Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
REMEDIAL LAW
2015 BAR EXAMINATIONS
1. General Principles
1.1. Concept of remedial law
-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
What is a court?
It is an organ of government belonging to the judicial department the
function of which is the application of the laws to the controversies
brought before it as well as the public administration of justice.
It is a governmental body officially assembled under authority of law
at the appropriate time and place for the administration of justice
through which the State enforces its sovereign rights and powers (21
CJS 16).
It is a board or tribunal which decides a litigation or contest (Hidalgo
v. Manglapus, 64 OG 3189).
1.4.2. Court as distinguished from a judge
classified?
First Level (MTCs, MeTCs, MCTCs) which try and decide (1) criminal
actions involving violations of city or municipal ordinances committed
within their respective territorial jurisdiction and offenses punishable
with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, and (2) civil actions including ejectment, recovery of personal
property with a value of not more than P___000,000 outside MM or does
not exceed P___,000 in MM;
Second Level (RTCs, Family Courts) courts of general jurisdiction;
among the civil actions assigned to them by law are those in which the
subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, or involving
title to or possession of real property where the assessed value of the
property exceeds P20,000 outside MM or exceeds P50,000 in MM,
except actions for ejectment (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), or
where the demand exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorneys fees, litigation expenses, and cost, or the value of the
personal property or controversy exceeds P300,000 outside MM or
exceeds P400,000 in MM. RTCs also exercise appellate jurisdiction, to
review cases appealed from courts of the first level;
Third Level (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan) CA is an appellate
court, reviewing cases appealed to it from the RTC, on questions of fact
or mixed questions of fact and law. Appeals to it decided by the RTC in
the exercise of original jurisdiction are a matter of right; appeals with
respect to cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction are a matter of discretion. Occasionally, CA may act as a
trial court, as in actions praying for the annulment of final and executor
judgments of RTCs on the ground of extrinsic fraud subsequently
discovered, against which no other remedies lies.
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases
involving graft and corrupt practices act, and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees including those in GOCCs
in relation to their office. It also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments, resolutions, or orders of RTCs whether in the exercise
of their own original or appellate jurisdiction over criminal and civil
cases committed by public officers or employees including those in
GOCCs in relation to their office.
What
is
the
principle
of
Judicial
Courtesy?
It is a principle of law wherein in some instances where even if there is
no writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is
issued by the higher court, it would be proper for the lower court or
court of origin to suspend its proceedings.
This applies where there is strong probability that the issues before the
higher court would be rendered moot s a result of continuation of the
proceedings in the lower court or court of origin. (Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.166859, June 26, 2006.)
2. Jurisdiction
What is jurisdiction?
the power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case
Is jurisdiction substantive or
procedural?
Both. Jurisdiction over subject matter is substantive as it is conferred
by the constitution or by law; while jurisdiction over the person is
acquired by voluntary submission to the authority of the court or
through the exercise of its coercive processes and is therefore,
procedural. Jurisdiction over the res is obtained by actual constructive
seizure placing the property under the orders of the court and is also
procedural.
2.1 Over the parties
2.1.1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired
2.1.2. How jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired
mean?
It refers to the legal power of the court to render personal judgment
against a party to an action or proceeding.
acquired?
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is obtained either by a
valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary submission to
the courts authority.
It is worthy to note, however that, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is required only in an action in personam; it is not a
prerequisite in an action in rem and quasi in rem. It is enough that the
court or tribunal has jurisdiction over the res.
It is the power to deal with the general subject involved in the action,
and means not simply jurisdiction of the particular case then
occupying the attention of the court but jurisdiction of the class of
cases to which the particular case belongs. It is the power or authority
to hear and determine cases to which the proceeding is question
belongs.
When a complaint is filed in court, the basic questions that ipso facto
are to be immediately resolved by the court on its own: (a) What is the
subject matter of their complaint filed before the court? (b) Does the
court have jurisdiction over the said subject matter of the complaint
before it? Answering these questions inevitably requires looking into
the applicable laws conferring jurisdiction.
2.2 2. Jurisdiction versus the exercise of jurisdiction
Distinguish Jurisdiction
from the exercise of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the power or authority of the court. The exercise of this
power or authority is the exercise of jurisdiction.
2.2 3. Error of jurisdiction as distinguished from error of judgment
Distinguish Error of
(2) An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the
exercise of its jurisdiction. As long as the court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its
discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment.
Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the
courts findings.
(3) Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction
are correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Any
judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be
struck down at any time, even on appeal; the only exception is when
the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.
