Arellano University School of Law

Center for Legal Education and Research

2018 BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION

LAST MINUTE TIPS
REMEDIAL LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF REMEDIAL LAW

1. What is administrative res judicata?

Administrative res judicata means that the rule which forbids the reopening of a matter once
judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial facts
of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the
judgments of courts having general judicial powers. (People vs Ligtas, G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015)

2. May the court acting on a Motion to Withdraw the Information filed by the Prosecutor on
the ground that it was overturned by the Secretary of Justice, refuse to grant the motion?

Yes. Once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests in its sound discretion.
(Crespo vs Mogul, G.R. No. G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987)

3. What is res judicata in prison grey?

It pertains to the right against double jeopardy. It prohibits the prosecution of a person for a crime
of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. (Caes vs IAC, G.R. Nos. 74989, November 6, 1989)

4. What are the requisites for double jeopardy to attach?

a) Valid indictment;
b) Before a competent court;
c) After arraignment;
d) When a valid plea has been entered; and
e) When the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused. (People vs. Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, March
2, 2009)

5. What is a hot tub hearing?

A hearing wherein 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. vs.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia, G.R. No. 209271, December 08, 2015)

6. What are the exceptions to Immutability of Judgments?

a) the correction of clerical errors;

b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party;
c) void judgments; and
d) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the judgments rendering execution
unjust and inequitable. (Sofio vs Valenzuela, G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION

7. Does jurisdictional estoppel apply to jurisdiction over the person of the parties?

No. The aspect of jurisdiction which may be barred as a result of estoppel by laches only pertains
to jurisdiction over the subject matter. (Boston Equity vs. Toledo, G.R. No. 173946 June 19, 2013)

8. What is Equity Jurisdiction?

Equity jurisdiction aims to provide complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to
adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of a resulting legal inflexibility
when the law is applied to a given situation. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction,
among others, is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution (Regulus Development, Inc. vs.
Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 1
9. What is the new concept of primary jurisdiction?

The Ombudsman will have primary jurisdiction in the conduct of preliminary investigation and
inquest proceedings over complaints for crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction. (Memorandum of Agreement between the Office of the Ombudsman and
Department of Justice, 2012)

10. Distinguish Residual Prerogative from Residual Jurisdiction.

Residual Prerogative Residual Jurisdiction

Power of the courts to dismiss an
action motu proprio based on the
following grounds:
a) lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter,
b) litis pendentia,
c) res judicata; and
d) prescription
It pertains to the jurisdiction upon the perfection of appeals
by the parties or upon the approval of the records of
appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or
records on appeal. The trial court still retains its residual
jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the
appeal. (Katon vs. Palanca, G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004)

11. What is the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

Petitions of Certiorari, Mandamus or Prohibition against the order or judgment of:

(a) Court of Appeals;
(b) Commission on Elections, under Rule 64;
(c) Commission on Audit, under Rule 64;
(d) Sandiganbayan;
(e) Court of Tax Appeals (En Banc);
(f) Appellate Sharia’h Courts ( Lomondot vs. Balindong, G.R. No. 192463, July 13, 2015)

12. When may direct recourse to Supreme Court be allowed?

a) When there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most
immediate time;
b) When the issues involved are of transcendental importance;
c) Cases of first impression warrant a direct resort to the Court;
d) Constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court;
e) Exigency in certain situations would qualify as an exception for direct resort to the court;
f) The filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ;
g) There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;
h) The petition includes questions that are "dictated by public welfare and the advancement of
public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of
were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate
remedy." (Maza vs Turla, G.R. No. 187094, February 15, 2017)

CIVIL PROCEDURE

13. What are the requisites for proper joinder of causes of action?

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court 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 action are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Section 5, Rule 2)

14. Is the non-inclusion of an indispensable party a ground for a Motion to Dismiss?

No. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and at such times as are just, parties may be added on
the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to
implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the
complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order. (Mesina vs Fian, G.R. No. 201816, April 8,
2013).

15. What are the requisites of a Compulsory Counterclaim?

a) It arises out of (or is necessarily connected with) the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party’s claim;
b) It falls within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof; and

arellano C|L|E|A|R 2
 c) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction.

Note: In an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory
regardless of the amount. (Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169576 October 17, 2008)

16. What are the criteria or tests that may be used in determining whether a counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive?

a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?
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 plaintiffs claim as well as defendant’s
counterclaim?
d) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? (Alday vs. FGU Insurance
Corp., G.R. No. 138822, January 23, 2001)

17. What is the effect to failure to implead an indispensable party?

The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void
for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. (Lotte
Phils. Co. Inc. vs Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 166302, July 28, 2005)

18. AJP Association is an unicorporated association. It filed a civil action under its name
without impleading its members. Does it have legal capacity to sue?

