SCRAase

1
TECHNIQUES IN ANSWERING BAR QUESTIONS BY ATTY.
REY TATAD JR.
REASON/S BEHIND THE LAW
1. The purpose of the law is…
2. The law is designed to…
3. It is intendedto shield…
4. It is primarilyaimed at protecting
____________ from unwarranted
__________
5. The rationale behind the law is…
6. The spirit of the law is to the effect
that…
DEFINITION / EXPLANATION
1. ________________ is a comprehensive term
used to describe _________.
2. _________________, in its generally
acceptedsense, refers to ….
3. … It is a safeguard and guarantee
providedby the 1987 Constitution..
4. … It is a kind of relief grantedto a
______________ by the …
5. ________________ is a branch of public law
(or private law)which deals with..
6. It pertains to…
7. It connotes a ….
8. … is a doctrine in(i.e. Civil Law)which
refers to…

2
9. … is a principle in(i.e. Criminal Law) which
states that…
10. It presupposes…
11. Its principal identifying feature is..
12. It is akin to…
13. The functionof which is to…
14. The office of which is to…
2. ENUMERATION
1. In capsule form, the following are the elements of
the crime of
2. In a nutshell,the following are the
elements of the crime of
3. The following elements are generally
consideredin the determinationofthe
presence of (i.e. employer-employee
relationship)
4. Among the (i.e.defenses/remedies)
available to (i.e.Mr. X) as provided
for by/in the (i.e. Civil Code) are:
(1)…
(2)…
5. The following are the requisites for…
6. In order that a case for (i.e. B.P. 22) to
prosper, the following elements must
be attendant/present:
7. To constitute (i.e.homicide),the
following requisites must concur:
8. (i.e. Legal compensation) requires the
concurrence of the following
conditions:

3
9. To establisha person’s culpability
under (i.e.estafa), it is indispensable
that…
* Tips on answers that require enumerating
something. (i.e. elements). If you can enumerate all,
write it in bulleted or numbered form to highlight the
fact that you know all of them and for more
convenient-reading purposes. If you cannot
enumerate all, write it in paragraph form so that it
would not easily be noticeable that you missed
something. (I got the above tip from our mentor
Atty. Gafar Lutian)
DISTINCTION
When being asked to distinguish, do not state its
definition. If you give its definition, you are in effect
asking the examiner to extract out the differences of
the two [or more] from your definition. Do not also
give their similarities. You are asked to differentiate
and contrast, so similarities are not included (That
was a tip I learned from my professor in Civil Law
Review I, Atty. Virgilio Gesmundo).The number of
distinctions you will give must also be proportionate
on the points allotted for such. If it is only worth two
points, do not give 8 distinctions. The examiner
cannot give you 8 points for that…. For a two point
distinction question, perhaps, three would be
enough (four is not too much).
 The (i.e. two) may be distinguished from
each other in the followings
ways:

4
 In the first, it is necessary that there
be….., whereas in the second it is
sufficient that there be ….
 In the former, … while in the latter…
 The former requires … while the
latter…
 … on the other hand ______________
is…
ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH VAGUE FACTS (or
which requires qualification)
But if the facts are complete in itself,do not attempt
to add facts or assume anything.
1. We must distinguish. If… (or As far as the
__________ is concerned)
2. It depends. If…(or As far as the __________ is
concerned)
3. The question requires a qualified
answer. If…
4. I will qualify. If…
5. On the assumption that…
6. My answer must be qualified.
JURISDICTION
1. The case is beyond the ambit of the jurisdiction of
the (i.e. Regional TrialCourt)
2. It is within the ambit of the (i.e. Secretary of
Labor’s) power.

5
3. It is not within the province of the (i.e. Municipal
Trial Court)
4. It is clearly within the powers of the (i.e. Labor
Arbiter) to…
5. The case of (i.e. ejectment) lies with
the Municipal Trial Court.
6. The case is cognizable by the (i.e.
Regional Trial Court)
7. The case is covered by the (Rules on
Summary Procedure).
8. The law vests upon the (i.e. Secretary
of Justice) the power to…
ELABORATING/EXPOUNDING ANSWERS
Go straight to the point. The length of answers and
expounding the same, must always be
proportionate to the points allotted for such
particular question. The higher the points, the more
in-depth the elaborationshould be. However,it must
not appear “na nambobola ka na”. Sometimes, if
your answer is too long, it is an indication that you
are not sure of the answer so there is that need of
getting around the bush. Remember that most of
the times, MORE TALK, MORE MISTAKE!!! (I got this tip
from my professor in Political Law, Dean Mariano F.
Magsalin, Jr.)
1. It should be borne in mind that…
2. It must be noted that…
3. It may be recalled that…
4. It is worth observing…

6
5. It must be taken into consideration that…
6. More importantly, ….
7. Significantly,…
8. Corollarily,…
9. Furthermore,…
10. Moreover,…
11. Similarly,…
12. Parenthetically,…
13. In other words,…
14. Otherwise stated,…
15. Simply put,…
16. Simply stated,…
17. Stated more concretely…
18. The reasons are obvious. (expound)
19. The reasons are well-known. (expound)
20. The reasons are plain. (expound)
21. Under the same line of reasoning,…
22. As regards…
3. With regard to… (it is error to state
“with regards to”)
24. Anent the (i.e. first issue),…
25. As far as the ________________ is concerned,…
26. This is indicated by the fact that…
27. The language of the law leaves no room for
doubt that,…
28. Justice and fair-play dictates that,…
29. Applying the principle of….
30. For all its concededmerits,(i.e. equityis available
in the absence of lawand not as its replacement)…
31. The law is categorical with regard to…
32. Notwithstanding the… (i.e. execution of the
document)
33. It is beyond debate that,…

7
34. It is imperative to look at,…
This is consistent with the time-honored maxim (i.e.
nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege).
As it is imbued withpublic interest,…
37. In like manner,
38. In the same manner,
39. In the same vein,
40. In the same breath,
41. Likewise,..
42. In fine,
43. It bears articulating that
44. The controlling element inthe (i.e. crime of
estafa)is…
45. By analogy,…
46. Suffice it to state that..
47. Emphasis must also be placed at…
48. Manifestly,there was (i.e.grave abuse of
discretionamounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction)
49. Needless to stress that…
50. It goes without saying that
51. The Supreme Court frowns upon the (i.e.illegal
practice of forum shopping as it erodes the
administrationof justice andmakes a mockery of
the justice system).
52. There is no denying in this case, that (i.e.the
petitioner never raisedthe issue of jurisdiction
throughout the entire proceedings inthe trial court;
case of Tijamvs.Sibonghanoy)
53. It is now too late in the day for the
respondent/defendant to (i.e. raise the issue
of …)
54. Equally telling is the (i.e.factual finding of the
lower court)that…

8
55. The gravamenof the (i.e. the crime of rebellionis
an armed public uprising against the government)
56. It cannot be denied that (i.e. the petitioner is also
guiltyof negligence)…
57. Attentionmust be drawn to the fact that…
58. ___________ and ____________ are two mutually
exclusive remedies.An applicationof one precludes
the application of the other.
59. To amplify,…
60. It must be pointed out that…
61. Notably,…
62. At the outset, the (i.e. defendant)…
63. Coming now to the issue of (i.e. prescription),…
CITING LAW PROVISIONS
1. No less than the (i.e. 1987 Constitution) provides
for the…
2. The (i.e. Rules of Court) substantially provides in
part that…
3. Under the broad principles of (i.e. due process
clause)…
4. Under the all-encompassing doctrine of (i.e.
incontestability clause)…
5. Under the law…
6. According to the (i.e. Family Code)…
7. The law is explicit on the matter.
8. The law explicitly expresses in part that…
9. By express provision of law,…
10. By operation of law…
11. As a matter of law…
12. Worthremembering is the rule on _______________
which provides in part that…

9
13. Decisive on the matter is the pertinent provision
of the (i.e. Law on Property)
14. The law prescribes certain rules on…
15. By legislative fiat…
QUOTING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
2. The Supreme Court in one case, had the
occasion to rule that…
3. In a long-line of cases decided by the
Supreme Court, it has always
been (consistently) held that…
4. In a litany of cases decided by the Supreme
Court,
5. In a long-string of cases decided by the
highest court of the land,
6. According to several cases decided by the
Supreme Court,…
7. In a series of cases decided by the Supreme
Court, * Do not use the words series,litany or
long-line if there is only
one decision/jurisprudence for that topic.
8. In one case decided by the highest court
of the land, it was held that
9. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that
10. It has been said that…
11. In a recent case, the Supreme Court has
laid to rest the issue of whether or not…
11. It is well settled in this jurisdiction…
12. It is well settled in this country…
13. The Supreme Court has steadfastly adhered
to the doctrine which states that

10
14. In a case with similar facts, the Supreme
Court ruled that…
15. In several notable Supreme Court decisions,
the highest court declared that…
16. The Supreme Court has often stressed
that…
17. In the landmark case of _____________, (if the
case is so famous) the Supreme Court laid down the
doctrine which substantially provides that…
18. In the leading case of …
19. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in one
case,…
20. The court has repeatedly ruled…
21. A case in point is a case already decided by no
other than the highest court of the land, where the
Supreme Court held that…
22. There is likewise an array of cases in this
jurisdiction where the Supreme Court has
consistently declared that…
23. Deeply rooted is the jurisprudence which
provides that…
24. In one case, the Supreme Court was emphatic
when it ruled that….
EMPHASIZING CASE DOCTRINES / JURISPRUDENCE
 It is hornbook doctrine in (i.e. Civil Law)
that…
 Immortal is the rule that…
 Well settled is the rule…
 Well entrenched is the principle that..
 Elementary is the rule that..
 The cardinal rule in (i.e. labor law) is that

