Question:

While Miss Malumanay, a witness for the plaintiff, was under cross-examination, Judge Mausisa
asked questions alternately with the counsel for the defendant. After four questions by the
judge, the plaintiff’s counsel moved that the judge refrain from asking further questions which
tended to favor the defense and leave the examination of the witness to the defendant’s
counsel, who was a new lawyer. The judge explained that he was entitled to ask searching
questions.

A. Is the motion tenable? Why? (2%)

B. Can the judge justify his intervention? How? (3%)

Suggested Answer:

A. It depends. Rule 3.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that while a judge may, to
promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly intervene in
the presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always be borne in mind that
undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of truth. Thus, if in asking four questions alternately with counsel for the
defendant, Judge Mausisa was only trying to clear up some obscurity, he cannot be
accused of undue interference. But if his “searching questions” were such as to give the
impression that he was already acting as a counsel for the defendant, his conduct is
improper.

B. The judge can justify his intervention on any of the grounds mention by the rule,
namely, to promote justice, avoid waste of time, or clear up some obscurity.

Question:
Prepare a motion for extension of time to file an answer to a complaint in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 3, Manila. For purposes of this pleading, your name is Pedro Cruz. Supply the
other hypothetical data. Omit proof of service and notice hearing. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 3, Manila
JUAN DE LA CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 12345

PEDRO DE GUZMAN,
Defendant,
x --------------------------------- x

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

PLAINTIFF, through undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully alleges:

1. That defendant was served with summons and a copy of the complaint on September
19, 2002 and, consequently, has only up to October 4, 2002 within which to file an
Answer;

2. That the undersigned counsel has started to prepare the Answer but, unfortunately, due
to pressure of work in attending to other equally important cases; he will need
additional time, of 15 days from October 4, 2002, to complete and file the same;

3. That his motion is being filed solely for the foregoing reason and not for purposes of
delay.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that defendant be given an extension of time, of 15

days from October 4, 2002 within which to file an Answer to the complaint.

Manila, September 21, 2002.

PEDRO CRUZ
(Counsel for the Defendant)
(address)

Question:
Jose Malinlang is accused of estafa upon complaint of Joyce Mapagbigay. The case is pending
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Manila, where it is docketed as Criminal Case No.
5430. Joyce engages your services as a private prosecutor. File your formal entry of appearance.
For purposes of this pleading, your name is Pedro Cruz. (5%)
Suggested Answer:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 1, MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 5430

For: ESTAFA
JOSE MALINLANG,
Accused.
x ------------------------------------------------- x

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

The Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 1, Manila

Sir:

Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as Private Prosecutor in the above-
entitled case, under the supervision and control of the Public Prosecutor, with the conformity
of the complainant Joyce Mapagbigay, as shown below.

Henceforth, kindly furnish the undersigned with copies of all pleadings and orders at his
address given below.

Manila, September 22, 2002.

PEDRO CRUZ

Counsel for the Complainant

 (address)

(PTR & IBP OR Nos.)

CONFORME:

JOYCE MAPAGBIGAY
Complainant

Copies Furnished by Personal Delivery:

The City Prosecutor

Manila

Atty. ____________________
Counsel for the Accused
(Address)

Question:
Prepare a motion to dismiss an action for a sum of money in the RTC, Branch 1, Quezon City on
the ground of improper venue. Supply the other hypothetical facts and use Pedro Cruz as your
name. (5%)

Suggested Answer:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 1, QUEZON CITY

JUAN DE LA CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. _____

For: Sum of Money
PEDRO PATERNO,
Defendant.
x ------------------------------------------ x
 MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant, through undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court respectfully moves for
the dismissal of the complaint in the above-entitled case on the ground that VENUE HAS BEEN
IMPROPERLY LAID.

ARGUMENT

The Rules of Court provide that a complaint in a civil case cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court should be filed in the RTC of the place where the plaintiff or the defendant resides,
at the option of the plaintiff. The complaint in the above-entitled case expressly alleges that the
plaintiff is a resident of Makati City while the defendant is a resident of Caloocan City. Hence,
venue has been improperly laid.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed,

Quezon City, September 23, 2002.

PEDRO CRUZ

Counsel for the Defendant

(address)

(PTR & IBP Nos.)

Atty. ____________________ (By personal service)

Counsel for the Plaintiff
(address)

Sir:

Please be notified that on October 11, 2002, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, the undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing motion to the
Honorable Court for its consideration and resolution.
PEDRO CRUZ