(4) When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person
and the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other
questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction.
Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction
are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and
jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special
civil action for certiorari.
2.2 4. How jurisdiction is conferred and determined
How is jurisdiction
determined?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegation of
the complaint regardless of whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
claims asserted therein.
It is not determined by the defenses in the answer or motion to
dismiss, except the defense of TENANCY.
It is neither determined by the evidence in the trial nor consent or
agreement by the parties. It is not even determined by estoppel.
primary jurisdiction.
This doctrine provides that where jurisdiction is vested upon an
administrative body, no resort to courts may be made until such
administrative body shall have acted upon the matter.
What is an
omnibus
motion rule?
It means that a motion attacking a pleading, like motion to dismiss,
shall include all grounds available and objections not included shall be
deemed waived.
Is failure to object on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction included in the omnibus
motion rule?
NO. The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is
however, a defense not barred by the failure to invoke the same in a
motion to dismiss already filed. Even if a motion to dismiss was filed
and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised therein, a party may, when
he files an answer, raise the lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative
defense because this defense is not barred under the omnibus motion
rule.
What is an issue?
It is a disputed point or question to which parties to an action have
narrowed down their several allegation and upon which they are
desirous of obtaining a decision.
OUTLINE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
(b) With the CA and RTC in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against lower courts and bodies and in petitions for quo
warranto, and writs of habeas corpus, all subject to the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
(c) With CA, RTC and Sandiganbayan for petitions for writs of amparo
and habeas data
(d) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the RTC in cases affecting
ambassadors, public ministers and consuls.
(3) Appellate jurisdiction by way of petition for review on certiorari (appeal
by certiorari
under Rule 45) against CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC on pure
questions of law; and in cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a
law or treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance or regulation, legality of a
tax, impost, assessment, toll or penalty, jurisdiction of a lower court; and
CTA in its decisions rendered en banc.
2.5.4. Sandiganbayan
(1) Original jurisdiction in all cases involving
(a) Violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
(b) Violations of RA 1379 (Anti-Ill-Gotten Wealth Act)
(c) Bribery (Chapter II, Sec. 2, Title VII, Book II, RPC) where one or
more of the principal accused are occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in permanent, acting or
interim capacity at the time of the commission of the offense
1. 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 (RA 6758)
2. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as G27 and up under RA 6758
3. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution
(b) All other cases, except probate proceedings where the total amount
of the plaintiffs claim does not exceed P100,000 (outside MM) or
P200,000 (in MM), exclusive of interest and costs.
(2) Criminal Cases
(a) Violations of traffic law, rules and regulations;
(b) Violation of the rental law;
(c) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed is
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or fine not exceedint
P1,000, or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or
otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom, provided, that in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence,
RSP shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.
(3) SRP does not apply to a civil case where the plaintiffs cause of action is
pleaded in the same complaint with another cause of action subject to the
ordinary procedure; nor to a criminal case where the offense charged is
necessarily related to another criminal case subject to the ordinary
procedure.
CASES COVERED BY THE RULES ON BARANGAY CONCILIATION
(1) The Lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together
the parties actually residing in the same municipality or city for amicable
settlement of all disputes except:
(a) Where one party is the government or any subdivision or
instrumentality thereof
(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute
relates to the performance of his official functions
(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a
fine exceeding P5,000
(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party
(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities
or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of
different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units
adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their
differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon
(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine
in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of Justice
(h) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships, or juridical
entities. The reason is that only individuals shall be parties to barangay
conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents
conferred waiver?
May Jurisdiction be
NO. It is not the same with venue where the same can be a subject of
agreement or stipulation by the parties or it may waived.
May
jurisdiction
be
conferred by estoppel?
Strictly speaking no. A party maybe barred by estoppel from
challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
Petitioners bought a
parcel of land from private respondent Lucky Homes, Inc. Said
lot was specifically denominated in the deed of sale as Lot 19
and was mortgaged to the SSS as security for Petitioners
housing loan. Petitioners started the construction of their
house on Lot 18 as lot 19. Upon realizing its error, the Private
Respondent advised Petitioners but the latter offered to buy
Lot 18 in order the widen their premises. Thus Petitioners
continued the construction of their house.
Petitioners defaulted in their housing loan so Lot 19 was
foreclosed by the SSS and Petitioners title over the certificate
of title was cancelled and a new one issued in favor of the SSS.
