Remedial Law: Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

REMEDIAL LAW
Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

CIVIL PROCEDURE
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION
DIFFERENT KINDS OF SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
DEFINITION
• Interpleader (Rule 62);
It is one which is also • Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies (Rule 63);
governed by the rules • Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
for ordinary civil Resolutions of COMELEC and the COA (Rule 64);
actions, but subject to • Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus (Rule 65);
the specific rules • Quo Warranto (Rule 66);
prescribed for a special • Expropriation (Rule 67);
civil action. [RULES OF • Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage (Rule 68);
COURT, Rule 1, Sec. • Partition (Rule 69);
3(a)]
• Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer (Rule 70); and
• Contempt (Rule 71).
CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
NATURE AND PURPOSE
It is a writ emanating from a superior court

directed against an inferior court, tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions, the purpose of which is to
correct errors of law.
CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
REQUISITES:
1. There must be a controversy;
2. Respondent is exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions;
3. Respondents acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and
4. There must be no appeal or other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy.
PROHIBITION (Rule 65)
NATURE AND PURPOSE
• Principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to

prevent an encroachment, excess, usurpation or
assumption of jurisdiction on the part of an inferior
court or quasi-judicial tribunal.
• It is granted when it is necessary for the orderly
administration of justice, or prevent the use of the
strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive
manner, or multiplicity of actions. The writs of certiorari
and prohibition, for that matter, are intended to annul
or void proceeding in order to insure the fair and
orderly administration of justice (Longino v. General,
G.R. No. 147956, 16 February 2005)
• A special civil action of prohibition is an original and independent
action and not merely a continuation or a part of the trial resulting
in the rendition of the judgment or order complained of. Neither is
such an action ancillary or substitute to the action against which
the supervisory authority of the appellate court is sought and
directed. It bears stressing that an action for prohibition or
certiorari, for that matter, does not divest the inferior or trial court
of its jurisdiction validly acquired over the case pending before it;
it is merely an invocation for the exercise of its supervisory power
over the lower court to insure that the lower court acts within its
jurisdiction. If the lower court errs in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to appeal in due
course from an adverse judgment of the trial court, absent grave
abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
(Mayon Estate Corporation v. Altura, G.R. No. 134462, 18
October 2004)
REQUISITES:
1. It must be directed against a tribunal, corporation, board or
person exercising functions, judicial or ministerial;
2. The tribunal, corporation, board or person has acted without or
in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion;
and
3. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law
MANDAMUS (Rule 65)
• It is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person to do an act
required to be done:
• When it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty and
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
• When one unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
entitled and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
MANDAMUS (Rule 65)
REQUISITES:
1. The plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act demanded;
2. It must be the duty of the defendant to perform the act,
because it is mandated by law;
3. The defendant unlawfully neglects the performance of
the duty enjoined by law;
4. The act performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and
5. There is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Bar Question (2015)
The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with plunder the
provincial governor, vice governor, treasurer, budget officer, and
accountant. An Information for plunder was filed with the
Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for the treasurer
who was granted immunity when he agreed to cooperate with the
Ombudsman in the prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor
filed with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against the
Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of discretion in excluding
the treasurer from the Information.
a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? (2%)

b.) Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the Ombudsman to include
the treasurer in the Information? (3%)
c.) Can the Special Prosecutor move for the discharge of the budget
officer to corroborate the testimony of the treasurer in the course of
presenting its evidence? (2%)
Suggested Answers:
(a) No, a petition for certiorari should only be filed where there is no plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, the governor could have
filed a motion for reconsideration, which is generally a pre-requisite prior to the filing
of a petition for certiorari.
Alternative answer: The remedy was correct as the Ombudsman committed

grave abuse of discretion by granting immunity to the treasurer.
(b) No, Mandamus will not lie. Mandamus may only be used to compel respondent
to act. It, may not be used to influence or interfere with the respondent's exercise of
discretion. (Ampatuan, Jr. r. De Lima, C.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013)
(c) No, the budget officer may not be used as a State witness as his testimony is
not absolutely necessary as there is another direct evidence available. (Sec. 17,
Rule 119, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Alternative answer: The Special Prosecutor does not have the authority from the
Ombudsman to move for the discharge of the budget officer to become a State
witness. (Uy v. .Sandiganbayan, CR. No. 105965-70, March 20, 2001)
PLEADINGS
PLEADINGS
DEFINITION KINDS OF PLEADINGS
A. COMPLAINT – a pleading alleging

the plaintiff’s cause of action. The
Pleadings are the names and residences of the
written statements of plaintiff and defendant must be
stated in the complaint (Sec. 3,
the respective claims Rule 6).
and defense of the
B. ANSWER – a pleading in which a
parties submitted to defending party sets forth his
defenses (Sec. 4, Rule 6). The
the court for defenses of a party are alleged in
appropriate the answer to the pleading
asserting a claim against him.
judgment.
FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORP V. PO
G.R. No. 217694, 27January 2016
In case the defendant failed to file his answer, the

court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon
plaintiff’s motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the
complaint and limited to what is prayed for. The failure of
the defendant to timely file his answer and to controvert
the claim against him constituted his acquiescence to
every allegation stated in the complaint.
Counterclaim
Definition Nature Of A Counterclaim
• Any claim which a • A counterclaim is in the

defending party may have nature of a cross
against an opposing party complaint such that it
(Sec. 6). must be answered within
10 days from service. It is
a cause of action against
plaintiff.
Counterclaim
ALBA, JR. V. MALAPAJO METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST
G.R. NO. 198752,13 January 2016 CO. V. CPR PROMOTIONS AND
MARKETING, INC.
To determine whether a counterclaim is G.R. No. 200567, 22 June 2015
compulsory or permissive, we have devised
the following tests:
(a) Are the issues of fact and law raised It is elementary that a defending
by the claim and by the party’s compulsory counterclaim
counterclaim largely the same? should be interposed at the time
(b) Would res judicata bar a he files his Answer, and that
subsequent suit on defendants’ failure to do so shall effectively
claims, absent the compulsory bar such claim.
counterclaim rule?
(c) Will substantially the same evidence
support or refute plaintiffs’ claim as
well as defendants’ counterclaim?
(d) Is there any logical relation between
the claim and the counterclaim?
A positive answer to all four questions would
indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory.
Amendments
Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out
an allegation or the name of any party, or by correcting
a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or
inadequate allegation or description in any other
respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy
may speedily be determined, without regard to
technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner. (Rule 10, Section 1)
• Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his

pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a
responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any
time within ten (10) days after it is served.
Amendments
Amendments by leave of court.
Except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave
may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with
intent to delay. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this
section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the
adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard. (Sec. 3, Rule 10)
When amendments by leave of court NOT allowed

1. Cause of action, defense or theory of the case is changed;
2. Amendment is intended to confer jurisdiction to the court;
3. Amendment seeks to cure the defect in the cause of action;
4. Amendment is made with intent to delay
Amendments
Formal amendments.
A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of
the action, at its initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby
to the adverse party. (Rule 10, Section 4)
Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.

When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied
consent of the parties they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been
raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues
may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to amend does not effect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence
is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by
the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so
with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of
substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance
to enable the amendment to be made. (Rule 10, Section 5)
Amendments
Filing of amended pleadings.
When any pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire
pleading, incorporating the amendments, which shall be
indicated by appropriate marks, shall be filed. (Sec. 7, Rule
10)
Effect of amended pleadings.

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it
amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may
be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or
defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended
pleading shall be deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 10)
Supplemental Pleadings
Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable
notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a
supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurrences or events which have happened since the date
of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse
party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of
the order admitting the supplemental pleading. (Rule 10,
Section 5)
Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the

parties to supplement their pleadings by setting forth
transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented
Supplemental Pleadings Distinguished From
Amended Pleadings
Amended Pleadings Supplemental Pleadings
Refers to transaction, occurrences Refers to transactions,

or events already existing at the occurrences or events which have
time of the filing of the original happened since the date of the
action. pleading sought to be
supplemented.
Can be a matter of right such as Always with leave of court.
when made before a responsive
pleading is served.
A new copy of the entire pleading No need to file but must serve a
must be filed incorporating the copy to the court and the adverse
amendments and indicated by party.
appropriate marks.
An amended pleading supersedes Original pleadings stands.
the original one.
Certification against forum shopping
The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Effect of failure to comply:

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and
after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a
cause for administrative sanctions.
PAL v. Flight Attendants and Stewards Assn of the Philippines (FASAP)
G.R. No. 143088, 24 January 2006
FASAP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal suspension, and illegal
dismissal against PAL before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in favor of
FASAP. The NLRC modified the arbiter’s decision by setting aside the finding that PAL was
guilty of unfair labor practice, but affirming the rest of the decision.
Subsequently, PAL filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, it was accompanied by a
Certification of Non-forum shopping executed by Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen,
Vice-President Human Resources and Assistant Vice-President Cabin Services of PAL,
respectively, who are not parties to the case. The certification, however, was without proof
that the two affiants had authority to sign in behalf of petitioners. As a result, the Court
of Appeals dismissed the case for failure to show the authority of affiants to sign for
PAL and for failure of the other petitioners to join in the execution of the certification. A
motion for reconsideration was filed with a Secretary’s Certificate attached evidencing that
affiants Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen have been authorized by Board Resolution
No. 00-02-03 to initiate and/or cause to be filed on behalf of PAL petitions and pleadings in all
labor-related cases. As to the other petitioners, it was argued that they are mere nominal
parties so that their failure to execute the certification does not justify dismissal of the petition.
Despite this submission, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence,
the case is now before this Court.
G.R. No. 143088, 24 January 2006
Only individuals vested with authority by a valid board resolution may sign the
certificate of non-forum shopping in behalf of a corporation. In addition, the Supreme
Court has required that proof of said authority must be attached. Failure to provide a
certificate of non-forum shopping is sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Likewise,
the petition is subject to dismissal if a certification was submitted unaccompanied by
proof of the signatory’s authority.
The petition filed with the Court of Appeals had a certification of non-forum
shopping executed by Cesar R. Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen. The certification,
however, was without proof of authority to sign. When a motion for reconsideration was
filed, a Secretary’s Certificate was submitted as proof that the board of directors of PAL
had authorized the two to execute the certificate. Nonetheless, the Court finds that this
belated submission is an insufficient compliance with the certification requirement. x x x
G.R. No. 143088, 24 January 2006
A perusal of the Secretary’s Certificate submitted reveals that the authority to

