ar

end
mplaint
ed
ecution
nding
cmp ubt, la
04)
eknowledge
achment
egedly ether
erlocutory.
B's
doneously
solve
arded
olvency
ident
was
adings?
den .)
and
tamount Icourt
red
cution
aonsideration
y,
erm
intiff
tichice
ty.
endant
sonal,
er’sused
sons
tonotwou
[1993J;
Cruz
ano
rlocutory he
last
Municipality
concurrent
lie.
sannulment
proper.
the
where
ground
udgmen
order
ano
against
be
on
of
her
ex
Complaint.
adv
XX
hold
the
any
was
entitled
ned?
(Sec. have dsustained
vs.
pena
and
bouncing
act
This
made
under
or
of
the
action?take
par.
averred,
sale
in
from
granted
cr
the
has
had1, adv
Guevarra
nottoCourt
estranged
with
was
court
for
ce
because
counse
Malolos
(2%) or
the
respondent
of
Bu
or
the
upon
that
an
Order;
Ruleof
material
me
Motion
that
It
filed
not
4%
Bdeath
remedy
can
There
by se
yif
awho
annulment
omission
no
jurisdiction
should
sShe
issued
jurisdiction
to
the
he
judgment
answer
he
of
is
hmay
mus
the
(2%)
given
one
jurisdiction
removal of
record
of
in
34) of
information
to
Rule he
ajudgment
collusion
defendant.
among
the
adduce
May
scheck.
the
correct.
only
AnNa
MeTC-Makati,
ye
of
their
it
bond
Bulacan,
for
the
Partial is
whenv.
secureAppeals,
erec
41)
demurrer
Sevilla
husband
Sec was
me
receive
accused’s
of
is
applies
fact
either
lawyer
The
be
by
merely
still m
-Rape
the
onaCourt 6us
unlawfully
Reconsideration.
been
to
sfails
from
Court
an
bengacqu nor
marriage
others,
of
YY
and
On
the hon
for
between
represented
odged
you
court
The
withoutover
court
him
and
oversomething
Summaryshe sufficient
interlocutory
with
denied
he
supposedly
of
their
P1
(Rule
Pen h
it
in
rd of
failed
which
to
Law
was
only
court.
the
they
futo 88
Carlo
of an
perpe
lack
dismiss
the
in sRules
Judgmen
apar
the
was Appeals,
demurrer
million.
thus
of
the
cannot
hamotu SCRA
evidence
tender
that Appeals
yw orphan
proper
marriage
evidence
endate
and
preva
parties
39,
of
the
are of
where
onby ua
RTC-Manila
the
to
excludes
cause, the
family
case
Ashstruck
mp
barged
Judgments
Ru ZZhe
aryjurisdiction
1997
provide
concluded
to
notify
by
proprio
sec.
total
not
the
eof 695;
he
motu
civilWh
parties
applicant
nthe
toan
120The
is
be
emen209
form
order,
(6%)
ed of
and
her and
extinguishes
to
as
npetitioner’s
hany
becauseapplied
the
dependent
hercomplaint.
2)
replace
because
admits
defendant
the
ground
courts
contrary Lawas
amount
done,
rwrit
upon
by
issue, 16
sevidence
RA he
the
into Phil.
eliability
aproprio
writ
counsel
another
that
was
counse serv
ahearing
render
ed
even exists,
ownerunc
(2004)not
8353 ayearsbelief
cour most
same
court
forwas and
that
her 241
which
carus.
and
was
only
for
all
the
andin
theng
orain
of
eatoAfter total the
dv
ped
wou
m
ould
bou urt
ychological
mages. age
83])
kht
ssession
der
use
urned
er
minal
ven
alm
pondent
he der
yount
intiff
ied
ich
other
gmentence
to
erwise
her
the
h
endantif
his
sf
In
damental ,
of
allegations
claim
fa
ec
ng
Supreme
arise
demand,
of
case,
d
and
the
ed
trial
is
oath
in
d
thebut
there
t
the
ureo
adue
judgment
ed
he
Sec.