11
 It is a familiar canon in (i.e. political law)that
 By well settled public law…
 Basic is the rule in (i.e. Criminal Law)…
 It is an elementary principle in…
 It is a fundamental doctrine in…
 Well accepted is the rule that…
 It is axiomatic in (i.e. Civil Law) that
 Enshrined in the 1987 Constitution is the rule
that (i.e. no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or Property without due process of
law)
 Consonant with the rule on…
 It is a recognized doctrine in (i.e. Civil law)
that…
 It is a basic tenet in (i.e. Commercial Law)
 Consistent with current jurisprudence
 It is a legal presumption, born of wisdom
and experience, that (i.e. official duty has
been regularly performed; that the
proceedings of a judicial tribunal are regular
and valid and that judicial acts and duties
have been and will be duly and properly
performed. The burden of proving
irregularity in official conduct is on the part
of the petitioners.)
 It is an oft-repeated rule that…
 The Philippines adhere to the principle of…
REFERRING BACK TO THE CASE (correlating the
facts with the law/jurisprudence)
Note: In my personal opinion, it is not proper to

12
use the statements “in the case at bench” or “in
the case at bar” when answering. Although I
guess it is verytempting because it sounds good
and professional to state, “in the case at
bar/bench”, we must not forget that the cases
given in the Bar are only theoretical. The
statements “in the case at bench” and “in the
case at bar” are more appropriately used in
pleadings in court. After all, you can use the
statements “In the instant case, In the facts
given, Inthe problem given and In the question
presented.”
1. Applying the said law/doctrine in the instant
case,
2. From the facts given, noteworthy is
the …
3. From the facts of the case, it is readily
observable that…
4. In the instant case, it may be
observed that…
5. It is crystal clear from the facts
presented that (i.e. the crime of
treason) is present (or was
committed).
6. In the present case, it is immediately
noticeable that the element
of __________ is wanting (or lacking).
7. Under the circumstances, the proper
remedy would be…
8. The case obtaining indicates a case
of (i.e. B.P. 22)
9. It logically follows…

13
10. It goes without saying…
1. Even assuming arguendo, for the
sake of argument that…
12. The situation in the case at hand…
13. The situation presented evinces a case of…
14. The facts sufficiently indicated …
15. In the given facts, it is immediately apparent
that…
16. It is evident that…
17. In the same token…
18. Under the facts stated in the problem,…
19. In the case under consideration,…
20. Worthstressing is the fact that
21. Worthemphasizing is the fact that
22. The facts wouldreveal that…
23. A careful perusal of the facts of the case would
reveal that…
24. A careful scrutinyof the actuations of the
accused would reveal that…
25. A careful reading of the (i.e.Deed of Absolute
Sale)would reveal that…
26. A cursory examinationof the…
ANSWERING IN THE POSITIVE
1. The petitionis meritorious.
2. The contentionhas legal basis.
3. The case will prosper.
4. The argument is proper.
5. The provisionis perfectlyapplicable.
6. The actionis tenable.
7. The motionshould be granted.

14
8. The Judge is correct.
9. The petitionis impressedwithmerit.
10. Yes. It is a (i.e. patent violation)of the
11. There is merit in the petition.
12. The petitioner’s contentionis sustainable.
ANSWERING IN THE NEGATIVE
1. The contention does not hold water.
2. With all due respect to the judge, his
decision is apparently erroneous or is
not in accord with law and existing
jurisprudence.
3. The contention is totally misplaced.
4. It is now too late in the day to raise
the issue of…
5. The petition is not meritorious.
6. The evidence presented deserves
scant consideration.
7. The contention has no legal basis.
8. The argument is bereft of merit.
9. The petition is devoid of merit.
10. Petitioner’s reliance on the (i.e.
doctrine of…) is inappropriate. The
doctrine of … does not apply in cases
where / of…
11. It is a futile gesture on the part of the
respondent to invoke the rule on…
12. The theory/argument has no ground
to stand upon.
13. The contention has no leg with which
to stand on.

15
14. The position of the petitioner runs counter with
the doctrine of…
15. The case will not prosper.
16. The case is not tenable.
17. The act of the accused in… is of no moment.
18. The assertion lacks substance.
19. The decision is erroneous.
20. The court cannot countenance the (i.e.
inconsistent postures of the petitioner)
21. The testimonythat…,cannot be givencredence.
22. The evidence presentedhas no probative value.
23. The allegation is belied by the fact that…
24. To put it otherwise would be to render the law on
_____________ useless/futile.
25. The actuations of the accused in (i.e. fleeing and
hiding) negates (i.e. innocence)
26. While it is true that _______________ is a (i.e.
constitutional guaranteed right of a person), it does
not, however mean…
27. It is not correct to say that…
28. It is not proper to state that…
29. It is not accurate to conclude outright that…
30. A contrary conclusion would erode the rule that
provides in part that…
31. To sustain the contention would be to render the
law on ____________ nugatory.
32. It would be absurd and incongruous to sustain
the argument that…
33. It is not enough that…
34. The fact that … is immaterial since…
35. The fact that … is irrelevant since…
36. In itself, mere …… is not sufficient (i.e. to warrant
conviction)….

16
37. The petitioner cannot give any additional
meaning to the clear and plain language of the
law.
38. The Supreme Court, in several cases, has struck
down the (i.e. defense of alibi)
39. The attendant circumstances of the case are
contrary to the petitioner’s assertion.
40. The evidence does not support the theory of the
petitioners.
41. There is no cogent reason to disturb the ruling of
the (i.e. Court of Appeals)
42. The claim for (i.e. moral damages) must
necessarily fail.
43. The (i.e. respondent) cannot rely on (i.e. mere
alibis) to aid his cause.
CONCLUDING WORDS
1. From the gamut of evidence on hand, it can be
gathered/deduced that,…
2. Taken all together,…
3. Finally, …
4. Hence, …
5. Therefore, …
6. From the foregoing, it can be deduced that there
is really (i.e. a violation of…)
7. From the foregoing, it is now safe to conclude
that….
8. Lastly, …
9. Consequently,…
10. As a necessary consequence…
11. The logical implication is that…

17
12. At any rate,…
13. In view of the foregoing,…
14. As an inevitable conclusion,…
15. In the light of the circumstances,…
16. Undoubtedly,…
17. Indubitably,…
18. Clearly, the case at hand falls squarely within the
purview of…
19. Verily, he/she has committed…
20. For this/these reason/s, it is unavoidable to
conclude that…
21. Based on the facts obtaining,…
22. In this light,…
23. This being the case…
24. Clearly therefore, applying the aforecited ruling
in the case at hand,…
25. In light of the foregoing, it is beyond cavil (doubt)
that,…
26. There is no doubt that…
27. To the unprejudiced mind, the actuations of the
three, when analyzed and taken together, leads to
no other conclusion except that (i.e.
conspiracy among them existed)
28. Inescapably, therefore,…
29. All things considered,…
30. It follows therefore that…
31. As a logical result…
32. In sum,..
33. In view of the fact that…,
34. All told,…

18
35. Given the prevailing facts…
36. Having stated the foregoing premises,…
37. One final point,…
38. Accordingly,…
MY PERSONAL ADVICE FOR FUTURE BAR
CANDIDATES DURING THE REVIEW
-Always pray before and after studying.
· Turn off your cellular phones. (Turn it on only during
your break). Most or a significant part of our time
reviewing is sometimes spent onnon-sense (or not so
important) texting-replying-texting-replying. There is
a time for everything. But when you review, avoid
interruptions. Cellular phone, believe me, is one of
the major interruptions. Although it is hard, why not
sacrifice a little for the sake of being a lawyer.·
Believe in yourself. If you will not, then who do you
expect would believe in you. (Tip from Sir Bubut
Cayco)· Choose a study buddy if you want. But
sometimes it is better that you do not have one.
More study buddies, more interruptions (more
kwento). Without you knowing it, “tapos na araw or
September na”. · Before starting your review,be sure
that the tension has already subsided. (Specifically
starting the month of July when tensions really soars
high for most Bar candidates) Bear in mind that we
can comprehend more if we are in a relaxed state
of mind.
· Set your own pace. Do not compare your pace
with others (like asking others, “ilang reading ka

19
na?”) This is not a rat race. Quality
reading(studying/reviewing actually) is what is
needed. Bar does not dwell on the amount of
pages/books you have read, it is more of how much
you have mastered.
· Do not memorize without comprehending. When
mental block occurs, you cannot recall even a
single thing. Moreover, in applying the law in a
given theoretical case problem, for sure you can
hardly answer the same if you have memorized
without understanding.
· Do not highlight the entire reviewer . Sometimes,
the problem with highlighting is that it becomes our
security blanket that we have read and understood
what we have read. But more often, we have not.·
When you have a query or some matters in mind
that needs clarification, just write it in a piece of
paper, pag marami na, ask it to a professor you
believe is competent in that field. Don’t ask your co-
barristers.It might only end in a debate and waste of
time, when no reliable answer is concluded.
Remember, time is precious during the pre-bar
review.
· Set one day for recreations alone. It could
rejuvenate your energy and create hunger for
review the following day.· Attend to the needs of
your entire being. Physically, mentally, emotionally
and spiritually. This will also help you avoid being
exhausted in the review.· Take vitamins and take
your meals on time.

20
BEFORE THE BAR EXAM PROPER
· Make sure you have enough and complete sleep.
A well restedmind can answer and articulate better.
· Pray
· Review the material you personally believe is a
good last minute tip for you.
· Compose yourself, your mind, heart and spirit.
Focus on the exam alone and not on the fear of
failing. Stop or reduce your tension. Tension is
normal, as long as it is at a moderate level. After all,
you will already be taking the bar, no turning back.
So might as well do your best. And you can only
perform well if you are in a composed mind and
heart. (I suggest you close your eyes. Inhale
then exhale as you count one to ten. It might help)
· Boost your confidence by telling yourself “Walang
(your surname) na di magaling.” Or tell yourself
“What kind of celebration will I do if I top or at least
pass the bar?” at least you might laugh kahit
kabado
DURING THE BAR EXAM PROPER
· I suggest that before answering, formulate on your
mind what will be placed on your first, second and
third paragraphs. The first paragraph

21
normally contains a one-sentence direct to the point
answer to the question. The second paragraph
commonly contains legal basis (provision of law in
point, jurisprudence, co-relation of the
jurisprudence/provision with the facts of the case
and application).Third paragraph normally contains
the conclusion. When you are already decided of
your answer, write it according to your thoughts. In
this approach, you will not only be avoiding
unnecessary revisions and erasures, you will also
maintain the cleanliness of your booklet. Bear in
mind that, a dirty booklet is irritating to the eyes of
the person checking the same.
· Allocate the time depending on the number of
questions.
· Answer each question one at a time. Focus on one
question before thinking or bothering yourself of the
succeeding questions.
· Do not stay in a number for so long. Leave at least
a sheet for a 5point question.Go to the next number
if you do not know the answer. If I am not mistaken,
more than one (1) bar candidate had not
succeeded because of stocking himself / herself in
an item he/she does not know the answer of. As a
necessary result, he/she failed to finish the exam. As
one of my friends told me, “No matter how grossly
wrong your answer may be, do not ever leave an
item unanswered. Malay mo, may points for the
effort/ink .Kidding aside, a blank sheet will surely get
an automatic 0 point. So better answer all.”

