Special Lecturer in Remedial Law, Villasis

Law Center
Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law, Recoletos
Law Center
Member, Expert Committee in Criminal
Law, UP Law Center
LAST MINUTE REVIEWER Member, Expert Committee in Remedial
IN REMEDIAL LAW Law, UP Law Center
MCLE Lecturer on Trial Advocacy
2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS Author, The 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure, Notes and Cases
Bar Notes and Cases in Criminal Law
The Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial
I. in Criminal Cases in Relation to
GENERAL The 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
PRINCIPLES Bar Notes and Cases in Remedial Law
The Revised Rules of Evidence, Notes and
II. Cases
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure As
JURISDICTIO Amended, Notes and Cases (Vol. 1)
N Provisional Remedies and Special Civil
Actions, Notes and Cases (Vol. 2)
III. CIVIL The Rules of Special Proceedings, Notes and
PROCEDURE Cases
IV. Cross-Examination as a Science and Not an
CRIMINAL Art (The Contrarian System)
Professor, Tarlac State University College of
PROCEDURE Law in Remedial Law Review, Evidence,
V. Criminal Procedure, Election Law,
SPECIAL Environmental Law, and Conflict of Laws
Professor, New Era University College of
PROCEEDING Law in Civil Procedure,
S Criminal Procedure and Remedial Law
VI. Review
EVIDENCE Professor, San Sebastian College-Recoletos,
Institute of Law, Manila
in Criminal Law Review and Remedial Law
Review
BY: Professor, University of the East College of
Law in Remedial Law Review
Professor, Bulacan State University College
ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, of Law in Remedial Law Review I
and Criminal Procedure
LL.M.
Managing Partner, Moya Ablola Ebarle Law
Firm
Lifetime Member, IBP, Bulacan Chapter
Member, Board of Directors, Philippine
Trial Lawyers, Inc.
Member, Vanguard of the Philippine
Constitution Inc. I.
Advance, Pre-Bar, Pre-week Reviewer and GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Mock Bar Examiner in
Remedial Law, UP Law Center
Pre-Bar Reviewer in Chair’s Cases (Criminal 1. Q. What is the purpose of our
Law), Legal EDGE Review Center rules of procedure?
Pre-week Reviewer in Criminal Law and
Remedial Law, Magnificus Juris A. Our rules of procedure are
Reviews and Seminars, Inc. designed to facilitate the
Bar Reviewer in Remedial Law, Powerhaus orderly disposition of cases
Review Center and permit the prompt
 2
disposition of unmeritorious
cases which clog the court
dockets and do little more than
waste the courts’ time. (Go vs.
Chaves (619 SCRA 333, 23 April
2010).
2. Q. Explain the clean hands
doctrine.
A. The Clean Hands Doctrine
holds that when a party
merely raises equitable
considerations without a
clear-cut legal basis and
cogent arguments to support
his claim, he is not entitled
to obtain an equitable
remedy. (Marquez vs. Espejo,
629 SCRA 117, 25 August
2010.)
3. Q. Explain the doctrine of
estoppel.
A. The doctrine of estoppel is
based upon the grounds of
public policy, fair dealing, good
faith and justice, and its
purpose is to forbid one to
speak against his own act,
representations, or
commitments to the injury of
one to whom they were
directed and who reasonably
relied thereon. (Genato vs.
Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5
February 2010.)
4. Q. What is the principle of law
of the case?
A. The principle of "law of the
case" states that
determinations of questions
of law will generally be held
to govern a case throughout
all its subsequent stages
where such determination
has already been made on a
prior appeal to a court of last
resort. (Dela Merced vs.
Government Service
Insurance System, 661 SCRA
83, 23 November 2011.)
5. Q. What is a moot and academic
case?
A. A moot and academic case is
one that ceases to present a
justiciable controversy by
virtue of supervening events,
so that a declaration thereon
would be of no practical use
or value. (Lacson vs. MJ
Lacson Development
Company, Inc., 637 SCRA 505,
8 December 2010.)
6. Q. What is the doctrine of Stare
Decisis?
A. The doctrine of stare decisis
dictates that when a court has
reached a conclusion in one
case, it should be applied to
those that follow if the facts
are substantially the same,
even though the parties may
be different. (Commissioner
of Internal Revenue vs. La
Tondeña, Inc. [now Ginebra
San Miguel], 762 SCRA 636,
15 July 2015.)
7. Q. What is the essence of
procedural due process?
A. The essence of procedural due
process is that a party to a case
must be given sufficient
opportunity to be heard and
to present evidence. (Malixi
vs. Mexicali Philippines, 792
SCRA 586, 8 June 2016.)
8. Q. Is there a denial of due
process in disbarment
proceedings when the
Supreme Court submits the
case for Resolution without
requiring the complainant to
file a Reply to the Comment
or Answer? Explain.
A. No. The Supreme Court held
that there was no denial of due
process in resolving the instant
case. The respondents were
required to file their respective
Answers. Based on the
Complaint and the supporting
affidavits attached thereto, and
the respective Comments of
the respondents, the Court
found that the presumption of
innocence accorded to
respondents was not
overcome. The Court no longer
required complainant to file a
Reply since it has the
 3

discretion not to require the

filing of the same when it can
already judiciously resolve the
case based on the pleadings
thus far submitted. (Rodica vs.
Lazaro, 693 SCRA 273, 13
March 2013).
The Court can proceed to
resolve the case without II.
need of informing the JURISDICTION
parties that the case is
already submitted for
resolution. 11. Q. What is Jurisdiction? How is
it determined?
9. Q. Can procedural laws be given
retroactive effect? A. Jurisdiction is defined as the
power and authority of a court
A. Yes. Procedural laws may be to hear, try and decide a case.
given retroactive effect to In order for the court or an
actions pending and adjudicative body to have
undetermined at the time of authority to dispose of the case
their passage, there being no on the merits, it must acquire
vested rights in the rules of jurisdiction over the subject
procedure. (Pfizer, Inc. vs. matter and the parties. (Forest
Galan, 410 Phil. 483, 2001). Hills Golf and Country Club,
Inc. vs. Fil-Estate Properties,
10. Q. What are provisional Inc., 797 SCRA 655, 20 July
remedies? 2016; Genato vs. Viola, 611
SCRA 677, 5 February 2010.)
A. They are provisional because
they constitute temporary The settled principle is that
measures availed of during "the allegations of the
the pendency of the action, Complaint determine the
and they are ancillary nature of the action and
because they are mere consequently the jurisdiction
incidents in and are of the courts. This rule applies
dependent upon the result of whether or not the plaintiff is
the main action. (United entitled to recover upon all or
Alloy Philippines some of the claims asserted
Corporation vs. United therein as this is a matter that
Coconut Planters Bank, 775 can be resolved only after and
SCRA 147, 23 November as a result of the trial.
2015.) (Cacayorin vs. Armed Forces
and Police Mutual Benefit
Association, Inc., 696 SCRA
311, 15 April 2013; Padre vs.
Badillo, 640 SCRA 50, 19
January 2011.)

12. Q. Distinguish jurisdiction over

the subject matter and
jurisdiction over the person.

A. Jurisdiction over the subject

matter is conferred by the
Constitution or by law. It is
determined by the material
averments in the complaint as
well as the character of the
relief sought. (Dazon vs. Yap,
 4
610 SCRA 79, 15 January
2010.)
Jurisdiction over the person
is acquired by the court by
virtue of the party's voluntary
submission to the authority of
the court or through the
exercise of its coercive
processes. Thus, in civil cases,
courts acquire jurisdiction over
the plaintiffs upon the filing of
the complaint, while
jurisdiction over the
defendants is acquired either
through the service of
summons upon them in the
manner required by law or
through their voluntary
appearance in court and their
submission to its authority.
13. Q. What is the jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in civil cases? What is
the jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC), Municipal Trial
Court (MTC), Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in
civil cases?
A. Pursuant to Section 19 of BP
129 as amended by RA 7691,
the RTCs shall, in civil cases,
exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
(1) In all civil actions in
which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of
pecuniary estimation;
(2) In all civil actions which
involve the title to, or
possession of, real
property, or any interest
therein, where the
assessed value of the
property involved
exceeds twenty thousand
pesos (₱20,000.00) or for
civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value
exceeds fifty thousand
pesos (₱50,000.00)
except actions for
forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over
which is conferred upon
the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts;
(Cabrera vs. Francisco,
704 SCRA 103, 28
August 2013.)
(3) In all actions in admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction
where he demand or
claim exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila, where such
demand or claim exceeds
Two hundred thousand
pesos (200,000.00);
(4) In all matters of probate,
both testate and intestate,
where the gross value of
the estate exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in
probate matters in Metro
Manila, where such gross
value exceeds Two
hundred thousand pesos
(200,000.00);
(5) In all actions involving
the contract of marriage
and marital relations;
(6) In all cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of
any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising
jurisdiction or any court,
tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
(7) In all civil actions and
special proceedings
falling within the
exclusive original
jurisdiction of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations
Court and of the Courts of
Agrarian Relations as
now provided by law; and
(8) In all other cases in which
the demand, exclusive of
interests, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses,
and costs or the value of
the property exceeds One
hundred thousand pesos
(₱100,000.00) or, in such
other cases in Metro
Manila, where the
demand, exclusive of the
abovementioned items
exceeds Two hundred
 5
thousand pesos
(₱200,000.00).
Pursuant to Section 33, the MeTCs,
MTCs, MCTCs shall, in civil cases,
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
(1) over civil actions and
probate proceedings,
testate and intestate,
including the grant of
provisional remedies in
proper cases, where the
value of the personal
property, estate, or
amount of the demand
does not exceed One
hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in
Metro Manila where such
personal property, estate,
or amount of the demand
does not exceed Two
hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) exclusive
of interest damages of
whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses,
and costs, the amount of
which must be
specifically alleged:
Provided, That where
there are several claims
or causes of action
between the same or
different parties,
embodied in the same
complaint, the amount of
the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all
the causes of action,
irrespective of whether
the causes of action arose
out of the same or
different transactions;
(2) over cases of forcible
entry and unlawful
detainer: Provided, That
when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the
question of ownership in
his pleadings and the
question of possession
cannot be resolved
without deciding the
issue of ownership, the
issue of ownership shall
be resolved only to
determine the issue of
possession.
(3) in all civil actions which
involve title to, or
possession of, real
property, or any interest
therein where the
assessed value of the
property or interest
therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or, in civil
actions in Metro Manila,
where such assessed
value does not exceed
Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) exclusive of
interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses
and costs: Provided, That
value of such property
shall be determined by
the assessed value of the
adjacent lots. (As
amended by R.A. No.
7691) (Maslag vs.
Monzon, 698 SCRA 584,
17 June 2013.)
These jurisdictional amounts of
exceeding ₱100,000.00 for RTCs
outside of Metro Manila and
exceeding ₱200,000.00 in Metro
Manila were already adjusted to
₱300,000.00 and ₱400,000.00,
respectively, pursuant to Supreme
Court Circular No. 21-99 dated April
15, 1999, making effective on March
20, 1999 the provision of Section 5 of
RA 7691 which provides:
SEC. 5. After five
(5) years from the
effectivity of this Act, the
jurisdictional amounts
mentioned in Sec. 19(3),
(4), and (8); and Sec.
33(1) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129 as amended by
this Act, shall be adjusted
to Two hundred thousand
pesos (₱200,000.00). Five
(5) years thereafter, such
jurisdictional amounts
shall be adjusted further
to Three hundred
thousand pesos
(₱300,000.00): Provided,
however, That in the case
of Metro Manila, the
abovementioned
jurisdictional amounts
shall be adjusted after
five (5) years from the
effectivity of this Act to
Four hundred thousand
pesos (₱400,000.00).
14. Q. How is an action ascertained
as one capable or not of
pecuniary estimation?
 6
Which court has the
jurisdiction to try the case?
A. In determining whether an
action is one the subject matter
of which is not capable of
pecuniary estimation, the
Supreme Court has adopted
the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the
principal action or remedy
sought. If it is primarily for
the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered
capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether
jurisdiction is in the Municipal
Courts or in the Courts of First
Instance (now Regional Trial
Court) would depend on the
amount of the claim. However,
where the basic issue is
something other than the
right to recover a sum of
money, where the money
claim is purely incidental to,
or a consequence of, the
principal relief sought, the
Supreme Court has considered
such actions as cases where
the subject of the litigation may
not be estimated in terms of
money, and are cognizable
exclusively by Courts of First
Instance (now Regional Trial
Courts). (Ungria vs. Court of
Appeals, 654 SCRA 314, 25
July 2011). The criterion laid
down in Singson vs. Isabela
Sawmill (177 Phil. 575,
1979).
15. Q. In civil cases for recovery of
real property, what is
incumbent upon the plaintiff
to allege in the Complaint to
determine which court has
jurisdiction?
A. The assessed value must be
alleged in the complaint to
determine which court has
jurisdiction over the action.
(Heirs of Telesforo Julao vs.
De Jesus, 736 SCRA 596, 29
September 2014.)
Based on Section 19(2) and
Section 33(3) of B.P. 129, as
amended, it is clear that in an
action for recovery of
possession, the assessed value
of the property sought to be
recovered determines the
court's jurisdiction.
16. Q. What is the proper recourse
of the RTC, which has no
internal branch designated
as a Special Commercial
Court, if a commercial case is
filed before it and raffled in
one of its branches?
A. The proper recourse is to refer
the case to the nearest RTC
with a designated Special
Commercial Court branch
within the judicial region.
Upon referral, the RTC to which
the case was referred to should
re-docket the case as a
commercial case. And if the
said RTC has only one branch
designated as a Special
Commercial Court, it should
assign the case to the sole
special branch. (Forest Hills
Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs.
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.,
supra; Gonzales vs. GJH
Land, Inc. (formerly S.J. Land,
Inc., 774 SCRA 242, 10
November 2015).
17. Q. What is the rationale of the
doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies?
A. The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies
requires that before a party is
allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, he or
she should have availed
himself or herself of all the
means of administrative
processes afforded him or her.
The premature invocation of
the intervention of the court is
fatal to one's cause of action.
The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is
based on practical and legal
reasons. The availment of
administrative remedy entails
lesser expenses and provides
for a speedier disposition of
controversies. Furthermore,
the courts of justice, for
reasons of comity and
convenience, will shy away
 7

from a dispute until the system A. The exceptions are the

of administrative redress has following:
been completed and complied
with, so as to give the (1) when there is a violation
administrative agency of due process,
concerned every opportunity
to correct its error and dispose (2) when the issue involved
is purely a legal question,
of the case. (Catipon, Jr. vs.
Japson, 759 SCRA 557, 22 (3) when the administrative
June 2015.) action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or
18. Q. What is the effect of failure excess of jurisdiction,
to exhaust administrative
remedies? (4) when there is estoppel on
the part of the
A. The failure to exhaust administrative agency
administrative remedies is a concerned,
ground for dismissal of the
(5) when there is irreparable
action. (University of Santo injury,
Tomas vs. Sanchez, 626 SCRA
126, 29 July 2010; Maglalang (6) when the respondent is a
vs. Philippine Amusement department secretary
and Gaming Corporation whose acts as an alter ego
(PAGCOR), 712 SCRA 472, 11 of the President bear the
December 2013; Regino vs. implied and assumed
Pangasinan Colleges of approval of the latter,
(7) when to require
Science and Technology, 485
exhaustion of
Phil. 446, 2004). administrative remedies
would be unreasonable,
19. Q. Can the respondent raise
non-exhaustion of (8) when it would amount to
administrative remedies and a nullification of a claim,
forum shopping at any time
during the proceedings of (9) when the subject matter
the case? is a private land in land
case proceedings,
A. No. In Tabino vs. Tabino (731
(10) when the rule does not
SCRA 372, 30 July 2014), it provide a plain, speedy
was held that petitioners may and adequate remedy,
not raise the issues of and
exhaustion of administrative
remedies and forum-shopping, (11) when there are
after having voluntarily circumstances indicating
submitted themselves to the the urgency of judicial
jurisdiction of the MeTC and intervention. (University
the RTC trying the ejectment of Santo Tomas vs.
Sanchez, supra.)
case. Besides, these issues
were raised for the first time
21. Q. What is the doctrine of
before the Supreme Court. As
primary jurisdiction? When is this
such, the Court said that they
rule applicable?
cannot be allowed to
simultaneously attack and
A. The doctrine of primary
adopt the proceedings or
jurisdiction precludes the
actions taken by the lower
courts from resolving a
courts.
controversy over which
jurisdiction was initially lodged
20. Q. What are the exceptions to
with an administrative body of
the application of the
special competence. It does
doctrine of exhaustion of
not allow a court to arrogate
administrative remedies?
unto itself authority to resolve
 8
a controversy, the jurisdiction
over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of
special competence. (Catipon,
Jr. vs. Japson, supra; Heirs of
Simeon Latayan vs. Tan, 776
SCRA 1, 2 December 2015.)
The rule on primary
jurisdiction applies only where
the administrative agency
exercises quasi-judicial or
adjudicatory function. Thus, an
essential requisite for this
doctrine to apply is the actual
existence of quasi-judicial
power.
22. Q. What is the doctrine of
judicial stability or non-
interference?
A. Under the doctrine of judicial
stability or non-interference,
no court can interfere by
injunction with the judgments
or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having
the power to grant the relief
sought by injunction. The
rationale for the rule is
founded on the concept of
jurisdiction - a court that
acquires jurisdiction over the
case and renders judgment
therein has jurisdiction over its
judgment, to the exclusion of
all other coordinate courts, for
its execution and over all its
incidents, and to control, in
furtherance of justice, the
conduct of ministerial officers
acting in connection with this
judgment. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation vs.
United Coconut Planters
Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23
November 2015; Pacific Ace
Finance Ltd. (PAFIN) vs.
Yanagisawa (669 SCRA 270,
11 April 2012).
23. Q. When is jurisdiction by
estoppel applicable?
A. The principle of estoppel on
jurisdiction seemingly depends
upon whether the lower court
actually had jurisdiction or not.
Whenever it appears that the
court has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter, the action
shall be dismissed. If it had no
jurisdiction, but the case was
tried and decided upon the
theory that it had jurisdiction,
the parties are not barred, on
appeal, from assailing such
jurisdiction, for the same must
exist as a matter of law, and
may not be conferred by
consent of the parties or by
estoppel. This defense may be
interposed at any time, during
appeal or even after final
judgment. (Calibre Traders,
Inc. vs. Bayer Philippines, Inc.
633 SCRA 34, 13 October
2010).
However, if the lower court had
jurisdiction, and the case was
heard and decided upon a
given theory, such, for instance,
as that the court had no
jurisdiction, the party who
induced it to adopt such theory
will not be permitted, on
appeal, to assume an
inconsistent position – that the
lower court had jurisdiction.
Here, the principle of estoppel
applies. The rule that
jurisdiction is conferred by law,
and does not depend upon the
will of the parties, has no
bearing thereon.
24. Q. What is the jurisdiction of
the Court of Tax Appeal
(CTA)?
A. Republic Act No. 9282
expanded the jurisdiction of
the CTA and elevated its rank
to that of a collegiate court
with special jurisdiction. This
expanded jurisdiction of the
CTA includes its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to review
by appeal the decisions, orders
or resolutions of the RTC in
local tax cases originally
decided or resolved by the
RTC in the exercise of its
original or appellate
jurisdiction.
The CTA likewise has exclusive
jurisdiction over a special civil
action for certiorari assailing
an interlocutory order issued
by the RTC in a local tax case.
 9

Thus, it has the jurisdiction to Division of the CTA on a motion

issue writs of certiorari or to for reconsideration or new
determine whether there has trial may file a petition for
been grave abuse of discretion review with the CTA en banc.
amounting to lack or excess of (TFS, Incorporated vs.
jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner of Internal
RTC in issuing an interlocutory Revenue, 618 SCRA 346, 19
order in cases falling within April 2010.)
the CTA's exclusive appellate
jurisdiction. (CE Casecnan
Water and Energy Company
Inc. vs. Province of Nueva
Ecija, 759 SCRA 180, 17 June
2015; City of Manila vs.
Grecia-Cuerdo, 715 SCRA
182, 4 February 2014).

25. Q. From the adverse decision of

the CTA Division, what is the
proper mode of appeal?

