UP Preweek Remedial 2017

UP LAW BOC

REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK

: The doctrine states that where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter, a case must be filed before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction. The principle of hierarchy of courts requires that recourse should be made to the lower courts before they are made to the higher courts. The exceptions to this doctrine are as follows: 1)

Where there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;

2) When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy; 3) When demanded by the broader interest of justice; 4) When the challenged orders are patent nullities; 5) When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances call for and justify the immediate and direct handling by the Court [Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385 (2013)]

: Where the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment contains a clerical error of an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, the error of ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision itself. This is generally known as the slip rule – so called because the clerical mistakes or errors arise from accidental slip or omission [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 324, citing citing Reinsurance Company of the Orient v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 61250 (1991) and Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124280 (1997)]

Page 1 of 65

UP LAW BOC


JURISDICTION

: His motion to quash should be denied, as it is the RTC which has jurisdiction in this case. In Morales v. Court of Appeals, Appeals, this Court categorically named the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over drug related-cases. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. Public officials were never considered excluded from the scope of RA 9165 Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. [De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. 229781 (2017)]

The residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, [Katon v. Palanca, G.R. No. 151149 (2004)]. Corollary to this, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal or petition has even been filed [Fernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 131094 (2005)]. In both Rule 41 and Rule 42, the court exercising residual jurisdiction may: •

issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,

•

approve compromises,

•

permit appeals of indigent litigants,

•

order execution pending appeal, and

•

allow withdrawal of the appeal.

In Rule 41, the RTC exercises residual jurisdiction . [Sec. 9, Rule 41] On the other hand, in Rule 42, the RTC exercises residual jurisdiction . [Sec. 8, Rule 42]

Page 2 of 65

UP LAW BOC


JURISDICTION

: His motion to quash should be denied, as it is the RTC which has jurisdiction in this case. In Morales v. Court of Appeals, Appeals, this Court categorically named the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over drug related-cases. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. Public officials were never considered excluded from the scope of RA 9165 Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. [De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. 229781 (2017)]

The residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, [Katon v. Palanca, G.R. No. 151149 (2004)]. Corollary to this, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no appeal or petition has even been filed [Fernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 131094 (2005)]. In both Rule 41 and Rule 42, the court exercising residual jurisdiction may: •

issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,

•

approve compromises,

•

permit appeals of indigent litigants,

•

order execution pending appeal, and

•

allow withdrawal of the appeal.

In Rule 41, the RTC exercises residual jurisdiction . [Sec. 9, Rule 41] On the other hand, in Rule 42, the RTC exercises residual jurisdiction . [Sec. 8, Rule 42]

Page 2 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Unlike a civil action which has definite adverse parties, a special proceeding has no definite adverse parties. The definitions of a civil action and a special proceeding, respectively, in the Rules illustrate this difference. A civil action, in which “a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong” necessarily has definite adverse parties, who are either the plaintiff or defendant. On the other hand, a special proceeding, “by which a party seeks to establish a status, right, or a particular fact,” has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, right, or particular fact, but no definite adverse party. [Montañer v. Sharia District Court, G.R. No. 174975 (2009)]

Institution of more than one suit for the same cause of action constitutes splitting the cause of action, which is a ground for the dismissal. Thus, in Rule 2: Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action — A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. [Lanuza Jr. v. BF Corporation, G.R. No. 174938 (2014)]

The rule is that a party’s failure to observe the following conditions under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules results in a misjoinder of causes of action: Section 5. Joinder of causes of action — A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: (1) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; (2) The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules; (3) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder joinde r may be allowed in the Regional R egional Trial Court provided prov ided one of o f the causes ca uses of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.

The requisites of a class suit are: (a) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest interest to many persons; (b) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and (c) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned. [Juana Complex Homeowner’s Association v. Fil-Estate Land, G.R. No. 152272 (2012)]

Page 3 of 65

UP LAW BOC


An element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must consider [MVRS Publications v. Islamic Dawah Council, G.R. No. 135306 (2003)]: (5) Whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of the class; (6) The proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total membership of the class; and (7) Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class. Where the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class they seek to represent are diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper.

: A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. [Sec. 2, Rule 3; David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396 (2006)] Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. Thus, as a general rule, a party is allowed to “raise a constitutional question” when: (1) He can show that he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. [Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978 (2012)]

If it is a necessary party, failure to implead does not result in the waiver of the right to implead. However, if there is an order by the court to implead and there is failure to comply, there is a waiver of claim. If it is an indispensable party, the court should order the indispensable party be impleaded. If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, the judgment rendered will be null and void. Moreover, if there is an order by the court to implead and there is failure to comply, the court may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute under Sec. 3, Rule 17.

: Either (a) the residence of the plaintiff or (b) where the non-resident’s property may be found.

The rules on venue finds no application where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. But note that the mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. It must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as “exclusively” and “waiving for this purpose any other venue,” “shall only” preceding the designation of venue, “to the exclusion of the other courts,” or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. [Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben, G.R. No. 173979 (2007)] Page 4 of 65

UP LAW BOC


A counterclaim is compulsory if: (1) It arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; (2) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (3) The court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to its amount and nature, except that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. [Metropolitan Bank and Trust v. CPR Promotions and Marketing, G.R. No. 200567 (2015)]

In determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, the following tests have been used: (1) Are the raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the defendant’s counterclaim? (4) Is there any between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a by the parties and the court? This test is the “compelling test of compulsoriness.” [Metropolitan Bank and Trust v. CPR Promotions and Marketing, G.R. No. 200567 (2015)]

It is a sworn statement in which the plaintiff or principal party certifies in a complaint or initiatory pleading: (1) That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court or tribunal, and to the best of his knowledge, no such other action is pending; (2) That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (3) That if he should learn that the same or a similar action has been filed or is pending, he shall report such fact within 5 days to the court receiving his initiatory pleading. [Sec. 5, Rule 7]

Defect

Effect Not curable by mere amendment

Failure to comply with the requirement

Cause for dismissal of the case, without prejudice unless otherwise provided as with prejudice, upon motion and after hearing Page 5 of 65

UP LAW BOC

False certification Noncompliance with any undertaking


Constitutes indirect contempt, without prejudice to administrative and criminal actions Ground for summary dismissal, with prejudice

Willful and deliberate forum shopping

Direct contempt Cause for administrative sanctions

The requirement specific to petitions filed with the appellate court simply provides as a penalty that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the listed requirements, among them the need for a certification against forum shopping, “shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.” [Heirs of Juan Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163208 (2008)]

An actionable document is the written instrument upon which the action or defense is based. [Sec. 7, Rule 8]

(1) By specific denial under oath; and (2) By setting forth what is claimed to be the facts [Sec. 8, Rule 8]

(1) The adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument, or (2) Compliance with an order for inspection of the document has been refused. Note: there must nevertheless be a specific denial in these cases. Only the oath requirement may be dispensed with.

(1) The genuineness and due execution is deemed admitted (2) The document need not be formally offered in evidence

(1)

: by specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint, the truth of which the defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support his denial; (2) : by specifying so much of an averment in the complaint as is true and material and denying only the remainder; (3) : by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, which has the Page 6 of 65

UP LAW BOC


effect of a denial. [Sec. 10, Rule 8; PBC v. Go, G.R. No. 175514 (2011)]

Amended pleadings

Supplemental pleadings

Reason for amendment is available at time of the first pleading

Grounds for supplemental pleading arose after the filing of the first pleading

Either as a matter of right or by leave of court

Always by leave of court

Supersedes the original

Merely supplements, and exists side-by-side with the original

A new copy of the entire pleading must be filed

Does not require a new copy of the entire pleading

: The service of the summons should firstly be effected on the defendant himself whenever practicable. Personal service consists either in: (a) Handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or, (b) If the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it, in tendering it to him. [Macasaet v. Co, Jr., G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]

: Yes, I will grant the motion for dismiss. The action is a real action which shall be filed in the place where the property in question is located. While the instant action is for damages arising from an alleged breach of the lease contract, it likewise prays for the fixing of the period of lease at five (5) years. If found meritorious, Boombastic will be entitled to remain not only as lessee for another five (5) years but also to the recovery of the portion earlier taken from him as well. This is because the leased premises under the original contract was the whole commercial space itself and not just the subdivided portion. While it may be that the instant complaint does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary consequence. The instant action therefore does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the case which Page 7 of 65

UP LAW BOC


is to recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, Joe Bomb. Indeed, where the of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession, partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such an action must be deemed a real action and must perforce be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.” [Paderanga vs Buissan, G.R. No. 49475 (1993)]

: Yes, but it would be subject to the discretion of the court using the indigency test. If the applicant meets BOTH the (gross income and that of their immediate family’s do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage) (does not own real property with a fair market value of more than PHP 300,000) under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is Since my client owns real property with FMV of above PHP 300,000, s/he cannot be mandatorily considered an indigent. On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the under Section 21 of Rule 3 (no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities) and use its sound in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption. [Spouses Algura v. LGU of the City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135 (2006)]

: Yes. According to Rule 6, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, “When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained.” The relief asked in Bryan’s counter-claim consists of actual and moral damages brought about by the mold in the apartment that Adam leased to him. Both Bryan and Cathy suffered the actual and moral damages alleged, and they suffered due to the same exposure to the mold. Hence, granting of complete relief to the determination of the counter-claim requires Cathy’s presence. Therefore, provided that jurisdiction over the person of Cathy can be obtained, the court shall order him to be brought in as a defendant.