22
· Don’t blame yourself or don’t panic if you failed to
answer an item or two. It’s perfectly normal. What is
abnormal is if you failed to answer questions
that you know the answer of just because you
bothered/blamed yourself so much on the items you
don’t know. In short, if you failed to finish the exam.
· As my professor Atty. Francis Sababan told us
before, “mga bata, avoid passing your booklet too
early. The time allocated for each subject may be
too much, but it must be used wisely to: (1) write
legibly,(2) compose your answers properly, (3) avoid
erasures, (4) observe proper margin, and (5) review
your answers. After all there are no prizes for early
finishers.”
AFTER A BAR SUBJECT (OR ENTIRE BAR EXAM)
· Do not discuss answers. It is futile because the
booklets had already been submitted and it could
greatly affect your performance for the
remaining subjects. If your noble reason on asking
about the answers is for you to know the same, I
suggest that you wait until the exam results have
been already released.For self-preservationreasons,
for sure you will be anxious and fearful if you
would discover that you have incurred (just for
example) 10 mistakes.
IMPORTANT REMINDER IN ANSWERING
If you are so sure of the answer, you can directly
answer yes or no. But if you are just guessing or not

23
so sure of the answer, you better start citing law
provisions and jurisprudence first.
Logic behind: If you answer yes or no and it
happened to be wrong, chances are, you will get
an automatic ZERO (0) for that item. The examiner
might not read your answer anymore. Come to think
of it, it would be a waste of his time
reading explanation of a wrong answer. Besides,
there are so many booklets to check. On the other
hand, if you cite the law provisions and
jurisprudence first, even though your yes or no
answer placed in the last paragraph/sentence is
wrong, you might get some credit. (The examiner
might say, “may alam tong batang to, nalito lang”).
Finally, at least, the examiner has read all your
answer and explanation before grading you for that
item.
CARDINAL RULES IN TAKING THE BAR
. Do not forget your test permits,Supreme Court
color coded Identificationcard,and other pertinent
documents/things as requiredin the letter coming
from the SC allowing you to take the Bar.
. Bring a watchwith you to keep you updated of the
time left.
. Never be tempted to cheat.
. Keep your focus.
. Carefully read and comprehend the instructions
and questions.
. Answer one at a time.

24
. Answer straight to the point.Be responsive to the
question.Answer only what is being asked. Though it
is tempting to showcase your knowledge, do not
over-elaborate.
. Avoiderasures.
. Do not hurry at the expense of substance (and
readability)of your answers.
. Leave a space before starting a new paragraph.
. Review your answers. Scan your booklet before
submitting the same. Be sure you have not left any
questionunanswered.
. Bring extra sign/fountainpens.
. Observe proper margin.
DISCLAIMER!!!
This is only a guide material and will not and cannot
assure anyone of passing or eventopping the BAR.
What is assured only is that it will greatlyfacilitate
the candidates’presentationof his/her answers.
——–GO O D LUCK! ! ! ——
2014 BAR EXAMS QUESTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
ANSWERS IN REMEDIAL LAW
I.
Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with
murder. After trial, the court announced that the
case was considered submitted for decision.

25
Subsequently, the Clerk of Court issued the notices
of promulgation of judgment which were duly
received. On promulgation day, Ludong and his
lawyer appeared. The lawyers
ofBalatong and Labong appeared but without their
clients and failed to satisfactorily explain their
absence when queried by the court. Thus, the judge
ordered the Clerk of Court to proceed with the
reading of the judgment convicting all the accused.
With respect to Balatong and Labong, the judge
ordered that the judgment be entered in the
criminal docket and copies be furnished their
lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong,Balatong,
and Labong filed within the reglementary period a
Joint Motionfor Reconsideration.The court favorably
granted the motion of Ludong downgrading his
conviction from murder to homicide but denied the
motion as regards Balatong andLabong. (4%)
(A) Was the court correct in taking cognizance of
the Joint Motion for Reconsideration?
No, the court was not correct in taking
cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, if
the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the
accused to appear was without justifiable cause, the
accused shall lose the available remedies.However,
the accused may surrender within 15 days from
promulgation of the judgment and file a motion for
leave of court to avail of the remedies.
Here, Balatong and Labong neither
appeared during the promulgation of their
judgment, presented a justifiable cause nor
surrender within the 15-day period, losing all the

26
available remedies provided in the Rules. Hence, the
court has exceeded its jurisdiction when it allowed
the Joint Motion for Reconsideration.
(B) Can Balatong and Labong appeal their
convictionincase Ludong accepts his convictionfor
homicide?
No, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal
their conviction in case Ludong accepts his
conviction.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
when an accused fails to appear during the
promulgation of the judgment of conviction without
justifiable cause, he loses all available remedies in
the Rules including the remedy of appeal.
Hence, Balatong and Labong are not
allowed by the Rules to appeal their conviction.
II.
McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting
into brushes with the law. In one incident, he drove
his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent
its river andpassengers in different directions.
The pedicab driver died, while two (2) of
thepassengers sufferedslight physical injuries.Two (2)
Informations were then filed against McJolly. One,
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property, and two, for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. The
latter case was scheduled for arraignment earlier,
on which occasion McJollyimmediately pleaded
guilty. He was meted out the penalty of public
censure. A month later, the case for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide was also set for

27
arraignment. Instead of
pleading, McJolly interposed the defense of double
jeopardy. Resolve. (4%)
McJolly may not quash the information on the
ground of double jeopardy.
Settled is the doctrine that prior conviction or
acquittal of reckless imprudence bars the
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense
regardless of its various resulting acts; otherwise,
prosecution of the second quasi-offense would
place the accused in double jeopardy. In such a
case, the accused may move to quash the
information for the second quasi-offense.
Hence, McJolly may move to quash the information
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide on
the ground of double jeopardy.
III.
While passing by a dark uninhabited part of
their barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows
and heard screams from a distance. PO2
Asintado hid himself behind the bushes and saw a
man beating a woman whom he recognized as his
neighbor, Kulasa. When Kulasa was already in
agony, the man stabbed her and she fell on the
ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter. PO2
Asintado immediately went to Kulasa’s
rescue. Kulasa, who was then in a state of hysteria,
kept mentioning to PO2 Asintado “Si Rene, gusto

28
akong patayin! Sinaksak niya ako!” When PO2
Asintado was about to carry her, Kulasa refused and
said “Kaya ko. Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si
Rene.”
The following day, Rene learned of Kulasa’s death
and, bothered by his conscience, surrendered to
the authorities with his counsel. As his surrender was
broadcasted all over media, Rene opted to release
his statement to the press which goes:
“I believe that I am entitled to the presumption of
innocence until my guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. AlthoughI admit that I performed
acts that may take one’s life away, I hope and pray
that justice will be served the right way. God bless us
all. (Sgd.) Rene”
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the
basis of PO2 Asintado’s
testimony,Kulasa’s statements, and Rene’s
statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the
following errors:
1. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2
Asintado’s testimony, as the latter did not have any
personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and
violated Rene’s right to due process when it
considered Kulasa’s statements despite lack of
opportunity for her cross-examination.
2. The trial court erred in holding that Rene’s
statement to the press was a confession which,
standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant
conviction. Resolve. (4%)
Rene’s contentions have no legs to stand
on.

29
Under the Rules of Evidence, testimonies
based on personal knowledge and part of res
gestae are given probative value to convict the
accused. Personal knowledge pertains to a witness’
testimony derived from is own perception of the
criminal acts, while part of res gestae whish is an
exception to the hearsay rule pertains to a
statement made by a victim before, during or
immediately after the commission of a crime by the
accused. On the other hand, confessions to be
taken as mitigating circumstance must be made
with the acknowledgment of the confessant’s guilt.
Here, PO2 Asintado’s testimonies were
based on personal knowledge as well as a part of
res gestae, hence sufficient to convict Rene. On the
other hand, the press release cannot be considered
as a confession absent Rene’s acknowledgment of
guilt. Hence, Rene’s contentions should be denied.
IV.
An order of the court requiring a retroactive re-
dating of an order, judgment or document filing be
entered or recorded in a judgment is: (1%)
(A) pro hac vice
(B) non pro tunc
(C) confession relicta verificatione
(D) nolle prosequi
B
V.

30
Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a
lease contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina
City, over a residential house in Las Piñas City. The
lease contract provided, among others, for a
monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%)
interest rate incase of non-payment on its due date.
Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United
States of America (USA) but granted in favor of his
sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage
the property and file and defend suits over the
property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay
the rentals due for five (5) months.
Maria asks your legal advice on how she can
expeditiously collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals
plus interests due. (6%)
(A) What judicial remedy would you recommend
to Maria?
Pursuant to the Rules on Civil Procedure, I
would recommend to Maria to send the Tenant a
demand for the payment of the rentals plus interests,
then file for an Unlawful Detainer five days from the
Tenant’s receipt of the demand and failure to make
a payment.
(B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy
which you recommended?
Applying the Rules of Ejectment to this
case, the complaint for Unlawful Detainer shall be
filed before the Municipal Trail Court (MTC) where
the real property involved is situated, hence in Las
Pinas City.