A. Jurisdiction to review decisions

or resolutions issued by the
Divisions of the CTA is no
longer with the CA but with the
CTA En Banc. This rule is
embodied in Section 11 of RA
9282, which provides that:

SECTION 11.
Section 18 of the same Act
is hereby amended as
follows:

SEC. 18.
Appeal to the
Court of Tax
Appeals En
Banc.– No civil
proceeding
involving
matters arising
under the
National Internal
Revenue Code,
the Tariff and
Customs Code or
the Local
Government
Code shall be
maintained,
except as herein
provided, until
and unless an
III.
appeal has been CIVIL PROCEDURE
previously filed
with the CTA and
disposed of in RULE 1
accordance with GENERAL PROVISIONS
the provisions of
this Act. 26. Q. What is the importance of
the payment of the prescribed
Thus, a party adversely docket fees?
affected by a resolution of a
 10

A. It is hornbook law that courts Rule 141 of the Rules of

acquire jurisdiction over a case Court, as amended by A.M.
only upon payment of the No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme
prescribed docket fee. It is Court Amended
settled jurisprudence that any Administrative Circular No.
decision rendered without 35-2004, provides that:
jurisdiction is a total nullity
and may be struck down at any For
time, even on appeal before the filing an action
Supreme Court. or a permissive
OR
COMPULSORY
27. Q. What is the basis for the
counterclaim,
computation of the docket CROSS-CLAIM,
fee in a real action? or money claim
against an estate
A. In cases involving real not based on
property, the fair market value judgment, or for
of the real property in filing a third-
litigation stated in the current party, fourth-
tax declaration or current party, etc.
zonal valuation of the Bureau complaint, or a
complaint-in-
of Internal Revenue, whichever
intervention, if
is higher, or if there is none, the the total sum
stated value of the property in claimed,
litigation x x x shall be the INCLUSIVE OF
basis for the computation of INTERESTS,
the docket fees. PENALTIES,
SURCHARGES,
In Trayvilla vs. Sejas (782 DAMAGES OF
SCRA 578, 1 February 2016), WHATEVER
KIND, AND
the Supreme Court held that
ATTORNEY'S
the petitioners should have FEES,
observed the requirement LITIGATION
under A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC EXPENSES AND
relative to declaring the fair COSTS and/or in
market value of the property as cases involving
stated in the current tax property, the
declaration or zonal valuation FAIR MARKET
of the Bureau of Internal value of the
Revenue (BIR). Since there was REAL property
in litigation
no such allegation made in the
STATED IN THE
Amended Complaint, then the CURRENT TAX
value of the subject property as DECLARATION
stated in the handwritten OR CURRENT
document sued upon and ZONAL
restated in the Amended VALUATION OF
Complaint should be the basis THE BUREAU OF
for determining jurisdiction INTERNAL
and the amount of docket fees REVENUE,
to be paid. WHICHEVER IS
HIGHER, OR IF
THERE IS NONE,
For purposes of computing the THE STATED
docket fee in real action and VALUE OF THE
filing of the civil case, the PROPERTY IN
purchased value as indicated in LITIGATION OR
the complaint shall be made as THE VALUE OF
the basis in the absence of a THE PERSONAL
current tax declaration or PROPERTY IN
zonal valuation of the BIR. LITIGATION AS
ALLEGED BY
THE CLAIMANT
 11

x x x (Emphasis 2) In the first case, it is

supplied)
RULE 2
CAUSE OF ACTION
28. Q. What is a cause of action?
What are its essential
elements?
A. A cause of action is an act or
omission by which a person
violates the right of another.
Its essential elements are as
follows:
(1) plaintiff's right, which
arises from or is created
by whatever means, and
is covered by whatever
law;
(2) defendant's obligation
not to violate such right;
and
(3) defendant's act or
omission in violation of
the such right and for
which plaintiff's may
seek relief from
defendant. (Pamaran vs.
Bank of Commerce, 795
SCRA 430, 4 July 2016.)
29. Q. What is the distinction
between a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a cause of
action under Section 1(g) of
Rule 16, and the one under
Rule 33 of the Rules of
Court?
A. 1) In the first situation,
the motion must be
made before a ‘Interest’ within the meaning
responsive pleading is
filed; and it can be
resolved only on the
basis of the allegations
in the initiatory
pleading.
On the other hand, in
the second instance,
the motion to dismiss
must be filed after the
plaintiff rested his
case; and it can be
determined only on the
basis of the evidence
adduced by the
plaintiff.
immaterial if the
allegations in the
complaint are true or
false; however, in the
second situation, the
judge must determine
the truth or falsity of
the allegations based
on the evidence
presented.
3) Stated differently, a
motion to dismiss
under Section 1(g) of
Rule 16 is based on
preliminary objections
made before the trial;
while the motion to
dismiss under Rule 33
is a demurrer to
evidence on the ground
of insufficiency of
evidence, and is made
only after the plaintiff
rested his case.
(Pamaran vs. Bank of
Commerce, supra.)
RULE 3
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
30. Q. Who is a real party-in-
interest?
A. 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.
of the rules means material
interest, an interest in issue
and to be affected by the
decree as distinguished from
mere interest in the question
involved, or a mere incidental
interest. A real party-in
interest is one who has a legal
right. The action must be
brought by the person who, by
substantive law, possesses the
right sought to be enforced.
(Villondo vs. Quijano, 686
SCRA 694, 3 December 2012;
Miñoza vs. Lopez, 648 SCRA
684, 13 April 2011.)
31. Q. Can a court or tribunal
exercising quasi-judicial
 12
functions question the
decision of an appellate
court which reversed its
decision?
A. No. In Republic vs. Namboku
Peak, Inc. (730 SCRA 64, 18
July 2014), the Supreme Court
held that the Secretary of
Labor is not the real party-in-
interest vested with
personality to file the petition.
It would have been the duty of
the private petitioners to
appear and defend the ruling
of the Secretary of Labor for
they are the ones who were
interested that the same be
sustained. Of course, they had
the option not to pursue the
case before a higher court, as
what they did in these cases. As
to the Secretary of Labor, she
was impleaded in the Petitions
for Certiorari filed before the
CA as a nominal party because
one of the issues involved
therein was whether she
committed an error of
jurisdiction. But that does not
make her a real party-in-
interest or vests her with
authority to appeal the
Decisions of the CA in case it
reverses her ruling.
Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, only real
parties-in-interest who
participated in the litigation of
the case before the CA can avail
of an appeal by certiorari.
32. Q. ALDO Realty, a juridical
entity engaged in renting out
apartment buildings, owns
the ABC Building which
consists of three (3) floors
occupied by the Chua family,
the majority owner of the
realty company. In front of
the said building, there is an
on-going construction of
HINGTO Hardware, owned by
HINGTO family. The Chua
and Hingto families have a
standing property boundary
dispute. The Chua installed a
CCTV Camera right in front
of the on-going construction.
Thus, the Hingto lodged a
complaint with the Barangay
as the camera invaded their
right to privacy. As the
dispute was not settled
amicably, they instituted a
civil case in violation of Art.
26 (1) of the Civil Code.
The Chua Family filed a
motion to dismiss on the
ground that they are not the
real party defendant as they
are only renting the
apartment building. Rule on
the Motion to Dismiss.
A. The Motion to Dismiss should
be denied. The Chua Family is
the real party defendant.
Although Aldo has a juridical
personality separate and
distinct from its stockholders,
records show that it is a family-
owned corporation managed
by the Chua family.
The personalities of
respondents and Aldo Realty
seem to merge. ‘The Chua’s are
merely using the corporate
fiction of Aldo as a shield to
protect themselves from this
suit. Thus, the Chua’s are the
proper parties to this suit.
((Hing vs. Choachuy, Sr., 699
SCRA 667, 26 June 2013.)
RULE 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS
33. Q. What is a real action?
A. A real action is an action
affecting title to or possession
of real property, or interest
therein. These include
partition or condemnation of,
or foreclosure of mortgage on,
real property. (Cabrera vs.
Francisco, 704 SCRA 103, 28
August 2013.)
34. Q. Distinguish real action from
personal action.
A. a) A real action is one
affecting title to or
possession of real
property or interest
therein; all other
actions are personal
 13
actions. Personal
actions include those
filed for recovery of
personal property, or
for enforcement of
contract or recovery of
damages for its breach,
or for the recovery of
damages for injury
committed to a person
or property.
b) A real action must be
filed in the proper
court which has
jurisdiction over the
subject real property,
while a personal action
may be filed where the
plaintiff or defendant
resides, or if the
defendant is a non-
resident, where he may
be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.
Nevertheless, the
parties may agree in
writing to limit the
venue of future actions
between them to a
specified place.
(Pamaran vs. Bank of
Commerce, 795 SCRA
430, 4 July 2016.)
RULE 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
35. Q. Can a letter-complaint be
considered as a pleading?
A. No. Section 1, Rule 6 of the
Rules of Court defines
pleadings as written
statements of the respective
claims and defenses of the
parties submitted to the court
for appropriate judgment. In
Monsanto vs. Lim, 735 SCRA
252 (17 September 2014), the
Regional Director of the Home
Development Mutual Fund
(Pag-IBIG) requested the
intervention of Executive Judge
of the RTC of Catbalogan,
Samar on the alleged
anomalous auction sale
conducted by a certain Sheriff.
The Supreme Court stressed
that the Pag-IBIG’s letter could
not be considered as a formal
complaint or petition. First, the
parties to the case were not
identified pursuant to Section
1, Rule 3 and Section 1, Rule
7. Second, the so-called claim
or cause of action was not
properly mentioned or
specified. Third, the letter
miserably failed to comply with
the requirements of Rule 7,
Rules of Court. The letter bore
no caption; it was not even
assigned a docket number; the
parties were not properly
identified; the allegations were
not properly set forth; no
particular relief is sought; in
fact, only the intervention of
the Executive Judge Monsanto
is requested; it was not signed
by a counsel; and most of all,
there is no verification or
certification against forum-
shopping.
36. Q. What is a compulsory
counterclaim?
A. A compulsory counterclaim is
any claim for money or other
relief, which a defending party
may have against an opposing
party, which at the time of suit
arises out of, or is necessarily
connected with, the same
transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of
plaintiff’s complaint. It is
compulsory in the sense that
it is within the jurisdiction of
the court, does not require
for its adjudication the
presence of third parties
over whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction, and will
be barred if not set up in the
answer to the complaint in
the same case. Any other
claim is permissive. (Calibre
Traders, Inc. vs. Bayer
Philippines, Inc., 633 SCRA
34, 13 October 2010.)
37. Q. What are the tests to
determine whether a
counterclaim is compulsory
or not?
A. Following are the test laid
down by the Supreme Court to
determine whether a
counterclaim is compulsory or
 14
not:
(1) Are the issues of fact or
law raised by the claim
and the counterclaim
largely the same?
(2) Would res judicata bar a
subsequent suit on
defendant's claims,
absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
(3) Will substantially the
same evidence support or
refute plaintiff's claim as
well as the defendant's
counterclaim?
(4) Is there any logical
relation between the
claim and the
counterclaim, such that
the conduct of separate
trials of the respective
claims of the parties
would entail a substantial
duplication of effort and
time by the parties and
the court? The fourth
test is the ‘compelling
test of compulsoriness’.
(Calibre, Traders Inc.
vs. Bayer Philippines,
Inc., supra.)
RULE 7
PARTS OF A PLEADING
38. Q. Is the non-verification of a
pleading jurisdictional in character?
A. No. The verification of a
pleading is a formal and not a
jurisdictional requirement. It is
intended to assure that the
allegations in a pleading are
true and correct. As such, the
court may order the correction
of unverified pleadings, or it
may act on them and waive
strict compliance with the
rules. (Bacolor vs. VL
Makabali Memorial Hospital,
Inc. (790 SCRA 20, 18 April
2016),
39. Q. What is forum shopping?
A. Forum shopping exists when,
as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party
seeks a favorable opinion
(other than by appeal
or certiorari) in another, or
when he institutes two or more
actions or proceedings
grounded on the same cause,
on the gamble that one or the
other court would make a
favorable disposition.
(University of Santo Tomas
vs. Sanchez, 626 SCRA 126,
29 July 2010.)
Thus, the essence of forum-
shopping is the filing of
multiple suits involving the
same parties for the same
cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively,
for the purpose of obtaining a
favorable judgment. It exists
where the elements of litis
pendentia are present or where
a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in
another. (Bradford United
Church of Christ, Inc. vs.
Ando, 791 SCRA 337, 30 May
2016; Commissioner of
Customs vs. Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation
(PSPC), 791 SCRA 82, 20
April 2016; Asia United Bank
vs. Goodland Company, Inc.,
645 SCRA 205, 9 March
2011.)
40. Q. Is there forum shopping if
cases for unlawful detainer
and action for recovery of
ownership are both
pending?
A. There is none. The causes of
action in the two cases are not
identical or similar.
In the summary action of
unlawful detainer, the
question to be resolved is
which party has the better or
superior right to the
physical/material possession
(or de facto possession) of the
disputed premises.
Whereas, in the action for
recovery of ownership, the
question to be resolved is
which party has the lawful title
or dominical right (i.e., owner's
right) to the disputed
premises.
 15
Thus, in Malabanan vs. Rural
Bank of Cabuyao, Inc.,(2009)
where the petitioner therein
asserted, among others, that
the complaint for unlawful
detainer against him must be
dismissed on grounds of litis
pendencia and forum-shopping
in view of the pending case for
annulment of an action
for dacion en pago and for the
transfer certificate of title in
another case, the Supreme
Court reiterated the well-
settled rule that a pending
action involving ownership
neither suspends nor bars
the proceedings in the
summary action for
ejectment pertaining to the
same property, in view of the
dissimilarities or differences
in the reliefs prayed for.
(Bradford United Church of
Christ, Inc. vs. Ando, supra.)
41. Q. What are the three (3) ways
of committing forum shopping?
A. Under prevailing
jurisprudence, forum shopping
can be committed in three
ways, to wit:
(1) filing multiple cases
based on the same
cause of action and with
the same prayer, the
previous case not
having been resolved
yet (litis pendentia);
(2) filing multiple cases
based on the same cause
of action and with the
same prayer, the
previous case having
been finally resolved
(res judicata); or
(3) filing multiple cases
based on the same cause
of action but with
different prayers
(splitting of causes of
action, where the ground
for dismissal is also either
litis pendentia or res
judicata)
(Commissioner of
Customs vs. Pilipinas
Shell Petroleum
Corporation (PSPC),
supra; Asia United Bank
vs. Goodland Company,
Inc., supra.)
42. Q. What is the rationale for
requiring the
plaintiff/petitioner, not the
counsel, to sign the
certification of non-forum
shopping? What must be
done if he could not do so?
A. The requirement that it is the
petitioner, not her counsel,
who should sign the certificate
of non-forum shopping is due
to the fact that a "certification
is a peculiar personal
representation on the part of
the principal party, an
assurance given to the court or
other tribunal that there are no
other pending cases involving
basically the same parties,
issues and causes of action.
Obviously, it is the petitioner,
and not always the counsel
whose professional services
have been retained for a
particular case, who is in the
best position to know whether
she actually filed or caused the
filing of a petition in that case.
However, if a petitioner is
unable to sign a certification
for reasonable or justifiable
reasons, she must execute an
SPA designating her counsel
of record to sign on her
behalf. "A certification which
had been signed by counsel
without the proper
authorization is defective and
constitutes a valid cause for the
dismissal of the petition.”
(Anderson vs. Ho, 688 SCRA
8, 7 January 2013.)
43. Q. What is the present rule on
the non-compliance with the
requirements on, or
submission of defective,
verification and certification
against forum shopping?
A. In Heirs of Babai
Guiambangan vs.
Municipality of Kalamansig,
Sultan Kudarat (798 SCRA
584, 27 July 2016), Bacolor
vs. VL Makabali Memorial
 16
Hospital, Inc., supra, Jacinto
vs. Gumaru, Jr. (724 SCRA
343, 2 June 2014), the
Supreme Court restated the
jurisprudential
pronouncements in Altres vs.
Empleo, (2208) on the non-
compliance with the
requirements on, or
submission of defective,
verification and certification
against forum shopping, viz:
1) A distinction must be
made between non-
compliance with the
requirement on or
submission of defective
verification, and non-
compliance with the
requirement on or
submission of defective
certification against
forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-
compliance therewith
or a defect therein does
not necessarily render
the pleading fatally
defective. The court may
order its submission or
correction or act on the
pleading if the attending
circumstances are such
that strict compliance
with the Rule may be
dispensed with in order
that the ends of justice
may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed
substantially complied
with when one who has
ample knowledge to
swear to the truth of the
allegations in the
complaint or petition
signs the verification, and
when matters alleged in
the petition have been
made in good faith or are
true and correct,
4) As to certification
against forum
shopping, non-
compliance therewith
or a defect therein,
unlike in verification, is
generally not curable by
its subsequent
submission or correction
thereof, unless there is a
need to relax the Rule on
the ground of “substantial
compliance” or presence
of “special circumstances
or compelling reasons.”
5) The certification against
forum shopping must be
signed by all the plaintiffs
or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did
not sign will be dropped
as parties to the case.
Under reasonable or
justifiable circumstances,
however, as when all the
plaintiffs or petitioners
share a common interest
and invoke a common
cause of action or
defense, the signature of
only one of them in the
certification against
forum shopping
substantially complies
with the Rule. (Pigcaulan
vs. Security and Credit
Investigation, Inc., 663
SCRA 1, 16 January
2012.)
6) Finally, the certification
against forum shopping
must be executed by the
party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for
reasonable or justifiable
reasons, the party-
pleader is unable to sign,
he must execute a Special
Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of
record to sign on his
behalf.
44. Q. If there are numerous
petitioners who share
common interest in the case,
is the signature of any one of
them considered a
substantial compliance of
the verification-certification
requirement?
A. Yes. As a rule, the certificate
against forum shopping must
be signed by all plaintiffs or
petitioners; otherwise, those
who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case.
Under reasonable or justifiable
situations, such as when the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a
common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or
defense, the signature of one of
them in the certificate against
 17

forum shopping is considered

substantial compliance with A. If an allegation is not
the rules. specifically denied or the
denial is a negative pregnant,
The requirement of strict the allegation is deemed
compliance with the rules on admitted. Where a fact is
filing of certificate against alleged with some qualifying or
forum shopping highlights the modifying language, and the
mandatory character of the denial is conjunctive, a
submission of such certificate. ‘negative pregnant’ exists, and
However, this mandatory only the qualification or
requirement allows modification is denied, while
substantial compliance the fact itself is admitted. A
provided that there are denial in the form of a negative
justifiable circumstances for pregnant is an ambiguous
the relaxation of the rules. pleading, since it cannot be
(Bacolor vs. VL Makabali ascertained whether it is the
Memorial Hospital, Inc., fact or only the qualification
supra.) that is intended to be denied.
Profession of ignorance about
45. Q. Is the subsequent filing of a fact which is patently and
verification and certification necessarily within the
of non-forum shopping by pleader's knowledge, or means
the party considered as of knowing as ineffectual, is no
substantial compliance? denial at all. (Venzon vs. Rural
Bank of Buenavista (Agusan
A. The subsequent filing of the Del Norte), Inc., 704 SCRA
certification duly signed by the 138, 28 August 2013.)
petitioner himself should thus
be deemed substantial RULE 9
compliance, pro hac vice. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
(Anderson vs. Ho, supra.)
48. Q. Can the defense of lack of
RULE 8 jurisdiction be raised even
MANNER OF MAKING for the first time on appeal?
ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
A. Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 9 of
46. Q. Are charge invoices the Revised Rules of Court,
considered actionable defenses not pleaded either in
document? a motion to dismiss or in the
answer are deemed waived,
A. No. A document is actionable except for lack of jurisdiction,
when an action or defense is litis pendentia, res judicata, and
grounded upon such written prescription, which must be
instrument or document. In apparent from the pleadings or
the case of Asian Construction the evidence on record. In
and Development other words, the defense of
Corporation vs. Mendoza lack of jurisdiction over the
(675 SCRA 284, 27 June subject matter may be raised at
2012), the Supreme Court held any stage of the proceedings,
that charge invoices are not even for the first time on
actionable documents per se as appeal. In fact, the court may
these only provide details on motu proprio dismiss a
the alleged transactions. These complaint at any time when it
documents need not be appears from the pleadings or
attached to or stated in the the evidence on record that
complaint as these are lack of jurisdiction exists.
evidentiary in nature. (Heirs of Telesforo Julao vs.
De Jesus, 736 SCRA 596, 29
47. Q. What is ‘negative pregnant’ September 2014.)
and its effect?
 18
49. Q. What is compulsory
counterclaim?
A. A compulsory counterclaim is
any claim for money or other
relief, which a defending party
may have against an opposing
party, which at the time of suit
arises out of, or is necessarily
connected with, the same
transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of
plaintiff’s complaint. It is
compulsory in the sense that it
is within the jurisdiction of the
court, does not require for its
adjudication the presence of
third parties over whom the
court cannot acquire
jurisdiction, and will be barred
if not set up in the answer to
the complaint in the same case.
Any other claim is permissive.
(Calibre Traders, Inc. vs.
Bayer Philippines, Inc., 633
SCRA 34, 13 October 2010.)
50. Q. Can a defendant be declared
in default if there was no
valid service of summons?
A. No. Settled is the rule that a
defendant cannot be declared
in default unless such
declaration is preceded by a
valid service of summons.
(Atiko Trans, Inc. vs.
Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc., 655 SCRA
625, 17 August 2011.)
51. Q. What is excusable
negligence?
A. Negligence, to be ‘excusable,’
must be one which ordinary
diligence and prudence could
not have granted against.
(Magtoto vs. Court of
Appeals, 686 SCRA 88, 21
November 2012.)
RULE 10
AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
52. Q. When can a party amend his
pleading as a matter of right?
A. Under Section 2, Rule 10 of the
1997 Rules, a party may
amend his pleading once as a
matter of right at any time
before a responsive pleading is
served. No motion to admit the
same was required; as the
amendment is allowed as a
matter of right, prior leave of
court was unnecessary.
(Guntalilib vs. dela Cruz, 796
SCRA 1, 7 July 2016.)
53. Q. What is a supplemental
pleading?
A. A supplemental pleading states
the transactions, occurrences
or events which took place
since the time the pleading
sought to be supplemented
was filed. A supplemental
pleading is meant to supply
deficiencies in aid of the
original pleading and not to
dispense with or substitute the
latter. It does not supersede
the original, but assumes that
the original pleading is to
stand. (Loy, Jr. vs. San Miguel
Corporation Employees
Union-Philippine Transport
and General Workers
Organization (SMCEU-
PTGWO), 605 SCRA 212, 24
November 2009.)
RULE 13
FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS,
JUDGMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS
54. Q. What is the reckoning period
of receipt of the Decision or
Order for purposes of
Appeal?
A. Notice to counsel is an effective
notice to the client, while
notice to the client and not his
counsel is not notice in
law. Therefore, receipt of
notice by the counsel of
record is the reckoning point
of the reglementary
period. (Malixi vs. Mexicali
Philippines, 792 SCRA 586, 8
June 2016.)
55. Q. What are the two ways of
filing a pleading?
A. Pleadings may be filed in court
either personally or by
 19
registered mail. In the first
case, the date of filing is the
date of receipt. In the second
case, the date of mailing is the
date of receipt. (Heirs of
Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs.
Miranda, 700 SCRA 746, 8
July 2013.)
56. Q. Is the filing of pleadings
through private courier
allowed by the Revised Rules
of Court?
A. In Palileo vs. Planters
Development Bank, 738 SCRA
2, 8 October 2014), the
Supreme Court held that
service and filing of pleadings
by courier service is a mode
not provided in the Rules.
57. Q. If a party filed a pleading in
court through a private
courier, instead of registered
mail, what would be its
effect?
A. It is an established
jurisprudence that the date of
delivery of pleadings to a
private letter-forwarding
agency is not to be considered
as the date of filing thereof in
court; instead, the date of
actual receipt by the court is
deemed the date of filing of
that pleading. (Heirs of
Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs.
Miranda, supra.)
58. Q. What is a notice of lis
pendens?
A. A notice of lis pendens is an
announcement to the whole
world that a particular real
property is in litigation,
serving as a warning that one
who acquires an interest over
said property does so at his
own risk, or that he gambles on
the result of the litigation over
the said property. (Dela
Merced vs. Government
Service Insurance System,
661 SCRA 83, 23 November
2011.)
RULE 14
SUMMONS
59. Q. How can the court acquire
jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant if it is a
domestic corporation?
A. When the defendant is a
domestic corporation, service
of summons may be made only
upon the persons enumerated
in Section 11, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court. However,
jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant can be acquired
not only by proper service of
summons but also by
defendant’s voluntary
appearance without expressly
objecting to the court’s
jurisdiction, as embodied in
Section 20, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court. (Atiko Trans, Inc. vs.
Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc., 655 SCRA
625, 17 August 2011.)
60. Q. How can the court acquire
jurisdiction if the defendant
is a foreign entity?
A. In Pioneer International, Ltd.
vs. Guadiz, Jr.,(2007) the
Supreme Court held that when
the defendant is a foreign
juridical entity, service of
summons may be made upon:
(1) its resident agent
designated in accordance
with law for that
purpose;
(2) the government official
designated by law to
receive summons if the
corporation does not
have a resident agent; or
(3) any of the corporation’s
officers or agents within
the Philippines.
Thus, in order for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the
person of a defendant foreign
private juridical entity under
Section 12, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Court, there must be prior
valid service of summons upon
the agent of such defendant.
(Atiko Trans, Inc. vs.
 20

Prudential Guarantee and all available objections that are

Assurance, Inc., supra.) not included in a party’s
motion shall be deemed
61. Q. What are the instances waived. (Home Development
which can be considered as Mutual Fund [HDMF] vs. See,
voluntary submission to the 652 SCRA 478, 22 June
jurisdiction of the court? 2011.)

