinguish Judicial determination of probable cause from Executive determination

of probable cause.

Judicial determination of probable cause Executive determination of probable cause

the determination of probable cause for the determination of probable cause as
purposes of an arrest warrant is judicial, basis for the filing of the Information in
performed by the judge to ascertain court is executive, performed by the
whether the accused should be placed investigating officer to ascertain whether or
under the court’s custody not a criminal case must be filed in court
against those whom he believes committed
the crime
refers to “such facts and circumstances refers to such facts as are sufficient to
that would lead a reasonably discreet and engender a well-founded belief that a crime
prudent man to believe that an offense has has been committed and that the
been committed by the person to be respondent is probably guilty thereof and
arrested” should be held for trial
(Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41
dated January 21, 2015)

What are the four instances in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure where
probable cause is needed to be established?
1. In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating officer, to determine whether
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
2. In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine whether a warrant of
arrest or a commitment order, if the accused has already been arrested, shall be
issued and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice;
3. In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private person making a
warrantless arrest when an offense has just been committed, and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
4. In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whether a search warrant shall
be issued, and only upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines.
(Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41
dated January 21, 2015)

10
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

41. Will a pending Petition for Review with the Secretary of Justice concerning the
finding of probable cause suspend the issuance and implementation of warrant of
arrest?
No. Once a complaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on
the sound discretion of the court. Thus, the consequent implementation of a warrant of
arrest cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review by the Secretary
of Justice as to the finding of probable cause, a function that is exclusive in nature. To
defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest would be an encroachment on the
exclusive prerogative of the judge. (Viudez II vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 152889, June
5, 2009)

42. When should objections to warrantless arrest be raised?

Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be made before he enters his plea by filing a motion to quash; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived. (People vs. Lara y Orbista, G.R. No. 199877, August 13,
2012)

43. Andoy, a complainant in a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, contends

that he was denied due process because he was not given the chance to file a
reply to the counter-affidavit of the accused. Is his contention correct?
No. Because a preliminary investigation is not a proper trial, the rights of parties therein
depend on the rights granted to them by law and these cannot be based on whatever
rights they believe they are entitled to or those that may be derived from the phrase “due
process of law”. A complainant in a preliminary investigation does not have a vested right
to file a Reply- this right should be granted to him by law. There is no provision in Rule
112 of the Rules of Court that gives the Complainant or requires the prosecutor to
observe the right to file a Reply to accused’s counter-affidavit. (Artillero vs. Casimiro,
G.R. No. 190569, April 25, 2011).

44. Goldenway Corporation executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Equitable Bank
over its properties to secure the P2 million loan. The former failed to pay hence the
latter foreclosed and sold the properties. The corporation offered to redeem the
properties but the Bank argued that it can no longer be done as the certificate of
sale had already been registered. Cite the rule on redemption periods and rule on
the contention of both parties.
Pursuant to Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 (The General Banking Law of 2000), juridical
persons whose property is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have
the right to redeem the property in accordance with this provision until, but not after, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds
which in no case shall be more than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is
earlier. Since the certificate of sale had already been registered, the Corporation cannot
redeem the property anymore. (Goldenway Merchandising Corporation vs. Equitable PCI
Bank, G.R. No. 195540 dated March 13, 2013)

45. What are the requisites before an accused may become a State witness?
 There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested;
 There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of the said accused;
 The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
 Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
 Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude (Sec. 17, Rule 119).

46. Tomas Tuazon was charged of Drug Trafficking. The judge rendered a decision in
favor of him resulting in his acquittal, can that decision be appealed?
No, because the accused would be subjected to double jeopardy. A final judgment may
no longer be altered, amended or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact
or law and regardless of what court, be it the highest court of the land, rendered it. (Apo

arellano c|l|e|a|r 11
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12, 2010,
632 SCRA 727, 760)

47. What is the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment?

A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final
judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law; and whether it will be made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest court in the land. (NHA vs. CA, G.R. No. 173802, April 7,
2014)

What are the exceptions to the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment?

1. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its
execution unjust and inequitable. (Villaruel vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 136726.
September 24, 2003)
2. Correction of:
a. Clerical errors;
b. The so-called nunc pro tunc entries, a correction based on the records of the
case, which cause no prejudice to any party.
3. Annulments of judgment on the ground of:
a. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. Extrinsic fraud;
c. Violation of due process – such as when a party is declared in default and
made to pay interest at a rate higher than that prayed for by the plaintiff.