31
(C) If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit
against Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-
year period within which to file the action?
Under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the one-year period is reckoned from the
date of demand and failure to make a payment.
VI.
As a rule, courts may not grant an application for
provisional remedy without complying with the
requirements of notice and hearing. These
requirements,however,may be dispensedwith in an
application for: (1%)
(A) writ of preliminary injunction
(B) writ for preliminary attachment
(C) an order granting support pendente lite
(D) a writ of replevin
D
VII.
Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for
damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Parañaque City against Jose Penduko, a news
reporter of the Philippine Times, a newspaper of
general circulation printed and published in
Parañaque City. The complaint alleged, among
others, that Jose Penduko wrote malicious and
defamatory imputations against Co Batong; that Co
Batong’s business address is in Makati City; and that
the libelous article was first printed and published in
Parañaque City. The complaint prayed that Jose
Penduko be held liable to pay P200,000.00, as moral
damages; P150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and
P50,000.00, as attorney’s fees.

32
Jose Penduko filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
following grounds:
1. The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the
Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount
of P350,000.00 fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Parañaque City.
2. The venue is improperly laid because what the
complaint alleged is Co Batong’s business address
and not his residence address.
Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss
proper? (4%)
No, the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
improper venue invoked in the Motion to Dismiss are
not proper.
Settled is the rule that in cases where the claim for
damages is the main action, t
he claim comprises all kinds of damages, including
attorney’s fees. On the other hand, the venue for the
complaint for damages arising from Libel is the RTC
of the province where the libelous material was
published.
Here, the total jurisdictional amount of claim for
damages including attorney’s fees falls within the
jurisdiction of the RTC, and the libelous material was
published in Paranaque City. Hence, the case was
properly filed in the RTC of Paranaque City.
VIII.

33
Johnny, a naturalized citizen of the United States of
America (USA) but formerly a Filipino citizen,
executeda notarial will inaccordance with the laws
of the State of California, USA. Johnny, at the time of
his death, was survived by his niece Anastacia, an
American citizen residing at the condominium unit
of Johnny located at Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City; a
younger brother, Bartolome, who
manages Johnny’s fish pond in Lingayen,
Pangasinan; and a younger sister, Christina, who
manages Johnny’srental condominium units in
Makati City. Johnny’s entire estate which he
inherited from his parents is valued at P200
million. Johnny appointed Anastacia as executrix of
his will. (4%)
(A) Can Johnny’s notarial will be probated before
the proper court in the Philippines?
Yes, Johnny’s notarial will can be probated before
the proper court in the Philippines.
Under the Ruled of Special Proceedings, a will of a
non-resident alien who left an estate in the
Philippines may be probated before the RTC of the
province or city where the estate is located.
Here, the testator Johnny was a non-resident alien
who left some estates in the Taguig City, Makati City,
and Pangasinan. Hence, his will can be probated
before the RTC of any of these cities and province in
the Philippines.
(B) Is Anastacia qualified to be the executrix
of Johnny’s notarial will?

34
Yes, Anastacia is qualified to be the executrix of
Johnny’s notarial will.
Under the Rules of Special Proceedings, any
executor named in a will and who is not
incompetent—minor, non-resident, or unfit to
execute the trust—is qualified to serve as executor or
executrix.
Here, Anastaciais the personnamed in the will; she is
not incompetent to serve. Hence, Anastacia is
qualifieid to be the executrix of Johnny’s will.
IX.
Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued
in favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to
sell his house and lot. Agente was able to sell the
property but failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani,
as agreed upon. On his return to the
Philippines, Bayani, by way of a demand letter duly
received by Agente, sought to recover the amount
due him. Agente failed to return the amount as he
had used it for the construction of his own house.
Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum
of money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed
an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment duly supported by an
affidavit.The court grantedthe ex-parte motion and
issued a writ of preliminary attachment
uponBayani’s posting of the required
bond. Bayani prayed that the court’s sheriff

35
be deputized to serve and implement the writ of
attachment. On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff
served upon Agente the writ of attachment and
levied on the latter’s house and lot. On November
20, 2013, the Sheriff served on Agente summons and
a copy of the complaint. On November 22,
2013, Agente filed an Answer with Motion to
Discharge the Writ of Attachment alleging that at
the time the writ of preliminary attachment was
issued, he has not been served with summons and,
therefore, it was improperly issued. (4%)
(A) Is Agente correct?
Yes, Agente is correct in moving for the
discharge of the writ of attachment.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
party whose property has been ordered attached
may file a motion to discharge the attachment on
the ground that the writ was improperly enforced,
such as when the rule on prior or contemporaneous
service of summons was not observed.
Here, the writ of attachment was enforced prior
to instead of subsequent or contemporaneous with
the service of summons upon the defendant Agente.
Hence, the writ of attachment should be discharged
on the ground of improper enforcement of the writ of
attachment.
(B) Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly
executed?
No, the writ of preliminary attachment was
not properly executed.
Pursuant to the Rules on Civil Procedure, no
levy on attachment shall be enforced unless it is
preceded or contemporaneous ly accompanied by

36
service of summons together with a copy of the
complaint.
Here, the writ of preliminary attachment was served
and levied prior to the service of summons with a
copy of the complaint. Hence, the writ was
improperly executed.
X.
Prince Chong entered into a lease contract
with King Kong over a commercial building where
the former conducted his hardware business. The
lease contract stipulated, among others, a monthly
rental of P50,000.00 for a four (4)-year period
commencing on January 1, 2010. On January 1,
2013, Prince Chong died. Kin Il Chong was
appointed administrator of the estate of Prince
Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals for
the months of January to June 2013 despite King
Kong’s written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King
Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an
action for rescission of contract with damages and
payment of accrued rentals as of June 30,
2013. (4%)
(A) Can Kin Il Chong move to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction
since the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
No, Kin Il Chong cannot move to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Settled is the rule in Civil Procedure that an
action for specific performance and damages is

37
incapable of pecuniary estimation that falls under
the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Here, the action is for specific performance
and damages which is incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Thus, the complaint falls squarely within
the jurisdiction of the RTC, rendering the motion to
dismiss without merit.
(B) If the rentals accruedduring the lifetime of Prince
Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for
sum of money during that time, will the action be
dismissible upon Prince Chong’s death during the
pendency of the case?
Yes, the complaint will be dismissible if it is
for sum of money only in the amount of P300,000.
The Supreme Court has held several times
that the totality of the amount claimed is
determinative of what court has jurisdiction; where
the total amount of the claim is only P300,000, the
jurisdiction is with the MTC.
Hence, the motion to dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction will be untenable insofar as the
total amount of the claim is P300,000.
XI.
A search warrant was issued for the purpose of
looking for unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-
asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the police
served the warrant, they also sought the assistance
of barangay tanods who were assigned to look at
other portions of the premises around the house. In
a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the house
of Ass-asin, a barangay tanod came upon a kilo of
marijuana that was wrapped in newsprint. He took it
and this was later used by the authorities to

38
chargeAss-asin with illegal possession of
marijuana. Ass-asin objected to the introduction of
such evidence claiming that it was illegally seized. Is
the objection of Assasin valid?(4%)
Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid.
It is basic hornbook doctrine in Criminal
Procedure that articles that are seized illegally are
inadmissible in evidence, based on the
constitutional guideline that articles to be seized
should be particularly described in the search
warrant.
Here, the kilo of marijuana seized was not
particularly described in the search warrant.
Therefore, the seized kilo of marijuana is inadmissible
in evidence, and the objection is valid.
XII.
Mary Jane met Shiela May at the recruitment
agency where they both applied for overseas
employment. They exchanged pleasantries,
including details of their personal circumstances.
Fortunately, Mary Jane was deployed to work as
front desk receptionist at a hotel in Abu Dhabi where
she met Sultan Ahmed who proposed marriage, to
which she readily accepted. Unfortunately for Shiela
May, she was not deployed to work abroad, and this
made her envious of Mary Jane.
Mary Jane returnedto the Philippines to prepare for
her wedding. She secured from the National
Statistics Office (NSO)a Certificate of No Marriage.It
turned out from the NSO records that Mary
Jane had previously contracted marriage with John
Starr, a British citizen, which she never did. The

39
purported marriage between Mary Jane andJohn
Starr contained all the required pertinent details
on Mary Jane. Mary Jane later on learned
that Shiela May is the best friend of John Starr.
As a lawyer, Mary Jane seeks your advice on her
predicament. What legal remedy will you avail to
enable Mary Jane to contract marriage with Sultan
Ahmed? (4%)
I will advise Mary Jane to avail of Rule
108 to cancel the fake certificate of marriage.
Under the Rules of Special Proceedings,
any interested party may file for the cancellation of
entry of marriage before the RTC in the province
where the corresponding civil registry is located.
The Supreme Court has held that there is no need to
file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
since there was no marriage to speak of in the first
place.
Hence, Mary Jane should file a petition for
the cancellation of entry of marriage before the RTC
of the province where the local civil registry is
located.
XIII.
A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from
packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to
door forwarder company, to sniff packages in their
depot at the international airport. In one of the
routinaryinspections of packages waiting to be sent
to the United States of America (USA), the dog sat
beside one of the packages, a signal that the
package contained dangerous drugs. Thereafter,

40
the guards opened the package and found two (2)
kilograms of cocaine. The owner of the package
was arrested and charges were filed against him.
During the trial, the prosecution, through the trainer
who was present during the incident and an expert
in this kind of field, testified that the dog was highly
trained to sniff packages to determine if the
contents were dangerous drugs and the sniffing
technique of these highly trained dogs was
accepted worldwide and had been successful in
dangerous drugs operations. The prosecution
movedto admit this evidence to justify the opening
of the package. The accused objected on the
grounds that: (i) the guards had no personal
knowledge of the contents of the package before it
was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of
the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not
cross-examine the dog. Decide.(4%)
The seized dangerous drugs are admissible
in evidence against the owner of the package.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that articles
seized during an airport search is an exception to
the rule on illegal searches and therefore admissible
in evidence.
Here, the dangerous drugs were seized in
an airport search setting. Ergo, such articles are
admissible in evidence against the owner of the
package where the articles were seized.
XIV.
When a Municipal Trial Court (MTC), pursuant to its
delegatedjurisdiction,renders an adverse judgment

41
in an applicationfor land registration,the aggrieved
party’s remedy is: (1%)
(A) ordinary appeal to the Regional Trial Court
(B) petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme
Court
(C) ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals
(D) petition for review to the Court of Appeals
C
XV.
The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite
preliminary investigation, found probable cause to
charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpintero,
a private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of
Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, as amended). Before the information
could be filed with the Sandiganbayan, Gov.
Matigas was killed in an ambush. This,
notwithstanding, an information was filed
against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero.
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero throughcounsel,
filed a Motion to Quash the Information, on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
arguing that withthe death of Gov. Matigas, there is
no public officer charged in the information. Is the
motion to quash legally tenable? (4%)
No, the motion to quash is not legally
tenable.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private
individual who conspired with a public official in
committing any of the prohibited acts under RA
3019.