A. In Palma vs. Galvez (2010) RULE 16

the Court reiterated the oft- MOTION TO DISMISS
repeated rule that the filing of
motions seeking affirmative SECTION 1. Grounds.—
relief, such as, to admit answer, Within the time for but before
for additional time to file filing the answer to the
answer, for reconsideration of complaint or pleading asserting
a claim, a motion to dismiss
a default judgment, and to lift
may be made on any of the
order of default with motion following grounds:
for reconsideration, are
considered voluntary (a) That the court
submission to the jurisdiction has no jurisdiction over the
of the court. (Atiko Trans, Inc. person of the defending party;
vs. Prudential Guarantee and
Assurance, Inc., supra.) (b) That the court
has no jurisdiction over the
62. Q. Is the special appearance of subject matter of the claim;
the defendant questioning
(c) That venue is
the jurisdiction of the court improperly laid;
considered as voluntary?
(d) That the
A. In Lhuillier vs. British plaintiff has no legal capacity to
Airways (615 SCRA 380, 15 sue;
March 2010), it was held that
a special appearance to (e) That there is
question a court’s jurisdiction another action pending
between the same parties for
is not voluntary appearance. A
the same cause;
defendant who files a motion
to dismiss, assailing the (f) That the cause
jurisdiction of the court over of action is barred by a prior
his person, together with other judgment or by the statute of
grounds raised therein, is not limitations;
deemed to have appeared
voluntarily before the court. (g) That the
What the rule on voluntary pleading asserting the claim
appearance means is that the states no cause of action;
voluntary appearance of the
(h) That the claim
defendant in court is without or demand set forth in the
qualification, in which case he plaintiff’s pleading has been
is deemed to have waived his paid, waived, abandoned, or
defense of lack of jurisdiction otherwise extinguished;
over his person due to
improper service of summons. (i) That the claim
on which the action is founded
RULE 15 is unenforceable under the
MOTIONS provisions of the statute of
frauds; and
63. Q. What is the concept of the (j) That a
Omnibus Motion Rule? condition precedent for filing
the claim has not been
A. Under the Omnibus Motion complied with. (1a)
Rule embodied in Section 8 of
Rule 15 of the Rules of Court,
 21
64. Q. What is the effect of the
dismissal based on the
grounds enumerated in
Section 1, Rule 16?
A. Except for cases falling under
paragraphs (f), (h), or (i), the
dismissal of an action based on
the above-enumerated
grounds is without
prejudice and does not
preclude the refiling of the
same action. And, under
Section l (g) of Rule 41, an
order dismissing an action
without prejudice is not
appealable. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation vs.
United Coconut Planters
Bank, 775 SCRA 147, 23
November 2015.)
65. Q. What is the remedy of the
party whose case was
dismissed based on the
enumerated grounds under
Section 1, Rule 16?
A. The proper remedy therefrom
is a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule
65. But, if the reason for the
dismissal is based on
paragraphs (f), (h), or (i)
(i.e., res judicata, prescription,
extinguishment of the claim or
demand, and unenforceability
under the Statute of Frauds),
the dismissal, under Section
5, of Rule 16, is with
prejudice and the remedy of
the aggrieved party is to appeal
the order granting the motion
to dismiss. (United Alloy
Philippines Corporation vs.
United Coconut Planters
Bank, supra.)
66. Q. What is the duty of the trial
court if a motion to dismiss a
case or to withdraw
information is filed?
A. When a trial court is
confronted to rule on “a
motion to dismiss a case or to
withdraw an Information”, it is
its “bounden duty to assess
independently the merits of
the motion, and this
assessment must be embodied
in a written order disposing of
the motion.” (Jose vs. Suarez,
701 SCRA 466, 17 July 2013.)
RULE 17
DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
67. Q. What constitutes failure to
prosecute?
A. To constitute failure to
prosecute, his non-appearance
must be equated with
unwillingness to proceed
with the trial as when both
plaintiff and counsel made: no
appearance at all, or with the
assumption that plaintiff has
already lost interest in
prosecuting his action, in the
same way that should the
ground for dismissal be delay,
this delay or failure to proceed
must be for an unreasonable
length of time beyond the
reasonable allowance which by
judicial leniency litigant is
normally entitled. (Laurel vs.
Vardeleon, 765 SCRA 362, 5
August 2015.)
68. Q. When can the dismissal of
the case be made under
Section 3, Rule 17?
A. A case may be dismissed on the
ground of non-prosequitur, if,
under the circumstances, the
plaintiff is chargeable with
want of due diligence in failing
to proceed with reasonable
promptitude. (Auza, Jr. vs.
MOL Philippines, Inc., 686
SCRA 66, 21 November
2012.)
RULE 18
PRE-TRIAL
69. Q. What is the duty of the
parties during the pre-trial?
A. To obviate the element of
surprise, parties are expected
to disclose at a pre-trial
conference all issues of law and
fact which they intend to raise
at the trial, except such as may
involve privileged or
impeaching matters. The
determination of issues at a
pre-trial conference bars the
 22

consideration of other A. As a rule, in civil cases, the

questions on appeal. (Land procedure of calling the
Bank of the Philippines vs. adverse party to the witness
Oñate, 713 SCRA 678, 15 stand is not allowed, unless
January 2014.) written interrogatories are
first served upon the latter.
RULE 19 This is embodied in Section 6,
INTERVENTION Rule 25 of the Rules of Court.
(Afulugencia vs.
70. Q. Can an intervenor appeal the Metropolitan Bank & Trust
decision of a case where he Co., 715 SCRA 399, 5
was denied by the trial court February 2014.)
to intervene?
73. Q. What is the purpose of the
A. The right to appeal applies prohibition in Section 6, Rule
only to the denial of his 25?
intervention. Not being a party
to the case, a person whose A. The provision seeks to prevent
intervention the court denied fishing expeditions and
has no standing to question the needless delays. Its goal is to
decision of the court but only maintain order and facilitate
the trial court's orders denying the conduct of trial.
his intervention, not the
decision itself. (Republic vs. It will be presumed that a
Heirs of Diego Lim, 788 SCRA party who does not serve
62, 4 April 2016.) written interrogatories on the
RULE 23 adverse party beforehand will
DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION most likely be unable to elicit
facts useful to its case if it later
71. Q. What are the instances when opts to call the adverse party to
defendant can take depositions? the witness stand as its
witness. Instead, the process
A. The two instances are as could be treated as a fishing
follows: expedition or an attempt at
delaying the proceedings; it
(1) After the court has produces no significant result
acquired jurisdiction over that a prior written
the defendant or the interrogatories might bring.
property subject of the
action; and
Another reason for the rule is
(2) After an answer has been that by requiring prior written
served. interrogatories, the court may
limit the inquiry to what is
Both instances presuppose relevant, and thus prevent the
that the court has already calling party from straying or
acquired jurisdiction over the harassing the adverse party
defendant. (Disini vs. when it takes the latter to the
Sandiganbayan, 623 SCRA stand.
354, 5 July 2010.)
Thus, the rule not only protects
the adverse party from
unwarranted surprises or
harassment; it likewise
prevents the calling party from
RULE 25 conducting a fishing expedition
INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES or bungling its own case. Using
its own judgment and
72. Q. Can the adverse party be discretion, the court can hold
called to the witness stand? its own in resolving a dispute,
and need not bear witness to
the parties perpetrating unfair
 23
court practices such as fishing
for evidence, badgering, or
altogether ruining their own
cases. Ultimately, such
unnecessary processes can
only constitute a waste of the
court’s precious time, if not
pointless entertainment.
(Afulugencia vs.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co., supra.)
RULE 35
SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
74. Q. When can there be a
summary judgment?
A. The Rules of Court allows the
rendition of a summary
judgment if the pleadings,
supporting affidavits,
depositions and admissions on
file, show that, except as to
the amount of damages,
there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of
law. There can be no summary
judgment where questions of
fact are in issue or where
material allegations of the
pleadings are in dispute. (Loy,
Jr. vs. San Miguel
Corporation Employees
Union-Philippine Transport
and General Workers
Organization [SMCEU-
PTGWO], 605 SCRA 212, 24
November 2009; Ferrer vs.
Diaz, 619 SCRA 226, 23 April
2010.)
75. Q. What is a genuine issue?
A. A ‘genuine issue’ is an issue of
fact which requires the
presentation of evidence as
distinguished from a sham,
fictitious, contrived or false
claim. When the facts as
pleaded appear uncontested or
undisputed, then there is no
real or genuine issue or
question as to the facts, and
summary judgment is called
for. (Adolfo vs. Adolfo, 753
March 580, 18 March 2015.)
76. Q. What is the purpose of
summary judgment?
A. Summary judgment is a
procedural devise resorted to
in order to avoid long drawn
out litigations and useless
delays. (Ferrer vs. Diaz,
supra.)
77. Q. Distinguish judgment on the
pleadings from summary
judgment.
A. Judgment on the pleadings is
proper where an answer fails
to tender an issue, or
otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse
party’s pleading.
Summary judgment, on the
other hand, will be granted if
the pleadings, supporting
affidavits, depositions, and
admissions on file, show that,
except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.
RULE 36
JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS
AND ENTRY THEREOF
78. Q. The court renders judgment
according to Section 1, Rule
36 of the Rules of Court.
What then is the rationale
for promulgating A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC,1 to provide for
the Rules of Procedure in
Election Contests relative to
the writing of a decision?
A. In Dangan-Corral vs.
Commission on Elections
(612 SCRA 498, 12 February
2010), the Court made a
comparison of the said Rules.
Section 1 of Rule 36 merely
states: "A judgment or final
order determining the merits
of the case shall be in writing
personally and directly
prepared by the judge, stating
1
Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and
Barangay Officials.
 24

clearly and distinctly the facts person. The specific

and the law on which it is strokes, figures or letters
based, signed by him, and filed indicating that the ballots
with the clerk of court." have been written by one
person must be
specified. A simple
In the Rules of Procedure in ruling that a pair or
Election Contests, however, Section 2 group of ballots has
of Rule 14 states: been written by one
person would not
Section 2. Form suffice. The same is true
of decision in election when ballots are
protests.– After excluded on the ground
termination of the of having been written
revision of ballots and by two persons. The
before rendering its court must likewise take
decision in an election into consideration the
protest that involved such entries of the Minutes of
revision, the court shall Voting and Counting
examine and appreciate relative to illiterate or
the original ballots. The disabled voters, if any,
court, in its appreciation who cast their votes
of the ballots and in through assistors, in
rendering rulings on determining the validity
objections and claims to of the ballots found to
ballots of the parties, be written by one person,
shall observe the whether the ballots are in
following rules: pairs or in groups; and

(a) On (e) On
Marked Ballots– The Claimed Ballots– The
court must specify the court must specify the
entries in the ballots that exact basis for admitting
clearly indicate that the or crediting claimed votes
intention of the voter is to to either party. (Emphasis
identify the ballot. The supplied)
specific markings in the
ballots must be The Court said that the word
illustrated or indicated; "must" is used in the above-
quoted rule, thus, clearly
(b) On Fake
or Spurious Ballots– The indicating the mandatory -- not
court must specify the merely directory -- nature of
COMELEC security the requirement of what the
markings that are not decision should contain. The
found in the ballots that specific rules on the contents
are considered fake or of decisions in election
spurious; contests were formulated so
that the decision could, by
(c) On Stray itself, be taken as a valuable aid
Ballots– The court must
in expeditiously deciding on
specify and state in detail
why the ballots are appeal incidents peripheral to
considered stray; the main case.

(d) On Pair 79. Q. What is the effect of a final

or Group of Ballots and executory decision?
Written by One or
Individual Ballots Written A. Once a decision or order
by Two– When ballots are becomes final and executory, it
invalidated on the ground is removed from the power
of written by one person,
or jurisdiction of the court
the court must clearly
and distinctly which rendered it to further
specify why the pair or alter or amend it. It thereby
group of ballots has becomes immutable and
been written by only one unalterable and any
 25
amendment or alteration
which substantially affects a
final and executory judgment is
null and void for lack of
jurisdiction, including the
entire proceedings held for
that purpose. An order of
execution which varies the
tenor of the judgment or
exceeds the terms thereof is a
nullity. (National Power
Corporation vs. Tarcelo, 734
SCRA 413, 8 September
2014.)
80. Q. Explain the doctrine of
finality of judgment or
immutability of judgment.
A. Under the doctrine of finality
of judgment or immutability
of judgment, a decision that
has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and
may no longer be modified in
any respect even if the
modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions
of fact or law and whether it
was made by the court that
rendered it or by the highest
court of the land. (Genato vs.
Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5
February 2010; Solidbank
Union vs. Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company (680
SCRA 629, 17 September
2012; Montemayor vs.
Millora, 654 SCRA 580, 27
July 2011; Bank of the
Philippine Islands vs. Coquia,
Jr., 646 SCRA 215, 23 March
2011; Palileo vs. Planters
Development Bank, 738
SCRA 2, 8 October 2014.)
81. Q. What are the two-fold
purpose of the doctrine of
immutability and
ulalterability of final
judgments?
A. The doctrine of immutability
and unalterability serves a
two-fold purpose, namely:
(a) to avoid delay in the
administration of
justice and thus,
procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of
judicial business; and
(b) to put an end to judicial
controversies, at the risk
of occasional errors,
which is precisely why
the courts exist. (Teaño
vs. Municipality of
Navotas, 784 SCRA 63,
15 February 2016.)
82. Q. What are the exceptions to
the doctrine of finality of
judgment?
A. The only recognized exceptions
are as follows:
a) correction of clerical
errors;
b) the so-called nunc pro
tunc entries which cause
no prejudice to any party;
c) void judgments; and
d) whenever circumstances
transpire after the finality
of the decision rendering
its execution unjust and
inequitable. (Genato vs.
Viola, supra; Bank of
the Philippine Islands
vs. Coquia, Jr., supra.)
83. Q. What is a void judgment?
A. A void judgment or order has
no legal and binding effect,
force or efficacy for any
purpose. In contemplation of
law, it is non-existent. Such
judgment or order may be
resisted in any action or
proceeding whenever it is
involved. It is not even
necessary to take any steps to
vacate or avoid a void
judgment or final order; it may
simply be ignored. (Republic
vs. Benigno, 753 SCRA 135,
11 March 2015.)
84. Q. Can a non-party to a case be
bound by the judgment of
the court?
A. It is well-settled that no man
shall be affected by any
proceeding to which he is a
stranger, and strangers to a
case are not bound by a
 26
judgment rendered by the
court. Due process requires
that a court decision can only
bind a party to the litigation
and not against one who did
not have his day in court.
(Malixi vs. Maxicali
Philippines, supra)
85. Q. Distinguish Amended
Judgment from
Supplemental Judgment.
A. In Esquivel vs. Alegre,
(1989) the Court made the
distinction, viz:
In an amended and clarified
judgment, the lower court
makes a thorough study of the
original judgment and renders
the amended and clarified
judgment only after
considering all the factual and
legal issues. The amended
and clarified decision is an
entirely new decision which
supersedes the original
decision.
Whereas, supplemental
decision does not take the
place or extinguish the
existence of the original. As its
very name denotes, it only
serves to bolster or adds
something to the primary
decision. A supplement exists
side by side with the original. It
does not replace that which it
supplements. (Associated
Anglo-American Tobacco
Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23
April 2010.)
RULE 39
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF
JUDGMENTS
86. Q. In what intances can there
be errors in execution of
judgments and what is the
available remedy?
A. During execution proceedings,
errors may be committed such
that the rights of a party may
be prejudiced, in which case
corrective measures are called
for. These may involve
instances where—
(1) the Writ of Execution
varies the judgment;
(2) there has been a change
in the situation of the
parties making execution
inequitable or unjust;
(3) execution is sought to be
enforced against property
exempt from execution;
(4) it appears that the
controversy has never
been subject to the
judgment of the court;
(5) the terms of the judgment
are not clear enough and
there remains room for
interpretation thereof; or
(6) Writ of Execution was
improvidently issued, or
is defective in substance,
or was issued against the
wrong party, or the
judgment debt has been
paid or otherwise
satisfied, or the writ was
issued without authority.
In such event, one of the
corrective measures that may
be taken is the quashing of the
Writ of Execution. (Araullo vs.
Office of the Ombudsman,
711 SCRA 570, 4 December
2013.)
87. Q. If an appeal has been duly
perfected, can a partial
execution be issued as a
matter of right? What is
required for the issuance of
the writ of execution?
A. When an appeal had been duly
perfected, execution of the
judgment, whether wholly or
partially, was not a matter of
right, but of discretion
provided good reasons
therefor existed. The
compelling grounds for the
issuance of the writ must be
stated in a special order after
due hearing. Aside from the
existence of good reasons, the
rules also require that the
motion for partial execution
 27

should have been filed while Executio

the trial court still had n
jurisdiction over the case. pending
(Associated Anglo-American appeal
shall not
Tobacco Corporation vs.
issue
Court of Appeals, 619 SCRA without
250, 23 April 2010.) prior
notice
EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IN and
ELECTION CASES hearing.
There
Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of must be
Procedure in Election Contests good
reasons
for the
88. Q. What is the legal basis of the
executio
execution pending appeal in n
election contest cognizable pending
by the Regional Trial Court? appeal.
The
A. The case of Dangan-Corral vs. court, in
Commission on Elections a special
(612 SCRA 498, 12 February order,
2010), is instructive in this must
state the
respect. Rule 14 of the Rules of
good or
Procedure in Election Contests special
states: reasons
justifyin
Sec. 11. g the
Execution executio
pending appeal.– n
On motion of the pending
prevailing party appeal.
with notice to Such
the adverse reasons
party, the court, must:
while still in
possession of the (1)
original records,
may, at its c
discretion, order o
the execution of n
the decision in s
an election t
contest before i
the expiration of t
the period to u
appeal, subject t
to the following e
rules:

(a) There s
must be u
a p
motion e
by the r
prevaili i
ng party o
with r
three-
day c
notice i
to the r
adverse c
party. u
m
 28

s
t s
a h
n o
c u
e l
s d

d t
e h
m e
a
n l
d o
i s
n i
g n
g
u
r p
g a
e r
n t
c y
y
s
t e
h c
a u
t r
e
w
i a
l
l
r
e
o v
u e
t r
w s
e a
i l
g
h
o
f
t
h
t
e
h
e
i
n
j
j
u
u
d
r
g
y
m
e
o n
r t

d o
a n
m
a
a
g
p
e
p
 29

e a
a t
l
; t
h
a e
n
d d
e
(2) f
e
b a
e t

m o
a f
n
i t
f h
e e
s
t p
, r
o
i t
n e
s
t t
h e
e e

d o
e r
c
i t
s h
i e
o
n v
i
s c
o t
u o
g r
h y
t
o
t f
o
t
b h
e e

e p
x r
e o
c t
u e
t s
e t
d a
, n
t
t
h h
 30

a corresp
s onding
writ of
b executio
e n shall
e issue
n after
twenty
c days, if
l no
e restraini
a ng order
r or
l status
y quo
order is
issued.
e
During
s
such
t
period,
a
the writ
b
of
l
executio
i
n
s
pending
h
appeal
e
shall be
d
stayed.
.