The Petitioners then offered to swap Lot 18 and Lot 19 and
demanded from Private Respondent that the contract of sale
be reformed to indicate Lot 18 as the subject of the sale.
Private Respondent refused so the Petitioners filed an action
for reformation of contract against the Petitioner with the RTC.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing Petitioners
complaint for lack of merit and ordering Petitioners to pay
moral damages and attorneys fees to Private Respondent. The
judgment became final and a writ of execution was issued.
Petitioners opposed the writ claiming that the RTC did not
Is
an
action
for
foreclosure of real estate mortgage an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation?
NO. It a real action which affects the title to or possession of the
mortgaged realty as the foreclosure sale would divest the mortgagor
and the junior encumbrancers of their title over the realty. Hence
jurisdiction is not exclusively with the RTC but with the MTC or RTC
depending upon the assessed value of the realty mortgage.
did not exercise his right so he contended that the lease was
automatically renewed. On the other hand the Plaintiff
contended that the lease could only be automatically renewed
upon agreement of the parties. The Plaintiff filed with the
municipal court an action for unlawful detainer against the
defendant. In his answer the defendant raise the issue that the
municipal court did not have jurisdiction since the action is
incapable of pecuniary estimation as the controversy hinges on
the interpretation of clause 7. Does the municipal court have
jurisdiction?
NO. the complaint and the answer show that the jugular vein of the
controversy hinges on the correct interpretation of clause 7 of the
lease contract. Hence the action was not for unlawful detainer but one
incapable of pecuniary estimation and beyond the competence of the
municipal court
In
the
preceding
question, would your answer be the same if Ortigas and
Company, Ltd. Agreed to refund Samson after 2 years from the
contract date and Samson filed a complaint against Ortigas
and Company for refund?
No. my answer would not be the same. Here the refund of P4,820 is not
conditioned upon any specific fact or matter but upon the mere
expiration of 2 years from the contract date and Samson filed a
complaint against Ortigas and Company for the refund.
Which
court
has
jurisdiction over expropriation proceeding cases?
Jurisdiction over eminent domain cases lies with the RTC. An
expropriation case is one whose subject matter is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.
Plaintiff engaged X to
construct a water tank for him for a price of P1,000,000.
Plaintiff withheld delivery of the last payment of P30,000 to X
since Xs supplier S had made a claim to the same. Unable to
determine who between X and S is entitled to the P30,000
payment, Plaintiff filed with the RTC of Las Pinas City an action
In
an
action
for
consignation, what court should it be filed?
Since Consignation is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, it
should be filed before the RTC.
lies with the MTC since the amount of the claim does not exceed
P300,000.
b. No. my answer would not be the same. In that case the action would
be for specific performance and thus incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The claim for P250,000 is not an equivalent of the action
for specific performance since it was prayed for as additional rather
than an alternative relief.
Santos
s
car
was
bumped by a truck driven by pinion and owned by Iniego the
employer of Pinion. Santos filed an action for quasi-delict
against Pinion and Iniego with the RTC of Manila. In the prayer
of his complaint, Santos asked for P40,000 as actual damages,
P300,000 as moral damages, P150,000 as exemplary damages
and attorneys fees for P150,000. The moral damages and
exemplary damages were prayed for because of Defendants
adamantine refusal to pay the actual damages. Who has
jurisdiction over the action?
It is the RTC which has jurisdiction. The moral damages and exemplary
damages are included in computing the juridi tional amount of
P400,000 since said damages arose from the same cause of action,
that is, quais delict. The total claim of P490,000 thus falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petitioner filed on 22
August 1996 with the MTC an action for damages with writ of
replevin against the Respondent wherein it prayed for the
return of the forklift or in the alternative if the return cannot
be made the payment of tis actual market value of P150,000
and for the payment of unpaid rentals of P11,000 a month
starting from April 1995 until reposition of the forklift. At the
time of the complaints filing, the outstanding unpaid rentals
had amounted to P180,000. Petitioner also prayed for
exemplary damages of P1,000,000 and attorneys fees of
P50,000. Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the Petitioners
complaint?
No. The value of the forklift is P150,000. It cannot be said that the
actual damages in the form or unpaid rentals is just incidental to the
action for the return of the forklift, considering that the petitioner had
specifically sought not only the seirzure fo the forklift but likewise the
unpaid and outstanding rentals. Pursuant to SC Ad. Cir. 09-94 the
P180,000
is
included
in
the
computation.