No. A coporation that is still in the process of incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical
person, which can be a party to a civil action. An unincorporated association, in the absence of
an enabling law, has no juridical personality and thus, cannot sue in the name of the association.
(Association of Flood Victims and Jaime Aguilar Hernandez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203775, August 05, 2014)

19. May stockholders who were deprived of their pre-emptive rights validly file a class suit
against a Corporation?

No. The elements of a class suit are: (1) that the subject matter of the controversy be one of
common or general interest to many persons, and (2) that such persons be so numerous as to
make it impracticable to bring them all to the court. The right to pre-emption is personal to each
stockholder. The interest of the stockholders is several. Each one of them has determinable
interest only to his respective portion of the stocks. (Mathay v. Consolidated Bank And Trust Company,
G.R. No. L-23136 August 26, 1974)

20. Distiguish class suit from citizen suit.

Class Suit Citizen Suit

A suit brought by or The person complaining must allege that he has been or is about to
defended by a be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or
representative member that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by
or members of a large reason of the statute or act complained of. When the issue concerns
group of persons on a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has an
behalf of all the interest in the execution of the laws. (North Cotabato vs. Republic, G.R.
members of the group No.183591, October 14, 2008)

21. May Resident Marine Mammals be parties in a civil action?

No. Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action.
(Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015)

22. Will the stipulation in the contract providing for exclusive venue be invoked in an action
where the validity of the contract is being assailed?

No. A complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound
by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the
general rules on venue. (Briones vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015)

23. Spouses Vito filed an action wherein only the wife signed the Certificate on Non-forum
Shopping. Is that sufficient?

Yes, the wife's signature alone is sufficient compliance with the rule (Sps. Dar vs. Alonzo-Legasto, G.R.
No. 143016, August 30, 2000)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 3
24. What are the exceptions to the rule that the genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document is deemed admitted if it is not specifically denied under oath?

a. When the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument; or
b. When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused (Section
8, Rule 8).

25. What is Terceria? When it is available?

Terceria is a remedy afforded to a third-party with a claim to property levied, attached, or seized
by virtue of court order, wherein the third-party makes an affidavit of his title or right of
possession to the property and serves the affidavit upon the court officer and a copy thereof
upon the party procuring the levy, attachment, or seizure. It is available in cases of (a) levy on
execution; (b) attachment; and (c) replevin. (PSALM vs. Maunlad, G.R. No. 215933, February 8, 2017)

26. May Extraterritorial service of summons to non-resident defendants be applied in actions

in personam?

No. Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem,
but not if an action is in personam. The Philippine courts cannot try any case because of the
impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over its person unless through voluntarily appearance. (NM
Rothschild vs. Lepanto Consolidated, G.R. No. 175799 November 28, 2011)

27. Does the same rule apply when the defendant is a resident who is temporarily out of the
Philippines?

No. Extraterritorial service of summons may apply to any kind of action commenced against a
defendant who ordinarily resides in the Philippines, but who is temporarily out of it. (Section 16,
Rule 14, Rules of Court)

28. What are the requisites for a valid substituted service of summons?

(a) Earnest efforts to serve on the person of the defendant which means at least 3 tries,
preferably on at least two different dates;
(b) The sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances
surrounding the attempted personal service;
(c) If the substituted service will be effected at defendant’s house or residence, it should be left
with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein;
(d) If the substituted service will be done at defendant’s office or regular place of business, then
it should be served on a competent person in charge of the place. (Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 130974, August 16, 2006)

29. Tayamora Bank filed an action for damages against Ladia Corporation. The summons
was served by the Sheriff and was received by Raymond, Ladia Corporation’s Liaison
Officer, upon telephone instruction of Frankie Bob, Ladia Corporation’s Corporate
Secretary. Did the court acquire jurisdiction over Ladia Corporation?

Yes. There was constructive service of summons. Although there was no direct, physical
handing of the summons to the corporate secretary, the latter could at least be charged with,
which having constructively received the same amounts to a valid service of summons (Nation
Petroleum Gas vs. RCBC, G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015)

30. Explain the Viatory Right of a witness.

A witness, served with a subpoena, who resides more than 100 kilometes from his residence to
the place where he is to testify by ordinary course of travel cannot be arrested or be cited in
contemp for his failure to attend at the hearing or trial (Section 10, Rule 21).