Page 8 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Adam’s remedy is to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing an Order declaring him in default.

Section 3, Rule 9, allows the court to declare the defending party in default only upon motion of the claiming party with notice to such defending party and proof of such failure. In ordinary proceedings, the RTC cannot declare parties in default motu proprio. Moreover, Section 1, Rule 11 allows the defendant 15 days after service of summons to file his Answer. The facts state that Adam failed to file within 10 days from service. Therefore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding these two provisions of the Rules of Court. Adam has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Order is an interlocutory order that cannot be appealed under Rule 41, Section 1 because the RTC still has to decide on the merits of Bryan’s complaint. A motion to set aside the order of default under Rule 9, Section 3(b) is not a remedy as well because Adam’s ground in challenging the Order does not consist of failure to answer due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and existence of a meritorious defense. His ground is the trial court’s disregard of Rule 9, Section 3 and Rule 11, Section 1. Thus, the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy.

: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata). Section 3, Rule 17, states that the court may dismiss the complaint if, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief. The provision also says that such dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. Bryan failed to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief because he was preoccupied with his break-up, which is not a justifiable cause, thereby allowing the court to dismiss his complaint. Since this dismissal is on the merits, that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment is a ground to dismiss Bryan’s subsequent complaint.

: According to Sec. 12 Rule 14, the options are as follows, all with leave of court and out of the Philippines: (a) (b) (c) (d)

Personal service coursed through the foreign court with the assistance of the DFA Publication AND registered mail to last known address Facsimile or any recognized electronic means, and Other means at the discretion of the court.

Note: The same modes are available to a foreign private juridical entity without a resident agent. Page 9 of 65

UP LAW BOC


To warrant the substituted service of the summons and copy of the complaint, the serving officer must first attempt to effect the same upon the defendant in person. Only after the attempt at personal service has become futile or impossible within a reasonable time may the officer resort to substituted service. The rule on personal service is to be rigidly enforced. Being in derogation of the usual method of service, substituted service may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances authorized by statute. The impossibility of prompt personal service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant himself and the fact that such efforts failed, which statement should be found in the proof of service or sheriff’s return. Nonetheless, the requisite showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service as basis for resorting to substituted service may be waived by the defendant either expressly or impliedly. [Macasaet v. Co, Jr., G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]

If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, the service of the summons may then be effected through substituted service either (a) By leaving a copy at his residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) By leaving the copy at his office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. [Macasaet v. Co Jr., G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]

Actions in personam, are those actions brought against a person; actions in rem are actions against the thing itself instead of against the person; and actions are quasi in rem, where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his or her interest in a property to the obligation or loan burdening the property. [Perkin Elmer Singapore PTE LTD v. Dakila Trading, G.R. No. 172242 (2007)]

: Extraterritorial service is applicable in cases where: (1) Defendant is a nonresident; (2) He is not found in the Philippines; and (3) The action is either in rem. or quasi in rem [Jose v. Boyon, G.R. No. 147369 (2003)] The following cases are specifically stated by the rules: a) Those which affect the personal status of the plaintiff, b) Those which relate to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines in which defendant claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; c) Those in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Philippines, or d) Those wherein property of defendant within the Philippines has been attached

Page 10 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Service of summons is effected, (1) By

, in the following modes:

(outside of the Phils.), as under Sec. 6 , Rule 14;

(2) By (outside of the Phils.) in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as court may order AND, a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by to the last known address of defendant; or (3) In any

manner the court may deem sufficient.

It is governed by Rule 14, Section of the Rules of Court. It provides that service must be made on any of the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel.

The enumeration of persons to whom summons may be served is restricted, limited and exclusive. Substantial compliance cannot be invoked. Service of summons upon persons other than those officers specifically mentioned in Section 11, Rule 14 is void, defective and not binding to said corporation. However, if one of the persons in the enumeration empowers another to act as his/her agent to receive summons in representation, while it may be true that there was no direct, physical handing of the summons to the corporate secretary, the latter could at least be charged with having constructively received the same, which amounts to a valid service of summons. [Nation Petroleum Gas v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 183370 (2015)]

: [Riguera, p. 274] Situation

Remedy

After order declaring in default, but before judgment is rendered

Motion to the order of default, upon showing any of the following grounds: fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence [FAME], and a meritorious defense, before judgment is rendered

After judgment is rendered, but before the same becomes final and executory

Motion for under Rule 37 on the ground of FAME, before the judgment becomes final and executory

After judgment becomes final

Petition for under Rule 38 on the ground of FAME, within 60 days from notice of the judgment, but within 6 months from entry thereof (must be within both periods)

After judgment becomes final, and after the period to file petition for relief under Rule 38

Petition for under Rule 47 on the ground of extrinsic fraud, within 4 years from discovery of the extrinsic fraud

Page 11 of 65

UP LAW BOC


If grave abuse of discretion attended the grant of order of default

Special civil action for

under Rule 65

(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the defendant’s person (2) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim (3) Improper venue (4) Plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue (5) Litis pendentia (6) Res judicata (7) Prescription (8) Failure to state a cause of action (9) Extinguished claim (10) Unenforceable claim under the Statute of Frauds (11) Non-compliance with a condition precedent

Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that parties shall file with the court and serve on the adverse party their pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled pre-trial. The Rules also provide that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief shall be cause for dismissal of the action. If the trial court has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to appear at pre-trial, then the trial court also has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief. Moreover, whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular case or whether it should be set aside depends on the sound discretion of the trial court. [Republic v. Oleta, G.R. No. 156606 (2007)]

: The Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Although Section 1, Rule 18, states that “After the last pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial,” the Supreme Court has issued an administrative rule that if the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the branch clerk shall issue a Notice of Pre-Trial [AM No. 03-109-SC]. Furthermore, failing to move for pre-trial is not one of the grounds in a motion to dismiss.

:

When set

Civil (Rule 18)

Criminal (Rule 118)

After the last pleading has been served and filed (Sec. 1, Rule 18)

After arraignment and within 30 days after the court acquires

Page 12 of 65

UP LAW BOC


jurisdiction over the person of the accused (Sec. 1, Rule 118) Within five (5) days from date of filing and serving of the last pleading joining the issues (or the expiration of time to file such pleading without it having been filed), the plaintiff must promptly that the case be set for pretrial conference.

Who moves to set

After

the

arraignment, the pre-trial conference within thirty (30) days from arraignment. (A.M. No.03-01-09-SC)

If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the (A.M. No.03-01-09-SC) Mandatory

Agreements and admissions in the pretrial

Effect of appear

failure

Pre-trial brief

Yes

Yes

Not required to be signed by both party and counsel. The minutes may be signed by [Riano]

All admissions and agreements shall be reduced and writing and signed by l; otherwise they cannot be used against the accused. (Sec. 2, Rule 118)

Failure of a to appear results to the dismissal of the case with prejudice unless otherwise ordered by the court

Failure of the counsel of the accused or the prosecutor to appear without an acceptable excuse results to sanctions and penalties on the (Sec. 3, Rule 118).

to Failure of the to appear shall be cause for the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte and obtain judgment based thereon. (Sec. 5, Rule 18). Specifically required (Sec. 6, Rule 18). Failure to file PTB has same effect as failure to appear

Not specifically required.

: (a) Witness-deponent is dead (b) Witness-deponent resides more than 100 km from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the country, unless absence was procured by the proponent of the deposition (c) Disability of a witness-deponent due to age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment (d) Inability to procure attendance of witness-deponent by subpoena (e) Exceptional circumstances, when the interest of justice may require.

Page 13 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Pedro’s argument has no merit. If a demurrer is granted but later reversed on appeal, the appellate court should not remand the case for further proceedings but should render judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. [Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc., G.R. No. 143338 (2005)]. If the order granting the demurrer is reversed on appeal, the defendant loses his right to present evidence. [Sec. 1, Rule 33; Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246 (2007)].

: (1) The intervenor has legal interest: (a) In the matter in controversy; or (b) In the success of either of the parties; or (c) Against both; or (d) Is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an office thereof; (2) Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of original parties (3) Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding [Ortega v. CA, G.R. No. 125302 (1998)]

: It is one rendered upon confession made pursuant to a clause in a promissory note or contract that upon default, the holder may confess judgment as the maker’s attorney-in-fact. This is considered void in our jurisdiction for denying a party his right to a day in court [PNB vs. Manila Oil, G.R. No. L-18103 (1992)]

: It is a decision rendered by an appellate court, that incorporates by reference the findings of fact or the conclusions of law contained in the decision, order or ruling under review. To be valid, it must: (a) Provide for to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision (and not merely a remote reference); (b) Be resorted to only in cases where the by both parties and easily determinable by the judge and there are involved that will require an extended discussion of the laws involved. [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000), p. 313, citing Francisco v. Permskul, G.R. No. 81006 (1989)]

Page 14 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: [Sec. 4, Rule 23] For quashing subpoena duces tecum: (a) (b) (c) (d)

That the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive; That the articles sought do not appear prima facie relevant to the issues; That the applicant does not advance the cost for the production of the articles desired; or That there was no tender of witness fees and kilometrage.

For quashing subpoena ad testificandum (a) That the witness is not bound thereby, or (b) That there was no tender of witness fees and kilometrage.