by of hasf
grandparen
have
criminal
client's
f
said
on
ur
money.
adv
types
action the
he
Appeals,
ous truth
ise
re
unsatisfied,
Paranaque
is
founded
and
e
appealable
use
on
her
F Na
process
no
arraignment,
Victor.
filed
does
for
the
sd
course
of
admits
o
and
3
entitled
na
the
been
(a)
se
the defendant
he
ease
property
Election
appear
cthe
and
of
Court
civil
of
o
incapacity,
therein
theguarantee
(Rule exclusive
not
death,
without
failure
for
XXon
a
ac
y
demand
served and
57, comp
ona
146
thereof.
collusion,
pleadings?
When
on
aspect
damages.
Rule from
defendant’s
original
action
adjudication
filed
May
of
pe
enjoyment
sof
clearly
s
the
action
violation
exist,
the
o City,
sec. no
was
to o
ofPen
SCRA
order
the
in
the
contained,
a
mpose
16,
by the
to
in a the
pleadings.
the
on
Registrar
njudgment
material
is
onSaturnino
leave
asc
of may
The
petitions
o n
the en
plaintiff
w
exclusive
20) udgmen
the
record.to
abducted
do
trial,
for
dismissed.
virtue
of
the
court
for
aB
f 173.)
court
in
sheriff
Explain.
the
Moreover,
v h
non-removal
(Sec. herse
same
eof
so
filed hise ary
intervene
Family
court
filed properly
Nat
damages
ofanswer
ousness
he
of
court
property,
interest,
habeas
law,us
charges
heB B.P.
is
case
4 I
receive
damages
the
a
max Mar
court.
of
may f
ona
allegations
filed
died.
of for
also
in could
court
comp
f manifested
tried
his
Pablo
may
right
their
canno ab
of interest, mayndependen
(2%)
material
not
Blg.
RuleCourt
a his
was ano
mum challenge
amounts
for
corpus
habeas
Answer
which
e
answeran Pen
proceed
the
a
deedha
XX
Although
receive
However,
to also
because
damages
six-year
in
a or
cause
when
but
motionand
the
dismiss
favor
22
exceptdamages
35). admission
n not
who opera
in tent
evidence,
judgment
serve
when
andoffice
asks shall V
State
facts
aga
It
ofmay file
Baguio
of
forit corpus
to
tofors correct
to c
does
mos
itas
it y
even said
ary?
nce
sale old
nsor
the
for
e she
the
was
in an
the
he of
an
bein
to
heX
ofaacause.
is
plaintiffs o of
mmons
n, re
mission.
verse
ecuted
ainst
urt
emed
cause p
ubtful.
uer sion
dnsferred
the ygment
charged
mplaint
tituted
ion
had
ere er
atever
dence
ich
tter
es
ga
hout
order
ed
ousmarrto
disposento
grandparen
aPercival,
acquitted
her
proper
fwhich,
that
deed.
ashe
to
such
conf
of
pena
or
othe ed
aannul
see
is
party's The
substitution
to
grandparen
cour
the
the
requiring
over
Pablo
bynotify
kind,
law
he
can
includeMar
void.
to
requires
with
claim,
upon
of
end
and
surety
nemen
other
admitting
to
the nsthe
defendant
ycriminal
isand
of
under
the
custody
of
the it
except
pleading.
was ano
mposab
timely
oatheIf
reserving judgment
because
that
attorney's
the
defendant
another
objection
the
brought
is
action
ano
the
sathe
cannot
deny
copy
sof transferred crime
onlyXfcourt
eentitled.
ur
Republic
posting theed
had
corresponding
as heirs
her
defendant
hey
objection
action
he
Mar all
sd eof or to aon
must
the
of she
municipality
comp
charged,
the
his
cr
Hence,
exceed
in omo
caevidence
fees,
by notified
proceeding
of ano
and the mon dfor
minors
anthe aver
preponderance
his
child
right
motion
by
Delia.