P150,000+P180,000=330,000 which is over jurisdictional amount of
P200,000. Hence the MTC does not have jurisdiction. NOTE: the
exemplary damages and attorneys fees are not included in
the computation.
of damages found under Title XVIII of the Civil Code. Hence interest
in Section 19 of BP Blg. 129 should be read to refer to interest by way
of damages or punitive interest under Article 2209 and not to
contractual interest under Art. 1956 of the Civil Code)
Filomeno brought an
action in the MeTC of Pasay City against Marcelino pleading
two causes of action. The first was a demand for the recovery
of physical posseision of a parcel of land situated in Pasay City
with an assessed value of P40,000; the second was a claim for
damages of P500,000 for Marcelinos unlawful retention of the
property. Marcelino filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
that the total amount involved, which is P540k is beyond the
jurisdiction of MeTC. Is Marcelino Correct?
NO. Damages which are merely incidental to the cause of action
involving reconveyance should not be included in computing
jurisdictional amount of the court. Hence the MeTC has jurisdiction over
the action since the assessed value of the land does not exceed
P50,000.
Trial Courts. The nature of the action renders the assessed value of the land
involved irrelevant.
BAR (2009)
No.II. Angelina sued Armando before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila
to recover the ownership and possession of two parcels of land; one situated
in Pampanga, and the other in Bulacan.
(a) May the action prosper? Explain.
(b) Will your answer be the same if the action was for foreclosure of the
mortgage over the two parcels of land? Why or why not?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No, the action may not prosper, because under R.A. No. 7691, exclusive
original jurisdiction in civil actions which involve title to, or possession of real
property or any interest therein is determined on the basis of the assessed
value of the land involved, whether it should be P20,000 in the rest of the
Philippines, outside of the Manila with the courts of the first level or with the
Regional Trial Court. The assessed value of the parcel of land in Pampanga is
different from the assessed value of the land in Bulacan. What is involved is
not merely a matter of venue, which is waivable, but of a matter of
jurisdiction. However, the action may prosper if jurisdiction is not in issue,
because venue can be waived.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, if the defendant would not file a motion to
dismiss on ground of improper venue and the parties proceeded to trial.
(b) NO, the answer would not be the same. The foreclosure action should be
brought in the proper court of the province where the land or any part
thereof is situated, either in Pampanga or in Bulacan. Only one foreclosure
action need be filed unless each parcel of land is covered by distinct
mortgage contract.
In foreclosure suit, the cause of action is for the violation of the terms and
conditions of the mortgage contract;
BAR (2008)
No.II. Fe filed a suit for collection of P387,000 against Ramon in the RTC of
Davao City. Aside from alleging payment as a defense, Ramon in his answer
set up counterclaims for P100,000 as damages and 30,000 as attorneys
fees as a result of the baseless filing of the complaint, as well as for
P250,000 as the balance of the purchase price of the 30 units of air
conditioners he sold to Fe.
(a) Does the RTC have jurisdiction over Ramons counterclaim, and if so,
does he have to pay docket fees therefor?
(b) Suppose Ramons counterclaim for the unpaid balance is P310,000, what
will happen to his counterclaims if the court dismisses the complaint after
holding a preliminary hearing on Ramons affirmative defenses?
(c) Under the same premise as paragraph (b) above, suppose that instead of
alleging payment as a defense in his answer, Ramon filed a motion to
dismiss on that ground, at the same time setting up his counterclaims, and
the court grants his motion. What will happen to his counterclaims?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, applying the totality rule which sums up the total amount of claims
of the parties, the RTC has jurisdiction over the counter claims. Unlike in the
case of compulsory counterclaims, a defendant who raises a permissive
counterclaim must first pay docket fees before the court can validly acquire
jurisdiction. One compelling test ofcompulsoriness is the logical relation
between the claim alleged in the complaint and the counterclaim (Bayer
Phil, Inc. vs. C.A., G.R. No. 109269, 15 September 2000). Ramon does not
have to pay docket fees for his compulsory counterclaims. Ramon is liable
for docket fees only on his permissive counterclaim for the balance of the
purchase price of 30 units of air conditioners in the sum of P250,000, as it
neither arises out of nor is it connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting Fes claim (Sec. 19 [8] and 33 [1], B.P. 129; AO 04-94,
implementing R.A. 7691, approved March 25, 1994, the jurisdictional;
amount for MTC Davao being P300,000 at this time; Alday vs. FGU
Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 138822, 23 January 2001).
(b) The dismissal of the complaint shall be without prejudice to the
prosecution in the same or separate action of a counterclaim pleaded in the
answer (Sec. 3, Rule 17; Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago, G.R.