(b) If the 89. Q. What is a valid exercise of

court discretion in granting
grants execution pending appeal in
an election contest?
executio
n A. A valid exercise of discretion to
pending allow execution pending
appeal, appeal requires that it must
an
be manifest in the decision
aggrieve
d party sought to be executed that
shall the defeat of the protestee
have and the victory of the
twenty protestant have been clearly
working established. The Rules of
days Procedure in Election Contests
from now embody this doctrine,
notice of which the Comelec has in the
the past given value to and used in
special
resolving cases before it, and
order
within which has formed part of our
which to jurisprudence. (Dangan-
secure a Corral vs. COMELEC, supra.)
restraini
ng order 90. Q. What is the purpose of giving
or notice through posting and
status publication under Section 15
quo (c) of Rule 39?
order
from the
A. The purpose of giving notice
Suprem
e Court through posting and
or the publication under Section
Commis 15(c) of Rule 39 is to let the
sion on public know of the sale to the
Election end that the best price or a
s. The better bid may be made
 31
possible to minimize
prejudice to the judgment
debtor. (Dalangin vs. Perez,
695 SCRA 86, 3 April 2013.)
91. Q. During public auction of the
property under execution,
what amount should be
credited to the judgment
debtor?
A. Drawing from Section 19, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court which
states that "all sales of
property under execution must
be made at public auction, to
the highest bidder," it
naturally follows that the
highest bid submitted is the
amount that should be
credited to the account of the
judgment debtor. (Genato vs.
Viola, 611 SCRA 677, 5
February 2010.)
92. Q. What is res judicata?
A. Res judicata means a matter
adjudged; a thing judicially
acted upon or decided; a thing
or matter settled by judgment.
It denotes that a final judgment
or decree on the merits by a
court of competent jurisdiction
is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies in all
later suits on all points and
matters determined in the
former suit. (Solidbank Union
vs. Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Company, 680 SCRA
629, 17 September 2012.)
93. Q. What is the concept of res
judicata as a bar to prior
judgment?
A. In its concept as a bar by prior
judgment under Section 47(b)
of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
res judicata dictates that a
judgment on the merits
rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction
operates as an absolute bar
to a subsequent action
involving the same cause of
action since that judgment is
conclusive not only as to the
matters offered and received
to sustain it but also as to
any other matter which
might have been offered for
that purpose and which
could have been adjudged
therein. (Bank of the
Philippine Islands vs. Coquia,
Jr., 646 SCRA 215, 23 March
2011; Bradford United
Church of Christ, Inc. vs.
Ando, 791 SCRA 337, 30 May
2016; Bank of the Philippine
Islands vs. Coquia, Jr., supra.)
APPEALS
RULE 40
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS TO THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
94. Q. Explain the doctrine of fresh
period rule?
A. To standardize the appeal
periods and afford litigants fair
opportunity to appeal their
cases, the Court ruled in
Neypes vs. Court of
Appeals(2005) that litigants
must be given a fresh period of
15 days within which to
appeal, counted from receipt of
the order dismissing a motion
for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration under Rules
40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the
Rules of Court. This ruling, as
the Court have said in Fil-
Estate Properties, Inc. vs.
Homena-Valencia, (2008)
retroactively applies even to
cases pending prior to the
promulgation of Neypes on
September 14, 2005, there
being no vested rights in the
rules of procedure. (Duarte vs.
Duran, 657 SCRA 607, 14
September 2011; See also
Heirs of Francisco Bihag vs.
Heirs of Nicasio Bathan, 723
SCRA 499, 23 April 2014.)
95. Q. In what courts shall the fresh
period rule apply?
A. The "fresh period rule" shall
also apply to:
1. Rule 40
governing
 32

appeals from the remedy is to institute a

Municipal Trial special civil action under
Courts to the Rule 65. (Pasco vs. Heirs of
Regional Trial Filomena de Guzman, 625
Courts;
SCRA 342, 26 July 2010.)
2. Rule 42 on
petitions for 97. Q. What is the effect of the
review from the dismissal based on Section
Regional Trial 1(g), Rule 41? What is your
Courts to the remedy?
Court of Appeals;
A. Under Section l(g) of Rule
3. Rule 43 on 41, an order dismissing an
appeals from action without prejudice is not
quasi-judicial
appealable. The proper remedy
agencies to the
Court of Appeals; therefrom is a special civil
and action for certiorari under Rule
65. (United Alloy Philippines
4. Rule 45 Corporation vs. United
governing Coconut Planters Bank, 775
appeals by SCRA 147, 23 November
certiorari to the 2015.)
Supreme Court.
98. Q. What are the two (2) modes
The new rule aims to regiment of appeal of RTC Decision or
or make the appeal period Resolution on issues of fact
uniform, to be counted from and law?
receipt of the order denying
the motion for new trial, A. There are two modes of
motion for reconsideration appealing an RTC decision or
(whether full or partial) or any resolution on issues of fact and
final order or resolution. (Go law, to wit:
vs. Sunbanun, 642 SCRA 367,
9 February 2011.) 1) The first mode is
an ordinary appeal
RULE 41 under Rule 41 in cases
APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL where the RTC exercised
TRIAL COURTS its original jurisdiction. It
is done by filing a
96. Q. What is the remedy of a Notice of Appeal with
the RTC.
party where the judgment is
based on a compromised 2) The second mode is
agreement? a petition for review
under Rule 42 in cases
A. From the express language of where the RTC exercised
Rule 41, a decision based on a its appellate
compromise agreement is jurisdiction over MTC
immediately final and decisions. It is done by
executory and cannot be the filing a Petition for
subject of appeal, for when Review with the CA.
Simply put, the
parties enter into a
distinction between these
compromise agreement and two modes of appeal lies
request a court to render a in the type of jurisdiction
decision on the basis of their exercised by the RTC in
agreement, it is presumed that the Order or Decision
such action constitutes a being appealed. (Maslag
waiver of the right to appeal vs. Monzon, 698 SCRA
said decision. While there 584, 17 June 2013.)
may have been other
remedies available to assail 99. Q. Can certiorari be availed of
the decision, the proper as a substitute of appeal?
 33

requirement under
A. No. Certiorari is a limited form Section 4 of Rule 41 is
of review and is a remedy of not merely directory,
last recourse. It is proper only as the payment of the
when appeal is not available to docket and other
the aggrieved party. (Home legal fees within the
Development Mutual Fund prescribed period is
[HDMF] vs. See, 652 SCRA both mandatory and
478, 22 June 2011.) jurisdictional. It bears
stressing that an
100. Q. What is the remedy of a appeal is not a right,
party in case of Order of but a mere statutory
Execution? privilege. An ordinary
appeal from a decision
A. Section 1(f) Rule 41 of the or final order of the
Rules of Court explicitly RTC to the CA must be
provides that no appeal may be made within 15 days
taken from an order of from notice. And
execution, the remedy of an within this period,
aggrieved party being an the full amount of the
appropriate special civil action appellate court
under Rule 65 of the Rules of docket and other
Court. (BPI Employees Union- lawful fees must be
Metro Manila vs. Bank of the paid to the clerk of
Philippine Islands, 658 SCRA the court which
127, 21 September 2011.) rendered the
judgment or final
101. Q. What is the period for filing order appealed from.
a Notice of Appeal? The requirement of
paying the full amount
A. It is basic and elementary that of the appellate docket
a Notice of Appeal should be fees within the
filed within fifteen (15) days prescribed period is
from notice of the judgment or not a mere technicality
final order appealed from. of law or procedure.
(Heirs of Numeriano The payment of
Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda, 700 docket fees within
SCRA 746, 8 July 2013.) the prescribed period
is mandatory for the
102. Q. Is payment in full of docket perfection of an
and other lawful fees by the appeal. Without such
appellant an indispensable payment, the appeal
requirement in order to is not perfected. The
perfect an appeal? appellate court does
not acquire jurisdiction
A. Yes. In Gipa vs. Southern over the subject matter
Luzon Institute, 726 SCRA of the action and the
559 (18 June 2014) citing Decision sought to be
Gonzales vs. Pe, (2011) the appealed from
Court’s explanation anent the becomes final and
requirement of full payment of executory.
docket and other lawful fees
under Section 4, Rule 41 was CROSS-REFERENCE
reiterated, viz:
Further, under Section 1(c), Rule 50,
In Far Corporation vs. an appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its
Magdaluyo, as with own motion or on that of the appellee, on the
other subsequent cases ground of the non-payment of the docket and
of the same ruling, the other lawful fees within the reglementary
Court explained that period as provided under Section 4 of Rule 41.
the procedural The payment of the full amount of the docket
 34
fee is an indispensable step for the perfection
of an appeal. In both original and appellate
cases, the court acquires jurisdiction over the
case only upon the payment of the prescribed
docket fees. (Gipa vs. Southern Luzon
Institute, supra.)
103. Q. If the appeal required is
merely by notice of appeal,
when should the notice of
appeal be filed?
A. In appeals by notice of appeal,
the court loses jurisdiction
over the case upon the
perfection of the appeals filed
in due time and the expiration
of the time to appeal of the
other parties. Each party only
has at most 15 days from their
receipt of the final order to
appeal it. (Associated Anglo-
American Tobacco
Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23
April 2010.)
104. Q. Explain the doctrine of
residual jurisdiction.
A. This stage is reached upon the
perfection of the appeals by the
parties or upon the approval of
the records on appeal, but
prior to the transmittal of the
original records or the records
on appeal. In either instance,
the trial court still retains its
so-called residual jurisdiction
to issue protective orders,
approve compromises,
permit appeals of indigent
litigants, order execution
pending appeal, and allow
the withdrawal of the appeal.
(Angeles vs. Court of
Appeals, 735 SCRA 82, 15
September 2014.)
RULE 42
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS
105. Q. Explain the right to appeal
fully.
A. The right to appeal is neither a
natural right nor is it a
component of due process. It is
a mere statutory privilege, and
may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance
with the provisions of law. This
being so, an appealing party
must strictly comply with the
requisites laid down in the
Rules of Court. Deviations from
the Rules cannot be tolerated.
The rationale for this strict
attitude is not difficult to
appreciate as the Rules are
designed to facilitate the
orderly disposition of appealed
cases. In an age where courts
are bedeviled by clogged
dockets, the Rules need to be
followed by appellants with
greater fidelity. Their
observance cannot be left to
the whims and caprices of
appellants. (Boardwalk
Business Ventures, Inc. vs.
Villareal, Jr., 695 SCRA 468,
10 April 2013.)
106. Q. What is the effect of non-
compliance with the
procedures under Sections 1
and 2 of Rule 42?
A. Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule
42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a party desiring to
appeal from a decision of the
RTC rendered in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction may
file a verified petition for
review with the CA, submitting
together with the petition a
certification on non-forum
shopping. Under Section 3 of
the same Rule, the failure of
the petitioner to comply with
any of the foregoing
requirements regarding the
payment of the docket and
other lawful fees, the deposit
for costs, proof of service of the
petition, and the contents of
and the documents which
should accompany the petition
shall be sufficient ground for
the dismissal thereof.
(Mathaeus vs. Medequiso,
783 SCRA 143, 3 February
2016.)
107. Q. What are the guideposts in
determining the necessity of
attaching pleadings and
portions of the record to
 35
petitions under Rules 42 and
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure?
A. For the guidance of the CA,
in Galvez vs. Court of
Appeals, (2013) the Court
held that there are three
guideposts in determining the
necessity of attaching
pleadings and portions of the
record to petitions under Rules
42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules, to
wit:
First, not all pleadings and
parts of case records are
required to be attached to the
petition. Only those which
are relevant and pertinent
must accompany it. The test
of relevancy is whether the
document in question will
support the material
allegations in the petition,
whether said document will
make out a prima facie case of
grave abuse of discretion as to
convince the court to give due
course to the petition.
Second, even if a document is
relevant and pertinent to the
petition, it need not be
appended if it is shown that
the contents thereof can also
be found in another
document already attached
to the petition. Thus, if the
material allegations in a
position paper are summarized
in a questioned judgment, it
will suffice that only a certified
true copy of the judgment is
attached.
Third, a petition lacking an
essential pleading or part of
the case record may still be
given due course or reinstated
(if earlier dismissed) upon
showing that petitioner later
submitted the documents
required, or that it will serve
the higher interest of justice
that the case be decided on
the merits.
The guideposts reflect that the
significant determinant of the
sufficiency of the attached
documents is whether the
accompanying documents
support the allegations of the
petition.
108. Q. What is the purpose of the
requirement under Section
2(d), Rule 42 that the
required annexes be
appended to the petition?
A. The annexes mentioned in
Section 2(d) of Rule 42 are
required to be appended to the
petition in order to enable the
Court to determine even
without consulting the record
if the petition is patently
without merit or the issues
raised therein are too
insubstantial to require
consideration, in which case
the petition should be
dismissed outright, or whether
there is a need to require the
respondent to comment on the
petition. Thus, more often than
not, the Court has resolved
petitions for review under Rule
42 without unnecessary
movement of the original
record of the case which could
entail not only undue delay but
also the possibility of the
record being lost in transit.
(Maravilla vs. Rios, 767 SCRA
522, 19 August 2015.)
109. Q. Is it required to attach all the
pleadings and documents
filed before the lower court
as Annexes to the Petition?
A. No. Section 2 of Rule 42 does
not require that all the
pleadings and documents filed
before the lower courts must
be attached as annexes to the
petition. Aside from clearly
legible duplicate originals or
true copies of the judgments
or final orders of both lower
courts, it merely requires
that the petition be
accompanied by copies of
pleadings and other material
portions of the record as
would support the
allegations of the petition.
Section 3 empowers the CA to
dismiss the petition where the
 36

allegations contained therein penalties in relations

are utterly bereft of evidentiary thereto, or other matters
foundation. Since the CA gave arising under the
due course to respondent’s National Internal
Revenue Code or other
Petition for Review and
laws administered by the
proceeded to decide it on the Bureau of Internal
merits, it can be fairly assumed Revenue, where the
that the appellate court is National Internal
satisfied that respondent has Revenue Code provides a
sufficiently complied with specific period of action,
Section 2 of Rule 42. (Yuki, Jr. in which case the inaction
vs. Co, 606 SCRA 211, 27 shall be deemed a denial;
November 2009.)
3.
Decisions, orders
RULE 43
or resolutions of the
APPEALS FROM THE COURT Regional Trial Courts in
OF TAX APPEALS AND local tax cases originally
QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT decided or resolved by
OF APPEALS them in the exercise of
their original or appellate
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX jurisdiction;
APPEALS (CTA) PURSUANT TO R.A. NO. 4.
9282 (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of Decisions of the
Commissioner of
the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), Elevating Its
Customs in cases
Rank to the Level of a Collegiate Court with involving liability for
Special Jurisdiction and Enlarging Its customs duties, fees or
Membership, Amending for the Purpose other money charges,
Certain Sections or Republic Act No. 1125, seizure, detention or
As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Law release of property
Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for affected, fines, forfeitures
Other Purposes, approved on 30 March or other penalties in
2004 relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the
SECTION 7. Jurisdiction. Customs Law or other
— The CTA shall exercise: laws administered by the
Bureau of Customs;
a. Exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to review by 5.
appeal, as herein provided: Decisions of the
Central Board of
1. Assessment Appeals in
Decisions of the the exercise of its
Commissioner of Internal appellate jurisdiction
Revenue in cases over cases involving the
involving disputed assessment and taxation
assessments, refunds of of real property originally
internal revenue taxes, decided by the provincial
fees or other charges, or city board of
penalties in relation assessment appeals;
thereto, or other matters
arising under the 6.
National Internal Decisions of the
Revenue or other laws Secretary of Finance on
administered by the customs cases elevated to
Bureau of Internal him automatically for
Revenue; review from decisions of
the Commissioner of
2. Inaction Customs which are
by the Commissioner of adverse to the
Internal Revenue in cases Government under
involving disputed Section 2315 of the Tariff
assessments, refunds of and Customs Code;
internal revenue taxes,
fees or other charges,
 37

7. criminal action being

Decisions of the deemed to necessarily
Secretary of Trade and carry with it the filing of
Industry, in the case of the civil action, and no
nonagricultural product, right to reserve the filling
commodity or article, and of such civil action
the Secretary of separately from the
Agriculture in the case of criminal action will be
agricultural product, recognized.
commodity or article,
involving dumping and 2.
countervailing duties Exclusive
under Section 301 and appellate jurisdiction in
302, respectively, of the criminal offenses:
Tariff and Customs Code,
and safeguard measures a. Over
under Republic Act No. appeals
8800, where either party from the
may appeal the decision judgme
to impose or not to nts,
impose said duties. resoluti
ons or
b. Jurisdiction over orders
cases involving criminal offenses of the
as herein provided: Regiona
l Trial
1. Courts
Exclusive in tax
original jurisdiction over cases
all criminal offenses originall
arising from violations of y
the National Internal decided
Revenue Code or Tariff by them,
and Customs Code and in their
other laws administered respecte
by the Bureau of Internal d
Revenue or the Bureau of territori
Customs: Provided, al
however, That offenses or jurisdict
felonies mentioned in this ion.
paragraph where the
principal amount o taxes b. Over
and fees, exclusive of petition
charges and penalties, s for
claimed is less than One review
million pesos of the
(P1,000,000.00) or where judgme
there is no specified nts,
amount claimed shall be resoluti
tried by the regular ons or
Courts and the orders
jurisdiction of the CTA of the
shall be appellate. Any Regiona
provision of law or the l Trial
Rules of Court to the Courts
contrary in the
notwithstanding, the exercise
criminal action and the of their
corresponding civil action appellat
for the recovery of civil e
liability for taxes and jurisdict
penalties shall at all times ion over
be simultaneously tax
instituted with, and cases
jointly determined in the originall
same proceeding by the y
CTA, the filing of the decided
 38