cause the filing of the petition was granted on February 15, 2000. The petition, on the
other hand, was filed on January 24, 2000 and was dismissed by the Court of Appeals
on January 31, 2000. This means that at the time the certification was signed, Cesar R.
Lamberte and Susan Del Carmen were not duly authorized by the Board of Directors of
PAL and, consequently, their signing and attestations were not in representation of PAL.
This effectively translates to a petition that was filed without a certification at all as none
was issued by PAL, the principal party to the case.
The required certification of non-forum shopping must be valid at the

time of filing of the petition. An invalid certificate cannot be remedied by the
subsequent submission of a Secretary’s Certificate that vests authority only after
the petition had been filed.
Effect of Failure to Plead
DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS NOT A COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
PLEADED EITHER IN A MOTION TO OR A CROSS-CLAIM NOT SET UP
DISMISS OR IN THE ANSWER, ARE SHALL BE BARRED. (Sec. 2, Rule
DEEMED WAIVED (Sec. 1, Rule 9, 1997
9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Rules of Civil. Procedure).
EXCEPTIONS:
EXCEPTION: If the compulsory
counterclaim or cross-claim is an
(1) When it appears from the pleading or
after-acquired counterclaim, that is,
the pieces of evidence on record that the
such claim matured after filing of the
Court has no jurisdiction over the
answer, it may be pleaded by filing an
subject matter;
amended answer or a supplemental
(2) That there is another action pending answer or pleading. (Sec. 9, Rule 11,
between the same parties for the same 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
cause;
(3) That the action is barred by the statute
of limitations; (same as Sec. 8, Rule 117,
Rules of Civil Procedure) and
(4) Res judicata. In all these cases, the
court shall dismiss the claim. (Sec. 1, Rule
9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
If the defending party FAILS TO ANSWER within the time allowed
therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to
the defending party, and proof of such failure, DECLARE THE
DEFENDING PARTY IN DEFAULT. Thereupon, the court shall proceed
to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading
may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to
submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court. (Rule 9, Section 3, par. 1)
REMEDY FROM ORDER OF DEFAULT

Motion to set aside Order of default. — A party declared in default
may at any time after notice thereof and before judgment file a motion
under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing that
his failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. In such case, the
order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the
judge may impose in the interest of justice. [Rule 9, Section 3(b)]
REMEDIES FROM JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
• Before finality
1. Motion for reconsideration or new trial
2. Appeal
• After finality
1. Petition for relief from judgment
2. Annulment of judgment
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration,
Petition for Relief from Judgment and Annulment of Judgment
as Remedies from Judgment by Default
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court
to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial on the ground of
FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE which ordinary
prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved
party has probably been impaired in his rights.
Petition for Relief from Judgment

When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter
taken against a party in any court through FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE, OR
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE, he may file a petition in such court and in the same
case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
Annulment of Judgment
The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic FRAUD and lack of
jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could
have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.
MOTIONS
Motion to Dismiss
Four general types of motion to dismiss under the Rules

1. Motion to dismiss before answer (Rule 16)
2. Motion to dismiss by plaintiff (Rule 17)
3. Motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence after plaintiff
has rested his case under Rule 33
4. Motion to dismiss appeal either in RTC (Rule 41, Sec.
13), CA (Rule 50, Sec. 1) or SC (Rule 56, Sec. 5)
Motion to Dismiss (Rule 16)
GROUNDS
(a) That the court has no (g) That the pleading asserting the
jurisdiction over the person of the claim states no cause of action;
defending party; (h) That the claim or demand set
(b) That the court has no forth in the plaintiff's pleading has
jurisdiction over the subject matter been paid, waived, abandoned, or
of the claim; otherwise extinguished;
(c) That venue is improperly laid; (i) That the claim on which the
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal action is founded is enforceable
capacity to sue; under the provisions of the statute
(e) That there is another action of frauds; and
pending between the same parties (j) That a condition precedent for
for the same cause; filing the claim has not been
(f) That the cause of action is complied with
barred by a prior judgment or by
the statute of limitations;
Instances when a complaint may no longer be re-filed after
the court grants a motion to dismiss
1. Cause of action is barred by prior judgment (Res

judicata);
2. Bar by the statute of limitations (Prescription);
3. Claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned, or
otherwise extinguished; and
4. Claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
• NOTE: The remedy would be to appeal the dismissal.

Res Judicata as a Ground for Motion to Dismiss
Concept of Res Judicata
Res Judicata comprehends two distinct concepts: (1) bar by a former

judgment; and (2) conclusiveness of judgment (Heirs of Wenceslao Tabia v.
CA, G.R. Nos. 129377 & 129399, 22 February 2007).
The first concept of res judicata bars the prosecution of a second action
upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.
The second concept – conclusiveness of judgment – states that a fact of

question which was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed
upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusively
settled by the judgment therein as far as the parties to that action and
persons in privity with them are concerned and cannot be litigated again in
any future action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or
any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or different
causes of action, while the judgment remains unreversed by proper
authority.
Res Judicata as a Ground for Motion to Dismiss
Requisites of res judicata:
1. A final judgment or order;

2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties by the court
rendering it;
3. Judgment upon the merits;
4. Between the two cases: (a) There is identity of parties; or (2) the
actions are between those in privity with them, as between their
successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of
the action, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in
the same capacity; or (3) where there is substantial identity even if
there are additional parties.
Litis Pendentia as a Ground for Motion to Dismiss
• As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis

pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending
between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that
one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious (Umale v.
Canoga Park Development Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, 20
July 2011).
• Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present:

(1) identity of the parties in the two actions; (2) substantial
identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the
parties; and (3) the identity between the two actions should be
such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case,
regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other (Umale, supra.).
Bar Question 2011
What is the movant’s remedy if the trial court incorrectly denies
his motion to dismiss and related motion for reconsideration?
A. Answer the complaint.

B. File an administrative action for gross ignorance of the law
against the trial judge.
C. File a special civil action of certiorari on ground of grave
abuse of discretion.
D. Appeal the orders of denial.
Correct Answer: “C. File a special civil action of certiorari on

ground of grave abuse of discretion.”
Upon notice by plaintiff – before answer (Sec. 1)
Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint may be
dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at
any time before service of the answer or of a motion for
summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court
shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless
otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without
prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication
upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed in a competent court an action based on or
including the same claim. (Rule 17, Sec. 1)
Upon motion of plaintiff – after answer (Sec. 2)
Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided
in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed
at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court
and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems
proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant
prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for
dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under

this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit
shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval
of the court. (Rule 17, Sec. 2)
Due to fault of plaintiff (Sec. 3)
• Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If, for no justifiable
cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the
presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to
prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant
or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the
right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the
same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have
the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court. (Rule 17, Sec. 3)
Effect on counterclaim
If the dismissal is upon motion of plaintiff
The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate
action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim
resolved in the same action. (Rule 17, Sec. 2)
If the dismissal is due to fault of plaintiff

This dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action (Rule 17, Sec. 3).
JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS
Rendition of Judgment and
Preparation of Judgment
Rendition of Judgment Preparation of Judgment
The mere pronouncement of A judgment or final order
the judgment in open court determining the merits of
does not constitute a rendition the case shall be in
of judgment. It is the filing of writing personally and
the signed decision with the directly prepared by the
clerk of court that constitute judge, stating clearly and
rendition. (Ago v. CA, CR. No. distinctly the facts and the
L-17898, 31 October 1962) law on which it is based,
signed by him, and filed
with the clerk of the court.
(Sec. 1, Rule 36, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure)
Judgment on the Pleadings and
Summary Judgment
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Where an answer fails to Summary judgment is a procedural

tender an issue or admits technique to promptly dispose of
cases where the facts appear
material allegations in the undisputed and certain from the
adverse party's pleading, the pleadings, depositions, admissions
court may, on motion of that and affidavits on record, for
party, direct judgment on such weeding out sham claims or
pleading. (Sec. 1, Rule 34, defenses at an early stage of the
litigation. Summary judgment must
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) be premised on the absence of any
other triable genuine issues of fact.
(Monterey Foods v. Esegose, G.R.
No. 153126, September 11, 2006)
Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment,
When Proper
Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc.
G.R. No. 202597, 8 February 2017, J. Bersamin
The petitioners contend that their Motion for Summary

Judgment and Motion to Hold Pre-Trial in Abeyance needed to be first resolved
before the pre-trial could proceed; and that the CA erred in declaring that "it is only
at the pre-trial that the rules allow the courts to render judgment on the pleadings
and summary judgment, as provided by Section 2(g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of
Court.“
The petitioners' contentions have no merit. It is erroneous on the part of

the CA to declare that "it is only at the pre-trial that the rules allow the courts to
render judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, as provided by Section
2(g) of Rule 18 of the Rules of Court." The filing of the motion for summary
judgment may be done prior to the pre-trial.
When Proper

Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court permits a party seeking to

recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or seeking declaratory relief
to file the motion for a summary judgment upon all or any part thereof in his favor
(and its supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) "at any time after the
pleading in answer thereto has been served;" while Section 2 of Rule 35 instructs
that a party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a
declaratory relief is sought may file the motion for summary judgment (and its
supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions) upon all or any part thereof "at
any time." As such, the petitioners properly filed their motion for summary
judgment prior to the pre-trial (assuming that they thereby complied with the
requirement of supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions). x x x
When Proper
To be clear, the rule only spells out that unless the motion for such judgment
has earlier been filed the pre-trial may be the occasion in which the court considers the
propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. If no such
motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may then indicate to the proper party to
initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion. Indeed, such
motion is required by either Rule 34 (Judgment on the Pleadings) or Rule 35 (Summary
Judgment) of the Rules of Court. The pre-trial judge cannot motu proprio render the
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment. In the case of the motion for
summary judgment, the adverse party is entitled to counter the motion.
Even so, the petitioners cannot validly insist that the CA should have first
resolved their Motion for Summary Judgment before holding the pretrial. They could not
use the inaction on their motion to justify their nonappearance with their counsel at the
pre-trial, as well as their inability to file their pre-trial brief. In that regard, their
appearance at the pre-trial with their counsel was mandatory.
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION
AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
Execution of Judgment
Execution as a Matter of Right Discretionary Execution