48. What is the concept of interlocking confession?

It is composed of extrajudicial confessions independently made without the collusion
which are identical with each other in their materials respects and confirmatory of the
other, are admissible as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused implicated therein
to show constitutes an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confession or
admissions are admissible only against the declarant himself. (People vs. Reyes, G.R.
No. 178300, March 17, 2009)

49. What is the Daubert Test and how is it applied in DNA evidence?
Daubert Test is the determination of the court whether the evidence would meet the
applicable "general acceptance" standard for the admission of expert testimony. The rule
is that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is inadmissible unless the technique
is "generally accepted" as reliable in the relevant scientific community.
Applying the Daubert Test in DNA evidence, the DNA evidence is relevant and reliable
since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and
molecular biology. (Agustin vs. CA, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005)

50. As a rule, an electronic document and the print out thereof are regarded as original
documents under the Best Evidence Rule. Thus, a scanned image of a paper-based
document is not an original document. Is this rule absolute?
NO, the picture images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are
likewise ‘official ballots’ that faithfully capture in electronic form the votes cast by the
voter, as defined by Section 2(3) of R.A. No. 9369. As such, the printouts thereof are the
functional equivalent of the paper ballots filled out by the voters and, thus, may be used
for purposes of revision of votes in an electoral protest. That the two documents—the
official ballot and its picture image—are considered "original documents" simply means
that both of them are given equal probative weight. In short, when either is presented as
evidence, one is not considered as weightier than the other. (Maliksi vs. Comelec, G.R.
No. 203302 dated April 11, 2013)

51. Mr. X, a consultant for the World Bank, suddenly disappeared while attending a
seminar in Quezon City. Mrs. X, wife of Mr. X, filed a petition for the Writ of Amparo
directed against PNP Chief ABC. The Court of Appeals immediately granted the
said petition. Does the grant herein determine the criminal culpability of the PNP
Chief ABC for the alleged enforced disappearance of Mr. X?
No. The writ of amparo does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the
disappearance, rather, it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the

12
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address

the disappearance. The writ of amparo is a protective remedy against violations or
threats of violation against the rights to life, liberty and security. (Razon vs. Tagitis, G.R.
No. 182498, December 3, 2009)

52. What if one person wanted to change the details of his birth certificate (to delete
the date of marriage of his parents, alleging that no such marriage took place), his
first name and his mother’s first name? Can he do all of these under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court?
No, he must undergo two separate procedures. The change of first names must be done
by the civil registrar under R.A. 9048. Section 15 of the said law provides that clerical or
typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first
name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar without need of a judicial order.
On the other hand, the date of marriage of his parents is substantial in nature which
requires adversarial proceedings pursuant to Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
(Onde vs. The Office of the Local Civil Registration of Las Piñas City, G.R. No. 197174,
September 10, 2014)

53. What is a Writ of Continuing Mandamus?

Continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a court in an environmental case directing any
agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to perform an act or series
of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully
satisfied. (Sec. 4 [c] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Case)
A writ of continuing mandamus is, in essence, a command of continuing compliance with
a final judgment as it “permits the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment in order to
ensure the successful implementation of the reliefs mandated under the court’s decision.”
(Dolot vs. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013).

54. Discuss the precautionary principle.

Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious
and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. (Section 4(f) of A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC, “Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases” dated April 13, 2010)

55. What is Epistolary Jurisdiction?

It was exercised by the Supreme Court in the case of RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS
OF THE PROTECTED SEASCAPE TAÑON STRAIT vs. SECRETARY ANGELO REYES
(G.R. No. 180771 dated April 21, 2015) in lowering the threshold for locus standi. It was
opined that the principle of human stewardship over the environment can be channelled
thru a citizen suit under the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. A citizen suit
allows any Filipino to act as a representative of a party who has enforceable rights under
environmental laws before Philippine courts.