31. Does failure to respond or object to the Request for Admission always amount to an
implied admission?

No. When the matters set forth in the party’s Request for Admission were the same affirmative
defenses pleaded in the defendant’s Answer, the failure to respond does not amount to
admission. (Socorro Limos vs. Spouses Odones, G.R. No. 186979, August 11, 2010)

32. Will the rules on deposition in civil cases apply in criminal cases?

No. For purposes of taking the deposition in criminal cases, more particularly of a prosecution
witness who would forseeably be unavailable for trial, the testimonial examination should be

arellano C|L|E|A|R 4
 made before the court, or at least before the judge, where the case is pending. (Go vs. People, G.R.
No. 185527, July 18, 2012)

33. May a party not served with written interrogatories be compelled by the adverse party to
give testimony in court?

No, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to
give testimony in open court. If the party not served with written interrogatories is a corporation,
its officers are the ones who cannot be so compelled to give testimony. (Afulugencia v. Metrobank,
G.R. No. 185145 February 5, 2014)

34. Distinguish Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Rendered because the answer fails to Rendered on the ground that while there is an
tender an issue issue, there is no genuine factual issue
Based solely on the pleadings Based on pleadings, depositions, and
admissions.
Filed by the plaintiff May be filed either by the plaintiff or the
defendant
3-day notice of hearing. 10-day notice of hearing
The entire case is terminated in a There may be a partial termination in a summary
judgment on the pleadings. judgement.
There is already an answer filed. (a) Motion is filed by the plaintiff: it must be filed
at any time after the answer is served;
(b) Motion is filed by the defendant: it may be
filed at any time.

35. Ashley, wife of Sgt. Llamas who is a retiring member of AFP, filed a Petition for the
issuance of a Protection Order under the provisions of the R.A. 9262. Judge Lee issued a
Temporary Protection Order, ordering therein to withhold a certain percentage of Sgt.
Llamas’ benefits and to remit the same to Ashley as spousal support. Sgt. Llamas
contends that retirement benefits are exempt from execution. Is the contention correct?

No. R.A. No. 9262, being a later enactment, should be construed as laying down an exception to
the general rule that retirement benefits are exempt from execution. The law itself 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 "[n]otwithstanding
other laws to the contrary. (Republic vs Yahon, G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014)

36. When may questions of fact be raised in a Petition for Review under Rule 45?

a) The conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;

b) The inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
c) There is grave abuse of discretion
d) The judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
e) The findings of fact are conflicting;
f) There is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;
g) The findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;
h) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
i) The Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
j) The findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;
k) Findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties;
l) In Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data and Kalikasan; and
m) In Criminal Cases.

37. What are the grounds wherein the court may dismiss a case motu propio?

(a) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(b) Litis Pendentia;
(c) Res Judicata;
(d) Prescription;
(e) When the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on
the complaint;
(f) Failure to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time;
(g) Failure to comply with the Rules or any order of the court;

arellano C|L|E|A|R 5
 (h) In Summary Procedure, the court may dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for
the dismissal of a civil action apparent from the examination of the allegations in the
pleadings and the evidence attached thereto.

38. Otep filed a case against Stan for sum of money. During the pendency of the case, Stan
died. Favorable judgment was obtained by Otep. May A execute the judgment?

No. A may not execute the judgment. A must file a claim against the estate of B to execute the
money judgment. When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or
implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment and a favorable judgment is
obtained by the plaintiff, it shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in Rule 86 for
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (Rule 86, Section 5 and Rule 3, Section 20)

39. When is the Neypes Doctrine not applicable?

a) Bill of Particulars;
b) Motion to Dismiss;
c) Review of Judgment by COA and COMELEC (R64)
d) Petition for Review (Rule 42: RTC to CA; Rule 43: Quasi Judicial Bodies; Rule 45:
Certiorari). In these cases, the rules expressly provide a fresh period of 15-days (Rodriguez vs
People, GR 192799, 24 October 2012).

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

40. Advent was issued a Stay Order in its favor pursuant to its Corporate Rehabilitation. Its
Rehabilitation Plan included a vehicle in possession of Young, its former CEO. Due to
Young’s refusal to return the vehicle, a replevin case was filed against him. Pursuant to a
Writ of Seizure the vehicle was seized in favor of Advent. Subsequently, the replevin case
was dismissed. However, Advent did not return the car contending that it violates the
Stay Order. Upon finality, Young filed a motion praying return the vehicle and damages
to be charged against the replevin bond.

a. Is Advent’s contention correct?

No. Upon the dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute, the writ of seizure, which is
merely ancillary in nature, became functus officio and should have been lifted. The dismissal of
the replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration of the parties status prior to
litigation, as if no complaint was filed at all. (Advent Capital and Finance Corporation vs Young, G.R. No.
183018, August 3, 2011).

b. Is Young entitiled to damages from the replevin bond?

No, an application for damages on account of improper, irregular or excessive attachment must
be filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory.
(Advent Capital and Finance Corporation vs Young, G.R. No. 183018, August 3, 2011).

41. What are the three stages in granting preliminary attachment and when is jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant required?

First, the court issues the order granting the application;

Second, the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; and
Third, the writ is implemented. Once the implementation of the writ commences, the court must
have acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no
power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. (Torres vs Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759,
November 25, 2009).