No. 170354, June 30, 2006).
(c) His counterclaims can continue to be prosecuted or may be pursued
separately at his option (Sec. 6, Rule 16; Pinga vs. Heirs of German
Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June 30, 2006).
BAR (2010)
No.II. On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/V
Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment
arrived in Manila totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super Lines,
Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/V Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting
to P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of Lading.
(a) B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the ground that the Regional Trial
Courthas exclusive original jurisdiction over "all actions in admiralty and
maritime" claims. In his Reply, A contended that while the action is indeed
"admiralty and maritime" in nature, it is the amount of the claim, not the
nature of the action, that governs jurisdiction. Pass on the Motion to Dismiss.
(3%)
(b) The MeTC denied the Motion in question A. B Lines thus filed an Answer
raising the defense that under the Bill of Lading it issued to A, its liability
was limited to P10,000.
At the pre-trial conference, B Lines defined as one of the issues whether the
stipulation limiting its liability to P10,000 binds A. A countered that this was
no longer in issue as B Lines had failed to deny under oath the Bill of Lading.
Which of the parties is correct? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The Motion to Dismiss is without merit and therefore should be denied.
Courts of the first level have jurisdiction over civil actions where the demand
is for sum of money not exceeding P300,000.00 or in Metro Manila,
P400,000.00, exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses and costs: this jurisdiction includes admiralty and marine cases.
And where the main cause of action is the claim for damages, the amount
thereof shall be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court (Adm.
Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994).
(b) The contention of B is correct: As contention is wrong. It was A who
pleaded the Bill of Lading as an actionable document where the stipulation
limits Bs liability to A to P10,000.00 only. The issue raised by B does not go
against or impugn the genuineness and due execution of the Bill of Lading
as an actionable document pleaded by A, but invokes the binding effect of
said stipulation. The oath is not required of B, because the issue raised by
the latter does not impugn the genuineness and due execution of the Bill of
Lading.
BAR (2009)
No.XV.B. Mariano, through his attorney-in-fact, Marcos filed with the RTC of
Baguio City a complaint for annulment of sale against Henry. Marcos and
Henry both reside in Asin Road, Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao
City. Henry filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
prematurity for failure to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation.
Resolve the motion with reasons. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be denied because the parties in interest,
Mariano and Henry, do not reside in the same city/municipality, or is the
property subject of the controversy situated therein. The required
conciliation/mediation before the proper Barangay as mandated by the Local
Government Code governs only when the parties to the dispute reside in the
same city or municipality, and if involving real property, as in this case, the
property must be situated also in the same city or municipality.
3. Civil Procedure
3.1.
Actions
What is an action?
Action (synonymous with suit) is the legal and formal demand of
ones right from another person made and insisted upon in a court of
justice (Bouviers Law Dictionary). The kinds of actions are ordinary and
special, civil and criminal, ex contractu and ex delicto, penal and
remedial, real, personal, and mixed action, action in personam, in rem,
and quasi in rem.
3.1.1.
action?
It is also one by which one party sues another to enforce or protect a
right, or to prevent or redress a wrong.
3.1.3.
What is a criminal
action?
A criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act
or omission punishable by law (Sec. 3[b], Rule 1). The purpose is
primarily punishment.
Define
Special
Proceedings.
It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a statue, right or
particular fact.
3.1.4.
How do we distinguish
Governing Rules
It is governed by ordinary rules,
supplemented by special rules
How initiated
Initiated by pleading and the party
respond through an answer after
being serve with summons.
Appeal
3.1.5.
Distinguish Personal
action?
What
is
transitory
rem
Distinguish
action in rem, in personam and quasi in rem.
Action in personam
Directed against particular
persons. The defendant is
sought to be held liable.
Action in rem
Directed against the thing
itself
between
against
particular
A proceeding to determine
the state or condition of a
thing
As to judgment effect
Judgment is binding only
upon parties impleaded or
their successors in interest.
Probate
proceeding;
cadastral proceeding
Give examples
Action
for
specific
performance;
action
for
breach of contract.
Probate
proceeding;
cadastral proceeding.
Can
an
action
in
personam be converted into an action in rem or quasi-in rem?
Yes. In complaint for recovery of money filed by the creditor against the
debtor, the said action be converted to action in rem or quasi-in rem.