Execution shall issue as a matter of (a) Execution of a judgment or final
right, or motion, upon a judgment or order pending appeal.
order that disposes of the action or
proceeding upon the expiration of the - On motion of the prevailing party
period to appeal therefrom if no
- Discretionary execution may
appeal has been duly perfected.
only issue upon good reasons to
be stated in a special order after
If the appeal has been duly perfected due hearing.
and finally resolved, the execution
may be applied for in the court of
origin. The appellate court may, on (b) Execution of several, separate or
motion in the same case, when the partial judgments.
interest of justice so requires, direct
the court of origin to issue the writ of (Section 2, Rule 39, Rules of Court)
execution (Section 1, Rule 39, Rules
of Court)
Enforcement and Effect of
Judgments or Final Orders
In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment
or final order is conclusive upon the title to the thing. In case of a judgment or
final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title. In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by:
• Evidence of a want of jurisdiction;
• Want of notice to the party; and
• Collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (Section 48, Rule 39, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure)
A foreign judgment on the mere strength of its promulgation is not yet

conclusive. A foreign judgment may be barred from recognition if it runs counter
to public policy. (Republic v. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 1664207, February 1, 2006)
Res Judicata
1. RES JUDICATA (bar by prior judgment) 2. Res Judicata by Conclusiveness of
It is a rule that a final judgment rendered by a court Judgment
of competent jurisdiction on the merits is
conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their Any right, fact, or matter in issue directly
privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute adjudicated or necessarily involved in
bar to a subsequent action involving the same the determination of an action before a
claim, demand or, causes of action. (Noceda v. competent court in which a judgment or
decree is rendered on the merits is
Arbizo-Directo, G.R. No. 178495, July 26, 2010).
conclusively settled by the judgment
therein and cannot again be litigated
Requisites of res judicata or bar by prior between the parties and their privies
judgment: whether or not the claims or demands,
purposes, or subject matters of the two
1. A final judgment or order; suits are the same (Noceda v. Arbizo-
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Directo, supra).
parties by the court rendering it;
3. Judgment upon the merits; This is also known as estoppel by
4. Between the two cases: (a) There is identity of verdict or estoppel by record, or
parties; or (2) the actions are between those in collateral estoppel by judgment or
privity with them, as between their successors preclusion of issue or rule of auter
in interest by title subsequent to the action pendant. It covers paragraph
commencement of the action, litigating for the (c) of Rule 47.
same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity; or (3) where there is substantial
identity even if there are additional parties.
SUMMONS
Summons
Definition and purpose Issuance of alias summons
• Summons is the writ by which the The clerk may issue an alias
defendant is notified of the action summons:
brought against him. • on demand of the plaintiff,
• The issuance of summons is • if the summons has been lost, or
mandatory on the part of the court. • if the summons has been returned
• In an action in personam, the purpose without being served (Sec. 5, Rule
of summons is not only to notify the 14)
defendant of the action, but also to
acquire jurisdiction over his person.
• Service of summons is required even if
the defendant is aware of the filing of
the action against him.
• In an action in rem or quasi in rem, the
purpose of summons is mainly to
satisfy the constitutional requirements
of due process.
Modes of Service of Summons
Personal Service Substituted Service
Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by If, for justifiable causes, the defendant
handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or by cannot be served within a reasonable
tendering it to him, if he refuses to receive and sign for time as provided in the preceding
it. (Sec. 6, Rule 14) section, service may be effected by: (a)
leaving copies of the summons at the
Extraterritorial Service defendant’s residence with some person
of suitable age and discretion then
When the defendant does not reside and is not found in
residing therein; or (b) leaving the copies
the Philippines, and the action affects the personal
at defendant’s office or regular place of
status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which
business with some competent person in
is, property within the Philippines, in which the
charge thereof. (Sec. 7, Rule 14)
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or
contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists,
wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any Service by Publication
interest therein, or the property of the defendant has In any action where the defendant is
been attached within the Philippines, service may be designated as an unknown owner, or the
effected out of the Philippines by personal service or by like, or whenever his whereabouts are
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such unknown and cannot be ascertained by
places and for such time as the court may order, in diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of
which case a copy of the summons and order of the court, be effected upon him by
court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known publication in a newspaper of general
address of the defendant, or in any other manner the circulation and in such places and for
court may deem sufficient. such time as the court may order. (Sec.
14, Rule 14)
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
IN CIVIL ACTIONS
Demurrer to Evidence in Civil Actions
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his
evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the
ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief.
If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present

evidence.
If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of

dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence.
MODES OF DISCOVERY
MODES OF DISCOVERY
1. Depositions pending action (Rule 23)

2. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24)
3. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25)
4. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26)
5. Production or inspection of documents, or things (Rule 27)
6. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28)
DEPOSITION
Definition
• In a broad sense, it refers to any written statement verified by oath.
• Technically –
A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in

writing, under oath or affirmation, before a commissioner, examiner
or other judicial officer, in answer to interlocutory and cross-
interlocutory, and usually subscribed by the witnesses (Ayala Land,
Inc. vs. Tagle et. al., G.R. No. 153667, August 11, 2005).
Classification
1. Depositions pending action (Deposition de bene esse);

2. Depositions before action ;
3. Depositions pending appeal.
Refusal to Comply with the Modes of Discovery
(Rule 29)
REFUSAL TO ANSWER
If a party or other deponent refuses to answer any question upon oral
examination, the examination may be completed on other matters or
adjourned as the proponent of the question may prefer. The proponent
may thereafter apply to the proper court of the place where the
deposition is being taken, for an order to compel an answer. The same
procedure may be availed of when a party or a witness refuses to
answer any interrogatory submitted under Rules 23 or 25.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer any
question after being directed to do so by the court of the place in which
the deposition is being taken, the refusal may be considered a
contempt of that court.
Refusal to Comply with the Modes of Discovery (Rule 29)
OTHER CONSEQUENCES
If any party or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses to obey an order requiring
him to answer designated questions, or an order to produce any document or other thing for
inspection, copying, or photographing or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon land
or other property or an order made requiring him to submit to a physical or mental
examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and
among others the following:
1. An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked, or the character or
description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental
condition of the party, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for
the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
2. An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims
or defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or
things or items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental
condition;
3. An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings
until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part
thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party; and
4. In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, an order directing the
arrest of any party or agent of a party for disobeying any of such orders except an
order to submit to a physical or mental examination.
Refusal to Comply with the Modes of Discovery (Rule 29)
EXPENSES ON REFUSAL TO ADMIT
If a party after being served with a request to admit the genuineness of any
document or the truth of any matter of fact serves a sworn denial thereof and if the
party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of such
document or the truth of any such matter of fact, he may apply to the court for an
order requiring the other party to pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in
making such proof, including attorney's fees. Unless the court finds that there were
good reasons for the denial or that admissions sought were of no substantial
importance, such order shall be issued.
FAILURE OF PARTY TO ATTEND OR SERVE ANSWERS

If a party or an officer or managing agent of a party willfully fails to appear before
the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, OR
fails to serve answers to interrogatories after proper service of such interrogatories,
the court on motion and notice, may strike out all or any part of any pleading
of that party, OR dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, OR
enter a judgment by default against that party, and in its discretion, order him to
pay reasonable expenses incurred by the other, including attorney's fees.
ACTIONS
Kinds of Actions
As to cause or foundation As to object
• Personal - one brought for the recovery • In rem - an action against the thing itself
of personal property, for the enforcement instead of against the person.
of some contract or recovery of • In personam - an action against a
person on the basis of his personal
damages for its breach, or for the
liability.
recovery of damages for the commission
• Quasi in rem - one wherein an individual
of an injury to the person or property (Go
is named as defendant and the purpose
v. United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. of the proceeding is to subject his interest
No. 156187, 11 November 2004). therein to the obligation or lien burdening
• Real - when it affects title to or the property. (Asiavest Limited v. Court of
possession of real property, or an Appeals, 296 SCRA 539).
interest therein. All other actions are
personal. Significance of distinction between
actions in rem, in personam and quasi
in rem
Importance of distinction between The distinction is important to determine
personal action and real action whether or not jurisdiction over the person
The distinction between a real action and of the defendant is required and
a personal action is important for the consequently to determine the type of
purpose of determining the venue of the summons to be employed.
action.
TRIAL
Order of Trial Presentation of Evidence
(a) The plaintiff shall adduce evidence; (under Judicial Affidavit Rule)
(b) The defendant shall then adduce evidence in
support of his defense, counterclaim, cross-claim • The parties shall file with the court and serve on
and third-party complaints; the adverse party, personally or by licensed
(c) The third-party defendant if any, shall adduce courier service, not later than five days before
evidence of his defense, counterclaim, cross- pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
claim and fourth-party complaint; scheduled hearing with respect to motions and
(d) The fourth-party, and so forth, if any, shall incidents, the judicial affidavits of their
adduce evidence of the material facts pleaded by witnesses, which shall take the place of such
them; witnesses' direct testimonies (Judicial Affidavit
Rule, Section 2).
(e) The parties against whom any counterclaim
or cross-claim has been pleaded, shall adduce • The adverse party shall have the right to cross-
evidence in support of their defense, in the order examine the witness on his judicial affidavit and
to be prescribed by the court; on the exhibits attached to the same. The party
who presents the witness may also examine
(f) The parties may then respectively adduce
him as on re-direct. In every case, the court
rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for
shall take active part in examining the witness
good reasons and in the furtherance of justice,
to determine his credibility as well as the truth
permits them to adduce evidence upon their
of his testimony and to elicit the answers that it
original case; and
needs for resolving the issues (Judicial Affidavit
(g) Upon admission of the evidence, the case Rule, Section 7).
shall be deemed submitted for decision, unless
• Upon the termination of the testimony of his last
the court directs the parties to argue or to submit
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral
their respective memoranda or any further
offer of evidence of his documentary or object
pleadings.
exhibits (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Section 8).
EVIDENCE
Admissibility and Probative Weight,
Distinguished
The admissibility of evidence should not be
confused with its probative value. Admissibility refers to
the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to
be considered at all, while probative value refers to the
question of whether the admitted evidence proves an
issue. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be
admissible, but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial
evaluation within the guidelines provided by the rules of
evidence. (Heirs Of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan v.
Comorposa, G.R. No. 152807, 12 August 2003)
Requisites for Admissibility
1. Relevance 2. Competence
• Evidence is admissible when it is • The evidence must not be excluded by law or

by the Rules of Court (Rule 128, Sec. 3).
relevant to the issue (Rule 128,
• All facts having rational probative value are
Sec. 3). admissible unless some specific rule forbids
• Evidence must have such a relation their admission.
to the fact in issue as to induce
belief in its existence or non- • Examples of exclusionary rules
existence (Rule 128, Sec. 4). • The right against unreasonable searches and
seizures (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2).
• Relevance depends on the factum • The right to privacy of communication and
probandum, or the ultimate fact correspondence (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3).
sought to be proved. • The rights of a person under custodial
investigation (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12).
• Relevance is determined by rules
• The right against self-incrimination (Art. III,
of logic and human experience. Sec. 17).
• R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act).
• Best Evidence Rule.
• Parole Evidence Rule.
• Hearsay Rule.
Testimonial Evidence
• All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make

their known perception to others, may be witnesses
(Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 20).
• Disqualifications of witnesses
a) By reason of mental capacity or immaturity (see (Rules
of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 21)
b) By reason of marriage / Spousal Immunity Rule (see
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 22)
c) By reason of death or insanity of adverse party (see
(Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 23)
d) By reason of privileged communications
Privileged Communication
(a) Communication between husband and wife
(Marital Privilege Rule) - Scope of protection extends
during and after the marriage.
Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule

Can be invoked only if one the spouses is Can be claimed whether or not the
a party to the action. spouse is a party to the action.
Applies only if marriage is existing at the Can claimed even after the marriage
time the testimony is offered. had been dissolved.
Constitutes a total prohibition against any Applies only to confidential

testimony for or against the spouse of the communications between the
witness. spouses.
Privileged Communication
(b) Communication between Attorney and Client (See Rules
of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 24[b])
(c) Communication between Physician and Patient (See
Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 24 [c])
(c) Communication between Minister/Priest and Penitent
(d) State Secrets
(e) Communication covered by Parental and Filial Privilege
Rule (See Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 25; See also Family
Code, Article 21)
(e) Newsman’s Privilege (See R.A. No. 53, as amended by
R.A. No. 1477, the “Shield Law”)
(f) Privilege under the Labor Code (See Labor Code, Art. 233)
(g) Privilege under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
laws (See R.A. No. 9285).
ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. E. P. REVILLA
G.R. No. 34098 , 17 September 1930
The object of Orient Insurance Co.’s (Orient) petition

for writs of certiorari and mandamus is to require respondent
judge to permit Orient’s counsel to examine a letter part of which
has already been read into the record in the course of the
examination of one of the witnesses testifying for private
respondent Teal Motor Co., Inc.
ISSUE: Whether or not the whole letter (Exhibit 49) can be read
for the record without violating the attorney-client privilege?
YES.
Contracts between attorneys and clients are inherently personal

and private matters, but they are a constant subject of litigation,
and contracts relating to fees are essentially not of a privileged
nature. In other words, the terms of employment between
attorney and client are not of a privileged nature.
Admissions
• RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE - has two branches, to wit:
1. The rule that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided (Rule 130, Sec. 128); and
2. The rule that the evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is
not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at
another time (Rule 132, Sec. 34).
• ADMISSION BY A PARTY - An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party

as to a relevant fact which may be given in evidence against him (Rule 130, Sec. 2).
• ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY

The rights of a party CANNOT be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another
(Rule 130, Sec. 28). This is also known as the first branch of the Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
(from “res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet”).
- Exceptions (a.k.a. “vicarious admissions”)
1. Admissions by partner (Rule 130, Sec. 29);
2. Admissions by agent or one who has a joint-interest with the party (Rule 130, Sec.
29);
3. Admission of co-conspirator (Rule 130, Sec. 30);
4. Admission of privy of the party (Rule 130, Sec. 30).
Admissions
• ADMISSION BY A CO-PARTNER OR AGENT - The act or declaration of a partner or
agent of the party may be given in evidence against such party under the following
requirements:
(1) That the partnership, agency or joint interest is established by evidence other than the
act or declaration;
(2) That the act/declaration must have been within the scope of the partnership, etc;
(3) Such act/declaration must have been made during the existence of the partnership, etc
(Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 29).
• ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR - The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to

the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator :
(1) The conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde;
(2) The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy; and
(3) The admission relates to the conspiracy itself.
(Rule 130, Sec. 30; Tamargo v. Antiporda, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010).
• ADMISSION BY PRIVIES - Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. (See Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 31).
Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence – any evidence, whether oral or documentary, whose probative value is based
not on personal knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the
witness stand.
Two concepts of hearsay evidence: (1) Second hand information (not derived from personal
knowledge of witness); and (2) Testimony by a witness derived from his personal knowledge
but the adverse party is not given opportunity to cross-examine.
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A witness cannot testify on matters which are not based
on his personal knowledge or derived from his own perception.
Hearsay evidence has no probative value. If a party does not object, the hearsay evidence
is admissible. But even if hearsay evidence not objected to is admissible, it has no probative
value. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has no probative value (People v.
Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, 28 November 1996).
Principle of Independently Relevant Statements

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. Evidence as to the making of such
statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is
circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact (Republic v. Heirs of Alejega, G.R. No.
146030, 3 December 2002).
REYES V. CA
G.R. No. 96492 , 26 November 1992
The agrarian court ordered the defendants to restore possession

of the farm lots to Eufrocina. This decision was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. On appeal, the petitioners questioned the
favorable consideration given to the affidavits of Eufrocina and
Efren Tecson, since the affiants were not presented and
subjected to cross-examination.
ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in giving favorable

consideration to the affidavits of Eufrocina and Efren Tecson
even if the affiant was not subjected to cross-examination? NO.
As an exception to the scope of the Rules of Evidence, Section

16 of P.D. No. 946 provides that the rules of court shall not be
applicable even in a suppletory character in Agrarian cases.
ESTRADA v. DESIERTO
367 SCRA 108 , 2 March 2001
The case at bar stemmed from the events that transpired during EDSA II. President
Joseph Estrada pursuant to the calls for resignation, left Malacanang, and pursuant to
this, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, then the VP, took his place. Estrada now goes to court to
contest the legitimacy of her presidency. Arguing that he never resigned, and, hence,
claims to still be the lawful President of the Philippines. Among the pieces of evidence
offered to prove that Estrada had indeed resigned from the presidency is the Angara
Diary, chronicling the last moments of Estrada in Malacanang.
ISSUE: Whether the Angara Diary is inadmissible as hearsay evidence? NO.
The ban on hearsay does not cover independently relevant statements, which consist of
statements that are independently relevant of the truth asserted therein. They belong to
two classes: (1) Those statements which are the very facts in issue; and (2) Those
statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue.
The second class includes the following: (1) Statement of a person showing his state of
mind; (2) Statement of a person showing his physical condition; (3) Statement of a
person to infer a state of mind of another person; (4) Statements which may identify the
date, place and person in question; (5) Statements to show a lack of credibility of a
witness
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
i. Dying declaration
Requisites: (1) That death is imminent and the declarant is conscious of that fact; (2)
That the declaration refers to the cause and the surrounding circumstances of such
death; (3) That the declaration relates to facts which the victim is competent to testify
to; and (4) That the declaration is offered in a case wherein the declarant’s death is
the subject of the inquiry (People v. Serenas, G.R. No. 188124, 29 June 2010).
ii. Declaration against interest

Requisites: (1) The declaration is made by: (i) a person deceased; or (ii) a person
who is unable to testify [i.e. in foreign country or physical/mental impairments]; (2)
The declaration is against the interest of the declarant; and (3) The fact asserted in
the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own
interest, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the declaration,
unless he believed it to be true (Rule 130, Sec. 38; Fuentes v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 111692, 9 February 1996).
iii. Act or declaration about pedigree
Requisites: (1) The actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify; (2) The act or
declaration is made by the person related to the subject by birth or marriage; (3) The
relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence
other than such act or declaration; (4) The act or declaration was made prior to the
controversy. (Rule 130, Sec. 39; Nepomuceno v. Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, 18 March
2010).
iv. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree

Requisites: (1) Witness testifying as to reputation or tradition must be a member, by
consanguinity or affinity, of the same family as the subject; (2) Such tradition or
reputation must have existed in that family ante litem motam. (Rule 130, Sec. 40; People
v. Soriano, G.R. No. 154278, December 27, 2002).
v. Common reputation
Requisites: (1) The Subject of inquiry must be facts of public or general interest more
than 30 years old, respecting marriage or moral character; (2) The evidence must refer
to facts ante litem motam; (3) The facts may be established by: (a) Testimonial evidence
of competent witness; (b) Monuments and inscription in public places; (c) Documents
containing statements of reputation.
vi. Part of the res gestae
- Two Types of Res Gestae:
(1)Spontaneous statements; and
(2) Contemporaneous statements or verbal acts (Rule 130, Sec. 42)
• Requisites of the First Type of Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statements):

The rule in res gestae applies when the declarant himself did not testify and the
testimony of the witness who heard the declarant complies with the following
requisites: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the
statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3)
the statements concerned the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances (prior or subsequent) (Rule 130, Sec. 42; Maturillas v. People, G.R.
No. 163217, 18 April 2006).
• Requisites of the Second Type of Res Gestae (Verbal Acts): (1) The principal act
to be characterized must be equivocal; (2) The equivocal act must be relevant to the
issue; (3) The verbal act must be contemporaneous with the equivocal act; (4) The
verbal act must give legal significance to the equivocal act (Talidano v. Falcom
Maritime & Allied Service, Inc. G.R. No. 172031, 14 July 2008).
vii. Entries in the course of business
Requisites: (1) The person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify; (2) The
entries were made at or near the time of the transaction to which they refer; (3) The entrant
was in a position to know the facts stated in the entries; (4) The entries were made in his
professional capacity or in the performance of a duty, whether legal, contractual, moral or
religious; (5) The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty (Rule
130, Sec. 43; Jose, Jr. v Michaelmar Phils., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 169606, 27 November 2009).
viii. Entries in official records

Requisites: (1) Entries were made by: (i) a public officer in the performance of his duties; or (ii)
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law; (2) The entrant had
personal knowledge of the facts stated by him or such facts were acquired by him from reports
made by persons under a legal duty to submit the same; and (3) Such entries were duly
entered in a regular manner in the official records (Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, G.R. No.
162243, 3 December 2009).
ix. Commercial lists and the like