42
Hence, the Sandiganbayan can prosecute
Carpintero for the criminal acts he committed under
RA 3019 notwithstanding the death of his co-
conspirator public official, rendering the motion to
quash without merit.
XVI.
Plaintiff filed a complaint denominated as accion
publiciana, against defendant. In his
answer, defendant alleged that he had no interest
over the land in question, except as lessee
of Z. Plaintiff subsequently filed an affidavit of Z, the
lessor of defendant, stating that Z had sold
to plaintiff all his rights and interests inthe propertyas
shown by a deed of transfer attached to the
affidavit. Thus, plaintiff may ask the court to
render: (1%)
(A) summary judgment
(B) judgment on the pleadings
(C) partial judgment
(D) judgment by default
A
XVII.
A was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a
crime of plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the
court had already issued a warrant for his arrest.
Without A being arrested,his lawyer fileda Motionto
Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that
the allegations inthe information did not charge the
crime of plunder but a crime of malversation, a
bailable offense. The court denied the motion on
the ground that it had not yet acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused and that the
accused should be under the custody of the court

43
since the crime charged was nonbailable The
accused’s lawyer counter-argued that the court
can rule on the motion even if the accused was at-
large because it had jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case. According to said lawyer, there
was no need for the accused to be under the
custody of the court because what was filed was
a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail, not
aPetition for Bail.
(A) If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule
on the motion? (3%)
I will deny the motion to quash and fix bail.
The Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear that
a motion to quash can be availed of only when a
ground or grounds set therein are available as when
the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
Moreover, an application for bail sets in only when
the accused has already acquired custody of the
accused.
Here, the information charges an offense
which is the nonbailable crime of plunder. Besides,
the warrant of arrest has yet to be filed, meaning that
A is not yet under the custody of the court. Therefore,
the motion to quash and fix bail has no basis hence
should be denied.
(B) If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what
judicial remedy should the accused
undertake? (2%)
If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion,
the accused should proceed to trial.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an
order denying a motion to quash is an interlocutory

44
order which is neither appealable nor subject to a
petition for certiorari.
Therefore, the remedy of the accused is to
proceed to trial, await its judgment, then appeal an
unfavorable judgment.
XVIII.
A was charged with murder in the lower court.
His Petition for Bail was denied after a summary
hearing on the ground that the prosecution had
establisheda strong evidence of guilt. No Motion for
Reconsideration was filed from the denial of
thePetition for Bail. During the reception of the
evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated
his petition for bail on the ground that the witnesses
so far presented by the accused had shown that no
qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the
killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds
that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of
guilt is strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for
Bail is solely based on the evidence presented by
the prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for
Reconsideration was filed from the denial of
the Petition for Bail. (6%)
(A) If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the
incident?
I will deny the petition for bail.
Basic is the hornbook doctrine that bail is
not a matter of right nor discretion when the offense
charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and
the evidence of guilt is strong.

45
Here, the offense charged is non-bailable,
and the prosecution has established a strong
evidence of A’s guilt. Thus, A is not entitled to bail.
(B) Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime
of homicide and the accused filed a Notice of
Appeal, is he entitled to bail?
No, A is not entitled to bail even pending
appeal.
The standing rule is that if the penalty
imposed by the trial court is imprisonment
exceeding six years,the application for bail pending
appeal shall be denied.
Here, the imposable penalty for homicide to
which A has been convicted is imprisonment
exceeding six years, and hence not entitled to bail
pending appeal.
XIX.
A vicarious admissionis considered an exception to
the hearsay rule. It, however, does not cover: (1%)
(A) admission by a conspirator
(B) admission by a privy
(C) judicial admission
(D) adoptive admission
C
XX.
Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage
with Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological
incapacity of the latter. Before filing the
petition, Tom Wallis had told Debi Wallis that he
wanted the annulment of their marriage because
he was already fed up with her irrational and

46
eccentric behaviour. However, in the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage, the correct
residential address of Debi Wallis was deliberately
not alleged and instead, the residential address of
their married son was stated. Summons was served
by substituted service at the address stated in the
petition. For failure to file an answer,Debi Wallis was
declared in default and Tom Wallis presented
evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment
declaring the marriage null and void on the ground
of psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3)
years after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi
Wallis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted to
have the RTC judgment reversed and set aside. If
you are the lawyer of Debi Wallis, what judicial
remedy or remedies will you take? Discuss and
specify the ground or grounds for said remedy or
remedies. (5%)
I will file for annulment of judgment on the
ground of extrinsic fraud.
Under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, a petition for annulment of judgment on
the ground of extrinsic fraud may be filed with the
Court of Appeals within four years from the discovery
of the extrinsic fraud, when the other remedies are
no longer available.
Here, the other remedies are no longer
available insofar as three years had lapsed since the
promulgation of the judgment, leaving Debi with
annulment of judgment as the remaining available
remedy. Hence, the filing of a petition for annulment
of judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud shall be
properly taken.

47
XXI.
Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al
Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint for specific performance against Robert
White. Instead of filing an answer to the
complaint,Robert White fileda motionto dismiss the
complaint on the ground of lack of the appropriate
board resolution from the Board of Directors
of Goodfeather Corporation to show the authority
of Al Pakino to represent the corporationand file the
complaint in its behalf. The RTC granted the motion
to dismiss and, accordingly, it ordered the dismissal
of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a motion for
reconsideration which the RTC denied. As nothing
more could be done by Al Pakinobefore the RTC, he
filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals
(CA). Robert White moved for dismissal of the
appeal on the ground that the same involvedpurely
a question of law and should have been filed with
the Supreme Court (SC). However, Al
Pakino claimed that the appeal involved mixed
questions of fact and law because there must be a
factual determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly
authorized byGoodfeather Corporation to file the
complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain.(4%)
Al Parkino’s position is correct.
Pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure,
appeals involving questions of law and of fact shall
be filed with the Court of Appeals.
The appeal in this case involves
determination of the authority of Al Parkino to file a
complaint which is a question of fact. Hence, the

48
appeal should properly be with the Court of
Appeals.
XXII.
Which of the following decisions may be appealed
directly to the Supreme Court (SC)? (Assume that
the issues to be raised on appeal involve purely
questions of law)(1%)
(A) Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
(B) Decisionof the RTC rendered in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction
(C) Decision of the Civil Service Commission
(D) Decision of the Office of the President
B
XXIII.
Mr. Humpty filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
a complaint against Ms. Dumptyfor damages. The
RTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision
granting the complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to
pay damages to Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumptytimelyfiled
an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA),
questioning the RTC decision. Meanwhile, the RTC
granted Mr. Humpty’s motion for execution pending
appeal. Upon receipt of the RTC’s order granting
execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty filed with
the CA another case, this time a special civil action
for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a
violation of the rule against forum shopping
considering that two (2) actions emanating from the
same case with the RTC were filed by Ms.
Dumpty with the CA? Explain. (4%)

49
No, there is no violation of the rule against
forum shopping.
The settled rule in Civil Procedure is that
forum shopping applies only when what is filed are
complaints or initiatory pleadings.
Here, the appeal and petition for certiorari
are neither complaints nor initiatory pleadings. Thus,
the proscription against forum shopping does not
apply.
XXIV.
Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In
2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage
with Hope. When Faith found out about the second
marriage of Solomon andHope, she filed a criminal
case for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011.
Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while
the case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is
ongoing. Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to
suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case on the
ground of prejudicial question. He asserts that the
proceedings in the criminal case should be
suspended because if his first marriage with Faith will
be declared null and void, it will have the effect of
exculpating him from the crime of bigamy.
Decide. (4%)
The motion to suspend the proceeding in
the case for bigamy should be denied.
The established rule in Criminal Procedure
is that prejudicial question exists when a civil action
has been filed prior to a criminal action, and the

50
resolution of the civil action is determinative of
whether the criminal action should proceed.
Moreover, the crime of bigamy is committed by the
mere contracting of a second marriage during the
subsistence ofa first marriage witha different spouse
notwithstanding the voidness of the previous of
subsequent marriage.
Here, the civil action for the declaration of
nullity of marriage was filed not prior but subsequent
to the criminal case for bigamy. Importantly,
Solomon had contracted a second marriage during
the subsistence of his first marriage with another
spouse. Hence, there exists no prejudicial question
that merits the suspensionof the criminal prosecution
for bigamy.
XXV.
Mr. Boaz filed an action for ejectment against Mr.
Jachin before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC). Mr. Jachin actively participated in every
stage of the proceedings knowing fully well that the
MeTC had no jurisdiction over the action. In his
mind, Mr. Jachin was thinking that if the MeTC
rendered judgment against him, he could always
raise the issue on the jurisdiction of the MeTC. After
trial, the MeTC rendered judgment against Mr.
Jachin. What is the remedy of Mr. Jachin? (1%)
(A) File an appeal
(B) File an action for nullification of judgment
(C) File a motion for reconsideration
(D) File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
B

