I.

(a) After an information for rape was filed in the RTC, the DOJ Secretary, acting on the accused's
petition for review, reversed the investigating prosecutor's finding of probable cause. Upon order of the
DOJ Secretary, the trial prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information which the judge
granted. The order of the judge stated only the following: "Based on the review by the DOJ
Secretary of the findings of the investigating prosecutor during the preliminary investigation, the
Court agrees that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused to sustain the allegation in the
information. The motion to withdraw Information is, therefore, granted. "If you were the private
prosecutor, what should you do? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the private prosecutor, I would file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the
Court of Appeals (Cerezo vs.People, G.R. No.185230, June 1, 2011). It is well-settled that
when the trial court is confronted with a motion towithdraw and Information (on the ground
of lack of probable cause to holdthe accused for trial based on resolution of the DOJ
Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of
the motion. It may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary.
Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court’s
duty and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The court must itself be convinced
that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused. Otherwise, the judge acted
with grave abuse of discretion if he grants the Motion to Withdraw Information by thetrial
prosecutor. (Harold Tamargo vs.Romulo Awingan et. al. G.R. No. 177727,January 19, 2010)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If I were the private prosecutor, I would file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of
the trial court. if the same has been denied, I would file a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 on pure question of law, which actually encompasses both the criminal and
civil aspects thereof. The filing of the petition is merely a continuation of the appellate
process.

II. On June 26, 2017, M leased the warehouse of B under a lease contract with a period of five years.
On November 26, 2018, B filed an unlawful detainer case against M without a prior demand for M
to vacate the premises.

a) Can M contest his ejectment on the ground that there was no prior demand for him to
vacate the premises?
b) In case the Municipal Trial Court renders judgment in favor of B, is the judgment
immediately executory?
Suggested Answer:

a) Yes. M can contest his ejectment on the ground that there was no prior demand to
vacate the premises. (Sec. 2 of Rule 70; Casilan vs. Tomassi 10 SCRA 261; Icsaca vs.
Cuevas 125 SCRA 335)
b) Yes, because the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court against the defendant M is
immediately executory upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected, a
supersedeas bond has been filed and the periodic deposits of current rentals. If any,
as determined by the judgment will be made with the appellate court.

III. What is Equity of Redemption?

Suggested Answer:

Equity of redemption exists in case of judicial foreclosure of a mortgage.

This is simply the right of the defendant mortgagor to extinguish the mortgage and
retain ownership of the property by paying the secured debt within a period of not less
than ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days from the entry of
judgment, in accordance with Rule 68, or even after the foreclosure sale but prior to its
confirmation. (Spouses Rosales vs. Spouses Alfonso, G.R. No. 137792,August12, 2003)

IV. The spouses Juan reside in Quezon City. With their lottery winnings, they purchased a parcel of
land in Tagaytay City for P100,000.00. In a recent trip to their Tagaytay property, they were
surprised to see hastily assembled shelters of light materials occupied by several families of informal
settlers who were not there when they last visited the property three (3) months ago. To rid the
spouses’ Tagaytay Property of these informal settlers, briefly discuss the legal remedy you, as their
counsel, would use; The steps you would take; the court where you would file your remedy if the
need arises; and the reasons/s for your actions.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As counsel of spouses Juan, I will file a special civil action for Forcible Entry. The
Rules of Court provide that a person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth may at any time within 1 year
after such withholding of possession bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial
Court where the property is located. This action which is summary in nature seeks to
recover the possession of the property from the defendant which was illegally withheld
by the latter. (Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court)

An ejectment case is designed to restore, through summary proceedings, the physical

possession of any land or building to one who has been illegally deprived of such
possession, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims of
juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. (Heirs of Agapatio T. Olarte and
Angela A. Olarte et al. v. Office of the President of the Philippines et al., G.R. No.
177995,June 15, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

In Abad v. Farrales, GR No. 178635, April 11, 2011,the Supreme Court held that two
allegations are indispensable in actions for forcible entry to enable first level courts to
acquire jurisdiction over them: first, that the plaintiff had prior physical possession of the
property; and, second, that the defendant deprived him of such possession by means
of force, intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth.

However, before instituting the said action, I will first endeavor to amicably settle the
controversy with the informal settlers before the appropriate Lupon or Barangay
Chairman. If there is no agreement reached after mediation and conciliation under the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law, I will secure a certificate to file action and file the
complaint for ejectment before the MTC of Tagaytay City where the property is located
since ejectment suit is a real action regardless of the value of the property to be
recovered or claim for unpaid rentals. (BP 129 and Rule 4, Section 1 of the Revised Rules on
Civil Procedure).