: The viatory right of a witness is the right to not be compelled to attend in court under a subpoena if s/he resides more than 100 kilometers from his residence to where he is to testify, in the ordinary course of travel [Riguera, citing 1 Regalado, p. 300]. This viatory right applies only in civil cases, not criminal cases. [Genorga v. Quitain, A.M. No. 981-CFI (1977)]

: [Republic v. Heirs of Oribello, G.R. No. 199501 (2013)] (1)

– where all, except one, of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case, the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to others; not actually consolidation but is referred to as such

(2)

– where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identity, and become one single action in which judgment is rendered

(3)

– where several actions are ordered to be tried together, but each retains its separate character, and requires the entry of separate judgment

: Judgment on the pleadings is a judgment rendered by the court if the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. It is rendered without a trial, or even without a pre-trial. The grounds are as follows: (1) The answer fails to tender an issue because of: a. General denial of the material allegations of the complaint; b.

Insufficient denial of the material allegations of the complaint; or

(2) The answer otherwise admits material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading [Sec. 1, Rule 34] On the other hand, summary Judgment is a judgment which the court may render before trial, but after both parties have pleaded, upon application by one party supported by affidavits, depositions, or other documents, with notice upon the adverse party who may file an opposition supported also by such documents, should the court find, after summarily hearing both parties with their respective proofs, that there exists no genuine issue between them. The grounds are as follows: (1) There exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, except as to the amount of damages; and (2) The party presenting the motion must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law [Rule 35] Page 15 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Other differences are as follows [Riguera]: Judgment on the Pleadings

Summary Judgment

Based on the pleadings only

May be based on the pleadings as well as affidavits, depositions and admissions.

Requires a 3-day notice, same as the general rule for motions [Sec. 4, Rule 15]

Requires a 10-day notice. [Sec. 3, Rule 35]

No such thing as a partial judgment on the pleadings

Partial summary judgment may be allowed

May only be prayed for by the claiming party or plaintiff

May be prayed for by either claiming or defending party

: Final judgment rule

Doctrine of immutability of judgment

Applies to

Applies to orders

judgments and orders

The final judgment rule as enunciated in Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. Moreover, the remedy from an interlocutory order is not an appeal but a special civil action for certiorari. [Jose v. Javellana, G.R. No. 158239 (2012), Bersamin, J.]

judgments and

Under the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments, a judgment that has attained finality can no longer be disturbed. The reason of two-fold: 1)

To avoid delay in the administration of justice, and to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and

2) To put an end to judicial controversies at the expense of occasional errors. [Riano]

Exceptions to the final judgment rule are as Exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of follows: [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the judgment as seen in jurisprudence: Philippines (2000) p. 120] 1) Correction of [Filipinas 1) Statutory exception Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa, G.R. No. 167332 (2011)] a. for or against one or more of 2) entries [Filipinas Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa, G.R. b. for or against No. 167332 (2011)] one or more 3) Whenever c. Cases under of the decision, rendering (special proceedings): its 2) Discretionary exception . [Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land Bank of the Phils., G.R. No. 164195 a. (2010)] to accept or refuse invocations of its appellate 4) In cases of special and exceptional jurisdiction nature, when it is necessary in to direct Page 16 of 65

UP LAW BOC


3) Collateral order exception a. The decision or order determines a to the rights underlying the action and which is too important to be denied review.

Examples of cases where the particular matter (although not completely disposing of the case) is specifically declared by the Rules to be appealable are the following [Riguera, p. 580]: (1) The expropriation cases [Sec. 4, Rule 67] (2) The cases [Sec. 2, Rule 69]

in

modification in order to harmonize the disposition with the prevailing circumstances [Industrial Timber Corp. v. Ababon, G.R. No.164518 (2006)] 5) In case of [FGU Insurance v. RTC Makati, G.R. No. 161282 (2011)] 6) Where there is a strong showing that a would result from an application of the Rules [Almuete v. People, G.R. No. 179611 (2013)] 7) When

in partition

there

are

[Gochan v. Mancao, G.R. No. 182314 (2013)]

In the Philippines, a judgment or final order of a foreign tribunal cannot be enforced simply by execution. Such judgment or order merely creates a right of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of action by which a suit can be brought upon for its enforcement. An action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order in this jurisdiction is governed by Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court. The rules are silent as to what initiatory procedure must be undertaken in order to enforce a foreign judgment in the Philippines. But the filing of a civil complaint is an appropriate measure for such purpose brought before the regular courts. Recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order requires only proof of fact of the said judgment or final order. [BPI Securities v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052 (2015)]

: In case of judgment or final order upon a specific thing, it is conclusive upon the thing. In case of judgment or final order against a person, it is presumptive evidence of a right as between parties and successors in interest Foreign judgments in either case may be repelled by the following grounds: (1) Want of jurisdiction (2) Want of notice (3) Collusion (4) Fraud (5) Clear mistake of law or fact

: For a writ of preliminary injunction: Page 17 of 65

UP LAW BOC


According to jurisprudence, the requisites are: (1) Right in esse or a (2)

of that right

(3) Urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to [Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971 (2006)] Moreover, according to the rules, the grounds for issuance of a preliminary injunction are as follows [Sec. 3, Rule 58]: (1) The applicant is demanded, and such relief consist in whole or in part of restraining the commission or continuance of an act or requiring performance of an act (2) The commission, continuance, or non-performance would applicant

to the

(3) A party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, attempting to do, or is procuring to be done acts probably in violation of rights of the applicant and For a final writ of injunction: If after the trial, it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the acts complained of permanently enjoined [Sec. 9, Rule 58]

: A status quo ante order is an order to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of things that preceded the controversy, it is a remedy apart from the provisional remedies expressly recognized and made available under Rule 56 to Rule 61 of the Rules of Court. Compared to a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, it can be granted even if the affected party neither sought such relief or the allegations in his pleading nor did not sufficiently make out a case for a temporary restraining order. The status quo order was thus issued motu proprio on equitable considerations. Also, unlike a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in the nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither directs the doing or undoing of acts as in the case of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief. Further, unlike the amended rule on restraining orders, a status quo order does not require the posting of a bond. [Megaworld Properties v. Majestic Finance, G.R. No. 169694 (2015), Bersamin, J.]

: (1) Action for recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, except moral and exemplary (i) On a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict (ii) Against a party who is: (1) about to depart from the Philippines (2) with intent to defraud his creditors; (2) Action for money or property, embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by either: (a) A public officer; (b) An officer of a corporation; Page 18 of 65

UP LAW BOC


(c) An attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such; or (d) Any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty; (3) Action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, (i) When the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of (ii) To prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person; NOTE: The rule makes no distinction between real and personal property [Riano] (4) Action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, OR in the performance thereof; NOTE: The delivery of counterfeit money or knowingly issuing a bounced check are considered as grounds under this rule [Riano] (5) Action against a party who: (i) has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, (ii) with intent to defraud his creditors (6) Action against a party who: (a) Does not reside and is not found in the Philippines; or (b) On whom summons may be served by publication. NOTE: The persons on whom summons may be served by publication are: (a) Resident defendants whose identity or whose whereabouts are unknown [Sec. 14, Rule 14] (b) Resident defendants who are temporarily out of the country [Sec. 16, Rule 14

: Under the present Section 14, Rule 39, the lifetime of the writ of execution during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion, that is, within thereof [Bajet v. Baclig, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1598 (2002)]

: No. A foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 48 because it is not a foreign judgment. It may be enforced under Rule 12 of the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution, as a petition to recognize or enforce the arbitral award with any of the following RTCs: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Where the arbitration proceedings were conducted Where any of the assets to be attached or levied upon are located Where to act to be enjoined is being performed Where any of the parties to arbitration resides or has its place of business In the National Capital Judicial Region [Riguera, p. 569-570]

Page 19 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations (ten (10) years from entry [Art. 1144(3)]), a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. Once the judgment is revived, the 10year prescriptive period commences to run from the date of finality of the revived judgment and not the original judgment. [PNB v. Bondoc, G.R. No. L-20236 (1965)]

: (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. [Abacan vs. Northwestern University, Inc. G.R. No. 140777, (2005)]

: Yes. The availability of an administrative remedy via a complaint filed before the NEA precludes the filing a petition for prohibition before the court. It is settled that one of the requisites for a writ of prohibition to issue is that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In order that prohibition will lie, the petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies. [Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al vs. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840 (2012)]

: Generally, it should be filed with the , the , or the exercising jurisdiction over the area where the filed by the Solicitor General, it should be in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or an [Sec. 7, Rule 65].

If

Note: If the quo warranto under Sec. 1(c), Rule 66 (An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act), original and exclusive jurisdiction is vested on the . Hence, in these cases, the venue should be the special commercial court having jurisdiction over the area where respondent or any of the respondents reside.

Page 20 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: It is the action to recover just compensation from the State or its expropriating agency when the property taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. It is not an action for damages. In these cases, reckoning just compensation on the value at the time the owners commenced these inverse condemnation proceedings is warranted. [National Power Corporation v. Makabangkit , G.R. No. 165828 (2011), Bersamin, J.] NOTE: The case of DPWH v. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334 (2015) states that in cases where there was taking before the filing of complaint, the just compensation is based on the value The owner is then compensated in those cases by the award of interest, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of litigation, in view of the expropriating agency’s deprivation of the owners of the beneficial ownership over their property without the benefit of a timely expropriation proceeding.