51
XXVI.
Parole evidence is an: (1%)
(A) agreement not included in the document
(B) oral agreement not included in the document
(C) agreement included in the document
(D) oral agreement included in the document
A
XXVII.
Mr. Avenger filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
a complaint against Ms. Brightfor annulment of deed
of sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
lack of cause of action. Mr. Avenger filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss. State and
discuss the appropriate remedy/remedies under
each of the following situations: (6%)
(A) If the RTC grants Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss
and dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack
of cause of action, what will be the
remedy/remedies of Mr. Avenger?
Mr. Avenger can re-file the case pursuant to
Rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
(B) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss,
what will be her remedy/remedies?
Applying Rule 16, Ms. Bright can file an
answer within the balance of the period but not less
than 5 days, or file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 predicated on a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.
(C) If the RTC denies Ms. Bright’s motion to dismiss
and, further proceedings, including trial on the

52
merits, are conducted until the RTC renders a
decision in favor of Mr. Avenger, what will be the
remedy/remedies of Ms. Bright?
Ms. Bright can file for a motion for
reconsideration and in case of the denial thereof to
file an appeal from te judgment or final order,
likewise pursuant to Rule 16.
XXVIII.
A was adopted by B and C when A was only a
toddler.Later on in life, A filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) a petition for change of name under
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as he wanted to
reassume the surname of his natural parents
because the surname of his adoptive parents
sounded offensive and was seriously affecting his
business and social life. The adoptive parents gave
their consent to the petition for change of name.
May A file a petition for change of name? If the RTC
grants the petition for change of name, what, if any,
will be the effect on the respective relations
of A with his adoptive parents and with his natural
parents? Discuss. (4%)
Yes, A may file a petition for change of
name.
Under the Rules of Summary Proceedings, a
petition for change of name (surname) may be filed
with the RTC on the grounds that the name is
ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write
or pronounce, and the change is a legal
consequence of adoption.

53
Hence, A may file a petition for change of
name insofar as the grounds are available to him.
XXIX.
Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel
of land located in a remote part of
their barrio in Benguet. However, when she visited
the property after she took a long vacation abroad,
she was surprised to see that her childhood
friend, John, had established a vacation house on
her property. Both Estrella and John were residents
of the same barangay.
To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for
ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
alleging that she is the true owner of the land as
evidenced by her certificate of title and tax
declarationwhichshowed the assessedvalue of the
property as P21,000.00. On the other
hand, John refuted Estrella’s claim of ownership and
submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale
between him and Estrella. After the filing of John’s
answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was
one of ownership and not of possession. Hence, the
MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), a full-blowntrial was conducted as if the case
was originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that
based on the assessed value of the property, it was
the court of proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC
rendered a judgment declaring John as the owner
of the land and, hence, entitled to the possession
thereof. (4%)

54
(A) Was the MTC correct indismissing the complaint
for lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not?
No, the MTC was not correct in dismissing
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Under the Rules on Ejectment, the action for
ejectment is within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the MTC irrespective of total amount of
the claims.
Hence, it was erroneous for the MTC to
dismiss the complaint for ejectment as it falls
properly within its jurisdiction.
(B) Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the
assessed value of the property, the case was within
its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a
full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was
originally filed with it? Why or why not?
No, the RTC ruling based on the assessed
value is not correct.
The Supreme Court in applying the Rules
has held that what determines jurisdiction of the
court as conferred by law is the nature of the action
pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
complaint. The averments therein and the character
of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.
Here, the jurisdiction over ejectment cases
is conferred by law exclusively and originally upon
the MTC. Necessarily, the nature of the action is
alleged by the facts in the complaint herein. Hence,
the RTC should have remanded the case to the MTC
since it is the latter that has jurisdiction over the
case.
—ooo0ooo—

55
SUPPORTPENDENTELITECASEDOCTRINES.
Definition
Family Code, Title VIII
Art. 194.
Support comprises everything indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation, in
keeping with the financial capacity of the family.The
education of the person entitled to be supported
referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include
his schooling or training for some profession, trade or
vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
Transportationshall include expenses in going to and
from school, or to and from place of work.
Application
[G.R. No. 43794. August 9, 1935.]
PARENT AND CHILD; SUPPORT OF CHILD WHILE HIS
CIVIL STATUS IS INLITIGATION.
—
In the present case the action for support is brought
by a minor, through his guardian ad lite, who alleges
that he is the son of the petitioner; therefore it is
necessary for him to prove his civil status as such son
. His allegedcivil status being in litigation,it is evident
that nothing can be taken for granted upon the point

56
in issue. There is no law or reason which authorizes
the granting of support to a person who claims to be
a son in the same manner as to a person who
establishes by legal proof that he is such son.
In the latter case legal evidence raises a
presumption of law, while in the former there is no
presumption , there is nothing but a mere allegation,
a fact in issue, and a simple fact in issue must not be
confounded withan establishedright recognized by
a finaljudgment.The civil status of sonship being denied
and this civil status,fromwhich the right to support is
derived, being in issue, it is apparent that no effect
can be given to such a claim until an authoritative
declaration has been made as to the existence of
the cause. It isalsoevident that there is a substantial
difference between the capacity of a person after
the rendition of a final judgment in which that
person is declared to be in possessionof the status of
a son and his capacity prior to such time when
nothing exists other that his suit or claim to be
declared in possession of such a status. c.
Yangco Vs Rhode [G.R. No. 996 . October 13, 1902.]
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE; ALIMONY; PROHIBITION.
—
Where the answer to a complaint alleging marriage
and praying for a divorce denies the fact of
marriage, the court exceeds its jurisdiction in
granting alimony, and the enforcement of an order
granting it will be restrained by the writ of
prohibition. The right of a wife to support depends

57
upon her status as such, and where the existence
of the status is put in issue by the pleading it can not
be presumed to exist for the purpose of granting
alimony.
Coquia Vs Baltazar [G.R. No. L-2942. December 29,
1949.]
The action in the present case was not for support
but for the recoveryof the ownership and possession
of real property. Manifestly such an action is not the
proper action contemplated by Rule 63 of the Rules
of Court. The mere fact that the plaintiffs have legal
and equitable rights in the property they seeks to
recover (Q .E. D.) does not authorize the court to
compel the defendants to support the plaintiffs
pending the determination of the suit.
Villanueva Vs Villanueva [G.R. No. 29959. December
3, 1929.]
HUSBAND AND WIFE; INFIDELITY OF HUSBAND;
SEPARATE MAINTENANCEFOR WIFE.
—
In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate
home and to require separate maintenance from
her husband, it is not necessary that the husband
should bring a concubine into the marital domicile.
Repeated illicit relations with women outside of the
marital establishment are enough. The law is not so
unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital
relations with a husband whose propensity towards

58
other women makes common habitation with him
unbearable.
Magoma Vs Macadaeg [G.R. No. L-5153. December
10, 1951.]
HUSBAND AND WIFE; ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE;
ADULTERY AS DEFENSE;HUSBAND'S RIGHT TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE ON ADULTERY, BEFORE ORDER
OFALIMONY PENDENTE LITE.
—
Husband has not been given an opportunity to
adduce evidence of the defenses he has set up
against the motionfor support pendente lite,among
which is adultery. After the wife had presented her
evidence and before the hearing on the motionwas
completed, the trial judge ordered payment of
alimony pendente lite. There is nothing to show that
the husband has resorted to dilatory tactics in the
presentation of his evidence.
Held :
There is no other alternative than to remand this
case to the lower court inorder that immediate steps
may be taken relative to the reception of husband's
evidence insupport of his opposition to the grant of
support pendente lite
(Sanchez vs. Zulueta, 68Phil., 112).g.
Ramos Vs CA [G.R. No. L-31897. June 30,
1972.]REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES;

59
SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE; CASE OFYANGCO
DISTINGUISHED FROM INSTANT CASE.
—
Petitioner's assertion that support pendente lite
should not have been ordered by the Court of
Appeals, "there having been neither a recognitionof
paternity by the petitioner nor its establishment by
final judgment" is without merit. The case of Yangco
vs. Rohde upon which petitioner predicates his
contention is not in point, alimony pendente lite
having been granted in that case without any
evidence on the status of the plaintiff as alleged wife
of the defendant ,who had denied such allegation,
unlike in the case at bar Where evidence relative to
filiation was introduced and found to be sufficient ,
although the trial court's decision is still pending
appeal.
The Rules of Court clearly authorizes the granting of
support pendente lite , even prior to the rendition of
judgment by the trial court.
RIGHT THERETO WHERE THERE IS JUDGMENT OF
FILIATION ALTHOUGHPENDING APPEAL.
—
It goes without saying that if , before the rendition of
judgment,the trial court may "provisionally" grant
alimony pendente lite, with more reason may an
appellate court exercise a similar authority, after a
full dress trial and a decision of the trial court on the
merits finding that the claim of filiation and support
has been adequatelyproven in the case at bar,
beyond doubt even if such decision were still

60
pending appealtaken by the party adjudged to be
bound to give such support. NOT AFFECTED BY
REFUSAL OF TRIAL COURT TO GRANT SUCH SUPPORT.
The refusal of the trial court to grant said alimony
pendente lite did not and cannot deprive the
appellate court of said authorit, or even dent the
wisdom of the action taken by the latter, considering
that the former did not give any plausible reason for
it saforementi refusal and that the same may have,
in fact, been due to the appeal taken by the
defendant,whose record on appeal had already
been approved. GRANT THEREOF WITHOUT
REQUIRING BOND.
—
The grant to the minors who had merely asked "a
monthly support of P75.00 for each child," or P150.00
a month for both ,and, through their mother, had
offered to file a bond
—
of the aggregate sum of P4,727.50, without requiring
a bond therefore, did not constitute a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, in
the light of the circumstances surrounding the case
and from the evidence presented in the case from
which the trial court didnot entertaindoubt that the
children Fernando and Lorraine, both surnamed
Lagos, are the result of the illicit relationship between
petitioner and respondent Felisa Lagos.
POVERTY OF MINORS JUSTIFY SUPPORT PENDENTE LITE.
—
In the present case itis not disputed that one of the
plaintiffs was born on August 27, 1963 and the other