56. What is the SLAPP defense?

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a legal action filed to harass,
vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution or the
government has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection
of the environment or assertion of environmental rights shall be treated as a SLAPP and
shall be governed by these Rules. (Section 1, Rule 6 of Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)

57. Is a Forfeiture case for the recovery of unlawfully acquired properties absorbed in
a Plunder case thereby nullifying a Writ of Attachment duly issued by the court in
the plunder case?
No. A forfeiture case under RA 1379 arises out of a cause of action separate and
different from a plunder case, thus negating the notion that the crime of plunder absorbs
the forfeiture case. The civil liability for forfeiture cases does not arise from the
commission of a criminal offense such as plunder. The action of forfeiture arises when a
public officer or employee acquires during his incumbency an amount of property which is
manifestly out of proportion of his salary and to his other lawful income. Such amount of
property is them presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. If the public

arellano c|l|e|a|r 13
 2016 REMEDIAL LAW
Last Minute Tips

official is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the
property in question, then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the
State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the
State. Thus the filing of a forfeiture suit will proceed independently of any criminal
proceeding. (Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009)

58. What is Sexual Abuse Shield Rule?

Under Section 30(a) of A.M. No. 004-07-SC, otherwise known as the Child Witness Rule,
the following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child
sexual abuse:
(a) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior;
and
(b) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
However, by way of exception, paragraph (b) of the same Rule provides that evidence of
specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other
than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.

59. What is the Two-Fold Task of the Prosecution?

On one hand, he is bound by his oath of office to prosecute persons where the
complainant’s evidence is ample and sufficient to show prima facie guilt of a crime. Yet,
on the other hand, he is likewise duty-bound to protect innocent persons from
groundless, false, or malicious prosecution. (Baviera vs. Paglinawa, GR No. 168380
dated 8 February 2007)

60. In an appeal under Rule 43, is the failure to attach certified copies of the material
portions of the record referred to in the petition is a sufficient ground for
dismissal?
Yes, the rule clearly requires the petition for review to be accompanied by a clearly
legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or
resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of
the record referred to therein and other supporting papers. The requirement is intended
to immediately enable the CA to determine whether to give due course to the appeal or
not by having all the material necessary to make such determination before it. This is
because an appeal under Rule 43 is a discretionary mode of appeal, which the CA may
either dismiss if it finds the petition to be patently without merit, or prosecuted manifestly
for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require
consideration; or may process by requiring the respondent to file a comment on the
petition, not a motion to dismiss, within 10 days from notice. (Maniebo vs. CA, GR No.
158708, 10 April 2010)

61. May the issuance of writ of possession be enjoined by an injunction?

No, the duty of the trial court to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues
as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the
corresponding bond. No discretion is left to the trial court. To emphasize the writs’
ministerial character, the Supreme Court had in previous cases disallowed injunction; that
issuance of the same may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage
or the foreclosure itself. (LZK Holdings and Development Corp. vs. Planters Development
Bank, G.R. No. 167998 dated April 27, 2007)

62. The Court granted Susan's petition for support pendente lite against Danilo. The
adjudged support was intended primarily for food, household expenses such as
salaries of drivers and house helpers, and also petitioner’s scoliosis therapy
sessions. In the course of accounting, the Court allowed as deduction to the
monthly support the two expensive cars for his children including maintenance
cost, travel expenses of Susan and the children, and other non-grocery items. Is
the Court correct?
No. The court should not have allowed all the expenses incurred by respondent to be
credited against the accrued support pendente lite. Hence, the value of two expensive
cars Danilo bought for his children plus their maintenance cost, travel expenses of
petitioner and Angelli, purchases through credit card of items other than groceries and

14
 ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW bar operations commission

dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as these bear no relation to the
judgment awarding support pendente lite. Allowing huge deductions from the accrued
monthly support of Susan and her children completely ignores the unfair consequences
to them. (Lim-Lua v Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013)

63. What are the remedies of a third party deprived of his property?
Section 16 of Rule 39 specifically provides that a third person may avail himself of the
remedies of either terceria, to determine whether the sheriff has rightly or wrongly taken
hold of the property not belonging to the judgment debtor or obligor, or an independent
"separate action" to vindicate his claim of ownership and/or possession over the property.
(VILLASI vs. GARCIA, G.R. No. 190106 dated January 15, 2014)

64. Is there a right to information privacy with respect to photos posted in Facebook?
No, there is no right to informational privacy on photos posted on Facebook. That the
photos are viewable by “friends only” does not necessarily bolster the petitioners’
contention. Digital images under this setting remain to be outside the confines of the
zones of privacy in view of the sheer number of Facebook “friends” and the facility in
which photos can be shared even to those who are not “friends.” (Vivares vs. St.
Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014)

*****Good Luck and God Bless*****

HAIL TO THE CHIEFS!
Arellano University School of
Law
Bar Operations Commission
2016

arellano c|l|e|a|r 15