Rule 57, section1 provides that preliminary attachment could be issued
in cases where the defendant could not be served with summons. If the
defendant cannot be served with summons either personal or
substituted service, the remedy is to ask the plaintiff to ask for the
issuance of writ of preliminary attachment and to attach the property of
the defendant in order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case
at least over the attached properties.
YES. The probate of a will wherein the estate consists only of personal
properties is an action in rem which is at the same time a personal
action. The probate of the will is proceeding in rem. It is so because, it
does not involve title to or possession of real property.
When is an action
deemed commenced?
An action deemed commence upon filing of original complaint in court. If
additional defendant is impleaded, the case commence in regard to him
on the date of the filing of later pleading impleading him. (NOTE: filing
or docket fee should also be paid for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the case)
Can
a
petition
for
judicial settlement of estate be dismissed for failure of the
petitioners to aver that earnest efforts toward a compromise
involving members of the same family have been made prior to
the filing of the petition?
No. Article 222 of the Civil Code (Now Article 151, Family Code) applies
only to ordinary civil actions or suits, that is, an action filed by a person
or persons against another person or persons. Art. 222 does not apply to
special proceedings, such as a petition for judicial settlement of estate.
What is a cause of
action?
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party (defendant)
violates the rights of another (plaintiff).
It is the delict or wrong by which the defendant violates the right or
rights of the plaintiff (Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, 76 Phil.
666).
3.2.2.
Distinguish right to
Should
the
court
consider the evidences in determining whether or not there is
sufficient cause of action?
As a rule no, because what are to be taken into account are only the
material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and
circumstances or other matter aliunde are not considered but the court
may consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or
documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records
(Zepeda v. China Banking Corp., GR 172175, Oct. 9, 2006).
effects
What is meant by
Is splitting cause of
Hence, if the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the
latter may be dismissed based on litis pendencia, there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same cause. If a final
judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second action
is filed, the latter may be dismissed based on res judicata, that the
cause of action is barred by prior judgment.
State
the
cause
or
causes of action in case ones property is taken through
violence.
There are actually two rights violated, a.) right to possession and 2.)
right to use, however, there is one wrong committed. Hence, the owner
can file only one complaint praying for two remedies; recovery of
possession and damages.
In
the
foregoing
problem, concerning the gas tar contract, what if D in 1920
failed to make further deliveries but without any flat or
outright refusal to make any delivery under the contract.
Should the motion to dismiss by D be granted?
NO. Since the principle of participatory breach does not come into play.
Hence, its single breach of the divisible obligation is a separate and
distinct cause of action.
to
deliver
two
units
of
frequency
of action?
Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action
as a party may have against another in one pleading alone (Sec. 5,
Rule 2). It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of
action in one action.
(c) Where the cause of action are between the same parties but pertain
to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the
RTC provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of
said court and the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for
recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of
jurisdiction (totality rule).
When is there
cumulative joinder?
Cumulative joinder exists when one is seeking relief for all of his causes
of action.
When is there
alternative joinder?
Alternative joinder exists when the cause of action is against either one
or the other defendant. One is not seeking relief from both but from
either one.
P, a Manila resident,
filed a complaint against D, a resident of Iloilo City, in the RTC
Manila. The complaint joins 2 causes of action: one fore
collection of 300k and the other for recovery of title to real
property in Iloilo City with an assessed value of 60k both
causes of action arising out of the same transaction between
the parties.
a. Was there a proper joinder of causes of action?
b. If you were the lawyer for D, what would you?
a. No. While the real action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC of
Manila the venue does not lie therein but in Iloilo City. Hence there
is misjoinder of causes of action.
b. I would file a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction and lack of venue. Since there was no proper joinder of
causes of action, each cause of action would have to be filed
separately. The RTC has no jurisdiction over a claim not exceeding
When is there a
misjoinder of causes of action?
There is misjoinder of causes of action when two or more causes of
action were joined in one complaint when they should not be so joined.
When there is misjoinder of causes of action the erroneously joined
cause of action maybe severed or proceeded with separately upon
motion by a party or upon the courts initiative. It is not a ground for the
dismissal of action.
Can
there
be
valid
judgment in case of misjoined causes of action?