42. May dire financial need be a ground for receivership?

No. Financial need is not a ground for granting receivership under the Rules. Receivership is a
harsh remedy to be granted with utmost circumspection and only in extreme situations. (Tantano
vs. Espina-Caboverde, G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013)

43. Clang filed a complaint against Zillah wherein a writ of preliminary attachment was
issued. By virtue of which, the property of Zillah was attached. Thereafter, Clang and
Zillah entered into a Compromise Agreement. Thereafter, Zillah moved to discharge the
writ of attachment contending that the case is deemed to have been closed and
terminated. Is the lifting of the preliminary attachment proper?

No. The preliminary attachment shall continue until the debt is fully satisfied. Under Rule 57,
preliminary attachment is an ancillary remedy which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve

arellano C|L|E|A|R 6
 and protect certain rights and interests during the interim, awaiting the ultimate effects of a final
judgment in the case. (Lim vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 185734, July 13, 2013)

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

44. Distinguish Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus

Certiorari Prohibition Mandamus

Petitioner Aggrieved party
Respondent (a) Tribunal; (a) Tribunal;
(b) Board; and (b) Board;
(c) Officer. (c) Officer; and
(d) Person with Quasi-Judicial function.
Grounds (a) Lack of Jurisdiction; (a) Neglect in the
(b) Excess of jurisdiction; and performance of duty
(c) Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or enjoined by law; or
excess of jurisdiction.
(b) Excludes someone
Characterized as Whimsical, Capricious, Arbitrary from the enjoyment of
and Despotic. office of franchise.
Functions Discretionary Ministerial or Discretionary Ministerial
Conditions No appeal or any other adequate, speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Prayer Nullify the final Cease and desist from To do or perform plus
judgement, or final doing something. damages, if any.
orders, or resolutions.

45. What are the exceptions to the general rule that motion for reconsideration is a condition
sine qua non for the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65?

(a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower
court;
(c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of
the action is perishable;
(d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such
relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) Where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object;
and
(i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved (Republic vs
Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, June 5, 2013)

46. In criminal cases, is a Petition for Certiorari proper to assail the denial of the Motion for
Leave or the Demurrer to Evidence itself before judgment?

No, the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer
itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (Sec 23, R119).

47. What court has jurisdiction to a Petition for Declaratory Relief?

Declaratory Relief (first paragraph) Declaratory Relief (second paragraph)

May be brought before the appropriate RTC May be brought before the appropriate court
since the same is an action incapable of depending on its assessed value since its is a
pecuniary estimation. real action.
(Malana vs Tappa, GR No. 181303, September 17, 2009)

48. Distinguish an Impeachment Proceeding from Quo Warranto.

IMPEACHMENT QUO WARRANTO

Lies on the usurping, intruding, or unlawfully
holding or exercising of a public office.
A person’s title to hold a public office is the
issue in quo warranto proceedings.
Cause of action is the commission of an
impeachable offense.
Impeachment necessarily presupposes that the
person legally holds the public office and thus,
is an impeachable officer, the only issue being

arellano C|L|E|A|R 7

The respondent in a quo warranto
proceedings shall be adjudged to ceased from
holding a public office, which he or she is
ineligible to hold.
whether or not she committed impeachable
offenses to warrant her removal from office.
Removal of the respondent from public office
that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally
possible to impeach or remove a person from
an office that he/she, in the first place, does not
and cannot legally hold or occupy. (Republic vs.
Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)

49. Does the one-year prescriptive period prescribed under Section 11 of Rule 66 apply if the
petition is filed by the State at its own instance?

No. When filed by the State at its own instance, through the Solicitor General, the prescription
shall not apply. (Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)

50. In expropriation cases, can the State exercise the right to dismiss the case by mere
notice of dismissal?

No, 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. (NPC vs. the Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103442-45, May 21, 1993)

51. May the owner of a property, subject of expropriation proceedings, recover damages
when the Government suddenly decides to discontinue the proceeding?

Yes. Payment of actual or other compensatory damages must be made to compensate the
disturbance of property rights from the time of entry until the time of restoration of the
possession. (NAPOCOR vs. Heirs of Borbon, GR 165354, 12 January 2015).

52. May an ejectment case be instituted on the basis of a Contract to Sell?

Yes, an ejectment case is not limited to lease agreements or deprivations. It is available against
one who withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right of possession under
an express or implied contract, such as a contract to sell. (Union Bank vs. Philippine Rabbit, G.R. No.
205951, July 4, 2016)

53. May a person adjudged by direct contempt appeal therefrom?

No, it cannot be appealed, but one may avail of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The
execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution, provided such person files a
bond fixed by the court which and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment
should the petition be decided against him. (Cruz vs Gingoyon, G.R. No. 170404, Sept 28, 2011)

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

54. Can a probate court pass upon the issue of ownership of a property for the purpose of
the inventory of the estate?

Yes, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an intestate or a testate proceeding the
question of inclusion in, or exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without prejudice
to the final determination of ownership in a separate action. (Agtarap vs. Agtarap, G.R. No. 177099, June
8, 2011)

55. What is the effect of the judgment in an escheat proceeding against all persons with
actual or constructive notice?

A judgment in an escheat proceedings, when rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is

conclusive against all persons with actual or constructive notice, but not against those who are
not parties or privies thereot. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143483, January 31, 2002)

56. Marianne requested from NSO a CENOMAR. Upon receipt, she discovered that she was
already married to a certain Mr. Poypi. It appears that through fraud, it was made to
appear that she was already married. She filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the
Marriage Contract under Rule 108. OSG opposed contending that annulment is
necessary. Is the OSG correct?