The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his person. In short, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary only in the implementation of the writ, hence the requirement of service of summons prior or contemporaneous to the implementation of the writ. Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment.” This phrase refers to the date of the filing of the complaint, which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the action." The reference plainly is to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues. In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (1991), the Court clarified that whatever be the acts done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant do not and cannot bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the court. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer commences of the writ of attachment, , as explicitly required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of the . In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals (1992), the Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of attachment involves three stages: (1) the court issues the order granting the application; (2) the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ; (3) the writ is implemented. For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first obtained. However, , for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the defendant. Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that prior or contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint, the application for attachment, the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be served upon him. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service. [ Torres v. Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759 (2009)] Page 21 of 65

UP LAW BOC


The term grave abuse of discretion has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. [Metrobank v. Tobias, G.R. No. 177780 (2012), Bersamin, J.]

It is the right of the mortgagor to extinguish the collateral and retain ownership of it exercised after default in the performance of the condition of the mortgage but before the foreclosure sale of the collateral by paying the mortgage obligation. The period is no less than 90 days but no more than 120 days from the entry of judgment [Sec. 2, Rule 68] Note: This is only applicable to judicial foreclosure.

The perfection of the appeal by the defendant does not forbid the favorable action on the plaintiff’s motion for immediate execution. The execution of the decision could not be stayed by the mere taking of the appeal. Only the filing of the sufficient and the with the appellate court of the amount of rent due from time to time, coupled with the , could stay the execution. The summary nature of the special civil action under Rule 70 and the purpose underlying the mandate for an immediate execution, which is to prevent the plaintiffs from being further deprived of their rightful possession, should always be borne in mind. [Ferrer v. Judge Rabaca, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580 (2010)]

: (a) The fact of lease by virtue of a contract, express or implied; (b) The expiration or termination of the possessors right to hold possession; (c) Withholding by the lessee of possession of the land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to possess; (d) Letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate the premises; and (e) The filing of the action within one year from the date of the last demand received by the defendant [Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409 (2008)]

Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of Page 22 of 65

UP LAW BOC


a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety of different acts. [Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP, G.R. No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]

Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed in the presence of or so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or indirect contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the court. The punishment for the first is generally summary and immediate, and no process or evidence is necessary because the act is committed in facie curiae. In contrast, the second usually requires proceedings less summary than the first. The proceedings for the punishment of the contumacious act committed outside the personal knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the elements of due process of law, that is, notice, written charges, and an opportunity to deny and to defend such charges before guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed. [ Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP , G.R. No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]

: Yes. Misbehavior means something more than adverse comment or disrespect. There is no question that in contempt the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith, or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor should be considered. Where the act complained of is ambiguous or does not clearly show on its face that it is contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his rights, the presence or absence of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative of its character. A person should not be condemned for contempt where he contends for what he believes to be right and in good faith institutes proceedings for the purpose, however erroneous may be his conclusion as to his rights. To constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully and for an illegitimate or improper purpose. The test for criticizing a judges decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. [ Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP , G.R. No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]

: An appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion, or on that of the appellee on certain grounds: (1) Failure of record on appeal to show on its face that appeal was taken within the period fixed by Rules (2) Failure to file notice of appeal or record on appeal within prescribed period (3) Failure of appellant to pay docket and other lawful fees as provided in Sec. 4, Rule 41 (4) Unauthorized alterations, omissions, or additions in approved record on appeal as provided in Sec. 4, Rule 44 (5) Failure of appellant to serve and file required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within time provided by Rules (6) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to record as required in Sec. 13, (a), (c), (d), (f) of Rule 44 (7) Failure of appellant to take necessary steps for correction or completion of record within time limited by the court in its order Page 23 of 65

UP LAW BOC


(8) Failure of appellant to appear at preliminary conference under Rule 48 or comply with orders, circulars, directives of the court without justifiable cause (9) Fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable Other Grounds (1) Appeal under Rule 41 from the RTC, raising only questions of law; (2) Appeal by notice of appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction; (3) Appeals erroneously taken to the CA (4) By agreement of the parties (i.e. amicable settlement) (5) Where appealed case has become moot or academic (6) Where appeal is frivolous or dilatory

: In civil cases, an appeal may be withdrawn as a matter of right at any time before the filing of the appellee’s brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the appellate court. [Sec. 3, Rule 50] In criminal cases, withdrawal of appeal shall be subject to the following rules: (1) Before the record has been forwarded to the clerk of court of the appellate court, the MTC or RTC, withdrawal may be allowed (2) After the records have already been received by the RTC from the MTC, the RTC in its discretion may allow withdrawal provided a motion is filed before judgment on the appeal is rendered [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 252, citing Sec. 12, Rule 122]

: Yes. The appellate court has the discretion on whether or not to reinstate. The discretion to reinstate is implied from discretion to dismiss the appeal. The reinstatement should be justified by a showing of good and sufficient cause. [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 251, citing B.R. Sebastian Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 41862 (1992)]

: “An appellate court serves a dual function. The first is the , whereby the case is reviewed on appeal to assure that substantial justice has been done. The second is the , which refers to the progressive development of the law for general application in the judicial system. Differently stated, the is concerned with the justice of the particular case while the is concerned with the articulation and application of constitutional principles, the authoritative interpretation of statutes, and the formulation of policy within the proper sphere of the judicial function. With each level of the appellate structure, the review for correctness function diminishes and the institutional function, which concerns itself with uniformity of judicial administration and the progressive development of the law, increases.” [Bersamin, L.P., Appeal and Review in the Philippines, 2000, p. 355, quoted in Re: Letter complaint of Merlita B. Fabiana against presiding justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. et al., A.M. No. CA-13-51-J (2013), Bersamin, J.] Page 24 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling or order, or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceedings must disregard any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. [Sec. 6, Rule 51] “It is not enough for the counsel of the appellant to point out errors to the appellate court, for there must be a persuasive demonstration that the errors were reversible. An error is considered reversible only if it is sufficiently serious or grave that the substantial rights of the appellant are prejudiced [...]. Accordingly, when the errors are harmless, minor, or inconsequential, reversal on appeal should not be handed down by the appellate courts. The errors are harmless if they do not produce substantial prejudice to the appellant. They are minor or inconsequential if they do not affect the results of the cases differently.” [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 362]

We have likewise followed the harmless error rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. [ People v. Teehankee, G.R. Nos. 111206-08 (1995)]

Page 25 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: [Note: Comprehensive comparative table is attached as Annex]

Coverage

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Writ of Amparo

Writ of Habeas Data

All cases of illegal confinement and detention which any person is deprived of his liberty.

Involves right to life, liberty and security violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or a private individual or entity. Covers extralegal killings

Involves the right to privacy in life, liberty or security violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Deprivation of rightful custody of any person from the person entitled thereto. [Sec. 1]

and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. [Sec. 1]

[Sec. 1]

Who file

may

By the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf [Sec. 3]

The aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:

Any aggrieved party may

(1) Any member of the

However, in cases of

immediate family

extralegal killings and

(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved within the 4th civil degree of affinity or consanguinity

enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by (also successive):

(3) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution

Filing by the aggrieved suspends the right of all

file a petition.

(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved (2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity [Sec. 2]

others [Sec. 2 Where filed

(1) SC or any member

(1) SB, CA, SC, or any

(1) At the option of

thereof, on any day and

justice of such courts

petitioner, RTC

Page 26 of 65

UP LAW BOC


at any time

where:

thereof in instances

(2) RTC of place where the threat, act, or omission was committed, or any element occurred

authorized by law

[Sec. 3]

(2) CA or any member

(3) RTC or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, enforceable only within his judicial district [Sec. 2]

(a) Petitioner resides or (b) Respondent resides or (c) That which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored

(2) SC, CA, or SB – If public data files of

(4) MTC or first level courts in the absence of RTC judges in a judicial region [Sec. 35, BP 129]

government offices [Sec. 3]

No. The writ of Amparo covers enforced disappearances, which include an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government [Section 1, Rule on Writ of Amparo] as well as cases where the State refuses to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, which effectively places such persons outside the protection of the law. [Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906 (2008)] In this case, Masigasig was abducted by APKA, which, although being a civil volunteer organization, is auxiliary to the local police force and therefore serve as agents of the State, and may be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition. Page 27 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Yes. Under Sec. 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Those who may file under the rule are: a) the aggrieved party; or, b) qualified persons or entities, in the following order: any member of the immediately family (i.e. spouse, children, parents of the aggrieved party), any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consagunity or affinity, in default of the former, or any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party. In this case, Mayumi, the aggrieved party’s wife, had already filed a petititon. ALMA may no longer file the same petition.

The Writ of Amparo shall be consolidated with the criminal action. Under Sec. 23 of the Rule of Amparo, “when a criminal and separate civil action are filed subsequent to the Writ of Amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.”