for B's sna
without on
her
Act
the
offense
aamount
(Ru by lack
no
The
litigation
toallegations
favor.
the
complaint
anthe nor
violation
case
death.
he,
to othe
judgment
Delia,
judgment
appear eaga sa
submitted
civil
No. cour of
ncompe
state
defendant
his
amount
is
file
us
102)
however,
or (his dSec.
aga court
form
Copy
without
of ns cour
jurisdiction
hometown
action,
8369,
keep
aTheconsent
order
aat positively
before
expenses,
re damages
ns
certified
ZZ of
or
separate
onng
isof
on
Inaof en
therein
of for
isof issue,
hcourt
qu
valid
(b)
ns Batas
was
par B's
this
of
andnot
the
has
the
m thehhis
or
itsitean asa and
mplaint nsidering for that
(Sec. damages Pedro
8, Rule continued
8) before
(Sec. 1, (Sec. Rule 2,to 34). proper[Rule
Rule occupy 65). 111, 1RTC, the
of sec. Rule disputed
2, plaintiff
ease
cause from he pen en ary on h s c a m ha under
w
ntained.
ed
nsent
unterbond
dclusive
ou
mbansa
eres eved
sition apab
.ricated.
overable,
adings
dence.
endment
til
e, th,
uired
ts, it
withstanding
endant
ceeded
he
Baguio
copythe
binding
no
on
costs,
action.
to
of is
dPablo
comp
was nC,
ebe
your that oto
court
reservation
sale
oby
andcan
nat
of as
(Sec. edo
ahe
jurisdiction,
fbeing
Blg.
he
has
The
the
was
ex
answer
examined
City.
on
of
of
inhis
Maywho
andthe
hear
be
see would
3[E],
cour ng
charges
cr
P1
the
not is
court
judgment
court
a22
appended
the successor
so
ignorant
P1,000,000.
rendered
Bulacan
me
ng
million.
Despite
to
heirs
same
unlawfully
the
A
pleading
(2)
refused
be Rule
included
wh have
provision
file
to
allowed upon
aga
move
regarding
he
case
heover
chpay9)
accordingly
of amount
such
same? ordered
Evidence
residence,
of
by
to ns
the
convof
Marietta's
to
proper
vthe
and
but
theof
grounds
acquittal
the Inthe
for the
Saturnino
excluded
ZZ
civil
in
deceased accept B,
private
complaint
due
Exp
cofnot
court
renderedfacts
the the was
corresponding
his petition.
ed
judgmenthe
aaction
P1 must
the
time,
ato
execuo160 substitution
hFamily
ordering
property
rin without
pleas, her
alleged.
nmillion.
his
m deprived
complainant
Fabian
son
to
forward
sheriff ahave
(2%) separately
file
as
defendant
judgment han
ocriminal
aforesaid
Marietta
on Fee on
Annexnu
Courts
Carloathe to
need
from(Phil,
After
and
was
civil
that her
civil
theandof
the
ngbe fyproper 6Page of53 10
11
13
16
21
22
34
38
41
42
45
52
15
44
32
50 19
33
36
1726
66
46
1437
43
939 51
18
204049 12
35
48 of66 66 66 66 66 66 66 6666 6666 66 66
cand and filed
P1M. exercise motion
Its jurisdictional
his (with functions supporting amount therein, oaffidavits) at c this a&&time for a(1997-2006
(Art. 29, Civil Remedial
Remed Code).
Cuyos a Garc Bar Examination (Florendo
SCRA 302 vs.
Q AA (1997-2006 2006) ) by: sirdondee@gmail.com by: ssirdondee@gmail.com
ssirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
ssirdondee@gmail.com
sirdondee@gmail.com
srdondee@gma rdondee@gma
rdondee@gma
rdondee@gma com Page
com comPage
com Page
Page
Page Page
PagePage of of of of
Jurisdiction; of of ofof ofof there
case.
was
waived,
Ac defense
Was
claiming
allow attached,
possess
affairs.