No, in case the identity of a person is stolen, Rule 108 is the proper remedy and not annulment
of marriage. Here, there was no marriage to speak of, but merely the correction of the record of

arellano C|L|E|A|R 8
 such marriage. In allowing the correction of the certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife
portion thereof, there is no declaration that the marriage is void as there was no marriage to
speak of. (Republic vs. Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014)

57. Distinguish Rule 103, Rule 108 and RA 9048

RA 9048 RULE 103 RULE 108

Clerical Corrections
Administrative
(a) Local Civil Registry where
the records are kept or
where the party is residing;
(b) Philippine Consulate
Person having direct and
personal interest in the
correction of a clerical error.
Publication once a week for two
consecutive weeks
Change of first name or
surname
Judicial
RTC of the province where the
petitioner resides at least 3
months prior to the filing of the
petition.
Filed by the person desiring to
change his name.
Published once a week for 3
consecutive weeks.
Correction or Cancellation
of substantial errors
Judicial
RTC where the
corresponding civil registry
is located.
Person interested in the
act, event, decree or order
concerning the civil status
of persons.
Published once a week for
3 consecutive weeks.

58. Is an expert opinion necessary in a Petition for Guardianship where the soundness of
mind of the proposed ward is at issue?

No, an expert opinion is not necessary and that the observations of the trial judge coupled with
evidence establishing the persons state of mental sanity will suffice. (Oropesa vs. Oropesa, G.R. No.
184528, April 25, 2012)

59. Can a Demurrer to Evidence be granted in a Petition for Guardianship?

Yes. A demurrer to evidence is equally applicable in a Petition for Guardianship because it

authorizes a judgment on the merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence
shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought. (Oropesa vs. Oropesa GR 184528 April 25, 2012)

60. Is summons required in a habeas corpus petition?

No. By service of the writ, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent.
(Tujan-Militante vs. Cada-Deapera, G.R. No. 210636, July 28, 2014)

61. Distinguish preliminary citation from peremptory writ.

PRELIMINARY CITATION PEREMPTORY WRIT

If the person detained under governmental
authority and the illegality of his detention is
not patent from the petition for the writ, the
court issues the citation to show cause why
the writ of habeas corpus should not be
issued.
If the cause of the detention appears to be
patently illegal. Requires the respondent to
appear and show cause why the peremptory
writ should not be granted. Non-compliance
with this is punishable. (Lee Yick Hon vs. Insular
Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-16779, March 30, 1921)

62. When is the grant of provisional reliefs of Temporary Protection Order, Inspection Order
and Protection Order proper in amparo petition proper?

Before the court arrives at a judicious determination on the amparo petition since these
provisional reliefs are intended to assist the court to arrive at a judicious determination of the
petition. (Yano vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 186640, February 11, 2010)

63. Is a Petition for a Writ of Amparo available to a biological mother to recover custody of
her child whom she surrendered to the DSWD by way of Voluntary Commitment?

No. Writ of Amparo is not available to recover custody of child as it is confined only to cases of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to threats thereof. (Caram vs. Segui, G.R. No.
193652, August 5, 2014)

64. Riri, a minor, uploaded sultry photos of herself in Facebook and the same were shared by
Frankie Bob. Her parents filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data
alleging that their child’s right to privacy was violated. Decide the case.

The petition should be denied. The purpose of habeas data is protection against unlawful acts
or omissions of public officials and of private individuals or entities engaged in gathering,

arellano C|L|E|A|R 9
 collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her correspondences, or about
his or her family. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on Facebook considering that
the default setting for Facebook posts is "Public," it can be surmised that the photographs in
question were viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that the children positively
limited the disclosure of the photograph. (Vivares vs St. Theresa’s, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

65. What are the cases cognizable by the RTC regardless of the imposable penalty?

a) Violations of the Omnibus Election Code;

b) Libel or written defamation;
c) Violations of intellectual property law;
d) Anti-Money Laundering Law;
e) Dangerous Drugs Act;
f) Cybercrime Prevention Law of 2012.

66. Serana was the Student Regent of UP. President Estrada gave P15 Million to the Office of
the Student Regent for renovation of the Vinzons Hall. The project did not materialize.
Thus, Serana was charged for Estafa before the Sandiganbayan. Serana filed a Motion to
Quash contending that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction (a) over the offense; and (b)
Serana is not a public officer. Decide.