In the aforementioned complaint, I will allege that Spouses Juan had prior physical
possession and that the dispossession was due to force, intimidation and stealth. The
complaint will likewise show that the action was commenced within a period of one (1)
year from unlawful deprivation of possession, and that Spouses Juan is entitled to restitution
of possession together with damages and costs.

V. Mr. Sheriff attempts to enforce a Writ of Execution against X, a tenant in a condominium unit,
who lost in an ejectment case. X does not want to budge and refuses to leave. Y, the winning party,
moves that X be declared in contempt and after hearing, the court held X guilty of indirect
contempt. If you were X's lawyer, what would you do? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were X’s lawyer, I would file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The judge should
not have acted on Y’s motion to declare X in contempt. The charge of indirect contempt is
initiated through a verified petition. (Rule 71, Sec. 4, Rules of Court)

The writ was not directed to X but to the sheriff who was directed to deliver the property to
Y. As the writ did not command the judgment debtor to do anything, he cannot be guilty
of the facts described in Rule 71 which is “disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, judgment, or command of any court.” The proper procedure is for
the sheriff to oust X availing of the assistance of peace officers pursuant to Section 10(c) of
Rule 39 (Lipa vs. Tutaan, L-16643, 29 September 1983; Medina vs. Garces, L-25923,
July 15, 1980; Pascua vs. heirs of Segundo Simeon, 161 SCRA 1; Patagan et. al. vs.
Panis, G.R. No. 55630, April 8, 1988).
VI. Distinguish a petition for certiorari as a mode of appeal from a special civil action for certiorari.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

VI. A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI as a mode of appeal may be

distinguished from a special civil action for certiorari in that the petition for certiorari as a
mode of appeal is governed by Rule 45 and is filed from a judgment or final order of the
RTC, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
judgment appealed from or of the denial of the motion for new trial or reconsideration filed
in due time on questions of law only (Secs. 1 and 2); SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR
CERTIORARI is governed by Rule 65 and is filed to annul or modify judgments, orders or
resolutions rendered or issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when by: sirdondee@gmail.com
Page 34 of 66 there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, to be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution subject of the petition. (Secs. 1 and 4.)

ADDITIONAL ANSWER:

VI. In appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, the petitioner and respondent are the original
parties to the action and the lower court is not impleaded. In certiorari, under Rule 65, the
lower court is impleaded. 2) In appeal by certiorari, the filing of a motion for reconsideration
is not required, while in the special civil action of certiorari, such a motion is generally
required.

VII. May a party resort to certiorari when appeal is still available? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

VII. NO, because as a general rule, certiorari is proper if there is no appeal (Sec. 1 of Rule
65.) However, if appeal is not a speedy and adequate remedy, certiorari may be resorted to.
(Echaus v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 381.) Certiorari is sanctioned, even if appeal is
available, on the basis of a patent, capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion by a trial
judge as when an appeal will not promptly relieve petitioner from the injurious effects of the
disputed order (Vasquez vs. Robilla-Alenio, 271 SCRA 67)

VIII. A group of entrepreneurs formed an association in Cebu City calling itself HypeBeast
Company in order to distribute/sell goods in said city. It did not incorporate itself under the law nor
did it have any government permit or license to conduct its business as such. The Solicitor General
filed before a RTC in Manila a verified petition for quo warranto questioning and seeking to stop the
operations of HypeBeast. The latter filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of
improper claiming that its main office and operations are in Cebu City and not in Manila. Is the
contention of HypeBeast Company correct? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. As expressly provided in the Rules, when the Solicitor General commences the action
for quo warranto, it may be brought in a RTC in the City of Manila, as in this case, in the
Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court. (Sec. 7 of Rule 66)

IX. Is a petition for mandamus an appropriate remedy to enforce contractual obligations?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the petition for mandamus is not an appropriate remedy because it is not available to
enforce a contractual obligation. Mandamus is directed only to ministerial acts, directing or
commanding a person to do a legal duty. (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992,
September 18, 2002; Sec. 3, Rule 65).

X. Al insured his life with Frank Insurance Co. and designated Jeff as beneficiary. The policy
provided that the beneficiary could be changed by a written notice designating the new beneficiary
sent by the insured and received by Frank Insurance Co. before the death of the insured. After the
death of Al, Jeff demanded from Frank Insurance Co. the proceeds of the policy, claiming that he
had been designated as the beneficiary by Al as may be seen from a copy of a written notice signed
by Al and allegedly received by Frank Insurance Co. before X's death. Nuqs who is also demanding
from Frank Insurance Co. the proceeds of the policy, claims that the signature of Al appearing on
the written notice is forged. As counsel for Frank Insurance Co., what advice would you give to your
client and why?

Suggested answer:

I would advise my client not to pay either of the claimants in the meantime and instead file
a complaint for interpleader against them and let the court resolve their conflicting claims
(Sec. 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court).