61
on June21, 1965. On the date of the contested
resolution,theywere, therefore,6 and 4 years of age
,respectively. The minors are now , therefore, around
9 and 7 years old, respectively, or of school age. In
addition thereto, they have been litigating since
September 5,1965, or almostseven(7) years, and the
decision in their favor is still pending appeal.
ParaphrasingGarcia vs. Court of Appeals, the
circumstances obtaining inthe present case suggest
that this isaninstance where, in view of the poverty of
herein private respondents, "it would be a travesty of
justice" to refuse them support until the decision of
the trial judge is sustained on appeal..
Mangonon Vs CA [G.R. No. 125041. June 30, 2006.]
Under this provision, a court may temporarily grant
support pendente lite prior to the rendition of
judgment or final order. Because of its provisional
nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the
merits of the case before it can settle an application
for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is
determine the kind and amount of evidence which
may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the
application. It is enough that the facts be
established by affidavits or other documentary
evidence appearing in the record. After the
hearings conducted on this matter as well as the
evidence presented, we find that petitioner was
able to establish, by prima facie proof , the filiations

62
of her twin daughters to private respondents and the
twins' entitlement to support pendente lite
.
Support in Criminal Cases
Restitution
i.
Saavedra Vs Ybanez Estrada [G.R. No.
33795. September 4, 1931.]
The dismissal of an action has the necessary effect
of abrogating any interlocutoryorderintendedto be
operative exclusively during the pendency of
the litigation. An action was brought by a wife
against her husband for maintenance of herself and
children, and in this action an order was made for
the payment of a fixed monthly stipend pendente
lite , but the action was subsequently dismissed
voluntarily by the wife. Held that, in a subsequent
action brought for the same purpose as the first, the
husband could not be held liable for non-payment
of the maintenance providedin the order pendente
lite, as an adjudicated right. A wife is entitled to
recover from her husband compensation for
paraphernal property which she has applied to the
support of herself and children, during the period
when their maintenance was not paid out of the
conjugal property by the husband. In an action for
maintenance the court refused to grant an injunction
against the husband to prevent him from alienating

63
the conjugal property without the consent of the
court; but there being an appreciable danger that
an attempt to alienate the same might be made in
fraud of the wife and her children, the court
directed that the obligation to pay maintenance
should be annotated in the property register as
a lien upon such property.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 151068 May 21, 2004
BENITO C. SALAZAR, petitioner,
vs.
HON. TOMASR. ROMAQUIN,in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Br. 2 of the Regional Trial Court of
Kalibo, Aklan, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by AKLAN PROVINCIALPROSECUTOR
HON. LOURDES QUIMPO-MAYOR, HEIRS OF
RAYMUNDO RODRIGUEZ, and JODEL B.
RENTILLO,respondents.
RESOLUTION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is a petition for review of the Resolution1 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67252 denying
due course and dismissing the petition for certiorari
of petitioner Benito Cortez Salazar, on the ground
that he served a copy of his petition on the

64
respondent People of the Philippines, through the
Provincial Prosecutor, and not through the Office of
the Solicitor General; and, the resolution of the
appellate court denying the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the said resolution.
The Antecedents
On May 12, 2001, the Provincial Prosecutor of Aklan
filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court of
Kalibo, Aklan, charging the petitioner with murder.
The accusatory portion reads:
That on or about 8:30 o’clock in the
morning of April 26, 2001, in
Barangay Dumaguit, Municipality of
New Washington,Province of Aklan,
Republic of the Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, armed with a
gun, with treachery and use of
superior strength, with intent to kill
and without any justifiable cause,
did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and shoot one RAYMUNDO
RODRIGUEZ, hitting the latter on the
different parts of his body which
caused his instantaneous death.
Xeroxed copy of the Post-Mortem
Examination is hereto attached as

65
Annex "A" and made an integral
part of this information.
By reasonof the unlawful acts of the
accused, the family of the victim
suffered P100,000.00 actual
damages.
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
The Provincial Prosecutor recommended no bail in
this case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6002.
Barely three hours after filing the Information, the
Provincial Prosecutor filedan Urgent Ex-Parte Motion
for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest in the said case
alleging, inter alia, that:
There is an urgent need for the
issuance of Warrant of Arrest
against the accused as the lives of
some people are in danger
considering that the motive is
political and with the election day
on May 14, 2001, there is an urgent
need to protect the public from
anymore bloodshed and as wrongly
or intentionally design by the
accused, if the motive is infidelity,to
protect the life of her wife, Noli
Marie Salazar, who is residing on the

66
same address in Dumaguit, New
Washington, Aklan.3
On May 12, 2001, Executive Judge Sheila Martelino-
Cortes issued an Order granting the motion.4 On the
same day, the trial court issued a warrant for the
petitioner’s arrest.5 However, the petitioner was
nowhere to be found, and as such, the police
officers failed to serve the warrant on him. The case
was later raffled to Branch 2 of the court, presided
by Judge Tomas R. Romaquin.
On May 15, 2001, the petitioner received a copy of
the Joint Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor
finding probable cause for murder against him
which formed the basis for the filing of the
Information.
On May 16, 2001, the petitioner filed in the RTC an
Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings and to Lift
Warrant of Arrest. The petitioner alleged, inter alia,
that he had filed a petition for review of the Joint
Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor finding
probable cause for murder against him in the Office
of the Secretary of Justice. The petitioner cited Rule
112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of
this Court in Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals,6 to
support his plea for the suspension of the
proceedings.To justifyhis motion for the lifting of the
warrant of arrest issued against him, the petitioner
alleged, thus:

67
... He further submits that this motion is in
consonance with his constitutional presumption of
innocence and will not prejudice anyone. Accused
is a person of good moral standing, a member of
the bar and an officer of the court, a noted
businessman, and had served the Philippine
government until April 2001,as President of the Food
Terminal, Inc. He is innocent of the charges in this
case and has no intention whatsoever to avoid the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court and the
proceedings in this case.7
The provincial prosecutor opposed the motion,
contending that the filing of a petition for review of
the investigating prosecutor’s resolutionin the Office
of the Secretary of Justice was not a justification for
the suspension of the enforcement of the warrant of
arrest issued by the court. The petitioner, the
Provincial Prosecutor averred, cannot rely on the
ruling in Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals8 because
the facts thereinare different from those in the case
before the court. Moreover, the Provincial
Prosecutor averred, the petitioner had not yet been
arrested; hence, the court had not yet acquired
jurisdictionover his person. The prosecution asserted
that the petitioner’s filing of a motion for the lifting of
the warrant of arrest against him did not constitute a
voluntary appearance before the court.
The petitioner filed on May 29, 2001 a supplement to
his motion, alleging that since Executive Judge
Martelino-Cortes was the aunt of the wife of the

68
deceased, it was illegal for her to have acted on the
provincial prosecutor’s motion for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest against him, and to thereafter
grant the motion and issue the said warrant. Hence,
according to the petitioner, the Executive Judge
was disqualified to act on the motion, viz:
4. Finally, the Honorable Executive
Judge is related within the fifth
degree of consanguinityto VivienY.
Bontogon-Rodriguez, wife of the
deceased, Raymundo Rodriguez.
Vivien is the daughter of her first
cousin Angela Yap-Bontogon, and
therefore, a niece of the Honorable
Executive Judge. In view of this
relationship, the Honorable
Executive Judge is disqualified to sit
in any case or in any proceedings
involving the death of Raymundo
Rodriguez. She should have refused
to act on Prosecutor Mayor’s
motion for issuance of the warrants
of arrest.9
The provincial prosecutor disagreed with the
petitioner andaverredinhis reply to the supplement
to the petitionthat the petitioner failed to prove the
relationship of the Executive Judge to the wife of the
deceased. He asserted that the matter of the
inhibition of the judge should have been addressed
to her, and that even with her disqualification, the

69
warrant of arrest and the order she issued were
valid.
On August 10, 2001, Judge Tomas R. Romaquin, who
presided over Branch 2 of the court, issued an Order
granting the petitioner’s motion to suspend the
proceedings.However,the petitioner’s motion to lift
warrant of arrest was denied. The petitioner filed a
motion for partial reconsideration of the order, but
the court denied the same. The trial court declared
that the issues raised by the petitioner had become
moot and academic since the Secretary of Justice
had denied his petition for review and affirmed the
joint resolutionof the investigating prosecutor finding
probable cause against him.
The petitioner forthwithfileda petition for certiorariin
the Court of Appeals on November 5, 2001, assailing
the orders of the RTC. However, the petitioner failed
to submit proof of service of copies of his petition on
the respondent RTC, the People of the Philippines
and Jodel Rentillo.
On November 12, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued
a Resolution denying due course and dismissing the
petition, on the ground that the petitioner failed to
show proof of service of the petition on the
respondents, as mandated by Rule 46, Section 3 in
relationto Rules 65 and 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court,
as amended.