(a) The motion should be denied. Estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin requirements that (i) the offense is committed by public
officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that (ii)
the offense is committed in relation to their office.

(b) Sandiganbayan is with jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of

government owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations. Serana, as Student Regent falls under this category. The Board of Regents of UP
performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express
mandate of the law, Serana is a public officer as contemplated in PD No. 1606, as amended.
(Serana vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008)

67. Dionisia, then Justice Secretary, was charged before RTC Muntinlupa with violation of
Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of R.A. 9165 for
conspiring with the commission of illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison. She
filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that it is Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction
over the offense. Rule on her motion.

The motion should be denied. R.A. 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to
exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of RA 9165. Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as
amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and
offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165
is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of RA 9165
committed by such public officers. (De Lima vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017)

68. Clive was charged with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries; and (2) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide. He pleaded
guilty to the first charge. Invoking this conviction, he moved to quash the information in
the second case on the ground of double jeopardy. Should the motion be granted?

Yes. Since reckless Imprudence is a single crime, the consequences on persons and property is
material only to determine the penalty. Thus, the prior acquittal or conviction of reckless
imprudence bars the subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense. (Ivler vs. Judge San Pedro,
G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010)

69. Is hearing mandatory in Petition for Bail despite no objection from the prosecution?

Yes, because it does not relieve the judge of his duty to set the Petition for Bail for hearing.
(Managuelod v. Paclibon, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1726, March 29, 2004)

70. The trial court granted the accused’s demurrer to evidence. The prosecution filed a
Petition for Certiorari to challenge the court’s decision. The accused invoked his
constitutional right against double jeopardy. Is he correct?

No. As a general rule, an order granting the accused’s demurrer to evidence amounts to an
acquittal and cannot be appealed because it would place the accused in double jeopardy.

arellano C|L|E|A|R 10
 However, the order is still reviewable by certiorari if it was issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When grave abuse of discretion is present, an order
granting a demurrer becomes null and void. (People vs Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014)

71. Jake, with help of Cyrus, brought AAA in a dark alley and raped her while Jake held
AAA’s hand. When charged, the information indicated that the two conspired in taking
turns in raping AAA. They were convicted of two counts of rape and were imposed two
penalties of reclusion perpetua each. On appeal, they questioned the validity of the
convictions considering that there is only one information. Are they correct?

No. Section 3 of Rule 120 provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single
information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many
offenses as charged and proved and impose upon him penalty for each offense. (People vs. Tabio,
G.R. No. 179477, February 6, 2008)

72. Marlou was charged with two counts of raping his daughter. He pleaded guilty but
bargained for a lesser penalty. Hence, the trial court rendered judgment sentencing him
to ten years for each count of rape. Was there a proper plea bargaining?

No, the only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when an accused
pleads guilty to a lesser offense. The accused did not plead guilty to a lesser offense but
pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only bargained for a lesser penalty. He did not plea
bargain but made conditions on the penalty imposed. (People vs. Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000)

73. May the accused on bail have an unrestricted right to travel?

No. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. If the
accused released on bail attempts to depart from the Philippines without the permission of the
court where his case is pending, he may be re-arrested without warrant. (Manotoc, Jr. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100, May 30, 1986)

74. Can special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances be considered in determining

whether a person should be admitted to bail?

Yes. Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be
allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly
shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Its requisites are: (a) that the detainee
will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (b) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances (Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)

75. The NBI applied for a warrant before the Executive Judge of Manila to search for
dangerous drugs in Tarlac. The search turned positive but the accused moved to quash
the warrant as it is issued outside the judicial region. Is the objection meritorious?

No. Under Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC, Executive Judges, or in their absence, Vice
Executive Judges of Manila and Quezon City, are expressly authorized to act on applications
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as
well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property
Code, the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, filed by the NBI,
PNP and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
(PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) which maybe enforced
anywhere in the Philippines. (Spouses Marimla vs. People, G.R. No. 158467, Oct. 16, 2009)

76. Distinguish substantial and formal amendment.

A substantial amendment consists of the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form. (Leviste vs Judge
Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010)

EVIDENCE

77. Give the requisites of Dying Declaration, Res Gestae and Declaration Against Interest?

Dying Declaration Res Gestae Declaration Against Interest

a)The declaration concerns a) The principal act be a a) The declarant is dead or
the cause and the startling occurrence; unable to testify;
surrounding circumstances
of the declarants’ death; b) A statement was made b) It relates to a fact against
while the event is taking the interest of the

arellano C|L|E|A|R 11
 b)It is made when death
appears to be imminent and
the declarant is under a
consciousness of an
impending death;
c) The declarant would have
been competent to testify
had he or she survived; and
d)The dying declaration is
offered in a case in which
the subject of inquiry
involves the declarant’s
death. (People vs Gatarin, G.R.
No. 198022, April 7, 2014)
place, or immediately prior
to, or subsequent thereto;
c) the statements were made
before the declarant had
the time to contrive or
devise a falsehood; and
d) that the statements must
concern the occurrence in
question and its immediate
attending circumstances.
(Talidano vs. Falcom Maritime and
Allied Services, Inc. G.R. No.
172031, July 14, 2008)
declarant
c) at the time he made said
declaration the declarant
was aware that the same
was contrary to his
aforesaid interest; and
d) the declarant had no
motive to falsify and
believed such declaration
to be true