by the by them,
Metropo in their
litan respecti
Trial ve
Courts, territori
Municip al
al Trial jurisdict
Courts ion.
and
Municip b. Over
al petition
Circuit s for
Trial review
Courts of the
in their judgme
respecti nts,
ve resoluti
jurisdict ons or
ion. orders
of the
c. Jurisdiction over Regiona
tax collection cases as herein l Trial
provided: Courts
in the
1. Exercise
Exclusive of their
original jurisdiction in tax appellat
collection cases involving e
final and executory jurisdict
assessments for taxes, ion over
fees, charges and tax
penalties: Provided, collectio
however, That collection n cases
cases where the principal originall
amount of taxes and fees, y
exclusive of charges and decided
penalties, claimed is less by the
than One million pesos Metropo
(P1,000,000.00) shall be litan
tried by the proper Trial
Municipal Trial Court, Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Court Municip
and Regional Trial Court. al Trial
Courts
2. and
Exclusive Municip
appellate jurisdiction in al
tax collection cases: Circuit
Trial
a. Over Courts,
appeals in their
from the respecti
judgme ve
nts, jurisdict
resoluti ion.
ons or
orders SECTION 11. Who May
of the Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of
Regiona Appeal.— Any party adversely
l Trial affected by a decision, ruling or
Courts inaction of the Commissioner of
in tax Internal Revenue, the
collectio Commissioner of Customs, the
n cases Secretary of Finance, the
originall Secretary of Trade and Industry
y or the Secretary of Agriculture
decided or the Central Board of
 39
Assessment Appeals or the
Regional Trial Courts may file
an appeal with the CTA within
thirty (30) days after the receipt
of such decision or ruling or
after the expiration of the
period fixed by law for action as
referred to in Section 7(a)(2)
herein.
Appeal shall be made by
filing a petition for review under a
procedure analogous to that
provided for under Rule 42 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with
the CTA within thirty (30) days
from the receipt of the decision or
ruling or in the case of inaction as
herein provided, from the
expiration of the period fixed by
law to act thereon. A Division of
the CTA shall hear the appeal:
Provided, however, That with
respect to decisions or rulings of
the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals and the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction appeal shall
be made by filing a petition for
review under a procedure
analogous to that provided for
under rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure with the CTA,
which shall hear the case en banc.
All other cases involving
rulings, orders or decisions filed
with the CTA as provided for in
Section 7 shall be raffled to its
Divisions. A party adversely
affected by a ruling, order or
decision of a Division of the CTA
may file a motion for
reconsideration of new trial
before the same Division of the
CTA within fifteens (15) days
from notice thereof: Provide,
however, That in criminal cases,
the general rule applicable in
regular Courts on matters of
prosecution and appeal shall
likewise apply.
No appeal taken to the
CTA from the decision of the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
or the Commissioner of Customs
or the Regional Trial Court,
provincial, city or municipal
treasurer or the Secretary of
Finance, the Secretary of Trade
and Industry and Secretary of
Agriculture, as the case may be
shall suspend the payment, levy,
distraint, and/or sale of any
property of the taxpayer for the
satisfaction of his tax liability as
provided by existing law:
Provided, however, That when in
the opinion of the Court the
collection by the aforementioned
government agencies may
jeopardize the interest of the
Government and/or the taxpayer
the Court any stage of the
proceeding may suspend the said
collection and require the
taxpayer either to deposit the
amount claimed or to file a surety
bond for not more than double the
amount with the Court.
In criminal and collection
cases covered respectively by
Section 7(b) and (c) of this Act, the
Government may directly file the
said cases with the CTA covering
amounts within its exclusive and
original jurisdiction.
x-x-x-x-x
SECTION 18. Appeal to
the Court of Tax Appeals En
Banc.— No civil proceeding
involving matter arising under the
National Internal Revenue Code,
the Tariff and Customs Code or the
Local Government Code shall be
maintained, except as herein
provided, until and unless an
appeal has been previously filed
with the CTA and disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
A party adversely affected
by a resolution of a Division of the
CTA on a motion for
reconsideration or new trial, may
file a petition for review with the
CTA en banc.
DECISION OF THE CTA (EN
BANC) IS APPEALABLE TO
THE SUPREME COURT VIA
RULE 45 AND NOT TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS
SECTION 19. Review by
Certiorari.— A party adversely
affected by a decision or ruling of
the CTA en banc may file with the
Supreme Court a verified petition
for review on certiorari pursuant
to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
 40
110. Q. Is there an appeal from the
adverse decisions in
administrative disciplinary
cases of the Office of the
Ombudsman?
A. Yes. It is settled jurisprudence
that appeals from decisions of
the Office of the Ombudsman
in administrative
disciplinary cases should be
taken to the Court of Appeals
under the provisions of Rule
43, in line with the regulatory
philosophy adopted in appeals
from quasi-judicial agencies in
the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Araullo vs. Office
of the Ombudsman, 711
SCRA 570, 4 December 2013;
Contes vs. Office of the
Ombudsman, 698 SCRA 129
(10 June 2013).
111. Q. Can the Court of Appeals
grant a Second Motion for
Extension to File an Appeal
by Petition for Review? For
how many days will the party
be allowed to do so?
A. The CA, after it has already
allowed petitioner an
extension of 15 days within
which to file a petition for
review, may only grant a
further extension when
presented with the most
compelling reason but the
same is limited only to a
period of 15 days. Technical
rules may be relaxed only for
the furtherance of justice and
to benefit the deserving.
(Barangay Dasmariñas vs.
Creative Play Corner School,
640 SCRA 294, 24 January
2011.)
PROCEDURE IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS
RULE 44
ORDINARY APPEALED CASES
112. Q. What is the purpose of the
appellant’s reply?
A. The purpose of a reply is to
deny or allege facts in denial of
new matters alleged by way of
defense in the answer. It is not
the office or function of a reply
to set up or introduce a new
issue or to amend or amplify
the Petition. (Gipa vs.
Southern Luzon Institute,
726 SCRA 559, 18 June
2014.)
113. Q. Is the failure to furnish
appeal brief to the opposing
counsel a ground for the
outright dismissal of the
appeal? If not, what shall be
the duty of the court in this
regard?
A. In Go vs. Chaves, the failure to
serve a copy of the appellant’s
brief to two of the adverse
parties was a mere oversight,
constituting excusable
neglect. A litigant's failure to
furnish his opponent with a
copy of his appeal brief does
not suffice to warrant dismissal
of that appeal. In such an
instance, all that is needed is
for the court to order the
litigant to furnish his opponent
with a copy of his brief. Anent
the failure to append a copy of
the assailed judgment, instead
of dismissing the appeal on
that basis, it is more in keeping
with equity to simply require
the appellants to immediately
submit a copy of the Decision
of the lower court rather than
punish litigants for the reckless
inattention of their lawyers.
114. Q. What questions may be
raised on appeal?
A. A court with appellate
jurisdiction can review both
the facts and the law,
including questions of
jurisdiction. It can set aside an
erroneous decision and even
nullify the same, if warranted.
Appeal is a speedy remedy, as
an adverse party can file its
appeal from a final decision or
order immediately after
receiving it. A party, who is
alleging that an appeal will not
promptly relieve it of the
injurious effects of the
judgment, should establish
 41
facts to show how the appeal is
not speedy or adequate. (V.C.
Ponce Company, Inc. vs.
Municipality of Parañaque,
685 SCRA 117, 12 November
2012.)
It has to be noted however
that, it is settled that new
issues cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal or on
motion for reconsideration.
(Montaño vs. Verceles, 625
SCRA 405, 26 July 2010;
Carique vs. Philippine Scout
Veterans Security and
Investigation Agency, Inc.,
770 SCRA 567, 16 September
2015.)
RULE 45
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT
115. Q. When can there be question
of law and question of fact?
A. In Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian
Sambaan (610 SCRA 90, 15
January 2010), citing the case
of Manila Bay Club
Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals,(1995) the Supreme
Court said that for a question
to be one of law, it must involve
no examination of the
probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or
any of them. There is a
question of law when the
doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is pertaining to a
certain state of facts.
On the other hand, there is a
question of fact when the
doubt arises as to the truth or
the falsity of alleged facts.
116. Q. What is the remedy of a
party aggrieved by the
decision of the Court of
Appeals?
A. The remedy of a party
aggrieved by a decision, final
order, or resolution of the CA is
to file a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, which is a
continuation of the appellate
process over the original
case. (Mendez vs. Court of
Appeals, 672 SCRA 200, 13
June 2012.)
117. Q. What findings of the
appellate court are
conclusive with the Supreme
Court under Rule 45?
A. In the exercise of its power of
review, the findings of fact of
the CA are conclusive and
binding and consequently, it is
not our function to analyze or
weigh evidence all over again.
Where the factual findings of
both the trial court and the
Court of Appeals coincide, the
same are binding on the
Supreme Court. (Nicolas vs.
People, 790 SCRA 680, 20
April 2016; Bernales vs.
Heirs of Julian Sambaan,
supra.)
Moreover, factual findings of
administrative bodies charged
with their specific field of
expertise, are afforded great
weight by the courts, and in the
absence of substantial showing
that such findings were made
from an erroneous estimation
of the evidence presented, they
are conclusive, and in the
interest of stability of the
governmental structure,
should not be disturbed.
(Angeles vs. Bucad, 730 SCRA
295, 21 July 2014; See also
Philippine Science High
School-Cagayan Valley
Campus vs. Pirra
Construction Enterprises,
803 SCRA 137, 14 September
2016; Jose vs. Novida, 728
SCRA 552, 2 July 2014; Nahas
vs. Olarte, 724 SCRA 224, 2
June 2014; Apo Cement
Corporation vs. Baptisma,
674 SCRA 162, 20 June 2012;
Hipolito, Jr. vs. Cinco, 661
SCRA 311, 28 November
2011.)
118. Q. Can the party aggrieved by
the decision of the Court of
Appeals avail of the remedy
under Rule 65 instead of
Rule 45?
 42
A. As a rule, if the remedy of an
appeal is available, an action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court, which is an
original or independent action
based on grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, will not
prosper because it is not a
substitute for a lost appeal.
There are, however, exceptions
to this rule, to wit:
1) when public welfare and the
advancement of public policy
dictate; (Associated Anglo-
American Tobacco
Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 619 SCRA 250, 23
April 2010.)
2) when the broader interest of
justice so requires;
3) when the writs issued are
null and void;
4) when the questioned order
amounts to an oppressive
exercise of judicial authority;
5) when, for persuasive
reasons, the rules may be
relaxed to relieve a litigant of
an injustice not
commensurate with his
failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure;
6) when the judgment or order
is attended by grave abuse of
discretion; or
7) in other meritorious cases.
(Bureau of Internal
Revenue vs. Court of
Appeals, 741 SCRA 536, 24
November 2014.)
8) When there is divergence
between the findings of facts
of the NLRC and that of the
CA, there is a need to review
the records. (Leo’s
Restaurant and Bar Café
vs. Bensing, 806 SCRA 596,
19 October 2016; Santos
vs. Integrated
Pharmaceutical, Inc., 796
SCRA 211, 11 July 2016;
Alilin vs. Petron
Corporation, 725 SCRA
342, 9 June 2014; Ang vs.
San Joaquin, Jr., 703 SCRA
269, 7 August 2013.)
9) When the questioned order
amounts to an oppressive
exercise of judicial authority.
(Associated Anglo-
American Tobacco
Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, supra.)
119. Q. What is the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court in cases
brought to it from the Court
of Appeals under Rule 45?
A. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in cases
brought before it from the CA
via Rule 45 is generally limited
to reviewing errors of law that
may have been committed by
the lower court. (Litex Glass
and Aluminum Supply vs.
Sanchez, 757 SCRA 206, 22
April 2015; Orix Metro
Leasing and Finance
Corporation vs. Mangalinao,
664 SCRA 87, 25 January
2012; Titan Construction
Corporation vs. David, Sr.,
615 SCRA 362, 15 March
2010.)
“Appreciation of evidence” or
factual errors which are not
within the province of a
petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45.
(Roque vs. People, 755 SCRA
20, 6 April 2015;Subic Bay
Legend Resorts and Casinos,
Inc. vs. Fernandez, 736 SCRA
667, 29 September 2014.)
120. Q. What are the exceptions to
the rule that a petition for
review should raise only
questions of law?
A. There are recognized
exceptions to the rule, as
reiterated in Jose Yulo
Agricultural
Corporation vs. Davis (764
SCRA 589, 3 August 2015),
such as:
(1) when the findings are
grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (Perla vs.
Baring, 685 SCRA 101, 12
November 2012.)
 43

challenged property.
(2) when the inference made is Adversely affected by the
manifestly mistaken, decision of the trial court
absurd or impossible; and affirmation by the CA, a
petition for review was
(3) when there is grave abuse
of discretion; brought to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45. Is the
(4) when the judgment is based action proper? Explain.
on a misapprehension of
facts; (Saso vs. 88 Aces A. A petition to review the
Maritime Services, Inc., decision of the CA is not a
772 SCRA 189, 7 October matter of right but of sound
2015; Ico vs. Systems judicial discretion. It has
Technology Institute, Inc., been repeatedly held that the
729 SCRA 439, 9 July
jurisdiction of the Court in
2014.)
cases brought before it from
(5) when the findings of fact the CA is limited to reviewing
are conflicting; errors of law; findings of fact of
the appellate court are
(6) when in making its findings conclusive upon the Court, as it
the CA went beyond the is not its function to analyze
issues of the case, or its and weigh the evidence all over
findings are contrary to the again. However, there are
admissions of both the
recognized exceptions to the
appellant and the appellee;
rule. When the petitioner has
(7) when the findings are not shown that the case falls
contrary to those of the trial under any of the recognized
court; exceptions, the Court shall
respect the findings of the CA.
(8) when the findings are (Jose Yulo Agricultural
conclusions without Corporation vs. Davis,
citation of specific evidence supra.)
on which they are based;
(Silos vs. Philippine
122. Q. Can the Supreme Court
National Bank, 728 SCRA
617, 2 July 2014.) exercise its jurisdiction
under Rule 45 when an issue
(9) when the facts set forth in involving the admissibility of
the petition as well as in the evidence is brought before
petitioner’s main and reply them, such as when the
briefs are not disputed by petitioners assail the
the respondent; appellate courts’ rejection of
their evidence (as to the
(10) when the findings of fact contractual intent) as
are premised on the
inadmissible under the Best
supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted Evidence Rule? Explain.
by the evidence on record;
or A. In Marquez vs. Espejo (629
SCRA 117, 25 August 2010)
(11) when the CA manifestly the Supreme Court held that
overlooked certain relevant the question involving the
facts not disputed by the admissibility of evidence is a
parties, which, if properly legal question that is within
considered, would justify a the Court’s authority to review.
different conclusion.
Even if it were a factual
(Republic vs. Pasicolan,
755 SCRA 495, 15 April question, the Court is not
2015.) precluded to review the same.
123. Q. How is the principle of Rule
121. Q. In an action for quieting of 45 applied in labor cases?
title, the issue to be resolved
is who, between the parties, A. As a rule, the Court is not a
has a better right to the trier of facts and only
 44
questions of law are
reviewable under a Rule 45
Petition. This principle applies
with greater force in labor
cases where the Supreme
Court has consistently held
that findings of fact of the
NLRC are accorded great
respect and even finality,
especially if they coincide with
those of the Labor Arbiter and
are supported by substantial
evidence. Judicial review by the
Court does not extend to a
reevaluation of the sufficiency
of the evidence upon which the
proper labor tribunal has
based its determination.
Factual issues are beyond the
scope of this Court’s authority
to review on certiorari.
Nonetheless, this rule admits
of exceptions including
instances where the findings of
the lower courts or tribunals
are contradictory with the
other. (Angeles vs. Bucad,
730 SCRA 295, 21 July 2014.)
In Magsaysay Maritime Corp.
vs. Cruz (792 SCRA 344, 6
June 2016), the Supreme
Court was compelled to resolve
the factual issues and examine
the evidence on record in view
of the opposing positions of
the Labor Arbiter and the CA,
on one hand, and the NLRC on
the other. (See also Doehle-
Philman Manning Agency,
Inc. vs. Haro, 790 SCRA 41,
18 April 2016; Heirs of the
Late Delfin Dela Cruz vs.
Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc., 756 SCRA 141,
20 April 2015.)
124. Q. What is the extent of the
Supreme Court’s review over
labor cases, under Rule 45?
A. In testing for legal correctness,
the Court views the CA
Decision in the same context
that the petition
for certiorari it ruled upon was
presented to it. It entails a
limited review of the acts of the
NLRC, of whether it committed
errors of jurisdiction. It does
not cover the issue of whether
the NLRC committed any error
of judgment, unless there is a
showing that its findings and
conclusion were arbitrarily
arrived at or were not based on
substantial evidence. (New
Filipino Maritime Agencies,
Inc. vs. Datayan, 774 SCRA
677, 11 November 2015;
Philippine Transmarine
Carriers, Inc. vs. Aligway, 770
SCRA 609, 16 September
2015.)
While the strict inquiry on the
correctness of evaluation of
evidence is not required in
a certiorari proceeding, it is
still necessary to determine
that the conclusions of labor
tribunals were supported by
substantial evidence. This is
because a decision
unsupported by substantial
evidence is a judgment
rendered with grave abuse of
discretion. (Etom, Jr. vs.
Aroma Lodging House, 774
SCRA 141, 9 November
2015.)
125. Q. Can the Supreme Court pass
upon the issue on vitiation of
consent to the execution of
amicable settlement in a
Petition for Review on
Certiorari?
A. In Lacson vs. MJ Lacson
Development Company, Inc.
(637 SCRA 505, 8 December
2010), it was held that
vitiation of consent to the
execution of amicable
settlement is a question of fact
that entails re-evaluation of
factual findings which the
Court cannot pass upon in a
Petition for Review
on Certiorari. A question of fact
x x x exists when the doubt or
difference arises as to the truth
or falsehood of facts or when
the query invites calibration of
the whole evidence
considering mainly the
credibility of the witnesses, the
existence and relevance of
specific surrounding
circumstances, as well as their
relation to each other and to
 45
the whole, and the probability
of the situation.
126. Q. Is the existence of bad faith a
question of law that may be
raised on appeal via Rule 45
to the Supreme Court?
A. In Meyr Enterprises
Corporation vs. Cordero (734
SCRA 253, 3 September
2014), the Supreme Court held
that the existence of bad faith
is a question of fact and is
evidentiary; it requires that
the reviewing court look into
the evidence to find if indeed
there is proof that is
substantial enough to show
such bad faith. This being the
case, the appeal by petition for
review on certiorari under
Rule 45 must fail because a
question of fact cannot
properly be raised in a petition
for review on certiorari.
127. Q. If the case is on appeal to the
Supreme Court, can the
appellee introduce new
arguments to modify the
appealed judgment? What
would be the proper
remedy?
A. No. Settled is the rule that a
party is barred from assailing
the correctness of a judgment
not appealed from by him. In
an appeal, an appellee may
argue only to sustain the
appealed judgment, but not
introduce arguments that
would modify the same; in
order to do that, he likewise
should have seasonably filed
an appeal. The rule is rooted in
the presumption that a party
who did not interpose an
appeal is satisfied with the
judgment rendered by the
lower court. (Maersk-
Filipinas Crewing, Inc. vs.
Jaleco, 771 SCRA 163, 21
September 2015: One
Network Rural Bank, Inc. vs.
Baric, 718 SCRA 169, 5
March 2014; Cañedo vs.
Kampilan Security and
Detective Agency Inc., 702
SCRA 647, 31 July 2013;
Libcap Marketing Corp. Vs.
Baquial, 727 SCRA 520, 30
June 2014.)
128. Q. Can points of law, theories,
issues and arguments not
brought to the lower court
be raised on appeal?
A. No. Settled is the rule that
points of law, theories, issues
and arguments not brought to
the attention of the lower court
need not be considered by a
reviewing court, as they cannot
be raised for the first time at
that late stage. Basic
considerations of fairness and
due process impel this rule.
(Andres vs. Sta. Lucia Realty
& Development,
Incorporated, 768 SCRA 56,
24 August 2015; Bautista vs.
Civil Service Commission,
625 SCRA 251, 22 July 2010.)
129. Q. What is the exception to the
rule that in appellate
proceedings, the reversal of
the judgment on appeal is
binding only on the parties
in the appealed case and
does not affect or inure to
the benefit of those who did
not join or were not made
parties to the appeal?
A. An exception to the rule exists
where a judgment cannot be
reversed as to the party
appealing without affecting the
rights of his co-debtor, or
where the rights and liabilities
of the parties are so
interwoven and dependent on
each other as to be
inseparable, in which case a
reversal as to one operates as a
reversal as to all. This
exception, which is based on a
communality of interest of said
parties, is recognized in this
jurisdiction. (Romero vs.
Singson, 764 SCRA 620, 3
August 2015.)
130. Q. When can the party be
excused from complying
with the material data rule
under Section 4(b) of Rule
45?
 46

A. In Teaño vs. Municipality of

A. Failure to comply with the rule Navotas (784 SCRA 63, 15
on a statement of material date February 2016), the Supreme
in the petition may be excused Court said that annulment of
if the date is evident from the judgment is an exceptional
records. (Sy vs. Fairland remedy in equity that may be
Knitcraft Co., Inc., 662 SCRA availed of when ordinary
67, 12 December 2011.) remedies are unavailable
without fault on the part of the
131. Q. Is the non-attachment of petitioner. As aptly explained
material portions of the by the Court in Dare
record in a petition for Adventure Farm Corporation
review under Rule 45 fatal to vs. Court of Appeals, (2012) a
the petitioner? petition for annulment of
judgment is a remedy in equity
A. No. Petitioners’ failure to so exceptional in nature that it
attach the material portions of may be availed of only when,
the record that would support other remedies are wanting,
the allegations in the Petition is and only if the judgment, final
not fatal. In F.A.T. Kee order or final resolution sought
Computer Systems, Inc. vs. to be annulled was rendered by
Online Networks a court lacking jurisdiction or
International, Inc.,(2011) the through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the
Supreme Court held that such a remedy, being exceptional in
requirement failure to attach character, is not allowed to be
material portions of the record so easily and readily abused by
was not meant to be an parties aggrieved by the final
ironclad rule such that the judgments, orders or
failure to follow the same resolutions. The Court has thus
would merit the outright instituted safeguards by
dismissal of the petition. In limiting the grounds for the
accordance with Section 7 of annulment to lack of
Rule 45, ‘the Supreme Court jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud,
may require or allow the filing and by prescribing in Section 1
of such pleadings, briefs, of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
memoranda or documents as it that the petitioner should
may deem necessary within show that the ordinary
such periods and under such remedies of new trial, appeal,
conditions as it may consider petition for relief or other
appropriate.’ More importantly, appropriate remedies are no
Section 8 of Rule 45 declares longer available through no
that if the petition is given due fault of the petitioner.
course, the Supreme Court may
require the elevation of the Thus, it stressed that the
complete record of the case or remedy of annulment of
specified parts thereof within judgment is only available
fifteen (15) days from notice. under certain exceptional
(Robern Development circumstances as this is
Corporation vs. People’s adverse to the concept of
Landless Association, 693 immutability of final
SCRA 24, 11 March 2013.) judgments. Hence, it is
allowed only on two grounds,
RULE 47 i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS of jurisdiction. (Mangubat vs.
OF FINAL ORDERS Morga-Seva, 775 SCRA 312,
AND RESOLUTIONS 23 November 2015.)