A document is a commercial list if: (1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons
engaged in an occupation; (2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other
published compilation; (3) said compilation is published for the use of persons engaged in that
occupation, and (4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same occupation
(Rule 130, Sec. 45; PNOC Shipping v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107518, 8 October 1998).
x. Learned treaties
Requisites: (1) The court takes judicial notice of published treatise, periodical or
pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art; or (2) A witness expert in the subject
testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is
recognized in his profession or calling as an expert in the subject (Rule 130, Sec. 46).
xi. Testimony or deposition at a former trial

Requisites: (1) Witness is dead or unable to testify; (2) 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; (3) The former case involved the same
subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (4) The issues
testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present
case; and (5) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the
former case.
Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Preliminary Investigations
Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. Nos. 212140-41, 21 January 2015
Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is

substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining
probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary,
and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. x x x Substantial basis is not
the same as substantial evidence because substantial evidence excludes hearsay evidence
while substantial basis can include hearsay evidence. To require the application of the
guidelines for administrative cases set forth in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations in
preliminary investigations will change the quantum of evidence required in determining
probable cause from evidence of likelihood or probability of guilt to substantial evidence of
guilt. Simply put, the Ang Tibay guidelines for administrative cases do not apply to preliminary
investigations in criminal cases. An application of the Ang Tibay guidelines to preliminary
investigations will have absurd and disastrous consequences.
Moreover, a person under preliminary investigation is not yet an accused person,

and hence cannot demand the full exercise of the rights of an accused person. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on
clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES v. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 15 March 2016
Reyes imputes grave abuse of discretion against the Ombudsman in finding

probable cause against her for Plunder and violations of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 on the basis
of, among others, hearsay declarations of the whistleblowers who merely mentioned her name
in general terms.
Owing to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the "technical rules of

evidence should not be applied" in the course of its proceedings, keeping in mind that "the
determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party's
accusation or defense or on the admissibilitv or veracity of testimonies presented." Thus, since
a preliminary investigation does not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of parties,
"probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial
basis for crediting the hearsay.“ Guided by these considerations, the Supreme Court ruled that
the Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to indict Reyes.
CAMBE v. OMBUDSMAN / REVILLA v. OMBUDSMAN
G.R. Nos. 212014-15 / G.R. Nos. 212427-28, 6 December 2016
Sen. Revilla opposes the admission of the whistleblowers' testimonies based

on the res inter alios acta rule. However, in Reyes, citing Estrada v. Ombudsman, the
Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that the testimonies of the same whistleblowers
against Jo Christine and John Christopher Napoles, children of Janet Napoles who were
also charged with the embezzlement of the PDAF, are admissible in evidence,
considering that technical rules of evidence are not binding on the fiscal during
preliminary investigation. The validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as
well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial
proper than at the preliminary investigation level." Owing to the initiatory nature of
preliminary investigations, the technical rules of evidence should not be applied in the
course of its proceedings." Probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence,
as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay." Even an invocation of the
rule on res inter alios acta at this stage of the proceedings is improper.
Guided by these considerations, the Sumpreme Court ruled that the

Ombudsman did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to indict Sen.
Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, De Asis, and Lim of one (1) count of Plunder, and all the
petitioners, except Lim, of sixteen (16) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
Offer and Objection
Offer of evidence
The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for
which the evidence is offered must be specified (Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 34).
When to make an offer
• Testimonial evidence - must be offered at the time the witness is called to testify. (Rules of
Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35).
- 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. The court shall promptly rule on the motion
and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any excluded answer by placing it in brackets
under the initials of an authorized court personnel (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Sec. 6)
• Documentary and object evidence - must be offered after the presentation of a party's
testimonial evidence. (Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 35).
- Upon the termination of the testimony of his last witness, a party shall immediately make
an oral offer of evidence of his documentary or object exhibits (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Sec.
8).
Offer and Objection
THE GROUNDS FOR OBJECTIONS MUST ALWAYS BE SPECIFIED. (Rule 132, Sec.
36, par. 4).
When to make objections:
• Testimonial evidence - must be objected to immediately after the offer is made. (Rule
132, Sec. 36, par. 1).
• Objection to a question during oral examination - must be made as soon as the

grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par. 2).
• Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, 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. The
court shall promptly rule on the motion and, if granted, shall cause the marking of any
excluded answer by placing it in brackets under the initials of an authorized court
personnel, without prejudice to a tender of excluded evidence under Section 40 of Rule
132 of the Rules of Court. (Judicial Affidavit Rule, Sec. 6)
Offer and Objection
When to make objections:
• Documentary evidence - shall be objected to within three (3) days after notice of
the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court (Rule 132, Sec. 36, par.
3).
• Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, upon the termination of the testimony of the last
witness, a party shall immediately make an oral offer of evidence of his
documentary or object exhibits. After each piece of exhibit is offered, the adverse
party shall state the legal ground for his objection, if any, to its admission, and the
court shall immediately make its ruling respecting that exhibit (Judicial Affidavit
Rule, Section 8).
Bar Questions 2011
Henry testified that a month after the To prove the identity of the assailant in a
robbery Asiong, one of the accused, told crime of homicide, a police officer
him that Carlos was one of those who testified that, Andy, who did not testify in
committed the crime with him. Is Henry’s court, pointed a finger at the accused in a
testimony regarding what Asiong told him police lineup. Is the police officer’s
admissible in evidence against Carlos? testimony regarding Andy's identification
A. No, since it is hearsay. of the accused admissible evidence?
B. No, since Asiong did not make the A. Yes, since it is based on his
statement during the conspiracy. personal knowledge of Andy’s
C. Yes, since it constitutes admission identification of the accused.
against a co-conspirator. B. Yes, since it constitutes an
D. Yes, since it part of the res gestae. independently relevant statement.
C. No, since the police had the
accused identified without warning
Correct Answer: “B. No, since Asiong him of his rights.
did not make the statement during the
conspiracy.” D. No, since the testimony is hearsay.
Correct Answer: “D. No, since the

testimony is hearsay.”
Chain of Custody Rule
• As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be.
• It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a
way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
in the witnesses' possession, the condition in which it was received and
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
• As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict

compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
can be disregarded as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the
illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation can be well
established if the chain of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. (People
v. Fermin and Madayag, Jr., G.R. No. 179344, 3 August 2011).
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
• A child witness is any person who at the time of giving
testimony is below the age of 18 years. In child abuse cases, a
child includes one over 18 years but is found by the court as
unable to fully take care of himself or protect himself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because
of a physical or mental disability or condition (Sec. 4[a]).
• The examination of a child witness presented in a hearing or

any proceeding shall be done in open court. Unless the witness
is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different
mode of answer, the answers of the witness shall be given
orally. The party who presents a child witness or the guardian
ad litem of such child witness may, however, move the court to
allow him to testify in the manner provided in this Rule (Sec. 8).
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
Live-link TV testimony of a child witness
The prosecutor, counsel or the guardian ad litem may apply for an order
that the testimony of the child be taken in a room outside the courtroom
and be televised to the courtroom by live-link television. The person
seeking such an order shall apply at least five (5) days before the trial date,
unless the court finds on the record that the need for such an order was
not reasonably foreseeable.
Examination in chambers or in other comfortable places

The judge may question the child in chambers or in some comfortable
place other than the courtroom, in the presence of the support person,
guardian ad litem, prosecutor, and counsel for the parties. The questions of
the judge shall not be related to the issues at trial but to the feelings of the
child about testifying in the courtroom.
Exclusion of the accused

The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, whose
presence or conduct causes fear to the child.
(A.M. No. 004-07-SC)
Videotaped deposition of a child witness
The prosecutor, counsel, or guardian ad litem may apply for an order that a
deposition be taken of the testimony of the child and that it be recorded and
preserved on videotape. Before the guardian ad litem applies for an order under this
section, he shall consult with the prosecutor or counsel.
If the court finds that the child will not be able to testify in open court at trial, it shall
issue an order that the deposition of the child be taken and preserved by videotape.
The judge shall preside at the videotaped deposition of a child. Objections to

deposition testimony or evidence, or parts thereof, and the grounds for the objection
shall be stated and shall ruled upon at the time of the taking of the.
If, at the time of trial, the court finds that the child is unable to testify for a reason
stated in section 25(f) of this Rule, or is unavailable for any reason described in
section 4(c0, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may admit into
evidence the videotaped deposition of the child in lieu of his testimony at the trial.
Rules on Electronic Evidence
(A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Original of an electronic document. – An electronic document shall be regarded as

the equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule if it is a printout or
output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately (Rule 4,
Section 1)
Copies as equivalent of the originals. – When a document is in two or more copies

executed at or about the same time with identical contents, or is a counterpart produced
by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques
which accurately reproduces the original, such copies or duplicates shall be regarded
as the equivalent of the original.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, copies or duplicates shall not be admissible to the same
extent as the original if:
(a) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original; or
(b) in the circumstances it would be unjust or inequitable to admit the copy in lieu of
the original. (Rule 4, Section 2)
Rules on Electronic Evidence
(A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic

document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the
manner provided in this Rule. (Rule 5, Section 1)
Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as

authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following
means:
(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. (Rule 5, Section 2)
Proof of electronically notarized document. – A document electronically notarized in

accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a
public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court. (Rule 5,
Section 3)
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
BAIL
Bail
BAIL is the security When bail is a matter of
given for the release right (Rule 114, Sec. 4)
of a person in custody
of the law, furnished
by him or a 1. Before or after
bondsman, to
conviction by MTC;
guarantee his
appearance before 2. Before conviction by
any court as required RTC of all offenses
under conditions punishable by penalty
hereinafter specified.
(Rule 114, Sec. 1) lower than reclusion
perpetua.
When right to bail not available
(1) When evidence of guilt is strong in capital offenses or offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Except: When the accused charged with a capital offense is a minor, he is
entitled to bail regardless of whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
Capital Offense: An offense which under the law existing at the time of
commission and of the application for admission to bail is punishable by
death. (Rule 114, Sec. 6)
(2) Right to bail is not available in the military. (Comendador v De Villa,