78. What is Multiple Admissibility of Evidence?

Where the evidence is relevant and competent for two or more purposes, such evidence may be
admitted for any or all the purposes for which it is offered provided it satisfies all the
requirements of law for its admissibility therefor. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, p. 705)

79. What is Curative Admissibility of Evidence?

This doctrine treats upon the right of a party to introduce incompetent evidence in his behalf here
the court has admitted the same kind of evidence adduced by the adverse party. (Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, p. 706)

80. What are the requisites of Testimony or Deposition at a Former Proceeding?

a) The witness is dead or unable to testify;

b) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests;
c) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different
causes of action;
d) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the
present case; and
e) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.
(Manliclic vs. Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, January 25, 2007)

81. Can the testimony of a sole witness be the basis of conviction?

Yes. Although the number of witnesses may be considered a factor in the appreciation of
evidence, conviction can still be had on the basis of the credible and positive testimony of a
single witness. (People vs. Jalbolian, G.R. No. 180281, July 1, 2013)

82. Does the Rule on Electronic Evidence apply to criminal cases?

Yes, it shall apply to criminal and civil actions and proceeding, as well as quasi-judicial and
administrative cases. (Rule 1, Sec. 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, September 24, 2002)

83. Distinguish authentication of Electronic documents and Electronic signatures.

Electronic documents Electronic Signatures

a) By evidence that it had been digitally
signed by the person purported to have
signed the same;
b) By evidence that other appropriate security
procedures or devices as may be
authorized by the Supreme Court or by law
for authentication of electronic documents
were applied to the document; or
c) By other evidence showing its integrity and
reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
a) By evidence that a method or process was
utilized to establish a digital signature and
verify the same;
b) By any other means provided by law; or
c) By any other means satisfactory to the
judge as establishing the genuineness of
the electronic signature. (AM No. 01-7-01,
Rules on Electronic Evidence)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 12
84. Are photocopies of printouts of electronic documents considered originals under the
Rules on Electronic Evidence?

No. Paper records that are produced directly by a computer system, such as printouts, are
themselves electronic records, being just the means of intelligible display of the contents of the
record. Photocopies of the printout would be paper records subject to the usual rules about
copies, but the "original" printout would be subject to the rules of admissibility (MCC Industtial Sales
Corporation v. SSangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170733, October 17, 2007)

85. Are the scanned copy of the shaded ballots, fed on the PCOS machine, under the
Automated Elections Law, deemed official ballots, and thus are original?

Yes, Section 2 (3) of R.A. No. 9369 defines "official ballot" where AES is utilized as the "paper
ballot, whether printed or generated by the technology applied, that faithfully captures or
represents the votes cast by a voter recorded or to be recorded in electronic form." The picture
images of the ballots, as scanned and recorded by the PCOS, are likewise "official ballots" that
faithfully captures 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. (Chato vs. HRET, G.R. No. 199149, April 16, 2013)

86. Does the failure to strictly comply with the rule on Chain of Custody necessarily result to
the inadmissibility of the seized drugs?

No. As long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, substantial compliance with the legal
requirements on the handling of the seized item under Sec. 21 is sufficient provided the non-
compliance is satisfactorily explained. Failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody because
what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items. (People vs Mercury Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 212171 September 7, 2016)

87. What are independently relevant statements?

The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that conversations communicated to a

witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that, regardless of their truth or falsity, they
were actually made. (Patula vs. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012)

88. What are the requisites of spontaneous statements to be admissible?

a) the principal act be a startling occurrence;

b) A statement was made while the event is taking place, or immediately prior to, or subsequent
thereto;
c) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and
d) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances. (Talidano vs. Falcom Maritime and Allied Services, Inc. G.R. No. 172031, July 14, 2008)

89. P.D. 603 provides that the birth records of a person shall be kept strictly confidential and
that no information thereto shall be disclosed except on request of the person himself or
of a court or proper government official. Thus, are birth records inadmissible when used
by an adverse party in a case?