No. Since her arrest and is virtue of an order lawfully issued by a judge, the writ of habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the restraint on her liberty. This is because the restraint, being lawful and pursuant to a court process, could not be inquired into through habeas corpus. Moreover, the writ of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for another available remedy. Her proper recourse was to bring the supposed irregularities attending the conduct of the preliminary investigation and the issuance of the warrant for her arrest to the attention of the City Prosecutor, following the transmittal of the records to it for appropriate action. [Mangila v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 160739 (2013), Bersamin, J.; see also Sec. 4, Rule 102]

: Preliminary Citation

Peremptory Writ

Requires the respondent to and why the peremptory writ should not be granted

A written document which commands the respondent to

Page 28 of 65

unconditionally at a

UP LAW BOC


time and place therein specified NOTE: The peremptory writ is different from the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, as stated in In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Alejano v. Cabuay , G.R. No. 160792 (2005), where it was ruled that the order to present an individual before the court is a preliminary step in the hearing of the petition. This order is not a ruling on the propriety of the remedy or on the substantive matters covered by the remedy. Thus, the order to produce the body is not equivalent to a grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

: The appeal should be within 48 hours from notice of the judgment or the final order, by ordinary appeal/notice of appeal. [See Sec. 19, Rule 102, and Sec. 3, Rule 41] Note: By virtue of Sec. 1, Rule 22, the day of the act or event from which the period begins to run is excluded and the day of the performance included. Hence, the 48-hour period starts to run on the day after the notice was received [Riguera, citing Kabigting v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-15548 (1962) and 1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium (4 th ed), p. 303]

: No. The rulings of the RTC and CA were improper. In cases involving minors, the purpose of a petition for habeas corpus is not limited to the production of the child before the court. The main purpose of the petition for habeas corpus is to determine who has the rightful custody over the child. The RTC should then conduct a trial to determine who has rightful custody over the minor. [ Bagtas v. Santos, G.R. No. 166682 (2009)]

: The interim reliefs are available upon the filing of the petition and anytime thereafter until final judgment. For petitioners: the interim reliefs for the petitioners are the following: Temporary Protection Order (TPO), Inspection Order (IO), Production Order (PO), and Witness Protection Order (WPO). The TPO and WPO may be granted upon motion or by the court motu proprio, while the IO and PO are upon motion. For respondents: IO and PO are available upon motion. Temporary Order (TPO)

Protection

Petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family shall be protected in a government agency or

Inspection Order (IO)

Production Order (PO)

Witness Protection Order (WPO)

Direct any person in possession or

Direct any person in possession,

Refer the witnesses to

control of a designated land or other

custody or control of any designated

(a) The Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection,

property, to permit entry

documents,

Security

Page 29 of 65

papers,

and

Benefit

UP LAW BOC

by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers concerned. [Sec. 14(a)]


for the purpose of

books, accounts,

Program.

inspecting, measuring, surveying, or

letters, photographs, objects or tangible

photographing the property or any relevant

things, or objects in digitized or electronic

(b) Other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and

object or operation thereon. [Sec. 14(b)]

form which constitute or contain evidence

securing their [Sec. 14(d)]

safety.

relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant [Sec. 14(c)]

: Any party may appeal the final judgment or order within 5 working days from notice of the final judgment or order (or MR/MNT denying it) to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact and law, or both. [Sec. 19 and 25, Rule on Writ of Amparo; Sec. 19 and 24, Rule on Writ of Habeas Data]

: (1) Where the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in question shall or , or (2) When the data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its . [Sec. 12]

or

.: No. To "engage" means "to do or take part in something." It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. Thus, the defense that the respondent is not Page 30 of 65

UP LAW BOC


engaged in the business of gathering, storing and collecting data is erroneous [ Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)].

Page 31 of 65

UP LAW BOC

REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]

: The 1st paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110 provides the rules for amendment of the information or complaint, while the 2 nd paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint. Both amendment and substitution of the information may be made before or after the defendant pleads, but they differ in the following respects:

Amendment

Substitution

May involve either formal or substantial changes

Necessarily involves a substantial change from the original charge

If before plea, may be effected without leave of court

Must be with leave of court as the original information has to be dismissed

If only as to form, there is no need for another preliminary investigation and the retaking of plea of the accused

Another preliminary investigation is entailed and the accused has to plead anew to the new information

An amended information refers to the same offense charged in the original information or to an offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the original charge, hence substantial amendments to the information after the plea has been taken cannot be made over the objection of the accused, for if the original information would be withdrawn, the accused could invoke double jeopardy.

Substitution requires or presupposes that the new information involves a different offense which does not include or is not necessarily included in the original charge, hence the accused cannot claim double jeopardy. [Teehankee v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992]

: The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the CA and the Supreme Court is vested solely in the OSG. The OSG shall have the following specific powers and functions: 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 and 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. [Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV, 1987 Administrative Code] The Solicitor-General is the lawyer of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore, service on the OSG is the proper basis for computing the reglementary period for filing appeals and for finality of decisions. Service on the deputized lawyer is insufficient and not valid and binding on the OSG. [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000), p. 157-158] The respondent’s failure to have a copy of his petition [for review under Rule 42] served on the People of the Philippines, through the OSG, is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition as provided in Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court [People v. Duca, G.R. 171175 (2009)]

Page 32 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: [Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677 (2010)] (1) In cases of inquest proceedings, before the filing of the complaint or information in court, the arrested person has the option to avail of a , provided he duly signs a waiver of Article 125 of the RPC. The decision of the inquest prosecutor is not appealable to the DOJ, since such remedy applies only in cases subject of preliminary investigation / reinvestigation. (2) Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the accused may ask for a from the time he learns of its filing. (3) The accused may also move for a (4) In cases, however, where a re-investigation was already conducted by the prosecution upon motion of the private complainant after the filing of the information but before arraignment, and the accused failed to actively participate in such re-investigation despite his knowledge of such, the accused is barred from praying for a conduct of preliminary investigation, there being no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation.

: Bail is a matter of right: (1) (2)

or

conviction by the MTC;

conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. [Sec. 4, Rule 114].

Bail is a matter of discretion (1)

conviction of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment evidence of guilt is not strong;

(2)

conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. [Sec. 5, Rule 114]:

Bail should be denied: (1)

conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment

(2)

conviction by the RTC and the penalty imposed is imprisonment exceeding 6 years, and upon a showing by the prosecution of the following or similar circumstances [Sec. 5, Rule 114]: a. Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or habitual delinquency or commission of a crime aggravated by reiteration of the accused; b. The accused previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence or violated bail conditions without valid justification;

Page 33 of 65

UP LAW BOC

c.


Commission of offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon by the accused;

d. Probability of flight; e. Undue risk that the accused may commit another crime during pendency of appeal. (3) Upon finality of the judgment of conviction, unless the accused applied for probation [Sec. 24, Rule 114]

: Under Sec. 3(b), Rule 119, any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of a witness shall be excluded in computing the time for trial. The absent witness must be essential and his whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined with due diligence.

: A demurrer to evidence is an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue” [Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 (2007). It can be filed by the accused after the prosecution rests its case with or without leave of court. If filed with leave and the court denies the demurrer the accused can present evidence in his defense. On the other hand, if filed without leave the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and the court will render judgment based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. If the court grants the demurrer it will dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. This amounts to an acquittal for the accused [Sec. 23, Rule 119]

: Petition for certiorari may be the proper remedy. The special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that "the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment."

Page 34 of 65

UP LAW BOC


However, the Supreme Court’s constitutionally granted judicial power to correct grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure. Thus, . [Macapagal-Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 220598 (2016), Bersamin, J.]

: [Sec. 6, Rule 120] General Rule Judgment must be promulgated in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. Exceptions/Qualifications When the judge is absent or outside of the province or city

Judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.

if the conviction is for a light offense

Judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative

If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city

Judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment.

If the accused fails to attend the promulgation even if he was notified thereof, or if he jumped bail, or if he escaped from prison

Judgment may be validly promulgated in absentia by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel

: An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether or not it is made the subject of assignment of errors [ People v. Calayca, G.R. No. 121212 (1999)]

: An arrest incidental to a lawful arrest is valid when: (1) The arrest preceded the search; (2) The arrest is valid

Page 35 of 65

UP LAW BOC


(3) The search is confined to the person arrested, but as an incident of an arrest, the place or premises where the arrest was made can also be searched without a search warrant. The extent and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. Assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence. [Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 204589 (2014)]

: In cases of consented searches, it must first appear that: (1) The right exists; (2) The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) The said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right [ People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 (2007)]. Relevant to the determination of consent are the following characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (1) The age of the defendant; (2) Whether he was in a public or secluded location; (3) Whether he objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) The education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) The presence of coercive police procedures; (6) The defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found; (7) The nature of the police questioning; (8) The environment in which the questioning took place; and (9) The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting [ Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292 (2002)].

: The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary or final. There are however exceptions, among which are: (1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice; (4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;

Page 36 of 65

UP LAW BOC


(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) Where the charges are manifestly false; and (10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65 (1990)]

: [Rule 111, Sec. 1] General rule: The civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed instituted with the criminal action. Exception: The civil action is not deemed so instituted if the offended party: (1) Waives the civil action; (2) Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or (3) Reserves the right to institute it separately. Instances where reservation to file the civil action separately shall not be allowed: (1) B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1 [b], Rule 111] (2) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan [P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249, Sec. 4] (3) Tax cases [R.A. 9282, Sec. 7 [b][1]]

No. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. An action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The extinguishment of the criminal and civil liability arising from an exdelicto will not bar the private offended party from pursuing his claim for damages against the executor or administrator of the former's estate, notwithstanding the fact that he did not reserve the right to institute a separate civil action based on Article 33 of the Civil Code. [ Villegas v. Court of Appeals (1997)]

Page 37 of 65

UP LAW BOC


To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. Here legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he never entered a valid plea. He himself admitted that he was just about to enter a plea, but the first case was dismissed even before he was able to do so. Second, there was no unconditional dismissal of the complaint. The case was not terminated by reason of acquittal nor conviction but simply because he posted bail. Absent these two elements, there can be no double jeopardy. [Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442 (2015), applying Rule 117 Sec. 7]

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. [ Rule 113, Sec. 5, Sec. 14]

I would advise Mr. X to proceed with the filing of the application for bail, considering that under Section 26 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, an application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. [Rule 114, Sec. 26]

: [Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847 (2015, MR in 2016), Bersamin, J.] (1) The detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) There exist special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances.