1991)
(3) After a judgment of conviction has become final. If he applied for

probation before finality, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail
(Rule 114, Sec. 24).
(4) After the accused has commenced to serve his sentence. (Rule 114,
Sec. 24)
When Bail is a Matter of Discretion
• (a) Before conviction, in offenses punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.
ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 213847, 18 August 2015 (J. Bersamin)
Enrile claims that before judgment of conviction, an accused is

entitled to bail as matter of right; that it is the duty and burden of the
Prosecution to show clearly and conclusively that Enrile comes under the
exception and cannot be excluded from enjoying the right to bail. Enrile
also claims that the Prosecution has failed to establish that Enrile, if
convicted of plunder, is punishable by reclusion perpetua considering the
presence of two mitigating circumstances – his age and his voluntary
surrender; that the Prosecution has not come forward with proof showing
that his guilt for the crime of plunder is strong; and that he should not be
considered a flight risk taking into account that he is already over the age
of 90, his medical condition, and his social standing.
ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from
committing additional crimes, but is to guarantee the appearance of the accused
at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. Admission to bail in
offenses punished by death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua is
subject to judicial discretion. For purposes of admission to bail, the determination
of whether or not evidence of guilt is strong in criminal cases involving capital
offenses, or offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies
within the discretion of the trial court. But such discretion may be exercised only
after the hearing called to ascertain the degree of guilt of the accused for the
purpose of whether or not he should be granted provisional liberty.
Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail. Enrile has averred in
his Motion to Fix Bail the presence of two mitigating circumstances that should
be appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was already over 70 years at the
time of the alleged commission of the offense, and that he voluntarily
surrendered. Furthermore, Enrile’s social and political standing and his having
immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court
indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely.
When Bail is a Matter of Discretion
(b) Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
• “Conviction” refers to conviction by the trial court, which has not become
final, as the accused still has the right to appeal. After conviction by the trial
court, the accused convicted of a capital offense is no longer entitled to bail,
and can only be released when the conviction is reversed by appellate
court. (Art. 3, Sec. 13, Constitution)
LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010
Accused was convicted of the lesser crime of homicide and sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of more than six (6) years. He appealed his conviction to the Court of
Appeals. Pending appeal, he filed an urgent application for admission to bail pending appeal,
citing his advanced age and health condition, and claiming the absence of any risk or
possibility of flight on his part, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. In dismissing
petitioner’s petition, the Supreme Court held that the discretionary nature of the grant of bail
pending appeal does not mean that bail should automatically be granted absent any of the
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
LEVISTE v. COURT OF APPEALS
The third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 applies to two scenarios where
the penalty imposed on the accused applying for bail is imprisonment exceeding six
years. The first scenario deals with the circumstances enumerated in the said
paragraph not present. The second scenario contemplates the existence of at least
one of the said circumstances. In the first situation, bail is a matter of sound judicial
discretion. This means that, if none of the circumstances mentioned in the third
paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, the appellate court has the discretion to
grant or deny bail. An application for bail pending appeal may be denied even if the
bail-negating circumstances in the third paragraph of Section 5, Rule 114 are absent.
On the other hand, in the second situation, the appellate court exercises a more
stringent discretion, that is, to carefully ascertain whether any of the enumerated
circumstances in fact exists. If it so determines, it has no other option except to deny
or revoke bail pending appeal. Thus, a finding that none of the said circumstances is
present will not automatically result in the grant of bail. Such finding will simply
authorize the court to use the less stringent sound discretion approach.
MOTION TO QUASH
Grounds for a Motion to Quash
1. Facts charged do not charged. Exception: When a
constitute an offense. single punishment for various
2. Court trying the case has no offenses is prescribed by law.
jurisdiction over the offense 7. Criminal action or liability has
charged. been extinguished.
3. Court trying the case has no 8. Averments which, if true,
jurisdiction over the person would constitute a legal
accused. excuse or justification.
4. Officer who filed the 9. Accused has been previously
information had no authority convicted or acquitted of the
to do so. offense charged, or the case
5. That it does not conform against him was dismissed or
substantially to the prescribed otherwise terminated without
form. his express consent (Double
6. More than one offense is Jeopardy Rule)
Motion to Quash and Demurrer
To Evidence, Distinguished
Motion to Quash:
• Filed before accused enters plea
• Does not go into the merits of the case
Demurrer to Evidence:
• Filed after the prosecution has rested its case
• Based upon the inadequacy of evidence
adduced by the prosecution
Double Jeopardy
Rule on Double Jeopardy
When a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated
either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the
express consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with
the same or identical offense. (Rule 117, Sec. 3i)
Requisites for 1st Jeopardy to Attach

1. A valid complaint or information - sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction;
2. The court had jurisdiction;
3. A valid arraignment;
4. A valid plea; and
5. Conviction, acquittal of the accused OR dismissal of the case, without
accused’s express consent
Double Jeopardy
JASON IVLER v. JUDGE MODESTO-SAN PEDRO

G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or

acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. The essence of the quasi offense of
criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the
execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would
be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless
act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the
offense. As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should
affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence)
remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and
prosecutions.
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL
ACTION
Rule On Implied Institution Of Civil Action With
Criminal Action
General Rule:
• When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of damages
is deemed instituted with the criminal action. (Rule 111, Sec. 1)
Exception:
• If the offended party:
• waives a civil action;
• institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or
• reserves the right to institute it separately.
Exceptions to the exception:

• Claims arising out of a dishonored check under BP 22 where “no reservation to
file such civil action separately shall be allowed.“
• Claims arising from an offense which is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. (Sec.
4, PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249)
When Civil Action May Proceed Independently
• The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be
made:
• before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence, and
• under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
Procedure for making the reservation

• Filing a manifestation in the criminal case that the offended party is
reserving his right to file a separate civil action.
• Filing the separate civil action and informing the court trying the criminal
case that the offended party has filed a separate civil action.
• No counterclaim, cross-claim or 3rd party complaint may be filed by the
accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have
been subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Rule 111,
Sec. 1)
When Separate Civil Action Is Suspended
• The civil action which should be suspended after the
institution of the criminal action is that arising from
delict or crime.
• Civil actions mentioned in Rule 111, Sec.3, under

Arts. 32-34 and 2176 of the Civil Code are exempted
from the rule that after a criminal action has been
commenced, the civil action which has been reserved
cannot be instituted until final judgment has been
rendered in the criminal action.
Effect Of The Death Of Accused Or Convict On Civil
Action (Rule 111, Sec.4)
General Rule:
• If death is before arraignment, the case is dismissed without prejudice to the
filing of civil action against estate of the deceased.
• If death is after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action, it
extinguishes the civil liability of the accused.
Exceptions:
• If civil liability is predicated on other sources of obligations, as with independent
civil actions, recovery may still be made against the estate of the deceased or
legal representative after proper substitution.
• If death is while appeal is pending – it extinguishes criminal liability and civil
liability based thereon.
Effect of judgment on civil case on the criminal action

• A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil
liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act
or omission subject of the civil action. (Rule 111, Sec.5)
Prejudicial Question
• A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal.
• The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court
but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another
court or tribunal.
Requisites of a Prejudicial Question

• Previously initiated civil action involves issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action;
• The resolution of such issue determines WON the criminal action may
proceed.
Effect of prejudicial question

• Gen Rule: Where both a civil and a criminal case arising from the same facts
are filed in court, the criminal case takes precedence.
• Exception: If there exists a prejudicial question which should be resolved first
before an action could be taken in the criminal case.
Bar Question 2011
The city prosecutor of Manila filed, upon Soledad’s complaint, a criminal action
for estafa against her sister, Wella, before the RTC of Manila for selling to
Victor a land that she previously sold to Soledad. At the same time Soledad
filed a civil action to annul the second sale before the RTC of Quezon City. May
the Manila RTC motu proprio suspend the criminal action on ground of
prejudicial question?
A. Yes, if it may be clearly inferred that complainant will not object to the
suspension of the criminal case.
B. No, the accused must file a motion to suspend the action based on
prejudicial question.
C. Yes, if it finds from the record that such prejudicial question exists.
D. Yes, if it is convinced that due process and fair trial will be better served if
the criminal case is suspended.
CORRECT ANSWER: “B. No, the accused must file a motion to suspend the
action based on prejudicial question”
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Demurrer To Evidence in Criminal Actions
• Definition: Objection by one of the parties to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a
case or sustain the issue. (Gutib v. CA, 1999)
• How initiated (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

• After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard OR (2) upon demurrer to evidence
filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
• Motion for leave to file demurrer (Rule 119, Sec. 23)

• It must specifically state its grounds.
• It must be filed within a non-extendible period of 5 days after the prosecution
rests. Prosecution may then oppose within a non-extendible period of 5 days
from its receipt.
• Effects of granting the demurrer to evidence

• The court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
(Rule 119, Sec. 23)
If Demurrer was filed with leave of court:
• If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the
accused may adduce evidence in his defense.
If Demurrer was filed without leave of court:

• When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused
waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on
the basis of the evidence for the prosecution
• Even if the demurrer is granted, the trial court may hold the accused civilly
liable and he can no longer adduce evidence on the civil aspect because of
his waiver. (Alferez v. People, 31 January 2011)
Effect of denial of motion for leave to file demurrer

• Order denying the motion for leave or order denying the demurrer itself is not
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (Rule 119, Sec. 23)
• It is interlocutory, but it may be assigned as error and reviewed in the appeal
that may be taken from the decision on the merits (Cruz v. People, 1999)
• The accused has the right to present evidence after demurrer is denied (Rule
119, Sec. 23)
Effect of denial of demurrer to evidence
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VS. PEOPLE

G. R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016, J. Bersamin
After the Prosecution rested its case, accused former

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and PCSO Budget
and Accounts Manager Aguas then separately filed their
demurrers to evidence asserting that the Prosecution did not
establish a case for plunder against them. The same were
denied by the Sandiganbayan, holding that there was sufficient
evidence to show that they had conspired to commit plunder.
After the respective motions for reconsideration filed by GMA
and Aguas were likewise denied by the Sandiganbayan, they
filed their respective petitions for certiorari.

The special civil action for certiorari is generally not

proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial
court because of the availability of another remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court expressly provides that “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.”

It is not an insuperable obstacle to this action, however, that

the denial of the demurrers to evidence of the petitioners was an
interlocutory order that did not terminate the proceedings, and the
proper recourse of the demurring accused was to go to trial, and that
in case of their conviction, they may then appeal the conviction, and
assign the denial as among the errors to be reviewed. Indeed, it is
doctrinal that the situations in which the writ of certiorari may issue
should not be limited, because to do so “x x x would be to destroy its
comprehensiveness and usefulness. In the exercise of the Supreme
Court’s superintending control over other courts, it is to be guided by
all the circumstances of each particular case “as the ends of justice
may require.” So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to
prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice.”