132. Q. When is the remedy of 133. Q. Explain the two (2) grounds
annulment of judgment for annulment of judgment
available? under Rule 47?
 47
A. Annulment of judgment must
be based only on the grounds
of extrinsic fraud and of lack
of jurisdiction.
Extrinsic fraud is that which
prevented the aggrieved party
from having a trial or
presenting his case to the
court, or used to procure the
judgment without fair
submission of the controversy.
On the other hand, lack of
jurisdiction involves the want
of jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party or over
the subject matter of the case.
(Teaño vs. Municipality of
Navotas, supra.)
134. Q. What is the principle of
laches?
A. The principle of laches or 'stale
demands' ordains that the
failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained
length of time, to do that which
by exercising due diligence
could or should have been
done earlier— negligence or
omission to assert a right
within a reasonable time,
warrants a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it
has abandoned it or declined
to assert it. (Mangubat vs.
Morga-Seva, supra.)
135. Q. What should be shown in a
petition for annulment of
judgment on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction?
A. In Mangubat vs. Morga-Seva,
supra, it was held that in a
petition for annulment of
judgment based on lack of
jurisdiction, petitioner must
show not merely an abuse of
jurisdictional discretion but
an absolute lack of
jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction means absence of
or no jurisdiction, that is, the
court should not have taken
cognizance of the petition
because the law does not vest
it with jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Jurisdiction
over the nature of the action or
subject matter is conferred by
law.
136. Q. Can an action for revival of a
judgment modify, alter, or
reverse the original
judgment, which is already
final and executory? Explain.
A. No. An action for revival of a
judgment cannot modify, alter,
or reverse the original
judgment, which is already
final and executory.
An action for revival of
judgment is a new and
independent action. It is
different and distinct from the
original judgment sought to be
revived or enforced. As such, a
party aggrieved by a decision
of a court in an action for
revival of judgment may appeal
the decision, but only insofar
as the merits of the action for
revival is concerned. The
original judgment, which is
already final and executory,
may no longer be reversed,
altered, or modified. (Heirs of
Numeriano Miranda, Sr. vs.
Miranda, 700 SCRA 746, 8
July 2013)
137. Q. Which court has jurisdiction
over a petition for revival of
judgment?
A. RTC has jurisdiction over the
Petition for Revival of
Judgment. It may be filed
either in the same court where
said judgment was rendered or
in the place where the plaintiff
or defendant resides, or in any
other place designated by the
statutes which treat of the
venue of actions in general. It is
settled that once jurisdiction
has been acquired, it is not lost
until the court shall have
disposed of the case in its
entirety. (Heirs of Numeriano
Miranda, Sr. vs. Miranda,
supra.)
RULE 50
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
 48

138. Q. Can the Court of Appeals

dismiss an appeal even when The Court has pronounced
the filing of the appellant’s strict adherence to the rule laid
brief was caused by the trial down in Habaluyas
court and the respondents? Enterprises, Inc. vs. Judge
Japson (1986) that:
A. In Republic vs. Benigno (753
SCRA 135, 11 March 2015), No motion for
the Supreme Court cited extension of time to file
Beatingo vs. Gasis, and held a motion for new trial
that the power conferred upon or reconsideration may
the CA to dismiss an appeal for be filed with the
failure to file an appellant’s Metropolitan or
brief is discretionary. The CA’s Municipal Trial Courts,
application of Section 1(e) of the Regional Trial
Rule 50 is proper. Courts, and the
Intermediate Appellate
139. Q. What is the consequence of a Court (now Court of
wrong mode of appeal? Appeals).

A. An appeal erroneously taken to PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

the Court of Appeals shall not
be transferred to the RULE 58
appropriate court but shall be PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
dismissed outright. (Maslag
vs. Monzon, 698 SCRA 584, 141. Q. What is injunction?
17 June 2013.)
A. Injunction is a judicial writ,
RULE 52 process or proceeding
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION whereby a party is ordered to
do or refrain from doing a
140. Q. Can a party file a Motion for certain act. It may be the main
Extension of Time to file action or merely a provisional
Motion for Reconsideration? remedy for and as an incident
in the main action. (United
A. No. In V.C. Ponce Company, Alloy Philippines
Inc. vs. Municipality of Corporation vs. United
Parañaque (685 SCRA 117, Coconut Planters Bank, 775
12 November 2012), it was SCRA 147, 23 November
held that the period to file a 2015; See also Republic vs.
Motion for Reconsideration is Cortez, Sr., 769 SCRA 267, 7
not extendible. Based on Rule September 2015.)
52 of the Rules of Court and
Rule 7 of the 2002 Internal 142. Q. Distinguish a main action for
Rules of the Court of Appeals injunction from the
(IRCA), a party has 15 days provisional or ancillary
from its receipt of the Decision, remedy of preliminary
to file a motion for injunction.
reconsideration, an appeal, or a
motion for new trial. Failure to A. Under the law, the main
file the necessary pleading action for injunction seeks a
within the reglementary judgment embodying a final
period would render the CA injunction which is distinct
Decision final and executory. from, and should not be
Since the period to file a confused with, the provisional
Motion for Reconsideration is remedy of preliminary
not extendible, the Motion for injunction, the sole object of
Extension of Time to File which is to preserve the
Motion for Reconsideration did status quo until the merits
not toll the reglementary can be heard. A preliminary
period. injunction is granted at any
 49
stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the
judgment or final order. It
persists until it is dissolved or
until the termination of the
action without the court
issuing a final injunction.
(United Alloy Philippines
Corporation vs. United
Coconut Planters Bank,
supra.)
143. Q. Distinguish prohibitory from
mandatory injunction?
A. Prohibitory injunction
requires a party to refrain from
doing a particular act, whereas,
mandatory injunction, which
commands a party to perform
a positive act to correct a
wrong in the past.
A writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction,
however, is more cautiously
regarded because it commands
the performance of an act. (Sy
vs. Autobus Transport
Systems, Inc., 686 SCRA 707,
3 December 2012.)
144. Q. When can the court refuse
the relief of injunction
prayed for by the party?
A. In Golding vs. Balatbat,
(1917) the Supreme Court held
that the writ of injunction
should never issue when an
action for damages would
adequately compensate the
injuries caused. The very
foundation of the jurisdiction
to issue the writ rests in the
probability of irreparable
injury, the inadequacy of
pecuniary compensation, and
the prevention of the
multiplicity of suits, and where
facts are not shown to bring
the case within these
conditions, the relief of
injunction should be refused.
(Power Sites and Signs, Inc.
vs. United Neon, 605 SCRA
196, 24 November 2009.)
145. Q. What is the obligation of a
party upon whom the
injunction was issued
against?
A. An injunction or restraining
order must be obeyed while it
remains in full force and effect
until the injunction or
restraining order has been set
aside, vacated, or modified by
the court which granted it, or
until the order or decree
awarding it has been reversed
on appeal. The injunction must
be obeyed irrespective of the
ultimate validity of the order,
and no matter how
unreasonable and unjust the
injunction may be in its terms.
(Pacific Ace Finance Ltd.
[PAFIN] vs. Yanagisawa, 669
SCRA 270, 11 April 2012.)
146. Q. In case of acts done in
violation of a standing
injunction, what is the
remedy of the party in whose
favor the injunction was
issued?
A. Jurisprudence holds that all
acts done in violation of a
standing injunction order are
voidable as to the party
enjoined and third parties who
are not in good faith. The party,
in whose favor the injunction is
issued, has a cause of action to
seek the annulment of the
offending action. (Pacific Ace
Finance Ltd. [PAFIN] vs.
Yanagisawa, supra.)
147. Q. What are the requisites for
the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction?
A. It must be issued only upon a
clear showing that the
following requisites are
established:
(1) the applicant has a clear
and unmistakable right
that must be protected;
(2) there is a material and
substantial invasion of
such right; and
(3) there is an urgent need
for the writ to prevent
irreparable injury to
 50
the applicant. (Sy vs.
Autobus Transport
Systems, Inc., supra.)
(4) there is no other
ordinary, speedy, and
adequate remedy to
prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury.
(Aldover vs. Court of
Appeals, 706 SCRA 188,
23 September 2013.)
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS
RULE 63
DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
SIMILAR REMEDIES
148. Q. Who has jurisdiction over a
suit for quieting of title?
A. The Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over the suit for
quieting of title. It is clear
under the Rules that an action
for quieting of title may be
instituted in the RTCs,
regardless of the assessed
value of the real property in
dispute. Under Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court, an action to
quiet title to real property or
remove clouds therefrom may
be brought in the appropriate
RTC. (Sabitsana, Jr. vs.
Muertegui, 703 SCRA 145, 5
August 2013.)
RULE 64
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL
ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
149. Q. What is the issue to be
resolved in a petition for
certiorari under Rule 64 in
relation to Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court?
A. The primordial issue to be
resolved is whether the
respondent tribunal
committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing
the assailed resolution. And as
a matter of policy, the Court
will not interfere with the
resolutions of the Comelec
unless it is shown that it had
committed grave abuse of
discretion. Thus, in the absence
of grave abuse of discretion, a
Rule 64 petition will not
prosper. Jurisprudence, on the
other hand, defines grave
abuse of discretion as the
"capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of
discretion is not enough; it
must be grave. Grave abuse of
discretion has likewise been
defined as an act done contrary
to the Constitution, the law or
jurisprudence. (Arnado vs.
Commission on Elections,
767 SCRA 168, 18 August
2015.)
150. Q. What is the effect of filing a
Rule 64 Petition to the
Supreme Court to the
pending motions in the
COMELEC?
A. In Cayago vs. Lina,(2005) it
was held that once a party
elevates the case before the
appellate tribunal, the
appellant is deemed to have
abandoned the unresolved
motion which remains pending
with the tribunal of origin. It is
not right for a party who has
affirmed and invoked the
jurisdiction of a court in a
particular matter to secure an
affirmative relief, to afterwards
make a volte face and deny that
same jurisdiction.
RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
151. Q. When can a government
agency be considered to have
adjudicatory functions?
What is the effect of its
Decision in the performance
of its adjudicatory functions?
A. A government agency
performs adjudicatory
functions when it renders
decisions or awards that
 51
determine the rights of
adversarial parties, which
decisions or awards have the
same effect as a judgment of
the court. These decisions are
binding, such that when they
attain finality, they have the
effect of res judicata that even
the courts of justice have to
respect. As held in one case,
judicial or quasi-judicial
function involves the
determination of what the law
is, and what the legal rights of
the contending parties are,
with respect to the matter in
controversy and, on the basis
thereof and the facts obtaining,
the adjudication of their
respective rights. In other
words, the tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial function must be
clothed with power and
authority to pass judgment or
render a decision on the
controversy construing and
applying the laws to that end.
(Villanueva vs. Palawan
Council for Sustainable
Development, 691 SCRA 556,
25 February 2013.)
152. Q. What is the principal
function of a Petition for
Certiorari?
A. A Petition for Certiorari lies
only to correct acts rendered
without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion. In Aldover
vs. Court of Appeals (706
SCRA 188, 23 September
2013), the Supreme Court held
that its principal office is only
to keep the inferior court
within the parameters of its
jurisdiction or to prevent it
from committing such a grave
abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
153. Q. In filing a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65, is
it necessary to attach
documentary evidence?
A. In Power Sites and Signs, Inc.
vs. United Neon (605 SCRA
196, 24 November 2009), the
Court said that a plain reading
of the provision indicates that
there is no specific
enumeration of the
documents that must be
appended to the petition,
other than a certified true
copy of the assailed
judgment, order, or
resolution.
The Supreme Court has
emphasized that not all
pleadings and parts of case
records are required to be
attached, but only those
which are material and
pertinent that they may
provide the basis for a
determination of a prima
facie case for abuse of
discretion. (Go vs. Sunbanun,
642 SCRA 367, 9 February
2011.)
154. Q. What are the requisites in
order that a petition for
certiorari shall prosper?
A. Certiorari is a limited form of
review and is a remedy of last
recourse. It is proper only
when appeal is not available to
the aggrieved party. (Home
Development Mutual Fund
[HDMF] vs. See, 652 SCRA
478, 22 June 2011.)
Moreover, Rule 65 petitions
for certiorari are extraordinary
remedies available only when
there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction and the petitioner
has no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy for
correcting such abuse. (Disini
vs. Sandiganbayan, 623 SCRA
354, 5 July 2010; See also
Bureau of Internal Revenue
vs. Court of Appeals, 741
SCRA 536, 24 November
2014.)
155. Q. Describe “grave abuse of
discretion” referred to under
Section 1, Rule 65?
A. Grave abuse of discretion
refers to such "capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment
 52
as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be patent and
gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or 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. (Estate
of Soledad Maninang vs.
Court of Appeals, 653 SCRA
543, 6 July 2011; Philippine
National Bank vs. DKS
International, Inc., 610 SCRA
603, 22 January 2010.)
156. Q. What constitute grave abuse
of discretion in the decision
of a quasi-judicial body like
the NLRC to warrant a
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65?
A. In Capili vs. Philippine
National Bank (796 SCRA
235, 11 July 2016), the
Supreme Court held that: In
order that the extraordinary
writ of certiorari be issued
against a court or quasi-
judicial body, it is necessary to
prove that such court or
tribunal gravely abused its
discretion, which connotes "a
capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as; is
equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, such as where the
power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and it must
be so patent and gross so as to
amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.
157. Q. What is the indispensible
ingredient in a valid petition
for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus?
A. In Candelaria vs. Regional
Trial Court, Branch 42, City of
San Fernando, Pampanga
(730 SCRA 1, 14 July 2014), it
is to be stressed that in every
special civil action under Rule
65, a party seeking the writ
whether for certiorari,
prohibition or mandamus,
must be able to show that his
or her resort to such
extraordinary remedy is
justified by the absence of an
appeal or any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. He
must allege in his petition and
establish facts to show that any
other existing remedy is not
speedy or adequate. Further, a
petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 does not include
review of the correctness of a
board or tribunal’s evaluation
of the evidence but is confined
to issues of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion. (De
Guzman vs. Gonzales III, 616
SCRA 546, 26 March 2010.)
158. Q. Is filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration a condition
sine qua non for filing a
petition for certiorari?
A. Yes. Rule 65 states that where
a motion for reconsideration or
new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is
required or not, the petition
shall be filed not later than 60
days counted from the notice
of the denial of the motion.
This can only mean that even
though a motion for
reconsideration is not required
or even prohibited by the
concerned government office,
and the petitioner files the
motion just the same, the 60-
day period shall nonetheless
be counted from notice of the
denial of the motion. The very
nature of certiorari – which is
an extraordinary remedy
resorted to only in the absence
of plain, available, speedy and
adequate remedies in the
course of law – requires that
the office issuing the decision
or order be given the
opportunity to correct itself.
Quite evidently, this
opportunity for rectification
does not arise if no motion for
 53
reconsideration has been filed.
(Philtranco Service
Enterprises, Inc. vs.
Philtranco Workers Union-
Association of Genuine
Labor Organizations [PWU-
AGLO], 717 SCRA 340, 26
February 2014.)
159. Q. In labor cases, is the filing of
a Motion for
Reconsideration also an
indispensable requirement
in a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65?
A. Yes. In Philippine National
Bank vs. Arcobillas (703
SCRA 226, 7 August 2013),
after PNB received a copy of
the NLRC Decision, it did not
file any Motion for
Reconsideration such that the
said Decision became final and
executory. Instead, PNB went
directly to the CA to assail the
NLRC Decision through a
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
which the said court took
cognizance of. The Supreme
Court held that PNB’s failure to
file a Motion for
Reconsideration with the NLRC
before filing its Petition for
Certiorari before the CA is a
fatal infirmity.
160. Q. Will the finality and
thereafter entry of judgment
preclude the filing of a
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65? Explain.
A. No. In Philippine National
Bank vs. Arcobillas, supra, the
High Court recognizes that the
finality of the NLRC’s Decision
does not preclude the filing of a
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
That the NLRC issues an entry
of judgment after the lapse of
ten (10) days from the parties’
receipt of its Decision will only
give rise to the prevailing
party’s right to move for the
execution thereof but will not
prevent the CA from taking
cognizance of a Petition for
Certiorari on jurisdictional and
due process considerations.
However, it is a well-
established rule that a Motion
for Reconsideration is an
indispensable condition before
an aggrieved party can resort
to the special civil action for
certiorari. The rationale for the
rule is that the law intends to
afford the NLRC an
opportunity to rectify such
errors or mistakes it may have
committed before resort to
courts of justice can be had.
161. Q. What is the remedy of an
aggrieved party from the
decision or resolution of the
Secretary of Labor?
A. The remedy is to timely file a
motion for reconsideration
as a precondition for any
further or subsequent
remedy, and then seasonably
file a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules on Civil
Procedure. There is no
distinction: when the Secretary
of Labor assumes jurisdiction
over a labor case in an industry
indispensable to national
interest, he exercises great
breadth of discretion in finding
a solution to the parties’
dispute. The authority of the
Secretary of Labor to assume
jurisdiction over a labor
dispute causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to
national interest includes and
extends to all questions and
controversies arising
therefrom. The power is
plenary and discretionary in
nature to enable him to
effectively and efficiently
dispose of the primary
dispute. This wide latitude of
discretion given to the
Secretary of Labor may not be
the subject of appeal.
162. Q. What is the remedy of a
party from the adverse
resolution of the Secretary of
Justice?
 54
A. It has been held that the
remedy of a party desiring to
elevate to the appellate court
an adverse resolution of the
Secretary of Justice is a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65. A
Rule 43 petition for review is a
wrong mode of appeal.
(Barangay Dasmariñas vs.
Creative Play Corner School,
640 SCRA 294, 24 January
2011.)
163. Q. Are there exceptions to the
rule that a Motion for
Reconsideration is an
indispensable condition
before an aggrieved party
can resort to the special civil
action for certiorari?
A. Yes. Jurisprudence has laid
down exceptions when the
filing of a Petition for Certiorari
is proper notwithstanding the
failure to file a Motion for
Reconsideration, such as:
(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 relied 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.
164. Q. Is direct resort to the
Supreme Court under Rule
65 allowed without violating
the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts?
A. No. In Candelaria vs.
Regional Trial Court, Branch
42, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga, supra, the
Supreme Court held that the
petitioners violated the
principle of hierarchy of courts.
This is against the well-settled
principle dictating that a
petition for certiorari assailing
the interlocutory orders of the
RTC should be filed with the
Court of Appeals and not
directly with the Supreme
Court.
It was held in Rayos vs. City of
Manila (2011) that indeed,
the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals and the Regional
Trial Courts exercise
concurrent jurisdiction to issue
writs of certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto,
habeas corpus and injunction.
However, such concurrence in
jurisdiction does not give
petitioners unbridled freedom
of choice of court forum.
165. Q. What is the limitation of the
filing of a Petition for
Certiorari in the Court of
Appeals under Rule 65?
 55

A. Yes. In Republic vs. St.

A. The filing of a Petition for Vincent de Paul Colleges,
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Inc.,(2012) the Court had the
Rules of Court before the CA is occasion to settle the seeming
limited only to the correction conflict on various
of errors of jurisdiction or jurisprudence touching upon
grave abuse of discretion on the issue of whether the period
the part of the trial court. A for filing a petition for
special civil action for certiorari may be extended.
certiorari is an independent Under exceptional cases, and
action, raising the question of as held in Domdom vs. Third
jurisdiction where the tribunal, and Fifth Divisions of the
board or officer exercising Sandiganbayan, the 60-day
judicial or quasi-judicial period may be extended
functions has acted without or subject to the court’s sound
in excess of jurisdiction, or discretion.
with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of Then in Labao vs. Flores,
jurisdiction. (Sea Lion Fishing (2010) the Court laid down
Corporation vs. People, 646 some of the exceptions to the
SCRA 272, 23 March 2011.) strict application of the 60-day
period rule, thus:
166. Q. What is the period for filing
a petition for certiorari There are recognized
under Rule 65? exceptions to their strict observance,
such as:
A. Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court provides that a special (1) most persuasive
civil action for certiorari and weighty
should be instituted within 60 reasons;
days from notice of the
(2) to relieve a litigant
judgment, order, or resolution,
from an injustice
or from the notice of the denial not commensurate
of the motion for with his failure to
reconsideration of the comply with the
judgment, order, or resolution prescribed
being assailed. The 60-day procedure;
period, however, is
inextendible to avoid any (3) good faith of the
unreasonable delay, which defaulting party by
would violate the immediately
paying within a
constitutional rights of parties
reasonable time
to a speedy disposition of their from the time of
cases. Thus, strict compliance the default;
of this rule is mandatory and
imperative. But like all rules, (4) the existence of
the 60-day limitation may be special or
relaxed "for the most compelling
persuasive of reasons," which circumstances;
must be sufficiently shown by
(5) the merits of the
the party invoking liberality.
case;
(Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company vs. (6) a cause not entirely
Ocampo, 729 SCRA 335, 9 attributable to the
July 2014.) fault or negligence
of the party
167. Q. Can the period for filing a favored by the
Petition for Certiorari under suspension of the
Rule 65 be subject to Motion rules;
for Extension?
 56

(7) a lack of any deviate from the 60-day rule.