Page 38 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Yes. Under Section 2 of RA 7438, custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of law. Jurisprudence also provides that custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. [Sec. 2, RA 7438; People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 199877 (2012)]

Yes. Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides for the “variance doctrine” which allows conviction for an offense that is different from the one charged in the Information when the offense proved is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved. Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, R and E can properly be convicted of possession of drugs.

: The Supreme Court has ruled that Neypes doctrine (“fresh period” after denial of MR/MNT) should equally apply to criminal cases since although Rule 41 Section 3 of the Rules on Civil Procedure and Rule 122 Section 6 on the Rules of Criminal Procedure are differently worded, there is no substantial difference between the two provisions insofar as legal results are concerned. [ Yu v. SamsonTatad, G.R. No. 170979 (2011)]

Page 39 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Yes, although the rule on prejudicial question only pertains to civil cases, the rules on prejudicial question may be applied in analogous situations where an issue in an administrative case was considered a prejudicial question to the resolution of a civil case which, consequently, warranted the suspension of the latter until after termination of the administrative proceedings. [ Quiambao v. Osorio (1988)] Here, the action for specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial question that sufficed to suspend the proceedings determining the criminal charge. The action for specific performance in the HLURB would determine whether or not S, the buyer, was legally entitled to demand the delivery of the TCTs, while the criminal action would decide whether or not B’s directors and officers were criminally liable for withholding the TCTs. This is true simply because the action for specific performance was an action civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the HLURB, whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. [San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. Perez (2013)]. Note: Section 7 of Rule 111 clearly states that in the elements of a prejudicial question, the previous action instituted is a civil action.

Page 40 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the: (1) existence and territorial extent of states, (2) their political history, (3) forms of government and (4) symbols of nationality; (5) the law of nations, (6) the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, (7) the political constitution and history of the Philippines, (8) the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, (9) the laws of nature, (10) the measure of time, and (11) the geographical divisions [Sec. 1, Rule 129]

: A court

take judicial notice of matters which are:

(1) of public knowledge, or (2) are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or (3) ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. [Sec. 2, Rule 129]

: For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that: (1) he was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and (2) he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission. [ People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528 (2011)]

: Extrajudicial Confession

Extrajudicial Admission

A declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense

An act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact [Sec. 26, Rule 130]

Page 41 of 65

UP LAW BOC


necessarily included therein [Sec. 33, Rule 130] In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt

The term admission is usually applied to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the intent to commit the offense.

A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged

An admission may be express or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt

In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. [ People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 (1995)]. Note however, that under Section 3 of Rule 133, even an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

Judicial [Sec. 4, Rule 129]

Extrajudicial [Secs. 26 and 32, Rule 130]

Made in connection with a judicial proceeding in which it is offered

Any other admission as to a relevant fact

Requires no proof, thus, deemed automatically part of the case

May be given in evidence, thus, must still be formally offered in evidence

May be contradicted by showing that that either a) it was made through palpable mistake or b) that no such admission was made

Rebuttable

Verbal or written.

Act, declaration, omission, or silence.

: Situation

What to present instead

When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the offeror’s part.

In the order stated: (a) By a copy (b) By a recital of its contents in some authentic document (c) By the testimony of witnesses [Rule 130, Sec. 5]

When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom it is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice.

In the order stated: (a) By a copy (b) By a recital of its contents in some authentic document

Page 42 of 65

UP LAW BOC


(c) By the testimony of witnesses [Rule 130, Sec. 5]

When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole.

The general result of the whole.

When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office

Certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof

: Best Evidence Rule

Parol Evidence Rule

Contemplates the situation wherein the original Presupposes that the original document is writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as available in court to whether said writing is the original Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary evidence in lieu of the original document Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written regardless of WON it varies the contents of the agreement original Applies to all kinds of documents

Applies only to documents contractual in nature (Exception: wills)

Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless Can be invoked only when the controversy is of WON such party participated in the writing between the parties to the written agreement, involved their privies or any party directly affected thereby

(1) There must be a communication made by the client to the attorney or an advice given by the attorney to his client; (2) The communication must have been given in confidence; (3) The communication or advice must have been given either in the course of the professional employment or with a view to professional employment; and (4) The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony thereon.

Page 43 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk are also covered by the rule and cannot be examined concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity without the consent of the client AND their employer.

: No. It is inadmissible. The Offer of Compromise dated 5 December 2000 was made prior to the filing of the criminal complaint against her on 9 March 2001 for a violation of the Bouncing Checks Law. The Offer of Compromise was clearly not made in the context of a criminal proceeding and, therefore, cannot be considered as an implied admission of guilt. [San Miguel v. Kalalo, G. R. No. 185522, June 13, 2012]

: (1)

The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

(2) (3)

. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.

(4)

Where one derives title to property from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former. [Sections 29-31, Rule 130]

: Generally, no. It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence can be presented, all duplicates and/or counterparts must be accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the original documents can be regarded as established until all its parts are unavailable. However, the exception is when the opposing party fails to object to the evidence being presented, the same becomes primary evidence. [Heirs of Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 117384 (1998)]

: The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence to the effect that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his own knowledge or derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in the Rules of Court [Sec. 36, Rule 130]

Page 44 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Hearsay Evidence

Opinion Evidence

Testimony that is not based on personal knowledge of the person testifying (Sec 36, Rule 130).

Expert evidence based on the personal knowledge, skill, experience of the person testifying. (Sec 49, Rule 130) It includes evidence of an ordinary witness on limited matters (as enumerated under Sec 50, Rule 130).

: Independently relevant statements are those statements or writings attributed to a person not on the witness stand, which are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein, but only to prove that such were actually made. [People v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-20986 (1965)] These are statements which are relevant independently of whether they are true or not. [ Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710 (2001)] Jurisprudence has enumerated two classes of independently relevant statements: (1) Statements which are the very facts in issue, and (2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue, which include the following: i.

Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his mental condition, knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other emotions;

ii.

Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness and the like;

iii.

Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind of another, that is, the knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;

iv.

Statements which may identify the date, place and person in question; and

v.

Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. [ Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710 (2001)]

These statements are

[People v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-20986 (1965))

Page 45 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Antonio’s objection is overruled. While it is true that as a general rule, neither the husband or wife, during the marriage, may testify for or against the other without the consent of the offended spouse, the rules provide for exceptions in the following cases: (1) In a civil case by one against the other; and (2) In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants [Sec. 22, Rule 130]. Since the crime of arson was also committed against the spouse (a private offended party), the marital privilege rule should not apply in this case. Moreover, in Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005), the court stated that the marital disqualification rule does not apply when the marital and domestic relations between spouses are strained. The court found a situation where the security and confidences of private life which the law aims to protect are nothing but ideals which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy home. Thus, there is no reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule.

[Sec. 23, Rule 130] (1) Defendant is the executor or administrator or a representative of the deceased or of the person of unsound mind; (2) Suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or person of unsound mind; (3) Witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in whose behalf the case is prosecuted; and (4) Subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind. (5) Applicable only in civil cases

: Burden of Proof

Burden of Evidence

Duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. [Sec. 1, Rule 131]

Duty of the party to go forward with the evidence to overthrow the prima facie evidence against him. [Bautista v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 (1985)]

Does not shift as it remains throughout the trial with the party upon whom it is imposed.

Shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of the trial.

Generally determined by the pleadings filed by the party.

Generally determined by the developments at the trial or by the provisions of substantive law or procedural rules which may relieve the party from presenting evidence on the fact

Page 46 of 65

UP LAW BOC


alleged i.e. presumptions, judicial notice and admissions.

: No, because of the substantial gaps in the chain of custody, i.e. the marking of the drugs or related items was not proven to have been made in the presence of A nor immediately after A’s arrest, and no records on the transfer of custody from the police station to the laboratory. [ People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417 (2013)] To secure a conviction of the accused charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the State must establish the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer; and (b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. There is no proven violation when the dangerous drugs are missing, or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. [Sec. 1(b), DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002]

: The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential norms considered by the court in assessing the . In People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656 (2002), it was held that in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, among other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. NOTE: The Vallejo standard was incorporated in Sec. 7 of the Rule on DNA Evidence, as follows: (1) The chain of custody a. including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples; (2) The DNA testing methodology b. including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;

Page 47 of 65

UP LAW BOC


(3) The forensic DNA laboratory c.

including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and

(4) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

: No, unless they are computer-generated faxes. According to jurisprudence, although fax printouts or transmissions fall under the definition of an electronic data message since it is sent through electronic means, it is not an electronic document since in ordinary facsimile transmissions there exists an original paper-based information that is scanned or copied. Fax transmissions therefore do not fall under the functional equivalent rule. The rule on electronic evidence considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as a functional equivalent of a written document for evidentiary purposes. A printout must thus first fall under the definition of an electronic document to be considered a written document. In ordinary fax printouts, since the original data is not made electronically, then it is inadmissible if unauthenticated with the original written document [MCC Industrial v Ssangyong, G.R. No. 170633 (2007)]

: Yes, it can be admitted both as a dying declaration and as part of res gestae. As a dying declaration: A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely: (1) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; (3) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and (4) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim. In this case, Mr. B communicated his ante-mortem statement to his uncle, identifying Mr. S as the person who had stabbed him. There is ample authority for the view that the declarant’s belief in the imminence of his death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from circumstantial evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of his physician.