The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government cannot be thwarted
by rules of procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the
convenience of one side. This is because the Court has the bounden
constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of discretion whenever
and wherever it is committed. Thus, notwithstanding the
interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the demurrers
to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail
themselves of the remedy of certiorari when the denial was
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Instances when warrantless searches are allowed
1. As incident of lawful arrest (Rule 126, Sec. 13) - A person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.
2. Plain view doctrine.

Requisites: (1) A valid prior intrusion, i.e., based on a valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (2)
Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have a right to be
where they are; (3) Evidence must be immediately apparently illegal (e.g. drug
paraphernalia); and (4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without
further search.
3. Search of moving vehicle.

Police may conduct searches of moving vehicles without warrant because it is
impracticable to secure prior judicial search warrant since the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant may be
sought.
4. Searches conducted in checkpoints.
They are valid as long as they are warranted by the exigencies of public order and
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.
Here, the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body search
(inspection of the vehicle is limited to visual search).
5. Consented warrantless searches - When a person voluntarily submits to a

search or consents to have it made of his person/premises. (People v. Malasugui,
1936)
6. Customs searches.
For the enforcement of customs duties and tariff laws, the Collector of Customs is
authorized to effect search and seizure without search warrant, except in search of a
dwelling/house. (General Travel Services v. David, 1966)
7. Stop and Frisk.

It is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapon. (Malacat v. CA, 1997)
Probable cause is not required. But a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer’s experience and surrounding condition to warrant a belief that a person has
weapons concealed.
8. In flagrante delicto.
When a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect
an arrest without a warrant, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence
or within his view.
9. Hot Pursuit.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when
an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Sec. 5). In this case, the person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have
been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense (Rule 126, sec.
13).
10. Prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another (Rule 113, Sec. 5).
ARREST
Instances when warrantless arrests are allowed
1. In Flagrante Delicto
When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is
attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the peace officer or private
person who arrested him. (Rule 113, Sec. 5a)
2. Hot Pursuit Arrest

When an offense has just been committed and the officer or private person
has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of acts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113,
Sec. 5b)
3. Arrest Of Escaped Prisoner

When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
Determination of Probable Cause for
Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
• Probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
• The probable cause test is an objective one, for in order that there be
probable cause, the facts and circumstances must be such as would
warrant a belief by a reasonable prudent man that the accused is guilty of
the crime which has been committed. (People v. Allado, 1994)
• The law requires personal determination on the part of the judge. The
judge may rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor provided he
also evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof. Hence, the
fiscal’s finding of probable cause is not conclusive upon the judge as to
his determination of whether or not there is indeed probable cause. (AAA
v. Carbonell, 2007)
Probable Cause as determined by the Prosecutor
and Probable Cause as determined by the Judge
• Prosecutor: whether or not there is reasonable

ground to believe that the accused is guilty of
the offense charged and should be held for trial
for which information is to be filed
• Judge: whether or not there is reasonable
ground to believe that an offense has been
committed by the person sought to be arrested,
and warrant of arrest should be issued so that
the accused may be held in custody in order
not to frustrate the ends of justice.
JUDGMENT
Promulgation Of Judgment; Instances Of
Promulgation Of Judgment In Absentia
Promulgation: An official proclamation or announcement of judgment or
order. Two things are essential and necessary for the valid promulgation of a
court decision: (1) There must be a judge or judges legally appointed or
elected and actually acting either de jure or de facto, and (2) The said
judgment must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the
judge who signed it. (Miguel v. MTC,1986)
Presence of accused required in promulgation

Exceptions:
1. convictions for light offenses.
2. If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear
was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in the
Rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
Promulgation where the judge is absent

The judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court when the judge is
absent or outside the province or city. (Rule 120, Sec. 6)
Bar Question 2011
The accused jumps bail and fails to appear on promulgation of
judgment where he is found guilty. What is the consequence of his
absence?
A. Counsel may appeal the judgment in the absence of the
accused.
B. The judgment shall be promulgated in his absence and he
loses his right of appeal.
C. The promulgation of the judgment shall be suspended until he
is brought to
the jurisdiction of the court.
D. The judgment shall be void.
Correct Answer: “B. The judgment shall be promulgated in his

absence and he loses his right of appeal.”
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Rights of the Accused at the Trial
1. Right to be presumed innocent;
2. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation;
3. Right to be present and defend in person OR by counsel;
4. Right to be present at every stage of the proceedings;
5. Right to counsel;
6. Right to defend in person;
7. Right to testify as witness in his behalf;
8. Right against self-incrimination;
9. Right to confrontation;
10. Right to compulsory process;
11. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
12. Right to appeal.
Rights Of Persons Under Custodial Investigation
(R.A. No. 7438, Sec. 2)
1. Right to be assisted by counsel at all times.
2. Right to be informed, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own
choice;
3. The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing, provided that before such
report is signed, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel in the
language or dialect known to him;
4. Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
5. Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel;
6. Right to be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or
any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his
immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-
governmental organization duly accredited by the Office of the President.
DNA TESTING AND
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AS POST CONVICTION
REMEDIES
Rule on DNA Evidence
(A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
Post-conviction DNA Testing. – Post-conviction DNA

testing may be available, without need of prior court order,
to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and
executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample
exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the
testing would probably result in the reversal or modification
of the judgment of conviction. (Sec. 6)
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Notwithstanding its historic function as the great writ of
liberty, the writ of habeas corpus has very limited availability as a
post-conviction remedy. Review of a judgment of conviction is
allowed in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus
only in very specific instances, such as when, as a consequence of
a judicial proceeding:
(a) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting

in the restraint of a person;
(b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
(c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is

void as to such excess. (In Re: The Writ Of Habeas Corpus For
Reynaldo De Villa v. The Director, New Bilibid Prisons, G.R. No.
158802, 17 November 2004)
SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Writ of Habeas Corpus - a writ directed to the person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and
place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and
receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that
behalf.
When Not Proper/Applicable

1. For asserting or vindicating the denial of the right to bail (Galvez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, 24 October 1994);
2. For correcting errors in the appreciation of facts or law (Sotto vs. Director of
Prisons, G.R. No. L-18871, 30 May 1962);
3. Where the trial court had jurisdiction over the cause, over the person of the
accused, and to impose the penalty provided for by law, the mistake committed
by the trial court, if any, refers to the appreciation of the facts and/or in the
appreciation of the law, which cannot be corrected by habeas corpus (Ibid);
4. Once a person detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question
his detention through a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. His
remedy would be to quash the information and/or warrant of arrest duly issued
(Rodriguez vs. Bonifacio, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1510, 6 November 2000).
WRIT OF AMPARO (A.M. NO. 07-9-12-SC)
The writ of amparo is available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats

thereof.
Differences Between Amparo and Search Warrant

The production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused with a
search warrant or law enforcement under Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from unreasonable
intrusion of the government, not a protection of the government from the
demand of the people as such respondents. Instead, the amparo production
order may be limited to the production of documents or things under Sec. 1,
Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Secretary of National Defense v.
Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 7 October 2008).
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA (A.M. NO. 08-1-16-SC)
• The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data
or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence
of the aggrieved party (Sec. 1).
• It may also cover cases of extralegal killings and enforced

disappearances (Sec. 2).
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group
accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual
or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health
or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS

When any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law
rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment
of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging
the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting evidence, specifying that the petition
concerns an environmental law, rule or regulation, and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied,
and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the malicious neglect to
perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The petition shall
also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.
Bar Questions 2011
What is the right correlation between a Alex filed a petition for writ of amparo against
criminal action and a petition for Writ of Melba relative to his daughter Toni's involuntary
Amparo both arising from the same set of disappearance. Alex said that Melba was Toni's
employer, who, days before Toni disappeared,
facts? threatened to get rid of her at all costs. On the
A. When the criminal action is filed after other hand, Melba countered that she had
the Amparo petition, the latter shall be nothing to do with Toni's disappearance and
dismissed. that she took steps to ascertain Toni's
whereabouts. What is the quantum of evidence
B. The proceeding in an Amparo petition required to establish the parties' respective
is criminal in nature. claims?
C. No separate criminal action may be A. For Alex, probable cause; for Melba,
instituted after an Amparo petition is substantial evidence.
filed. B. For Alex, preponderance of evidence; for
D. When the criminal action is filed after Melba, substantial evidence.
the Amparo petition, the latter shall be C. For Alex, proof beyond reasonable
doubt; for Melba, ordinary diligence.
consolidated with the first.
D. For both, substantial evidence.
Correct Answer: “D. When the criminal Correct Answer: “D. For both, substantial
action is filed after the Amparo petition, the evidence.”
latter shall be consolidated with the first.”
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction Of Courts In Civil Cases
SUPREME COURT (SC)
• Exclusive original jurisdiction over
 Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the:
i. Court of Appeals (CA) (Section 17, R.A. No. 296; Rule 65);
ii. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) (Rule 64);
iii. Commission on Audit (COA) (Rule 64); and
iv. Sandiganbayan.
• Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts, with:

 With the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls (Section 17, R.A. No. 296 in relation to Section 21(b), B.P. Blg.
129).
 With the CA, in
i. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the RTC (Section 5 (1), Article
8, 1987 Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129); and
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC).
• With the RTC and CA:
i. Petitions for Habeas Corpus (Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987 Constitution; Section 9(1),
B.P. Blg. 129; and Section 21(a), B.P. Blg. 129);
ii. Petitions for Quo Warranto (Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987 Constitution; Section 9(1),
B.P. Blg. 129; and Section 21(a), B.P. Blg. 129); and
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other
bodies (Section 5 (1), Article 8, 1987 Constitution; Section 9(1), B.P. Blg. 129; and
Section 21(a), B.P. Blg. 129).
SUPREME COURT (SC)
• Concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the hierarchy of courts, with:

 With the RTC, CA & Sandiganbayan
i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC); and
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
• Appellate jurisdiction
 By way of Appeal by Certiorari (Rule 45)of the decisions of the:
i. CA;
ii. Sandiganbayan;
iii. RTC on pure questions of law;
iv. In cases involving the constitutionality or validity of a law or treaty, international
agreement 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 (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, Constitution); and
v. Court of Tax Appeals en banc.
COURT OF APPEALS
• Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of the RTC
(Section 9(2), B.P. Blg. 129).
• Concurrent jurisdiction with:

 The SC:
i. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the RTC;
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Kalikasan; and
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against the NLRC (but according to
the SC in St. Martin Funeral Homes v. CA (G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998),
all such petitions should be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the rule on
hierarchy of courts. The concurrent original jurisdiction of the SC can be availed of
only under compelling and exceptional circumstances (Regalado, p. 40).
 The SC and RTC:

i. Petitions for Habeas Corpus;
ii. Petitions for Quo Warranto; and
iii. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior courts and other
bodies.
COURT OF APPEALS
• Concurrent jurisdiction with:
 With the RTC, SC and Sandiganbayan:
i. Petitions for a Writ of Amparo; and
ii. Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Data.
• Appellate jurisdiction (Section 9(3), B.P. Blg. 129):
 By way of Ordinary Appeal from the RTC and the Family Courts;
 By way of Petition for Review from the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction;
 By way of Petition for Review from the final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, such as
the:
i. Securities and Exchange Commission;
ii. Social Security Commission;
iii. Employees Compensation Commission;
iv. Civil Service Commission;
v. Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases; and
vi. Other bodies mentioned in Rule 43; and
 Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the MTCs in cadastral or land registration
cases pursuant to its delegated jurisdiction.
SANDIGANBAYAN
• Original jurisdiction in all cases involving
a) Violations of R.A. 3019
b) Violations of R.A. 1379
c) Sequestration cases
d) Bribery 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:
i. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989
ii. Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as G-27 and up under R.A. 6758
iii. Members of the Judiciary
iv. Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions
v. All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 and higher under R.A. 6758.
e) Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
Sec. 4(a) of R.A. 7975 as amended by R.A. 8249 in relation to their office
f) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with EO Nos. 1, 2, 14-A.
• Concurrent original jurisdiction with SC, CA and RTC for petitions for writs of habeas
data and amparo
RTC
Exclusive original jurisdiction
1. The action is incapable of pecuniary estimation
2. Title to, possession of, or interest in real property with assessed value exceeding P20,000
outside Metro Manila, or exceeds P50,000 in Metro Manila;
3. If the amount involved exceeds P300,000 outside MM or exceeds P400,000 in MM in the

following cases:
A. Damages (apply totality rule).
B. Collection of sum of money, exclusive of damages claimed and interests.
C. Admiralty and maritime cases
D. Matters of Probate
E. Other actions involving property
4. Cases not falling within the jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions. All actions involving the contract of marriage and family
relations.
RTC
Exclusive original jurisdiction
5. To hear and decide intra-corporate controversies:

A. Cases involving devises or schemes employed by or any acts, of the board of
directors, business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and/or of the
stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the
SEC.
B. Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between and
among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and the
corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders, members or
associates, respectively; and between such corporation , partnership or association and
the state insofar as it concerns their individual franchise or right to exist as such entity
C. Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or
managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations
D. Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of
suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association
possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of
meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation,
partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the
management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.
RTC
Concurrent jurisdiction
1. With the Supreme Court - in actions affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls
2. With the SC and CA - in petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus against lower
courts and bodies in petitions for quo warranto, habeas corpus, and writ of continuing
mandamus on environmental cases
3. With the SC, CA and Sandiganbayan - in petitions for writs of habeas data and amparo
4. With Insurance Commissioner – claims not exceeding P100,000
Appellate jurisdiction
Over cases decided by lower courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions except decisions
of lower courts in the exercise of delegated jurisdiction
Special jurisdiction – SC may designate certain branches of RTC to try exclusively criminal
cases, juvenile and domestic relations cases, agrarian cases, urban land reform cases not
falling within the jurisdiction of any quasi-judicial body and other special cases in the interest of
justice
MTC, MeTC, MCTC
• Exclusive original jurisdiction
1. If the amount involved does not exceed P300,000 outside MM or does not exceed
P400,000 in MM in the following cases:
A. Actions involving personal property
B. Probate Proceeding based on gross value of the estate
C. Admiralty and maritime cases
D. Demand for collection of money, exclusive of damages claimed and interests.
E. damages
2. Actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000 outside MM or
does not exceed P50,000 in MM;
3. Inclusion and exclusion of voters
4. Those governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure:
• Special jurisdiction - Over petition for writ of habeas corpus or application for bail in criminal
cases in the absence of all RTC judges in the province or city.
• Delegated jurisdiction - To hear and decide cadastral and land registration cases where
there is no controversy over the land or in case of contested lands, the value does not
exceed P100,000.
Jurisdiction Of Courts In Criminal Cases
MTC, MeTC, MCTC
• Violations of city/municipal ordinances;
• Crimes punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 6 years, regardless of the fine or other
accessory penalties and civil liability;
• Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence (Sec. 32, BP 129);
• Violations of traffic laws/rules/regulations, of rental laws, and cases where the penalty
prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine
not exceeding P1000, except that in offenses involving damage to property through
criminal negligence and the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.
• Special jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for writ of habeas corpus or
application for bail in the province or city where the RTC judge is absent;
• Cases involving BP 22—Bouncing Checks Law;
• In election offenses, cases involving failure to register or failure to vote.
RTC
• Cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body (Sec. 20, BP 129);
• All criminal cases where the penalty is higher than 6 years, including government-
related cases wherein the accused is not one of those falling under the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan;
• Cases where one or more of accused is 18 years old but not less than 15 years old, or
where one or more of the victims is a minor, at the time of the commission of the offense
(R.A. No. 9344);
Totality Rule
“Totality rule" under Section 33 (1) of B.P. Blg. 129 states that "where there are several claims
or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint,
the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action,
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions."
Determination of Jurisdictional Amount in Relation to the Totality Rule

Under BP 129, as amended, and under R.A 7691, the jurisdictional amount excludes the
following:
1. Interest
2. Damages of whether kind
3. Attorney’s Fees
4. Litigation expenses and cost
These matters, however, shall be included in determining the filing fees.
“Damages of whatever kind” applies to cases where the damages are merely incidental to or
consequence of the main cause of action (Adm. Circ. No. 09-94, June 14, 1994). Thus , if the
main cause of action is the recovery of damages, the amount of damages should not be
excluded in determining the jurisdictional amount (Sante v. Claravall, G.R 173915, February
22, 2010).
Bar Question 2015
Lender extended to Borrower a Pl00,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note.
Later, Borrower obtained another Pl00,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note.
Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on
his land valued at 11500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans
matured. Despite demand to pay the llS00,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender,
applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila, a collection suit for 1!500,000.00.
a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action?
(2%)
At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully

elicited an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid.
Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as
proven only ll300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)

Suggested Answers:
(a) Yes, the totality rule and rule on joinder of action apply.
Where the claims are principally for recovery of money, the
aggregate amount claimed shall be determinative of
jurisdiction. (Section 5(d) Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil.
Procedure).
(b) The case should not be dismissed. It is the allegations

appearing in the complaint that is determinative of the
jurisdiction of the Court. (Navida v. Dijon, Jr., C.R. No. 18031,
March 20, 2013)
KATARUNGANG
PAMBARANGAY LAW
Cases Covered
Under Sections 399-422, Chapter 7, Title One, Book III, Republic Act No. 7160
otherwise known as the Local Government Code, all disputes may be subject of
barangay proceedings for amicable settlement except:
1. Where one party is the government or any subdivision or instrumentality

thereof;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee; and the disputes relates to the
performance of his judicial functions;
3. 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 agrees to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an
appropriate lupon;
4. Such other classes or disputes which the president may determine in the
interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
5. Where the disputes involve real properties located in different cities or
municipalites unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon; and
6. Sec, 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules provide for additional
exception which is any complaint by or against corporations, partnerships or
juridical entities.
SUMMARY
PROCEDURE
Cases Covered
A. Civil Cases
(1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered. Where attorney's fees are awarded,
the same shall not exceed twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
(2) All other civil cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the
plaintiff's claim does not P100,000.00 (outside Metro Manila) or P200,000 (Metro Manila),
exclusive of interest and costs.
B. Criminal Cases
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged
is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not
exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
Thank You!

Remedial Law: Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Remedial Law: Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REMEDIAL LAW

Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

It is a writ emanating from a superior court

• Principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to

a.) Was the remedy taken by the governor correct? (2%)

Alternative answer: The remedy was correct as the Ombudsman committed

A. COMPLAINT – a pleading alleging

In case the defendant failed to file his answer, the

• Any claim which a • A counterclaim is in the

• Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his

When amendments by leave of court NOT allowed

Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.

Effect of amended pleadings.

Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the

Refers to transaction, occurrences Refers to transactions,

Effect of failure to comply:

A perusal of the Secretary’s Certificate submitted reveals that the authority to

The required certification of non-forum shopping must be valid at the

REMEDY FROM ORDER OF DEFAULT

REMEDIES FROM JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

Petition for Relief from Judgment

Four general types of motion to dismiss under the Rules

1. Cause of action is barred by prior judgment (Res

• NOTE: The remedy would be to appeal the dismissal.

Res Judicata comprehends two distinct concepts: (1) bar by a former

The second concept – conclusiveness of judgment – states that a fact of

1. A final judgment or order;

• As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis

• Litis pendentia exists when the following requisites are present:

A. Answer the complaint.

Correct Answer: “C. File a special civil action of certiorari on

Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under

If the dismissal is due to fault of plaintiff

Where an answer fails to Summary judgment is a procedural

The petitioners contend that their Motion for Summary

The petitioners' contentions have no merit. It is erroneous on the part of

Spouses Pascual v. First Consolidated Rural Bank (Bohol), Inc.

Section 1, Rule 35 of the Rules of Court permits a party seeking to

Execution as a Matter of Right Discretionary Execution

A foreign judgment on the mere strength of its promulgation is not yet

If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present

If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of

1. Depositions pending action (Rule 23)

• In a broad sense, it refers to any written statement verified by oath.

A deposition is the testimony of a witness, put or taken in

1. Depositions pending action (Deposition de bene esse);

FAILURE OF PARTY TO ATTEND OR SERVE ANSWERS

• Evidence is admissible when it is • The evidence must not be excluded by law or

• All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make

Spousal Immunity Rule Marital Privilege Rule

Constitutes a total prohibition against any Applies only to confidential

The object of Orient Insurance Co.’s (Orient) petition

Contracts between attorneys and clients are inherently personal

• ADMISSION BY A PARTY - An admission is an act, declaration or omission of a party

• ADMISSION BY A THIRD PARTY

• ADMISSION BY A CONSPIRATOR - The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to

Principle of Independently Relevant Statements

The agrarian court ordered the defendants to restore possession

ISSUE: Whether the lower court erred in giving favorable

As an exception to the scope of the Rules of Evidence, Section

ISSUE: Whether the Angara Diary is inadmissible as hearsay evidence? NO.