70
On November 20, 2001, the Court of Appeals
received a Manifestation and Submission which the
petitioner filedthroughregisteredmail onNovember
5, 2001 alleging that, on the latter date, copies of
the petitionwere servedonthe respondents through
registered mail, as evidenced by the affidavit of
service executed by Danilo B. Elardo, the messenger
in the law office of the petitioner’s counsel. The
petitioner also filed a motion for reconsideration of
the resolution of the Court of Appeals, on the
ground that he had substantially complied with the
requirements of the Rules of Court, as amended.
On December 13, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued
a Resolution denying the said motion, on the ground
that the petitioner failed to serve a copy of his
petition on the Solicitor General, the counsel of the
respondent People of the Philippines.
The Issues
In his petition at bar, the petitioner contends that:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE
USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, AND DECIDED A
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A
MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH
SECTION 1 OF RULE 6, AND SECTION
4 OF RULE 46, OF THE RULES OF
COURT, AS WELL AS SECTION 35(1),

71
CHAPTER 12, TITLE III OF BOOK IV OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987,
AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT, WHEN IT IGNORED
THE IMPORTANT AND SUBSTANTIVE
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER,
AND REFUSED TO SET ASIDE ITS
DISMISSAL OF THE "PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI" PETITIONER FILED EVEN
AFTER IT FOUND THAT A COPY OF
THAT SERVICE OF THE "PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI" HAD BEEN MADE UPON
THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR WHO
HAD REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES IN THE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH GAVE RISE TO
THE PETITION.10
The petitioner avers that the exclusive authority of
the Solicitor General to represent the People of the
Philippines in the Court of Appeals and in the
Supreme Court under Section35(1),Chapter 12, Title
III, Book IV of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code,
comes into being only when the appellate court has
already acquired jurisdictionover the case which, in
turn, takes place only upon the service on the State
of the order or resolution of the appellate court
indicating its initial action on the petition, or by the
respondent’s voluntarysubmissionto such jurisdiction
as provided for in Rule 46, Section 4 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, which reads:

72
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction over the person
of respondent, how acquired.— The
court shall acquire jurisdiction over
the personof the respondent by the
service on him of its order or
resolutionindicating its initial action
on the petition or by his voluntary
submission to such jurisdiction.
Before then, the petitioner submits,service of a copy
of his petition on the respondent People of the
Philippines may be effected through the Provincial
Prosecutor who appeared as its counsel in the trial
court, conformably to Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules
of Court, as amended.
The Court’s Ruling
The contention of the petitioner is devoid of merit.
The authority of the Provincial Prosecutor to appear
for and represent the respondent People of the
Philippines is confined only to the proceedings
before the trial court. This is based on Section 5, Rule
110 of the RevisedRules of Criminal Procedure which
provides, viz:
SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal
actions. — All criminal actions
commenced by a complaint or
information shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of

73
the prosecutor. However, in
Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts when the
prosecutor assigned thereto or to
the case is not available, the
offended party, any peace officer,
or public officer charged with the
enforcement of the law violated
may prosecute the case. This
authority shall cease upon actual
intervention of the prosecutor or
upon elevation of the case to the
Regional Trial Court.
The pleadings of the accused and copies of the
orders or resolutions of the trial court are served on
the People of the Philippines through the Provincial
Prosecutor.However, in appeals before the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court either (a) by writ of
error; (b) via petition for review; (c) on automatic
appeal; or, (d) in special civil actions where the
People of the Philippines is a party, the general rule is
that the Office of the Solicitor General is the sole
representative of the People of the Philippines. This is
provided for in Section 35 (1) Chapter 12, Title III of
Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, viz:
(1) Represent the Government in
the Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings;
represent the Government and its
officers in the Supreme Court, the

74
Court of Appeals, and all other
courts or tribunals in all civil actions
and special proceedings in which
the Government or any officer
thereof in his official capacity is a
party.
A copy of the petitioninsuch action must be served
on the People of the Philippines as mandated by
Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, through the
Office of the Solicitor General.11 The service of a
copy of the petitiononthe People of the Philippines,
through the Provincial Prosecutor would be
inefficacious. The petitioner’s failure to have a copy
of his petitionservedonthe respondent, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal of the petitionas providedin
the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules
of Court. Unless and until copies of the petition are
duly served on the respondent, the appellate court
has no other recourse but to dismiss the petition.
The purpose of the service of a copy of the petition
on the respondent in an original action in the
appellate court prior to the acquisitionof jurisdiction
over the person of the respondent is to apprise the
latter of the filing of the petition and the averments
contained therein and, thus, enable the respondent
to file any appropriate pleading thereon even
before the appellate court can act on the said
petition,or to file his comment thereon if so ordered
by the appellate court.But if a copy of the petitionis

75
served on the Provincial Prosecutor who is not
authorizedto represent the People of the Philippines
in the appellate court,any pleading filedby the said
Prosecutor for and in behalf of the People of the
Philippines is unauthorized, and may be expunged
from the records.
On the petitioner’s plea that we brush aside his
procedural lapse and order the appellate court to
take cognizance of and act on his petition for
certiorari, we are not persuaded. As gleaned from
his petitions inthe Court of Appeals and in this Court,
the petitioner contends that the assailed order of
Executive Judge Martelino-Cortes dated May 12,
2001 and the warrant of arrest issued by her are null
and void, considering that she was the aunt of
Vivien Bontogon-Rodriguez, the wife of the
deceased Raymundo Rodriguez, as Angela (Urgino)
Yap-Bontogon, Vivien Rodriguez’ mother, is her first
cousin. Thus, the Executive Judge was disqualifiedto
take cognizance of Criminal Case No. 6002 and to
grant the motion of the provincial prosecutor.
However, we have reviewed the pleadings of the
parties in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, and
find that the petitioner failed to adduce
preponderant evidence in the trial court to prove
the said relationship of the Executive Judge to the
deceased and the latter’s wife, let alone append in
his petition in the Court of Appeals and in this Court,
documents to prove such relationship. The
barefaced fact that the provincial prosecutor or the
private prosecutor did not specifically and
categorically deny the petitioner’s allegations in his

76
supplement to his motion for reconsideration, that
the Executive Judge and the deceased and his wife
are related, did not relieve the petitioner of his
burden to prove the same with the requisite
quantum of evidence. Such allegation should have
been proven during the hearing of the petitioner’s
motion to suspend proceedings and to lift the
warrant of arrest, and of his supplement to the said
motion for reconsideration.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition
is DENIED due course for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Puno*, Quisumbing**, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga,
JJ., concur.
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1385 January 8, 1998
(formerly OCA IPI No. 96-141-RTJ)
RAMON T. ARDOSA, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE LOLITA O. GAL-LANG and CLERK OF COURT
NENITA R. GRIJALDO, Branch 44, Regional Trial Court,
Manila, respondents.

77
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint against Judge Lolita O. Gal-Lang
of the Regional Trial Court at Manila, Branch 44, for
grave abuse of authority, manifest bias, gross
ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering all unjust
judgment and grave misconduct and Atty.Nenita R.
Grijaldo, branch clerk of court, for grave
misconduct, gross ignorance, disrespect for the
Rules of Court, malfeasance, and misfeasance in
public office.
Complainant was complainant in Criminal Case No.
95-146559 for illegal recruitment,which was assigned
to respondent Judge Gal-lang. The prosecutor
initially recommended bail for P8,000.00 for the
provisional release of the accused but later
changed his recommendation to "no bail."
On December 11, 1995, the accused filed a motion
for reinvestigation and prayed that in the meantime
issuance of the warrant of arrest be held in
abeyance. It appears, however, that the warrant
had already been issued on that day, although it
could not be sewed on the accused (Rene C. Tabia,
Ruben S. Fajardo, Per Jurgensen, Birger Jurgensen,
Jose M. Nieto, Edwin Marasigan, Franklin Roger Lee
Sun, Ricardo J. Romulo and Ramon Espejo, of the
Maersk Tabacalera Crewing Agency) as they were

78
not at the Maersk office on 900 Romualdez St.,
Ermita, Manila.
Upon learning of the issuance of the warrant against
them, the accused filed on December 13, 1995 an
Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest. They
alleged that the warrant of arrest had been
prematurely issued because they had a pending
oppositionto the issuance of a warrant of arrest and
motionfor reinvestigation. The accused argued that
some of them were not officers and members of the
board of the Maersk Tabacalera yet when the act
being complained of was allegedly committed.1
Since the prosecutor was present and had been
furnished copy of the motion, the judge decided to
hear the motion on the same day it was filed.
Complainant also happened to be in court at that
time to file a motion for the issuance of a hold order
and an entry of appearance as private prosecutor.
He was persuaded by respondent clerk of court,
Nenita Grijaldo, to attend the hearing on the
motion.
Complainant appeared in court but requested that
the hearing be reset on another day because he
had not been informed of the hearing nor furnished
copies of the motion beforehand. He cited the
absence of his counsel. But Judge Gal-lang
proceeded with the hearing.2

79
On December 14, 1995, respondent judge granted
the motionof the accused and recalledthe warrant
of arrest, even as she ordered a reinvestigation of
the case.
On December 20, 1995, complainant, as private
prosecutor, moved for a reconsideration of the
court's ruling. The hearing on his motion was held on
December 22, 1995. An order purporting to have
been made on the same day was later issued,
denying complainant's motion. Complainant claims
that he received a copy of the older only on
January 18, 1996 despite the fact that he had been
asking the court for a copy many times before. He
accuses respondent judge of antedating her order
to make it appear it had been made shortly after
the hearing.
Complainant also takes respondent judge to task for
holding a hearing on the motion of the accused for
the recall of the warrant of arrest despite the fact
that it was served only on the day of the hearing.
Complainant claims that clerk of court Grijaldo, in
collusion with the counsel of the accused, inveigled
him to attend the hearing.
In their comment, respondents allege that Judge
Gal-lang heard the motionto recall warrant of arrest
on December 13, 1995 because of its urgent
character. She points out that anyway the public
prosecutor had been furnished copy of the motion
and was present, as were the counsel for the

80
accused and the complainant himself. Respondents
further contend that complainant and his counsel
filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
recalling the warrant of arrest without the conformity
of the public prosecutor, who had control of the
prosecution of cases, and that during the hearing of
his motion complainant made offensive gestures at
the court for which his counsel had to make an
apology.
Respondent judge denies she antedated her order
of December 22, 1995 denying complainant's
motion for reconsideration. She claims that she
prepared the order in the afternoon of December
22, 1995 but it was released only on January 3, 1996
because December 22, 1995 was a Friday and, on
the next business day, she went on vacation leave.
Copy of the order was sent to complainant and his
counsel by registered mail on January 3, 1996,
presumably after respondent had returned from her
vacation. Respondents claim that when
complainant followedup the resolutionof his motion
by phone on January 8, 1996, he was told that the
order had been sent by mail.
Respondents deny that they were prejudiced
against complainant. They claim that anyway
respondent judge has inhibited herself from the
consideration of the criminal case and there should
be no further question regarding this case. On June
19, 1997 they informed the Court that the criminal
case against the accused had been dismissed by

SCRAase

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SCRAase

Similar to SCRAase (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SCRAase