No. P.D. 603 merely provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality
of birth records but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said
article would render said records inadmissible in evidence. (De Jesus vs Sanchez-Malit, A.C. No. 6470
July 8, 2014)

90. Is a void contract admissible in evidence?

Yes, while the terms and provisions of a void contract cannot be enforced since it is deemed
inexistent, it does not preclude the admissibility of the contract as evidence to prove matters that
occurred in the course of executing the contract. (Tan vs. Hosana, GR No. 190846, 3 Feb 2016)

91. Do the Rules on Evidence strictly apply in quasi-judicial proceedings?

No. In quasi-judicial proceedings, the Rules on Evidence shall not apply except by analogy or in
a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. (Ferrer vs. Carganillo, G.R. No.
170956, May 12, 2010)

arellano C|L|E|A|R 13
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE

92. May Judicial Affidavits be served by way of private courrier?

Yes, the parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party, personally or by licensed
courier service. (Section 2, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule)

93. When is submission of judicial affidavits allowed in criminal cases?

(a) Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(b) Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty
involved; or
(c) With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are. (Section 9,
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

94. When should the offer and objections to the Judicial Affidavit be made?

The party presenting the judicial affidavit of his witness in place of direct testimony shall state the
purpose of such testimony at the start of the presentation of the witness. The adverse party may
move to disqualify the witness or to strike out his affidavit or any of the answers found in it on
ground of inadmissibility. (Section 5, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)

REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

95. What are the prohibited pleadings and motions under Summary Procedure?

a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding
section;
b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of trial;
d) Petition for relief from judgment;
e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;
f) Memoranda;
g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the
court;
h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
j) Reply;
k) Third party complaints;
l) Interventions.

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES

96. What is the threshold amount in small claims cases?

P300,000.00 exclusive of interest and cost. (OCA Circular No. 165-2018, July 10, 2018)

97. What is the remedy in small claims cases?

The proscription on appeals in small claims cases, similar to other proceedings where appeal is
not an available remedy, does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (A.L. Ang Network vs. Mondejar, G.R. 200804, January 22, 2014)

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

98. Distinguish Writ of Kalikasan, Continuing Mandamus and Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation (SLAPP)?

Writ of Kalikasan Continuing Mandamus SLAPP

It is a remedy available to a It is a writ issued by a court
natural or juridical person, entity in an environmental case
authorized by law, people’s directing any agency or
organizations, non- instrumentality of the
governmental organization, or government or officer
any public interest group thereof to perform an act or
accredited by or registered with series of acts decreed by
any government agency, on final judgment which shall
behalf of persons whose remain effective until
Refers to an action whether
civil, criminal or
administrative, brought
against any person, institution
or any government agency or
local government unit or its
officials and employees, with
the intent to harass, vex, exert
undue pressure or stifle any

arellano C|L|E|A|R 14
 constitutional right to a judgment is fully satisfied. legal recourse that such
balanced and healthful ecology (Sec. 4 (c), A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, person, institution or
Rules of Procedure for
is violated, or threatened with Environmental Case)
government agency has taken
violation by an unlawful act or or may take in the
omission of a public official or enforcement of environmental
employee, or private individual laws, protection of the
or entity without involving environment or assertion of
environmental damage of such environmental rights. (Section
magnitude as to prejudice the 1(g), Rule 1, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)
life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities
or provinces. (Section 1, Rule 7,
Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases).

99. What are the factors to consider when precautionary principle should be applied?

(a) threats to human life or health;

(b) inequity to present or future generations; or
(c) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those
affected (Sec. 2, Rule 20, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

100. A group of Carless People of the Philippines filed a petition for the issuance of
writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus to compel the implementation of EO 774 or
the Road Sharing Principle - to bifurcate all roads in the country to devote half to
sidewalk and bicycling, and the other to Filipino-made transport. They contended that the
Climate Change Commission's failure to implement environmental laws and executive
issuances resulted in the continued degradation of air quality, particularly in Metro
Manila, in violation of the their constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

a. Who has legal standing to file a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing
Mandamus?

In petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, it is sufficient that the person filing
represents the inhabitants prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the writ. In a
petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus, it is only available to one who is
personally aggrieved by the unlawful act or omission.

b. What are the requisites for the grant of Writ of Kalikasan?

1)There is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and

healthful ecology;
2)The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
3)The actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces.

c. Should Continuing Mandamus be issued?

No. The Road Sharing Principle is precisely as it is denominated - a principle where the
manner of implementation is discretionary in nature. Mandamus lies to compel the
performance of duties that are purely ministerial in nature, not those that are discretionary,
and the official can only be directed by mandamus to act but not to act one way or the other.
(Segovia, et al. vs The Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, March 7, 2017)

101. What is the precautionary principle?

Precautionary principle involves matters of evidence in cases where there is lack of full scientific
certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and environmental effect. In such
an event, the courts may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction
with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. (Section 1, Rule 20, Rules on Environmental
Procedure for Environmental Cases)

The precautionary principle shall only be relevant if there is concurrence of three elements,
namely: (a) uncertainty, (b) threat of environmental damage and (c) serious or irreversible harm.

HAIL TO THE CHIEFS!

arellano C|L|E|A|R 15