showing that the
review sought is
merely frivolous
and dilatory;
(8) the other party will
not be unjustly
prejudiced
thereby;
(9) fraud, accident,
mistake or
excusable
negligence without
appellant’s fault;
(10) peculiar legal and
equitable
circumstances
attendant to each
case;
(11) in the name of
substantial justice
and fair play;
(12) importance of the
issues involved;
and
(13) exercise of sound
discretion by the
judge guided by all
the attendant
circumstances.
Thus, there should be an effort
on the part of the party
invoking liberality to advance a
reasonable or meritorious
explanation for his/her failure
to comply with the rules.
(Thenamaris Philippines,
Inc. [Formerly Intermare
Maritime Agencies, Inc.] vs.
Court of Appeals, 715 SCRA
153, 3 February 2014.)
168. Q. Can heavy pressure of work
be considered as compelling
reason to justify a motion for
an extension of time to file a
petition for certiorari?
A. It is settled jurisprudence that
heavy pressure of work is not
considered compelling reason
to justify a request for an
extension of time to file a
petition for certiorari. Heavy
workload is relative and often
self-serving. Standing alone, it
is not a sufficient reason to
In Yutingco vs. Court of
Appeals, therein petitioners’
counsel cited heavy workload
in seeking the court’s leniency.
However, the same was
rebuffed by the Court
ratiocinating that such
"circumstance alone does
not provide the court
sufficient reason to merit
allowance of an extension of
the 60-day period to file the
petition for certiorari. Heavy
workload ought to be coupled
with more compelling reasons
such as illness of counsel or
other emergencies that could be
substantiated by affidavits of
merit. (Heirs of Ramon B.
Gayares vs. Pacific Asia
Overseas Shipping
Corporation, 676 SCRA 450,
16 July 2012.)
169. Q. Is the Petition for Certiorari
dismissible for failure to
implead the trial court as
required by Section 5 of Rule
65?
A. The Supreme Court, in the case
of Heirs of Babai
Guiambangan vs.
Municipality of Kalamansig,
Sultan Kudarat (798 SCRA
584, 27 July 2016), held that it
is not fatal. Accordingly it said,
in Abdulrahman vs. The
Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao,( 2013) that
"neither the misjoinder nor
the non-joinder of parties is
a ground for the dismissal of
an action," particularly a
Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65; the CA should simply
order that a party be
impleaded in the case.
170. Q. Is the filing of reply and
other subsequent pleadings
mandatorily required by the
court in giving due course to
a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65?
A. No. Section 6, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court provides that
before the court gives due
course to a petition
 57
for certiorari, it may require
the respondent to file a
comment to the petition.
Afterwards, the court may
require the filing of a reply and
such pleadings as it may deem
necessary. In turn, Section 8 of
Rule 65 states that after the
comment or other pleadings
are filed or the period for their
filing has expired, the court
may require the parties to file
memoranda.
It is thus clear that the filing of
a reply and other subsequent
pleading, as well as
memoranda, is subject to the
sound judgment of the court.
The word 'may' when used in
a statute is permissive only
and operates to confer
discretion. (Etom, Jr. vs.
Aroma Lodging House, 774
SCRA 141, 9 November
2015.)
171. Q. In a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 with the Court
of Appeals, will it admit a
pleading filed out of time?
A. Yes. In Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable
PCC-Baguio (611 SCRA 721, 5
February 2010), the Court
said that a close scrutiny of
Section 6, Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, which grants
discretionary authority to the
CA in ordering parties to file
responsive and other pleadings
in petitions for certiorari filed
before it, will reveal that such
rule is merely directory in
nature. This is so because the
word "may" employed by the
rule shows that it is not
mandatory but discretionary
on the part of the CA to require
the filing of pleadings which it
deems necessary to assist it in
resolving the controversies. In
the same way, the admission of
any responsive pleading filed
by party-litigants is a matter
that rests largely on the sound
discretion of the court. At any
rate, rules of procedure may be
relaxed in the interest of
substantial justice and in order
to afford litigants maximum
opportunity for the proper and
just determination of their
causes. Strict adherence to
technical adjective rules should
never be unexceptionally
required because a contrary
precept would result in a
failure to decide cases on their
merits. The CA could not have
erred in admitting the
comment, albeit filed late,
when it viewed that the
interest of justice would be
better served by the policy of
liberality.
172. Q. Did the Court of Appeals
violate the Constitution
when it denied a Motion for
Reconsideration without
indicating its legal basis?
A. In Areno, Jr. vs. Skycable PCC-
Baguio, supra, it was held
that: While it is provided in
Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution, that no petition
for review or motion for
reconsideration of a decision of
the court shall be refused due
course or denied without
stating the legal basis thereof,
this requirement, however, was
complied with, when the CA, in
its resolution denying
petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, stated that it
found no cogent reason to
modify, much less reverse
itself.
173. Q. Is the filing of a petition for
certiorari stay the
proceedings of a pending
case?
A. No. The pendency of a special
civil action for certiorari
instituted in relation to a
pending case does not stay the
proceedings therein in the
absence of a writ of
preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order.
Rule 65, Section 7 of the 1997
Rules is clear on this.
The public respondent shall
proceed with the principal case
within ten (10) days from the
filing of a petition for certiorari
 58
with a higher court or tribunal,
absent a temporary restraining
order or a preliminary
injunction, or upon its
expiration. Failure of the public
respondent to proceed with
the principal case may be a
ground for an administrative
charge. (Silverio, Sr. vs.
Silverio, Jr., 730 SCRA 152, 18
July 2014; Juliano-Llave vs.
Republic, 646 SCRA 637, 30
March 2011.)
RULE 68
FORECLOSURE OF REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGE
174. Q. Is the issuance of Writ of
Possession ministerial in a
judicial foreclosure
proceeding?
A. As a general rule, the issuance
of a writ of possession is
ministerial. However, in
Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co. vs. Lamb Construction
Consortium Corporation (606
SCRA 159, 27 November
2009), the Supreme Court
cited the case of Sulit vs. Court
of Appeals, (1997) where the
Court withheld the issuance of
the writ considering the
peculiar circumstances
prevailing in said case.
In Sulit, the Court withheld the
issuance of a writ of possession
because the mortgagee failed
to deliver the surplus from the
proceeds of the foreclosure
sale which is equivalent to
approximately 40% of the total
mortgage debt. Sulit was
considered as an exception
to the general rule that it is
ministerial upon the court to
issue a writ of possession
even during the period of
redemption. The Court
explained that equitable
considerations prevailing in
said case demand that a writ of
possession should not issue.
In the subsequent case of
Saguan vs. Philippine Bank
of Communications, (2007)
however, the Court clarified
that the exception made in
Sulit does not apply when the
period to redeem has already
expired or when ownership
over the property has already
been consolidated in favor of
the mortgagee-purchaser. In
other words, even if the
mortgagee-purchaser fails to
return the surplus, a writ of
possession must still be issued.
(Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co. vs. Lamb Construction
Consortium Corporation,
supra.)
175. Q. How should the proceeds of
the sale be disposed in a
judicial foreclosure?
A. The application of the
proceeds from the sale of the
mortgaged property to the
mortgagor’s obligation is an act
of payment, not payment by
dation; hence, it is the
mortgagee’s duty to return any
surplus in the selling price to
the mortgagor. Perforce, a
mortgagee who exercises the
power of sale contained in a
mortgage is considered a
custodian of the fund, and,
being bound to apply it
properly, is liable to the
persons entitled thereto if he
fails to do so. And even though
the mortgagee is deemed a
trustee for the mortgagor or
owner of the equity of
redemption. (Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Co. vs. Lamb
Construction Consortium
Corporation, supra.)
176. Q. What is the consequence of
mortgagee’s failure to
deliver the surplus proceeds
of the foreclosure sale?
A. In Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Co. vs. Lamb Construction
Consortium Corporation,
supra, the Court held that the
failure of the mortgagee to
deliver the surplus proceeds
does not affect the validity of
the foreclosure sale. It gives
rise to a cause of action for the
mortgagee to file an action to
collect the surplus proceeds.
 59
177. Q. Can the mortgagor recover
the surplus proceeds while
there is a pending case of
annulment of the foreclosure
proceedings?
A. No. It bears stressing that the
collection of surplus is
inconsistent with the
annulment of foreclosure
because in suing for the return
of the surplus proceeds, the
mortgagor is deemed to have
affirmed the validity of the sale
since nothing is due if no valid
sale has been made. It is only
after the dismissal of
complaint for annulment or
when the foreclosure sale is
declared valid that the
mortgagor may recover the
surplus in an action specifically
brought for that purpose.
However, to avoid multiplicity
of suits, the better recourse is
for the mortgagor to file a case
for annulment of foreclosure
with an alternative cause of
action for the return of the
surplus, if any. (Metropolitan
Bank & Trust Co. vs. Lamb
Construction Consortium
Corporation, supra.)
CROSS-REFERENCE
ACT NO. 3135
AN ACT TO REGULATE THE
SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER
SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED
IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-
ESTATE MORTGAGES
178. Q. Is notice a necessary
ingredient in extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage
under Act No. 3135?
A. It has been consistently held
that unless the parties
stipulate, “personal notice to
the mortgagor in extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings is not
necessary because Section 3 of
Act 3135 only requires the
posting of the notice of sale in
three public places and the
publication of that notice in a
newspaper of general
circulation. (Lim vs.
Development Bank of the
Philippines (700 SCRA 210, 1
July 2013; In Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Company vs.
Wong, (2001)
179. Q. What is fatal to the validity
of the notice and the sale
pursuant thereto?
A. Errors or omissions in the
notice of sale which are
calculated to deter or
mislead bidders, to
depreciate the value of the
property, or to prevent it
from bringing a fair price.
Simple mistakes or
omissions are not
considered fatal to the
validity of the notice and the
sale made pursuant thereto.
(Certeza, Jr. vs. Philippine
Savings Bank, 614 SCRA 442,
5 March 2010.)
180. Q. In an auction sale of
extrajudicially foreclosed
real property, is it required
to have at least two (2)
bidders?
A. No. In Certeza, Jr. vs.
Philippine Savings Bank,
supra, the Supreme Court
said that pursuant to A.M.
99-10-05-0, as amended by
the Resolutions of January
30, 2001 and August 7, 2001,
the then Court Administrator
(now Associate Justice of this
Court) Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr., issued Circular No. 7-
2002 dated January 22, 2002
which became effective on
April 22, 2002.
The use of the word "bids" (in
plural form) does not make it a
mandatory requirement to
have more than one bidder for
an auction sale to be valid. A.M.
No. 99-10-05-0, as amended,
no longer prescribes the
requirement of at least two
bidders for a valid auction sale.
181. Q. What is the redemption
period of the mortgagor in
case of extrajudicial
 60

foreclosure of mortgage proceed ex parte. In such a

under Act No. 3135? What is
the right of the purchaser
during the said redemption
period?
A. A debtor has one year from
the date the Certificate of
Sale is registered with the
Register of Deeds within
which to redeem his
property. During the one-year
redemption period, the
purchaser may possess the
property by filing a petition for
the issuance of a writ of
possession before the court,
upon the posting of a
bond. (Sombilon vs. Garay,
726 SCRA 397, 16 June
2014.)
184.
182. Q. What is the duty of the RTC
in case the foreclosed
property is not redeemed
after the lapse of the one (1)
year period?
A. Upon the expiration of the
period to redeem and no
redemption was made, the
purchaser, as confirmed
owner, has the absolute right to
possess the land and the
issuance of the writ of
possession becomes a possession as purchaser in a
ministerial duty of the court
upon proper application and
proof of title. (Gatuslao vs.
Yanson, 746 SCRA 520, 21
January 2015.)
183. Q. In case the foreclosed
property is in the hands of a
third party after the lapse of
the one (1) year redemption
period, is the duty of the RTC
still ministerial to issue the
writ of possession? Explain.
A. No. Where the extrajudicially
foreclosed real property is in
the possession of a third party
who is holding the same
adversely to the judgment
debtor or mortgagor, the RTC’s
duty to issue a writ of
possession in favor of the
purchaser of said real property
ceases to be ministerial and, as
such, may no longer
case, the trial court must order
a hearing to determine the
nature of the adverse
possession. For this exception
to apply, however, it is not
enough that the property is in
the possession of a third party,
the property must also be held
by the third party adversely to
the judgment debtor or
mortgagor, such as a co-owner,
agricultural tenant or
usufructuary. (Gatuslao vs.
Yanson, supra; Parents-
Teachers Association [PTA]
of St. Matthew Christian
Academy vs. Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Co, 614 SCRA
41, 2 March 2010.)
Q. Is the ex parte petition for
issuance of writ of
possession a judicial
process?
A. No. This ex parte petition for
the issuance of a writ of
possession under Section 7 of
Act No. 3135 is not, strictly
speaking, a "judicial process"
as contemplated in Article
433 of the Civil Code. As a
judicial proceeding for the
enforcement of one's right of
foreclosure sale, it is not an
ordinary suit by which one
party "sues another for the
enforcement of a wrong or
protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a
wrong.
In Idolor vs. Court of
Appeals, (2005) the Court
described the nature of the ex
parte petition for issuance of
possessory writ under Act No.
3135 to be a non-litigious
proceeding and summary in
nature. As an ex
parte proceeding, it is brought
for the benefit of one party
only, and without notice to, or
consent by any person
adversely interested. It is a
proceeding where the relief is
granted without requiring an
opportunity for the person
against whom the relief is
 61
sought to be heard. It does not
matter even if the herein
petitioners were not
specifically named in the writ
of possession nor notified of
such proceedings.
185. Q. Is a Petition for Issuance of
Writ of Possession
considered as initiatory
pleading that needs to be
accompanied by a mortgage or the foreclosure
Verification-Certification for
Non-Forum Shopping?
A. No. In Spouses Arquiza vs.
Court of Appeals,(2005) it
was held that an application
for a writ of possession is a
mere incident in the
registration proceeding which
is in substance merely a
motion, and therefore does not
require such a certification.
186. Q. What is the remedy of the
mortgagor, in an extra-
judicial foreclosure, if there
is a question as to the
regularity of the issuance of
the writ of possession?
A. In De Gracia vs. San Jose,
(1954) Since the writ of
possession had already been
issued, the proper remedy is an
appeal and not a petition
for certiorari, in accordance
with the ruling in
Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company vs. Tan (2008) and
Government Service
Insurance System vs. Court of
Appeals (1989) As long as the
court acts within its
jurisdiction, any alleged errors
committed in the exercise of its
discretion will amount to
nothing more than mere errors
of judgment, correctable by an
appeal if the aggrieved party
raised factual and legal issues;
or a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if
only questions of law are
involved. (Parents-Teachers
Association [PTA] of St.
Mathew Christian Academy
vs. Metropolitan Bank and
Trust Co., supra.)
187. Q. Will the pending action for
annulment of foreclosure of
mortgage a bar to the
issuance of writ of
possession?
A. No. In Gatuslao vs. Yanson,
supra, it was settled that the
issuance of a writ of possession
may not be stayed by a pending
action for annulment of
itself. (BPI Family Savings
Bank, Inc. vs. Golden Power
Diesel Sales Center, Inc.,
2011.) This is in line with the
ministerial character of the
possessory writ. (Bank of the
Philippine Islands vs.
Tarampi, 2008).
RULE 70
FORCIBLE ENTRY
AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER
188. Q. What is the scope of an
ejectment case?
A. An ejectment case is not
limited to lease agreements or
deprivations of possession by
force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth. It is as well
available against one who
withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his
right of possession under an
express or implied contract,
such as a contract to sell.
(Union Bank of the
Philippines vs. Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 795
SCRA 444, 4 July 2016.)
189. Q. Who may file a case of
forcible entry?
A. Under Section 1, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court, a case of
forcible entry may be filed by
“a person deprived of the
possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth.
(Heirs of Rogelio Isip, Sr. vs.
Quintos, 678 SCRA 104, 1
August 2012.)
190. Q. What is the basic inquiry in a
case of forcible entry?
 62

A. In cases of forcible entry, "the the legal representatives or

possession is illegal from the assigns of any such lessor,
beginning and the basic vendor, vendee, or other
inquiry centers on who has the person may at any time within
prior possession de facto. one (1) year after such
(Heirs of Rogelio Isip, Sr. vs. unlawful deprivation or
Quintos, supra.) withholding of possession,
bring an action in the proper
Possession de facto [i.e., the Municipal Trial Court against
physical possession of a the person or persons
property], and not unlawfully withholding or
possession de jure is the only depriving of possession, or any
issue in a forcible entry case. person or persons claiming
This rule holds true regardless under them, for the restitution
of the character of a party’s of such possession, together
possession, provided that he with damages and costs.”
has in his favor priority in time. (Union Bank of the
x x As used in forcible entry Philippines vs. Philippine
and unlawful detainer cases, Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc.,
‘possession’ refers to "physical supra.)
possession, not legal
possession in the sense 193. Q. Who has prior possession in
contemplated in civil law. an unlawful detainer case
(Villondo vs. Quijano, 686 and when does it become
SCRA 694, 3 December unlawful?
2012.)
A. In Pro-Guard Security
191. Q. Can public lands be subject Services Corporation vs.
of forcible entry cases? Tormil Realty and
Development Corporation
A. Yes. The Supreme Court said (729 SCRA 206, 7 July 2014),
that even public lands can be the Supreme Court held that:
the subject of forcible entry
cases as it has already been In unlawful detainer cases, the
held that ejectment defendant is necessarily in
proceedings may involve all prior lawful possession of the
kinds of land. Thus, in Villondo property but his possession
vs. Quijano, supra, while the eventually becomes unlawful
parties are fighting over the upon termination or expiration
possession of a government of his right to possess. In other
land, the courts below are not words, the entry is legal but
deprived of jurisdiction to the possession thereafter
render judgment thereon. became illegal.
Courts must resolve the issue
of possession even if the 194. Q. In a case of unlawful
parties to the ejectment suit detainer, what must the
are mere informal settlers. plaintiff allege in the
complaint?
192. Q. Who may file a case of
unlawful detainer? A. In Union Bank of the
Philippines vs. Philippine
A. Under Section 1, Rule 7 of the Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., supra,
Rules of Court, “a lessor, the Supreme Court said that, in
vendor, vendee, or other such cases, it is sufficient to
person against whom the allege in the plaintiff’s
possession of any land or complaint that:
building is unlawfully withheld
after the expiration or 1) The defendant
termination of the right to hold originally had
possession, by virtue of any lawful possession
contract, express or implied, or of the property,
 63