Page 48 of 65

UP LAW BOC


As part of the res gestae: A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. Here, the startling occurrence was the stabbing by Mr. S. Mr. B was on board a taxi on the way to the hospital, and thus had no time to contrive his identification of Mr. S as the assailant. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. [People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476 (2012), Bersamin, J.]

Yes, the text message is admissible as a dying declaration since it came from X who died shortly thereafter and it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death. His belief that he is dying is evident from his statement that the wound was fatal, the other contents of the message, and the fact that he died shortly after he sent the text message. Text messages (which are ephemeral electronic communications) are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a to the same has of them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in their possession, the parents are parties to the conversation and was competent to testify on them. [ People v. Enojas, G.R. 204894 (2014) citing Sec.2, Rule 11, Rule on Electronic Evidence] NOTE: The coverage of the Rule on Electronic Evidence was expanded to include criminal cases in SC Resolution dated 24 September 2002. [Sec. 2, Rule 1]

: In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of compromise may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. [Sec. 27, Rule 130] Note, however, that in one case the Court ruled that the testimony of complainant’s father that the made two offers to settle with the knowledge of the accused, should be taken as an implied admission of the guilt of the accused. [ People v. Salvador , G.R. No. 136870-72 (2003)]

Page 49 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Extrajudicial Confession

Extrajudicial Admission

A declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein [Sec. 33, Rule 130]

An act, declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact [Sec. 26, Rule 130]

In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt

The term admission is usually applied to statements of fact by the accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or of the intent to commit the offense.

A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged

An admission may be express or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt

In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. [People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 (1995)]. Note however, that under Section 3 of Rule 133, even an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.

: The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. [Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612 (2008)] In a civil case, when the evidence of the parties is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the party with the burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied. [ Marubeni v. Lirag, Lirag , G.R. No. 130998, (2001)]

: Yes, the result of the testing can be offered is admissible evidence. Firstly, the right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged, right to privacy, and against self-incrimination of the accused are not violated because the compulsory testing is authorized by law. The court may compel the accused to submit himself to a blood test to determine whether he has HIV under Section 17(a) of RA No. 8054. Further, the right against self-incrimination refers to compulsory testimonial compulsion and does not include the body of the accused as evidence when it may be material. [Tijing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125901 (2001); Sec. 1, Rule 28] Secondly, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only where the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, or was the result of an illegal act. [People v. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487 (1995)]

Page 50 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: Yes, it is applicable to criminal actions in the following situations: (1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years; (2) where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved; or (3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are. [Sec 9(a), Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC]

: A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a leading question. [Sec 10, Rule 132] General Rule: Not allowed. Exceptions: (1) On cross examination; examination; (2) On preliminary matters; (3) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute; (4) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; (5) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party; [Sec. 10, Rule 132] (6) In all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice [Sec 20, Rule on Examination of Child Witness]

: The record of public documents when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, it may be evidenced with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. [Sec. 24, Rule 132]

: (1) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it: (2) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. [Sec. 2, Rule 131]

Page 51 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Page 52 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: The prohibited pleadings are generally identical as to both rules, except that motions to dismiss are not allowed in Small Claims, no matter the ground, as compared to Summary Procedure which allows MTD if based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to comply with barangay conciliation. Summary Procedure [Sec. 19, Rule on Summary

Small Claims [Sec. 16, Rule for Small Claims]

Procedure] (1) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of (a) Failure to comply with barangay conciliation proceedings; or

(1) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claims [2016 Revised Rules prohibits any motion to dismiss, unlike the previous rules which allowed an exception for the ground of lack of jurisdiction] (2) Motion for a bill of particulars;

(b) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of

(2) Motion for a bill of particulars;

a judgment, or for reopening of trial;

(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration, or for reopening of trial;

(4) Petition for relief from judgment;

(4) Petition for relief from judgment;

affidavits, or any other paper;

(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper;

prohibition against any interlocutory order

(7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or

issued by the court;

prohibition against any interlocutory order

(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

issued by the court;

(9) Dilatory motions for postponement;

(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

(10) Reply;

(6) Memoranda; (7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or

(6) Memoranda;

(9) Dilatory motions for postponement;

(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,

(10) Reply and Rejoinder; (11) Third-party complaints; and (12) Interventions.

(11) Third-party complaints; and (12) Interventions.

Page 53 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: I will advise him that the remedy available is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the RTC. The Rule expressly states that the decision in small claims cases shall be final, executory, and unappealable. [Sec. 24]. Given that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper, provided that there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Observing the hierarchy of courts, the petition should be filed in the RTC. [A.L. Ang v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804 (2014)]

: No. The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de novo. Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that “[t]he judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court. Hence, the RTC’s action are contrary to the rule by allowing further presentation of witnesses for its doing so was tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. [Manalang v. Bacani, G.R. No. 156995 (2015), Bersamin, J.]

: SLAPP refers to a legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that any person, institution or the government has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights. [Sec. 1, Rule 6, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases]. To support a defense of a claim of SLAPP, must be shown that the acts for enforcement of environmental laws are legitimate acts for the protection, preservation or rehabilitation of the environment. The party against whom the defense of SLAPP is invoked should prove by a that the action is not a SLAPP and is a valid claim. [Sec. 2 and 3, Rule 6] NOTE: In a criminal case, the invocation of the defense of SLAPP is made in a rather than a motion to quash. Moreover, granting a motion to dismiss bars the refiling of a SLAPP in accordance with the law of the case. In contrast, the grant of a motion to quash does not bar the filing of a subsequent Information. [Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Supreme Court Sub-Committee]

Page 54 of 65

UP LAW BOC


: As to damages: No. The only recourse of a party or person who wishes to recover damages for injury suffered is to file a separate action under Sec. 4, Rule 2. [Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Supreme Court Sub-Committee] As to attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses: Yes. [Rule 5, Sec. 1]

: The precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat [Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Sec. 4(f), Rule 1] As to its application, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status quo. By applying the precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. [ISAAA v. Greenpeace, G.R. No. 209271 (2015)] It is a principle of last resort, only when application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an for the environmental plaintiff, for example: (a) settings in which the risks of harm are (b) settings in which harm might be

and what is lost is

; and

(c) settings in which the harm that might result would be When the features of uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious harm coincide, the case for application of the precautionary principle is strongest [ISAAA v. Greenpeace, supra]

Page 55 of 65

UP LAW BOC


!"#$%&%'()* ,%-.* "/ '0* 1&('2 3/ 4%-*%2 !"&$526 7#$%&"6 %89 4%-*%2 :%'% ;:* <*"8= Habeas Corpus (1) All

cases

Amparo of

which any person is deprived of his liberty

Involves

of any person from the person entitled [Sec. 1]

violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or a private individual or entity

(2)

Nature, scope, function

Habeas Data

Actual violation before writ issues.

Involves the

Covers and

NOTE: Villavicencio v. Lukban (G.R. No. L-14639, 1919) on applicability of the writ in case of constructive restraint.

Limitations

thereof. [Sec. 1]

May not be suspended Shall not diminish, Shall not diminish, except in cases of invasion increase or modify increase or modify or rebellion when public substantive rights [Sec. substantive rights [Sec. safety requires it [Sec. 15, 23] 23] Art. III, 1987 Const.] Petition filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:

(1)

Who may file

violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. [Sec. 1]

By a petition signed and verified by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf [Sec. 3]

Any member of the immediate family

ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved within the 4th civil degree of affinity or consanguinity

Any aggrieved party may file a petition.

However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by (also successive):

(2) Any

(1)

Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved

(2) Any (3) Any concerned citizen,

Page 56 of 65

ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of

UP LAW BOC


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

Habeas Data

organization, association institution

the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity [Sec. 2 ]

or

Filing by the aggrieved suspends the right of all others [Sec. 2 ] (1)

(1) SC or any member thereof, on any day and at any time

Where filed

At the option of petitioner, RTC where: (a) Petitioner resides or

(2) CA or any member thereof in instances authorized by law

(1) SB, CA, SC, or any justice of such courts

(b) Respondent resides or

(3) RTC or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, enforceable only within his judicial district [Sec. 2 ]

(2) RTC of place where the threat, act, or omission was committed or any element occurred [Sec. 3]

(c) That which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored

(4) MTC or first level courts in the absence of RTC judges in a judicial region [Sec. 35, BP 129]

(2) SC, CA, or SB – If

public data files of government offices [Sec. 3]

If

Where enforceable

Where returnable

If granted by the , it is enforceable in any part of the [Sec. 21, BP 129 which modified the term judicial district in Sec. 2 , Rule 102 into judicial region] where the judge sits

[Sec. 4]

[Sec. 3]

If issued by:

If issued by:

If issued by:

(1) SC/CA, or a member thereof, returnable before such court or any member thereof or an RTC

(1) SC or any of its justices, returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or before the CA/SB or

(1) SC or any of its justices, before such Court or any justice thereof, or CA/SB or any of its justices,

Page 57 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

(2) RTC, or a judge thereof, returnable before himself [Sec. 2 ]

any of their justices, or to any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred (2) CA/SB or any of their justices, returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any RTC of the place where the threat, act, or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred (3) RTC or any judge thereof, returnable before such court or judge [Sec. 3]

