REMEDIAL LAW CASE HOLDINGS

The defendant should raise the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person in the
very first motion to dismiss. Failure to raise the issue of improper service of summons in the first
motion to dismiss is a waiver of this defense and cannot be belatedly raised in succeeding
motions and pleadings. Such amounted to a voluntary appearance which is equivalent to
service of summons under S20 R14. (Tung Ho Steel Enterprises Corp. v. Ting Guan Trading
Corp., 7 April 2014).
As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted them in conformity with the
Courts earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions. (A.M.
No. 01-7-01-SC, Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
September 24, 2002, effective 14 October2002). Text messages are to be proved by the
testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. Here,
PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other accused in
order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the
mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and
was competent to testify on them. (People v. Enojas, 10 March 2014). (Note: The
pronouncement as to the inclusion of criminal actions and proceedings in the coverage of the
REE cleared up doubts engendered by People v. Abad, 20 April 2010, where SC in an obiter
stated that the REE does not apply to criminal actions).
A procedural rule (Section 3 Rule 17) cannot prevail over the substantive right of co-owners to
ask for partition at any time. (Art. 494 of the Civil Code). Hence the counterclaim for partition
may be entertained even if an earlier action for partition was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(Quintos v Nicolas, 16 June 2014, Velasco,J.).
As regards Petitionersassertion that the summons was improperly served, suffice it to state
thatservice of summons, to begin with, is not required in a habeas corpus petition,be it under
Rule 102 or A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC. A writ of habeas corpus plays a role somewhatcomparable
to a summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of saidwrit, the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. (Tujan-Militante v. Cada-Deapera, 28 July2014).
Without any prior order or at least a motion forexclusion from any of the parties, a court cannot
simply allow or disallow thepresentation of a witness solely on the ground that the latter heard
thetestimony of another witness. It is the responsibility of respondent's counselto protect the
interest of his client during the presentation of otherwitnesses. If respondent actually believed
that the testimony of Kenneth wouldgreatly affect that of Stephen's, then respondent's counsel
was clearly remissin his duty to protect the interest of his client when he did not raise theissue of
the exclusion of the witness in a timely manner. (Design SourcesInternational v. Eristingcol, 19
February 2014).
As a rule there is no right to informational privacy on photos posted in Facebook. Hence the
writ of habeas data is not available for the redaction of compromising photos obtained by a
school from Facebook. (Vivares v. St. Theresa's College, 29 September 2014).
The ruling in Braza v. City Civil Registrar (607 SCRA 638 [2009]) that a court in a Rule 108
proceeding cannot pass upon the validity of marriage is inapplicable to a petition for recognition
of a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage celebrated in the Philippines between a
Japanese national and a Filipino. (Fujiki v. Marilag, 700 SCRA 69 [2013]).
Compelling a person arrested for extortion to submit a urine sample for drug testing violates his
right to privacy and his right against self-incrimination. (Dela Cruz v.People, 730 SCRA 655
[2014]).
Mandamus does not lie to compel a custodian to produce a will for probate. The reason is that
there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in theordinary course of law, that is, the filing of a
petition for probate under Section 1Rule 76 and then moving for the production of the will under
Secs. 2-5 Rule 75. (Uy v. Lee, G.R. No. 176831, 15 January 2010).
If the pleadings or the evidence on record show that the claim is barred by prescription, the
court is mandated to dismiss the claim even if prescription is not raised as a defense. (China
Banking Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 4 February 2015).

REMEDIAL LAW CASE HOLDINGS

The validity of an environmental compliance certificate may be challenged by a petition for a writ
of Kalikasan provided the petitioner shows a causal link between the defects of the ECC and the
actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
Otherwise the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Paje
v. Casino, 3 February 2015).
It is more precise to speak of a year as consisting of 12 calendar months (Sec. 31, Chapter 8,
Book 1 of Administrative Code of 1987) rather than 365 days (Art. 13, Civil Code). Hence one
year from 2 July 2003 is 2 July 2004 (not 1 July 2004) notwithstanding that 2004 was a leap
year. (Co v. New Prosperity Plastic Products, Inc., 30 June 2014). This ruling greatly simplifies
the computation of years by discounting the additional day in leap years.
Theprocedure under Rules 23 to 28 allows the taking of depositions in civil cases,either upon
oral examination or written interrogatories, before any judge,notary public or person authorized
to administer oaths at any time or placewithin the Philippines; or before any Philippine consular
official,commissioned officer or person authorized to administer oaths in a foreignstate or
country, with no additional requirement except reasonable notice inwriting to the other party.
But for purposes of taking the deposition in criminalcases, more particularly of a prosecution
witness who would forseeably beunavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be
made before thecourt, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending as required bythe
clear mandate of Sec. 15 Rule 119. To dootherwise would violate the accuseds right to confront
the witnesses againsthim. (Go v. People, 18 July 2012).
The general rule is that the validity of an Environmental Compliance Certificate cannot be
challenged by a Writ of Kalikasan. The proper procedureto question a defect in an ECC is to
follow the DENR appeal process. Aftercomplying with the proper administrative appeal process,
recourse may be madeto the courts in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrativeremedies. However, inexceptional cases, a Writ of Kalikasan may be availed of to
challenge defectsin the ECC provided that (1) the defects are causally linked or
reasonablyconnected to an environmental damage of the nature and magnitude
contemplatedunder the Rules on Writ of Kalikasan, and (2) the case does not violate, orfalls
under an exception to, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrativeremedies and/or primary
jurisdiction. (Paje v. Casino, G.R. No. 207257, 3 February 2015).
Under Sec. 19(8) of B.P. Blg. 129, interest is excluded in computing the jurisdictional amount of
the RTC. However if the interest haD already accrued at the time of the filing of the complaint,
the same is included in computing the jurisdictional amount. (Gomez v. Montalban, 548 SCRA
693, 704).
A medical report offered in evidence without presenting in court the doctor who executed the
same is inadmissible for being hearsay. (People v. Rondina, 30 June 2014).
The Plain View Doctrine finds no application where the police officers purposely searched the
accused after a lawful arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag
containing marijuana. They deliberately opened it as part of a search incident to a valid arrest.
(People v. Calantiao, 18 June 2014, Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
Last post: April 7, 2015