either by virtue of
a contract or by 196. Q. What is the rationale for
tolerance of the requiring the jurisdictional
plaintiff; facts to be alleged in the
complaint for ejectment
2) Eventually, the
defendant's suit?
possession of the
property became A. The Court has already clarified
illegal or unlawful in Delos Reyes vs. Odones
upon notice by the (2011) that: The requirement
plaintiff to that the complaint should aver,
defendant of the as jurisdictional facts, when
expiration or the and how entry into the
termination of the property was made by the
defendant's right
defendants applies only
of possession;
when the issue is the
3) Thereafter, the timeliness of the filing of the
defendant complaint before the MTC x x
remained in x. This is because, in forcible
possession of the entry cases, the prescriptive
property and period is counted from the date
deprived the of defendants’ actual entry into
plaintiff the the property; whereas, in
enjoyment thereof;
unlawful detainer cases, it is
and
counted from date of the last
4) Within one year demand to vacate. Hence, to
from the unlawful determine whether the case
deprivation or was filed on time, there is a
withholding of necessity to ascertain whether
possession, the the complaint is one for
plaintiff instituted forcible entry or for unlawful
the complaint for detainer; and since the main
ejectment. distinction between the two
actions is when and how
195. Q. Which court has jurisdiction defendant entered the
if the plaintiff alleged in the property, the determinative
complaint for ejectment that facts should be alleged in the
the dispossession has lasted complaint. (Dela Cruz vs.
for more than one year? Capco, 719 SCRA 291, 17
March 2014.)
A. It is the RTC and not MTC as
the dispossession is more than 197. Q. What is the jurisdictional
one-year period to bring a case amount of trial courts in civil
for forcible entry had expired. cases involving realty or
The remedy is the plenary interest therein outside
action of accion publiciana, Metro Manila?
which may be instituted within
10 years. A. In civil cases involving realty or
interest therein not within
It is an ordinary civil Metro Manila, the MTC has
proceeding to determine the exclusive original jurisdiction
better right of possession of only if the assessed value of
realty independently of title. It the subject property or
also refers to an ejectment suit interest therein does not
filed after the expiration of one exceed ₱20,000.00.
year from the accrual of the
cause of action or from the Thus, if the assessed value of
unlawful withholding of the property subject matter of
possession of the realty. the case is ₱26,940.00, and
(Padre vs. Badillo, 640 SCRA more than one year had
50, 19 January 2011.) expired after the
 64
dispossession, jurisdiction
properly belongs to the RTC.
198. Q. Distinguish ejectment from
recovery of possession
and/or ownership.
A. The distinction between a
summary action of ejectment
and a plenary action for
recovery of possession and/or
ownership of the land is well-
settled in our jurisprudence.
What really distinguishes an
action for unlawful detainer
from a possessory action
(action publiciana) and from a
reinvindicatory action (action
reinvindicatoria) is that the
first is limited to the question
of possession de facto. An
unlawful detainer suit (action
interdictal) together with
forcible entry are the two
forms of an ejectment suit that
may be filed to recover
possession of real property.
Aside from the summary
action of ejectment, action
publiciana or the plenary
action to recover the right of
possession and action
reinvindicatoria or the action
to recover ownership which
includes recovery of
possession, make up the three
kinds of actions to judicially
recover possession.
In Vda. de Villanueva vs.
Court of Appeals, (2001) the
Court held that a judgment in a
case for forcible entry which
involved only the issue of
physical possession
(possession de facto) and not
ownership will not bar an
action between the same
parties respecting title or
ownership, such as an accion
reinvindicatoria or a suit to
recover possession of a parcel
of land as an element of
ownership, because there is no
identity of causes of action
between the two. (Bradford
United Church of Christ, Inc.
vs. Ando, 791 SCRA 337, 30
May 2016.)
199. Q. How is tolerance defined in
an unlawful detainer case?
A. Tolerance or toleration is
defined as ‘the act or practice
of permitting or enduring
something not wholly
approved of, while tolerated
acts are "those which by
reason of neighborliness or
familiarity, the owner of the
property allows his neighbor
or another person to do on the
property; they are generally
those particular services or
benefits which one’s property
can give to another without
material injury or prejudice to
the owner, who permits them
out of friendship or courtesy.
(Pro-Guard Security Services
Corporation vs. Tormil
Realty and Development
Corporation, supra.)
200. Q. What is the effect of
withdrawal of tolerance to
occupy a certain property?
A. With regard to the effects of
withdrawal of tolerance, it is
settled that: A person who
occupies the land of another at
the latter’s tolerance or
permission, without any
contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an
implied promise that he will
vacate upon demand, failing
which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper
remedy against him. His
status is analogous to that of a
lessee or tenant whose term of
lease has expired but whose
occupancy continued by
tolerance of the owner. In such
a case, the date of unlawful
deprivation or withholding
of possession is to be
counted from the date of the
demand to vacate. (Pro-
Guard Security Services
Corporation vs. Tormil
Realty and Development
Corporation, supra.)
201. Q. What are the requisites in
order that an action for
unlawful detainer will
prosper?
 65
A. In Manzanilla vs. Waterfields
Industries Corporation (730
SCRA 104, 18 July 2014), the
Supreme Court citing the case
of Fideldia vs. Sps. Mulato,
(2008) held that:
the purpose of bringing an
unlawful detainer suit, two
requisites must concur:
(1) there must be failure to
pay rent or comply with
the conditions of the
lease, and
(2) there must be demand
both to pay or to comply
and vacate.
The first requisite refers to the
existence of the cause of action
for unlawful detainer, while the
second refers to the
jurisdictional requirement of
demand in order that said
cause of action may be
pursued. Implied in the first
requisite, which is needed to
establish the cause of action of
the plaintiff in an unlawful
detainer suit, is the
presentation of the contract of
lease entered into by the
plaintiff and the defendant, the
same being needed to establish
the lease conditions alleged to
have been violated.
Thus, in Bachrach
Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals,(1998) the Court held
that the evidence needed to
establish the cause of action in
an unlawful detainer case is (1)
a lease contract and (2) the
violation of that lease by the
defendant.
202. Q. What does actual possession
mean in contemplation of
ejectment cases?
A. In Heirs of Rogelio Isip, Sr. vs.
Quintos, supra, the Supreme
Court cited the case of Reyes
vs. Court of Appeals (1999)
in defining actual possession,
to wit:
Actual possession of land
consists in the manifestation of
acts of dominion over it of such
a nature as those a party would
naturally exercise over his own
property. It is not necessary
that the owner of a parcel of
land should himself occupy the
property as someone in his
name may perform the act. In
other words, the owner of real
estate has possession, either
when he himself is physically
in occupation of the property,
or when another person who
recognizes his rights as owner
is in such occupancy. This
declaration is in conformity
with Art. 524 of the Civil Code
providing that possession may
be exercised in one’s own
name or in the name of
another.
In the case of Dalida vs. Court
of Appeals, (1982) it was held
that a mere caretaker of a land
has no right of possession over
such land.
203. Q. What would be the
disposition of the court if the
issue of ownership is raised?
A. The only issue in an ejectment
case is the physical possession
of real property—
possession de facto and not
possession de jure.
Thus, where the parties to an
ejectment case raise the issue
of ownership, the courts may
pass upon that issue to
determine who between the
parties has the better right to
possess the property. However,
it must be emphasized that
“the adjudication of the issue of
ownership is only provisional,
and not a bar to an action
between the same parties
involving title to the
property.”(Dela Cruz vs.
Capco, supra.)
204. Q. Can the allegation in the
Answer that there was
implied or new lease divest
the MeTC of its jurisdiction
over the case?
 66
A. No. The allegation of existence
of implied new lease or tacita
reconduccion will not divest
the MeTC of jurisdiction over
the ejectment case. It is an
elementary rule that the
jurisdiction of the court in
ejectment cases is determined
by the allegations pleaded in
the complaint and cannot be
made to depend upon the
defenses set up in the answer
or pleadings filed by the
defendant. This principle holds
even if the facts proved during
trial do not support the cause
of action alleged in the
complaint. In connection with
this, it is well to note that in
unlawful detainer cases the
elements to be proved and
resolved are the facts of lease
and expiration or violation of
its terms.
In Mid-Pasig Land
Development Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals (2003),
the Court ruled that the MeTC
is clothed with exclusive
original jurisdiction over an
unlawful detainer case even if
the same would entail
compelling the plaintiff therein
to recognize an implied lease
agreement. (Yuki, Jr. vs. Co,
606 SCRA 211, 27 November
2009.)
205. Q. Will the defense of tenancy
automatically divest the MTC
of its jurisdiction over an
ejectment case?
A. In Ofilada vs. Andal (748
SCRA 211, 26 January 2015),
the Supreme Court answered
in the negative. It held that:
Evidence is necessary to prove
the allegation of tenancy. “The
principal factor in determining
whether a tenancy relationship
exists is intent. Tenancy is not a
purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged
tenant does upon the land. It is
also a legal relationship.
An allegation of tenancy before the
MTC does not automatically
deprive the court of its
jurisdiction.
206. Q. Will the case of unlawful
detainer be suspended due
to another case filed by the
defendant to enforce his
right of preemption?
A. No. In Wilmon Auto Supply
Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,
(1982) it was categorically
held that an action for unlawful
detainer cannot be abated or
suspended by an action filed by
the defendant-lesseee to
judicially enforce his right of
preemption. (Yuki, Jr. vs. Co,
supra.)
20.7 Q. In resolving the issue of
possession in an ejectment
case who is preferred, the
registered owner with
Torrens title or the
transferee under an
unregistered Deed of Sale?
A. In Endaya vs. Villaos (782
SCRA 374, 27 January 2016),
the Supreme Court cited
several rulings when it held
that: In resolving the issue of
possession in an ejectment
case, the registered owner of
the property is preferred over
the transferee under an
unregistered deed of sale.
208. Q. Is Motion to Dismiss
permissible in cases covered
by the Rules of Summary
Procedure?
A. In the case of Victorias Milling
Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
(622 SCRA 131, 29 June
2010), the Supreme Court
emphasized that:
The Rule on Summary
Procedure, by way of
exception, permits only a
motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter but it
does not mention the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the
person. It is a settled rule of
statutory construction that the
express mention of one thing
implies the exclusion of all
others. Expressio unius est
 67
exclusio alterius. From this it
can be gleaned that allegations
on the matter of lack of
jurisdiction over the person by
reason of improper service of
summons, by itself, without a
convincing showing of any
resulting substantive injustice,
cannot be used to hinder or
stop the proceedings before
the MCTC in the ejectment suit.
With more reason, such
ground should not be used to
justify the violation of an
express prohibition in the rules
prohibiting the petition
for certiorari.
209. Q. What is the purpose of the
rule on summary procedure?
A. The purpose of the Rule on
Summary Procedure is to
achieve an expeditious and
inexpensive determination of
cases without regard to
technical rules. (Victorias
Milling Co., Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, supra.)
210. Q. Is a petition for certiorari
prohibited under the Rule on
Summary Procedure? Why?
A. In Victorias Milling Co., Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, supra,
the SC said that: Weighing the
consequences of continuing
with the proceedings in the
MCTC as against the
consequences of allowing a
petition for certiorari, it is
more in accord with justice, the
purpose of the Rule on
Summary Procedure, the policy
of speedy and inexpensive
determination of cases, and the
proper administration of
justice, to obey the provisions
in the Rule on Summary
Procedure prohibiting
petitions for certiorari.
211. Q. What is the ministerial duty
of the court when a
judgment becomes final and
executory?
A. When a judgment becomes
final and executory, it is the
ministerial duty of the court to
issue a writ of execution to
enforce the judgment. (Palileo
vs. Planters Development
Bank, 738 SCRA 2, 8 October
2014.)
212. Q. When is execution of
judgment a matter of right?
A. Execution will issue as a matter
of right (a) when the judgment
has become final and
executory; (b) when the
judgment debtor has
renounced or waived his right
of appeal; or (c) when the
period for appeal has lapsed
without an appeal having been
filed. (Palileo vs. Planters
Development Bank, supra.)
213. Q. What stage of the
proceedings in ejectment
may be stayed by perfecting
an appeal, posting of
supersedeas bond and
periodically depositing the
rentals?
A. In Philippine National Bank
vs. DKS International, Inc.
(610 SCRA 603, 22 January
2010), the Supreme Court
cited the ruling in Uy vs.
Santiago, (2000) that it is only
the execution of the MeTC or
Municipal Trial Courts’
judgment pending appeal with
the RTC which may be stayed
by compliance with the
requisites provided in Section
19, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court.
RULE 71
CONTEMPT
214. Q. Is the filing of a pleading by a
party litigant insinuating
derogatory and malicious
statements against the Judge
constitute contempt?
A. Yes. In Cruz vs. Gingoyon
(658 SCRA 254, 28 September
2011), the Supreme Court held
that: A pleading containing
derogatory, offensive or
malicious statements
submitted to the court or
 68

judge in which the respondent to show cause why

proceedings are pending is
equivalent to “misbehavior
committed in the presence of
or so near a court or judge as
to interrupt the proceedings
before the same” within the
meaning of Rule 71, §1 of the
Rules of Court, and
therefore, constitutes direct
contempt.
215. Q. Define contempt of court.
A. Contempt of court is defined as
a disobedience to the court
by acting in opposition to its
authority, justice, and
dignity. It signifies not only a
willful disregard or
disobedience of the court’s
order, but such conduct which
tends to bring the authority of
the court and the
administration of law into
disrepute or, in some manner,
to impede the due
administration of justice. It is a
defiance of the authority,
justice, or dignity of the court
which tends to bring the
authority and administration
of the law into disrespect or to
interfere with or prejudice
party-litigants or their
witnesses during litigation.
(Digital Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc. vs. Cantos,
710 SCRA 514, 25 November
2013.)
216. Q. Can a respondent be
convicted for indirect
contempt based on the
pleadings alone?
A. No. In the case of Silverio, Sr.
vs. Silverio, Jr. (730 SCRA 152,
18 July 2014), it was held that
the respondent in an indirect
contempt charge may not be
convicted on the basis of
written pleadings alone.
he should not be cited for
contempt. Second, the
respondent must be given the
opportunity to comment on
the charge against him. Third,
there must be a hearing and
the court must investigate the
charge and consider
respondent's answer. Finally,
only if found guilty will
respondent be punished
accordingly. The law requires
that there be a charge in
writing, duly filed in court, and
an opportunity given to the
person charged to be heard by
himself or counsel. What is
most essential is that the
alleged contemnor be granted
an opportunity to meet the
charges against him and to be
heard in his defenses. This is
due process, which must be
observed at all times.
217. Q. How is the charge for
indirect contempt initiated?
A. The case of Ladano vs. Neri
(685 SCRA 134, 12 November
2012) is instructive in this
wise:
A charge for indirect contempt,
such as disobedience to a
court’s lawful order, is initiated
either motu proprio by order of
or a formal charge by the
offended court, or by a verified
petition with supporting
particulars and certified true
copies of documents or papers
involved therein, and upon full
compliance with the
requirements for filing
initiatory pleadings for civil
actions in the court concerned.
It cannot be initiated by a mere
motion.
218. Q. Where should the charge for
indirect contempt be filed?

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the A. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 71 of the

Rules of Court, specifically Rules of Court state,
outline the procedural respectively, that proceedings
requisites before the accused for indirect contempt may be
may be punished for indirect initiated motu proprio by the
contempt. First, there must be court against which the
an order requiring the contempt was committed and
 69
where the charge for indirect
contempt has been committed
against a Regional Trial Court
or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, or against an
officer appointed by it, the
charge may be filed with such
court.
Contempt proceedings are sui
generis and are triable only by
the court against whose
authority the contempts are
charged; the power to punish
for contempt exists for the
purpose of enabling a court to
compel due decorum and
respect in its presence and due
obedience to its judgments,
orders and processes and in
order that a court may compel
obedience to its orders, it must
have the right to inquire
whether there has been any
disobedience thereof, for to
submit the question of
disobedience to another
tribunal would operate to
deprive the proceeding of half
its efficiency.
Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules
of Court provides, in effect, that
a charge for indirect
contempt must be filed with
the court contemned.
Although this provision is
permissive in nature, in the
event of concurrent
jurisdiction over cases of
contempt of court, it would be
a good practice to acknowledge
the preferential right of the
court against which the act of
contempt was committed to try
and punish the guilty party.
(Angeles vs. Court of
Appeals, 735 SCRA 82, 15
September 2014.)
219. Q. Is a contempt charge a
criminal action?
A. No. Contempt is not a criminal
offense. However, a charge for
contempt of court partakes of
the nature of a criminal
action. Rules that govern
criminal prosecutions strictly
apply to a prosecution for
contempt. In fact, Section 11 of
Rule 71of the Rules of Court
provides that the appeal in
indirect contempt proceedings
may be taken as in criminal
cases.
The SC further said that: An
alleged contemner should be
accorded the same rights as
that of an accused. Thus, the
dismissal of the indirect
contempt charge against
respondent amounts to an
acquittal, which effectively bars
a second prosecution. (Digital
Telecommunications
Philippines, Inc. vs. Cantos,
supra.)
220. Q. For contempt against quasi-
judicial bodies, where
should the charge be filed?
A. In the case of Trinidad vs.
Fama Realty, Inc. (792 SCRA
295, 6 June 2016), it was held
that:
Where contempt is committed
against quasi-judicial entities,
the filing of contempt charges
in court is observed only when
there is no law granting
contempt powers to these
quasi-judicial entities.
The Supreme Court, citing the
case of Robosa vs. National
Labor Relations Commission
(First Division, 2012),
explained that Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court does not require
the labor arbiter or the NLRC
to initiate indirect contempt
proceedings before the trial
court. This mode is to be
observed only when there is no
law granting them contempt
powers. As is clear under
Article 218(d) of the Labor
Code, the labor arbiter or the
Commission is empowered or
has jurisdiction to hold the
offending party or parties in
direct or indirect contempt.
Thus, it applies to the HLURB
as well; to restate, where
contempt is committed against
quasi-judicial entities, the filing
of contempt charges in court is
 70

allowed only when these quasi-

judicial entities are not by law
granted contempt powers.
Executive Order No. 648, the
HLURB Charter, grants the
HLURB Board the power to cite
and declare any person, entity
or enterprise in direct or
indirect contempt "whenever
any person, entity or
enterprise commits any
disorderly or disrespectful IV.
conduct before the SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Commission or in the presence
of its members or authorized
representatives actually 221. Q. What is the purpose of the
engaged in the exercise of their Rules on Writ of Kalikasan?
official functions or during the
conduct of any hearing or A. The Rules on Writ of
official inquiry by the said Kalikasan was issued by the
Commission, at the place or Supreme Court pursuant to its
near the premises where such power to promulgate rules for
hearing or proceeding is being the protection and
conducted with obstruct, enforcement of
distract, interfere or in any constitutional rights, in
other way disturb, the particular, the individual’s
performance of such functions right to a balanced and
or the conduct of such hearing healthful ecology. (Paje vs.
or proceeding;" or "whenever Casiño, 749 SCRA 39, 3
any person, enterprise or February 2015.)
entity fails or refuses to comply
with or obey without 222. Q. What is the nature of the
justifiable reason, any lawful Writ of Kalikasan?
order, decision, writ or process
of the Commission. A. Section 1 of Rule 7 provides
that the writ is a remedy
available to a natural or
juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people’s
organization,
nongovernmental
organization, or any public
interest group accredited by or
registered with any
government agency, on behalf
of persons whose
constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or
threatened with violation by
an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee,
or private individual or entity,
involving environmental
damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life,
health or property of
inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces. (Paje vs.
Casiño, supra.)
 71

223. Q. What is the purpose of the government agency,

Writ of Kalikasan? private person or entity to
monitor strict compliance
A. As a special civil action and with the decision and
orders of the court;
thus, conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy, it (d) Directing the respondent
aims to provide judicial relief public official,
from threatened or actual government agency, or
violation/s of the private person or entity
constitutional right to a to make periodic reports
balanced and healthful on the execution of the final
ecology of a magnitude or judgment; and
degree of damage that
transcends political and (e) Such other reliefs which
relate to the right of the
territorial boundaries. It is
people to a balanced and
intended “to provide a stronger healthful ecology or to the
defense for environmental protection, preservation,
rights through judicial efforts rehabilitation or
where institutional restoration of the
arrangements of enforcement, environment, except the
implementation and legislation award of damages to
have fallen short” and seeks to individual petitioners.
address the potentially
exponential nature of large- 225. Q. Can the validity of an
scale ecological threats. (Paje Environmental Compliance
vs. Casiño, supra.) Certificate (ECC) be
challenged via a writ of
224. Q. If the petition is granted, kalikasan?
what are the reliefs that the
court may grant under the A. Yes. The writ of kalikasan is
writ? principally predicated on an
actual or threatened violation
A. Within sixty (60) days from the of the constitutional right to a
time the petition is submitted balanced and healthful ecology,
for decision, the court shall which involves environmental
render judgment granting or damage of a magnitude that
denying the privilege of the transcends political and
writ of kalikasan. territorial boundaries. A party,
therefore, who invokes the writ
The reliefs that may be granted based on alleged defects or
under the writ are the irregularities in the issuance of
following: an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) must not only
(a) Directing respondent to allege and prove such defects
permanently cease and or irregularities, but must also
desist from committing provide a causal link or, at
acts or neglecting the least, a reasonable connection
performance of a duty in between the defects or
violation of environmental irregularities in the issuance
laws resulting in
of an ECC and the actual or
environmental destruction
or damage;
threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a
(b) Directing the respondent balanced and healthful
public official, ecology of the magnitude
government agency, contemplated under the
private person or entity to Rules.
protect, preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the 226. Q. What is the evidentiary
environment; value of the expert’s
testimony in environmental
(c) Directing the respondent
public official, cases?
 72
A. The opinion of the expert may
not be arbitrarily rejected; it is
to be considered by the court
in view of all the facts and
circumstances in the case
and when common
knowledge utterly fails, the
expert opinion may be given
controlling effects. The
problem of the credibility of
the expert witness and the
evaluation of his testimony is
left to the discretion of the trial
court whose ruling thereupon
is not reviewable in the
absence of an abuse of that
discretion. (Paje vs. Casiño,
supra.)
227. Q. Can a party raise question of
fact on appeal of
environmental cases to the
Supreme Court?
A. Yes. Section 16, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases expressly
provides that:
Section 16.
Appeal.– Within fifteen
(15) days from the date of
notice of the adverse
judgment or denial of
motion for
reconsideration, any
party may appeal to the
Supreme Court under
Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. The appeal may
raise questions of fact.
The Rules on Writ of Kalikasan
allow the parties to raise, on
appeal, questions of fact— and,
thus, constitutes an
exception to Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court— because of
the extraordinary nature of
the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of
a writ of kalikasan. (Paje vs.
Casiño, supra.)
228. Q. In environmental cases, can
the court suspend its rules in
order to render substantial
justice?
A. Yes. A court has the power to
suspend its rules of procedure
in order to attain substantial
justice so that it has the
discretion, in exceptional cases,
to take into consideration
matters not originally within
the scope of the issues raised
in the pleadings or set during
the preliminary conference, in
order to prevent a miscarriage
of justice. In the case of Paje
vs. Casiño, supra, the
importance of the signature
cannot be seriously doubted
because it goes into the
consent and commitment of
the project proponent to
comply with the conditions of
the ECC, which is vital to the
protection of the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology
of those who may be affected
by the project.
229. Q. Cite the differences between
a Rule 65 certiorari petition
and Rule 7 kalikasan
petition.
A. Justice Velasco, in his
concurring opinion in Paje vs.
Casiño, supra, has this to say:
The advent of A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC brought about significant
changes in the procedural rules
that apply to environmental
cases. The difference on eight
(8) areas between a Rule 65
certiorari petition and Rule 7
kalikasan petition may be
stated as follows:
1. Subject matter. Since its
subject matter is any
“unlawful act or omission,”
a Rule 7 kalikasan petition
is broad enough to correct
any act taken without or in
excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to
lack or excess of
jurisdiction which is the
subject matter of a Rule 65
certiorari petition. Any
form of abuse discretion as
long as it constitutes an
unlawful act or omission
involving the environment
can be subject of a Rule 7
kalikasan petition. A Rule
65 petition, on the other
hand, requires the abuse of
discretion to be “grave.”
 73

Ergo, a subject matter

which ordinarily cannot
properly be subject of a
certiorari petition can be
subject of a kalikasan
petition.
2. Who may file. Rule 7
liberalized the rule on
locus standi, such that
availment of the writ of
kalikasan is open to a
broad range of suitors, to
include even an entity
authorized by law, people’s
organization or any public
interest group accredited
by or registered with any
government agency, on
behalf of persons whose
right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is
violated or threatened to
be violated. Rule 65 allows
only the aggrieved person
to be the petitioner.
3. Respondent. The
respondent in a Rule 65
petition is only the
government or its officers,
unlike in a kalikasan
petition where the
respondents may be a
private individual or entity.
4. Exemption from docket
fees. The kalikasan petition
is exempt from docket fees,
unlike in a Rule 65 petition.
Rule 7 of RPEC has pared
down the usually
burdensome litigation
expenses.
7. Period to file. An
aggrieved party has 60
days from notice of
judgment or denial of a
motion for reconsideration
to file a certiorari petition,
while a kalikasan petition
is not subject to such
limiting time lines.
8. Discovery measures. In a
certiorari petition,
discovery measures are not
available unlike in a
kalikasan petition. Resort
to these measures will
abbreviate proceedings.
It is clear that a kalikasan
petition provides more ample
advantages to a suitor than a
Rule 65 petition for certiorari.
A petition for a writ of
kalikasan is a special version of
a Rule 65 petition, but
restricted in scope but
providing a more expeditious,
simplified and inexpensive
remedy to the parties.

5. Venue. The certiorari

petition can be filed with
(a) the RTC exercising
jurisdiction over the
territory where the act was
committed; (b) the Court of
Appeals; and (c) the
Supreme Court. Given the
magnitude of the damage,
the kalikasan petition can
be filed directly with the
Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court. The direct
filing of a kalikasan
petition will prune case
delay.

6. Exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
This doctrine generally
applies to a certiorari
petition, unlike in a
kalikasan petition.
74