Yes. While parties to an action may asset in one pleading, in alternative
or otherwise as many causes of action as they may have against the
opposing party such joinder of causes of action is subject to a condition,
inter alia, that the joinder shall not include special civil actions
governed by special rules. Nevertheless misjoinder of causes of action
is NOT a ground for dismissal. Indeed the courts have the power, acting
upon the motion of a party to the case or sua sponte, to order the
severance of the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded with
separately. However, where in no objection to the improper joinder or
the court did not motu proprio direct a severance, then there exists no
action. It should be emphasized that the foregoing rule applies if the
court trying the case has jurisdiction over all of the causes of action
therein notwithstanding the misjoinder of the same. If the court trying
the case has no jurisdiction over a misjoined cause of action such
misjoined cause of action has to be severed from the other cases of
action and if not a severed any adjudication rendered by the court with
respect to the same would be a nullity. (Ada vs. Baylon G.R. BNo.,
182435, Augsust 13, 2012)
Give an illustration of
the foregoing.
The plaintiff lent P500,000 to defendant. The loan is secured by a real
estate mortgage executed by X in favor of the plaintiff. The Defendant
failed to pay the loan on the due date despite demand from the
plaintiff.
Cause of action: The Defendants non-payment of the loan on
due date.
Right of action: The substantive right on the part of the
Plaintiff to sue for redress.
Remedies: Action for collection of sum of money against
the Defendant. Action for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
against the mortgagor X.
Relief: Payment of the loan, foreclosure of the real
estate mortgage, and damages and interests under Article 2209, Civil
Code.
Subject Matter: The contract of loan between the Plaintiff and
the Defendant.
Juan
bought
a
tire
worth 400,000 from Pedro, and on the same day Lasi bought a
tire worth 400,000 from Pedro. Both buyers defaulted in paying
their obligations hence Pedro filed a collection case in the RTC,
joining Juan and Lasi as defendants. Juan move to dismiss the
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the subject matter.
Should motion to dismiss be granted?
Yes. The Totality rule and Section 5, Rule 2 is subject to the rule on
joinder of parties, under Section 6 Rule 3. The rule requires that there
is a common question of law or fact and that the right of relief arises
out of the same transaction or series of transactions. There is no
common question of law or fact in the suits against Juan and Lasi nor
did the right to relief arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions.(flores v. Mallare-Philips, 144 SCRA 377)
Petitioners
bus
sideswiped a car owned by G. the cost of repair was P450,000.
The insurer paid P60k and so the balance of 390,000 was
shouldered by G. The insurer and G filed a single complaint
before the RTC of Las Pinas City against Petitioner wherein the
insurer claimed for 60k and G claimed 390k. The Petitioner filed
an answer wherein he contends that the RTC of Las Pinas does
not have jurisdiction since the separate claims of the insurer
and G fall below the jurisdictional amount and joinder of the
causes of action was not proper. Does the Las Pinas RTC have
jurisdiction?
Yes. The joinder of causes of action by the Plaintiffs was proper since
the two causes of action arose from a single transaction, that is,
Petitioners bus hitting the rear side of the car and there is also a
common question of fact: whether or not the bus driver was negligent.
3.3.
3.3.1.
Is
the
non-joinder
of
necessary
or
indispensable parties a ground for a motion to dismiss?
NO. Non-joinder of necessary or indispensable parties is not a ground
for a motion to dismiss. Remedy of the opposing is move to the Court
order the plaintiff to implead the indispensable party and if the other
side fails to comply then to move to dismiss under Section 3, Rule 17
(Dismissal of Action due to fault of the Plaintiff). The court itself
may sua sponte direct the plaintiff to include the indispensable party.
Failure to comply is a ground for dismissal under Section 3, Rule 17.
3.3.2.
parties
as plaintiff?
NO. Under Section 1, Rule 3 provides that only natural or juridical
persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
However, they can be sued as defendant if they entered into
transaction with the plaintiff.
The rights of the heirs of Deng to due process were violated when they
were not given the chance to defend their side in court. Hence the
judgment cannot be enforced against the heirs of Deng (Fereira v.
Vda. De Gonzalez, 104 Phil. 143).
Would your answer be the same if the heirs voluntarily
appeared in court and participated in the proceedings
therein?
NO, my answer would not the same. The voluntary appearance of
the heirs and their participation in the proceedings therein cured
the defect of lack of substitution. After all the heirs were given
their day in court.
case was pending and was substituted by his heir X who had
succeeded D in the possession of the land. P won the case
and no appeal was made by X. May P move for the execution
of the judgment against X?
YES, since this is not among the cases provided for in Section 5 Rule
86 which have to be filed with the probate court as a money claim.
The judgment may be enforced against X since he had been validly
substituted for D.
Venue
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Is venue jurisdictional?
Venue is jurisdictional in cases of criminal actions but not in civil
actions.
3.4.2.