Habeas Data or the RTC of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides/has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, stored or collected (2) CA/SB or any of its justices, before such court or any justice thereof, or RTC (same with scenario: SC issued and then returned in RTC) (3) RTC, returnable before such court or judge [Sec. 4] None

Petitioner

Docket Fees

Essential allegations/ Contents of petition

Upon the final disposition of such proceedings the court or judge shall make such order as to costs as the case requires [Sec. 19]

shall be from the payment of the docket and other lawful fees

for

Court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately [Sec 4]

Petition shall be docketed and acted upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later than 15 days from filing [Sec. 5]

Signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by some person on his behalf, setting forth:

Signed and verified and shall allege:

Verified and written petition shall contain:

(1) The personal circumstances of the petitioner

(1) The person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty

(2) Name or appellation and circumstances of the respondent

(1) Personal circumstances of petitioner and respondent

(2) Name of the person detaining another or

(3) The right to life, liberty, and security violated or threatened with

Page 58 of 65

(2) Manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and its effects (3) Actions and recourses taken by

UP LAW BOC


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

assumed appellation

violation,

(3) Place where he is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty (4) Cause of [Sec. 3]

detention

(4) The investigation conducted, if any, plus circumstances of each (5) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner (6) Relief prayed for

May include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs [Sec. 5]

Court or judge must, when a petition is presented and it appears that it ought to issue, grant the same and then:

-

When proper

the clerk of court (CoC) shall issue the writ under the seal of the court or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his own hand, and may depute any officer or person to serve it

Also proper to be issued when the court or judge has examined into the cause of restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned [Sec. 5]

Service

Habeas Data

Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice, or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue

-

CoC shall issue the writ under the seal of the court or

-

In case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it. [Sec. 6 ]

Writ may be served in any The writ shall be served province by the (a) sheriff, upon the respondent by a (b) other proper officer, or judicial officer or by a (c) person deputed by the person deputized by the court, justice or judge court or judge. who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of

Page 59 of 65

the petitioner to secure the data or information (4) The location of the files, registers, or databases, the government office, and the person in charge or control (5) The reliefs prayed for

Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable [Sec. 6 ] Upon filing of the petition, the court, justice, or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue.

-

CoC shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be served within 3 days from issuance or

-

In case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it [Sec. 7 ]

The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a

UP LAW BOC


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

Habeas Data

Service is made by leaving the original with the person to whom it is directed and preserving a copy on which to make return of service.

service.

return of service.

In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply [Sec. 8]

In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply [Sec. 9]

If that person cannot be found, or has not the prisoner in his custody, service shall be made on any other person having or exercising such custody [Sec. 7 ]

May or may not be an officer [Sec. 6 ]

Respondent

Respondent is a public official or employee or private individual or entity [Sec. 1]

A public official or employee or a private individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting or storing data [Sec. 1]

Respondent files return [Sec. 9]

Respondent files return [Sec. 10]

The officer to whom the writ is directed shall convey the person so imprisoned or restrained before:

How executed and returned

-

the judge allowing the writ, or

-

in his absence or disability, before some other judge of the same court

the

the

on the day specified in the writ, unless person directed to be produced is sick or infirm, and cannot, without danger, be brought therein. Officer shall then make due return of the writ, with the day and cause of the caption and restraint according to the command thereof [Sec. 8] When to return

file

On the day specified on the writ [Sec. 8]

Within 5 working days after service of the writ [Sec. 9]

Contents

of

When the person to be

Within 5 working days (1) Lawful

Page 60 of 65

Same as Amparo [Sec. 10] defenses

UP LAW BOC

return


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

produced is imprisoned or restrained by an officer, the person who makes the return shall state, and in other cases the person in whose custody the prisoner is found shall state in writing to the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable:

after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, contain:

(1) Truth of custody/power over the aggrieved party

(1) Lawful defenses (2) The steps or actions taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party

(2) If he has custody or (3) All relevant power, or under information in the restraint, the authority possession of the and the cause thereof, respondent pertaining with a copy of the writ, to the threat, act or order, execution or other omission against the process, if any upon aggrieved party which the party is held (4) If the respondent is a (3) If the party is in his public official or custody or power, and is employee, the return not produced, shall further state particularly the nature acts: and gravity of the (a) To verify identity of sickness or infirmity aggrieved party (4) If he has had the party in (b) To recover and his custody or power, preserve evidence and has transferred such custody or restraint to (c) To identify and another, particularly to collect witness whom, at what time, for statements what cause, and by what (d) To determine authority such transfer cause, manner, was made. [Sec. 10] location, and time of death or disappearance (e) To identify and apprehend persons involved (f) Bring suspected offenders before a competent court [Sec.9]

Page 61 of 65

Habeas Data such as national security, state secrets, privileged communications, confidentiality of the source of information of media etc. (2) In

case of respondent incharge, in possession or in control of the data or information subject of the petition:

(a) A disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection (b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of the data or information (c) The currency and accuracy of the data or information held (3) Other

allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding [Sec.10]

UP LAW BOC

Formalities return


of

Penalties

For refusing to issue or serve

For return

faulty

Habeas Corpus

Amparo

Habeas Data

Return or statement shall be signed and sworn to by the person who makes it if the prisoner is not produced, unless the return is made and signed by a sworn public officer in his official capacity [Sec. 11]

Respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits [Sec. 9]

Respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits [Sec. 10]

(1) Contempt without (1) CoC who refuses to issue without prejudice to other the writ after allowance (1) Contempt prejudice to other disciplinary actions and demand, or disciplinary actions (a) CoC who refuses (2) A person to whom a writ (a) CoC who refuses to to issue the writ is directed, who: issue the writ after after its (a) neglects/refuses to its allowance, or allowance, or obey or make return (b) A deputized person (b) A deputized of the same according who refuses to person who to the command serve the writ [Sec. refuses to serve thereof, 7 ] the writ [Sec. 8] (b) or makes false return, (2) Contempt punishable (2) Contempt punishable (c) or upon demand by imprisonment or a by imprisonment or a made by or on behalf fine fine of the prisoner, (a) A respondent (a) A respondent refuses to deliver to whorefuses to whorefuses to the person make a return, or make a return, or demanding, within 6 hours a true copy of the warrant or order of commitment,

(b) A respondent who makes a false return, or

(b) A respondent who makes a false return, or

shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of P1000, recoverable in a proper action, and may also be punished for contempt [Sec. 16 ]

(c) Any person who otherwise disobeys or resist a lawful process or order of the court [Sec. 16 ]

(c) Any person who otherwise disobeys or resist a lawful process or order of the court [Sec. 11]

No, not even on highly meritorious grounds.

Yes, for justifiable reasons [Sec. 10]

Motion for extension of time to file a return is a prohibited pleading [Sec. 11]

: Motion for extension of time to file a return is a prohibited pleading [Sec. 13]

Is a general denial allowed?

Not allowed [Sec. 9]

Not allowed [Sec. 10]

Defenses pleaded

Deemed waived if not raised in return [Sec. 10]

Is period of return extendable?

not

Page 62 of 65

UP LAW BOC


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

Habeas Data

Court, judge, or justice shall hear the motion ex parte, granting the petitioner such reliefs as the petition may Court or justice shall warrant proceed to hear the petition ex parte [Sec. 12 ]

Effect of failure to file return

Unless the court in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence [Sec. 14] Summary. Summary.

Nature Hearing

However, the court, justice, or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and look at possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.

of

Hearing shall be from day to day until completed same priority as petitions for Habeas Corpus [Sec. 13]

Date and time of hearing

As specified in the writ [Sec . 8]

As specified in the writ, not later than 7 days from the issuance of the writ [Sec. 6 ]

With possibility of preliminary conference similar to Amparo [Sec. 14]

Hearing in chambers may be conducted where respondent invokes the defense of national security or state secrets, or the data is of privileged character [Sec. 12 ] As specified in the writ, not later than 10 working days from the date of issuance writ [Sec. 7 ]

(1) Motion to dismiss

Prohibited pleadings

(2) Motion for extension of time to file opposition, affidavit, In : a position paper and motion to dismiss, other pleadings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction [Sec. 6, Rule on (3) Dilatory motion for Custody of Minors and WHC ] postponement (4) Motion for particulars (5) Counterclaims

Page 63 of 65

bill

of or

Same as Amparo [Sec. 13]

UP LAW BOC


Habeas Corpus

Amparo

Habeas Data

cross-claims (6) Third-party complaint (7) Reply (8) Motion to declare respondent in default (9) Intervention (10) Memorandum (11) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders (12) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition [Sec.11] Substantial evidence •

Burden of Proof/Standard of Diligence

Clear and convincing evidence [Dizon v. Eduardo, G.R. No. L-59118 (1988)]

Presumption of Official Duty

Yes. Consonant with Sec. 13, stating that if warrant of commitment is in pursuance with law, serves as prima facie cause of restraint

•

if respondent is a private individual or entity, ordinary diligence if public official or employee, extraordinary diligence [Sec. 17 ]

Public official or employee the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed [Sec. 17 ] Upon filing of the petition or at any time before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:

Interim reliefs

-

temporary protection order

-

inspection order

-

production order

-

witness protection order [Sec. 14]

Page 64 of 65

Substantial evidence required to prove the allegations in the petition [Sec. 16 ]

UP Preweek Remedial 2017

Recommend Documents