Venue of persona
Respondent
entered
into
a
payroll
agreement with the bank. The agreement contained a venue
stipulation which reads thus: In case of litigation, venue shall
be in the proper trial courts of Manila for determination of any
and all questions arising hereunder. A dispute arising from
the payroll agreement between Respondent and the bank
ensued. Respondent filed an action for damages with the RTC
of Quezon City where he resides. The bank filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Should the motion to
dismiss be granted?
NO. The venue stipulation here is not exclusive but merely permissive
of it does not contain the words expressing the intent that Manila is an
exclusive venue, like exclusively or solely. Hence the filing of the
case in Quezon City where the plaintiff resides is proper. (Philippine
Bank of communications v. Trazo, August 30, 2016)
restraining order
g) Duration of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
h) In relation to R.A. No. 8975, ban on issuance of TRO or
writ of injunction in cases involving government
infrastructure projects
i) Rule on prior or contemporaneous service of summons in
relation to attachment
3.18.5. Receivership
a) Cases when receiver may be appointed
b) Requisites
c) Requirements before issuance of an order
d) General powers of a receiver
e) Two kinds of bonds
f) Termination of receivership
3.18.6. Replevin
a) When may writ be issued
b) Requisites
c) Affidavit and bond; redelivery bond
d) Sheriffs duty in the implementation of the writ; when
property is claimed by third party
3.19. Special civil actions
3.19.1. Nature of special civil actions
3.19.2. Ordinary civil actions versus special civil actions
3.19.3. Jurisdiction and venue
3.19.4. Interpleader
a) Requisites for interpleader
b) When to file
3.19.5. Declaratory reliefs and similar remedies
a) Who may file the action
b) Requisites of action for declaratory relief
c) When court may refuse to make judicial declaration
d) Conversion to ordinary action
e) Proceedings considered as similar remedies
i. Reformation of an instrument
ii. Consolidation of ownership
iii. Quieting of title to real property
3.19.6. Review of judgments and final orders or resolution of the
Comelec and COA
a) Application of Rule 65 under Rule 64
b) Distinction in the application of Rule 65 to judgments of
the Comelec and COA and the application of Rule 65 to
other tribunals, persons and officers
3.19.7. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
a) Definitions and distinctions
i. Certiorari distinguished from appeal by certiorari
ii. Prohibition and mandamus distinguished from injunction
b) Requisites
c) When petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is
proper
d) Injunctive relief
c) Multiple admissibility
d) Conditional admissibility
e) Curative admissibility
f) Direct and circumstantial evidence
g) Positive and negative evidence
h) Competent and credible evidence
6.1.7. Burden of proof and burden of evidence
6.1.8. Presumptions
a) Conclusive presumptions
b) Disputable presumptions
6.1.9. Liberal construction of the rules of evidence
6.1.10. Quantum of evidence (weight and sufficiency of evidence)
a) Proof beyond reasonable doubt
b) Preponderance of evidence
c) Substantial evidence
d) Clear and convincing evidence
6.2. Judicial notice and judicial admissions
6.2.1. What need not be proved
6.2.2. Matters of judicial notice
a) Mandatory
b) Discretionary
6.2.3. Judicial admissions
a) Effect of judicial admissions
b) How judicial admissions may be contradicted
6.2.4. Judicial notice of foreign laws, law of nations and municipal ordinance
6.3. Object (real) evidence
6.3.1. Nature of object evidence
6.3.2. Requisites for admissibility
6.3.3. Categories of object evidence
6.3.4. Demonstrative evidence
6.3.5. View of an object or scene
6.3.6. Chain of custody, in relation to Section 21 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
6.3.7. Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
a) Meaning of DNA
b) Applicable for DNA testing order
c) Post-conviction DNA testing; remedy
d) Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence and admissibility
e) Rules on evaluation of reliability of the DNA testing methodology
6.4. Documentary evidence
6.4.1. Meaning of documentary evidence
6.4.2. Requisites for admissibility
6.4.3. Best Evidence Rule
a) Meaning of the rule
b) When applicable
c) Meaning of original
d) Requisites for introduction of secondary evidence
6.4.4. Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
IMPORTANT NOTES:
1. This listing of covered topics is not intended and should not be used by
the law schools as a course outline. This was drawn up for the limited
purpose of ensuring that Bar candidates are guided on the coverage of the
2015 Bar Examinations.
2. All Supreme Court decisions - pertinent to a given Bar subject and its
listed topics, and promulgated up to March 31, 2015 - are examinable
materials within the coverage of the 2015 Bar Examinations.