Raphael
the
The nghe
aware Finality
Is
is deemed
was
theground
without
Demurreraon
no
mp
the
Was
rfiled
summary
areserved
FRESH
(Sec. aon
motion
This
that
aappeal
stating
afiled of
issued
stand
haca cour of phis
the
3[b], aits
that ed
he
is
obyaan
tohea
pub
e nor
vertisingsented process
deceased y Ac
inCounselors,
Sec and
accordance
by 5 No C,Ru should
the
e 8353Inc.
110 sole with v. Ru hes
have
Revilla,
heir the sLaw o of marr
requirements
Cr been
Bar
Ba
B. m agena
(Sec.
Examination
Exam
heard Procedure16
na
set
of V before
Rule
on
down or Q
3)
1997
H.
medy ainst
mmary
ould pdnsfer,
aused
"ion.
ionadings?
ome.intiff
elied
yoma,
ll
dsecution
l, face
execu
trial.
Office
emen
thereof.
nguto
much
a
that
be
the
(R.A. separately
motion
another
that
B.
not
is
shedHow
(Sec.allowed.
to
129much
value
shall
court
a
After
the
Explain.
aggr
quoonunder
charging
ofreturn
on
In
judgment
No. exceed
1(b)
SCRA should
to
he Courtdefendant
of
court.
Election
his
less
have
eved
of
the
rendered
warranto,
8369) of dismiss
and
cr mnonaRule
h the
unverified
that
(2%)
P400.000.00
Rule
[Sec.
30.),
under
When Judgment
Katarungang
Provisional
4.
law,
1
In
billion.
It
The
contribution
foreign
not
on
order
income,
Service
or
ev
a)
a
depos
before
1)
proper Judgment
their
s
n s
to
inVictor
mpr
es she
the
proceeded
ojudgment
Yes
Tosen
111).
Was
was
Spec
June
not. udgmen
denceas
102
check.
appeal, vacate
family
his
ma
1(b),not
4.the
rendering
mony
in
to
c.
from the
Registrar.
asks
court
had
sonmenjudgment
counsel
child.
ence
plaintiff
afford
of
ac on agaover the
ba on of
favor
result
Certiorari
accordance
they The with
judgments.
ng
not
whom
He
16,
he
fhere
ofcomplaint
mandamus.
Rule (2005)
PRODUCTION
default
outside
When presen
c
s became
answer,
you
the
Remedies;
2001 gone
The
jurisdiction
of
date
Supreme
the courts
provhis resolve
s
Summons
ob he
s or
announced
1999.
proper
nvo
motion
adequate
there
in
(Sec. to
wsummarily
Pambarangay;
of
ahit-and-run
111, Marietta,
sa Rules
and
uponof
how
plaintiff
ecsued
of position
amoun
may
ns hCmupon hear
the
respect
a
of
matter The
saccused
he
nesses
hey
and
ed
ved finding
decision,
under
the to
33 C, have
Revised
ona final,
ega
up
ons
with
On the
must onTRO o
testing
receipt
A byfor
a her
the
order
Court
to
{Garcesall
of of
to
theI
the
Manila
remedy
province
As
local
s the will
protection
party June
of
s
on o ha
defendant
OR
Rule
recover
d
is
bas
B.P.
for rape ofto
Examp
gned
he
Sec.
setCourt,
unc
toexclusive
motion?
Ricky
n a
of through
(2006) in
smcriminal
driving
that
filed
counse
n be
10 against
Rules
d writ
ground
............................................................................................................
cannot
deemed
the
defendant
his
Carlos
from of
Lupon;
prosecu ex
INSPECTION
should
the
he judgment
saside
of
beh assail
his
13,
Big.
v. Bogo
e7(b)
65.
scret ssa
for
between
years
s for
ZZen
RTCs. h the
of
as
opponent's
order
Court he
the
or
e ofa
public
declaredto
(CX’s)
the
1999,
as s
claims.
the
129,be
to
of
Rule
the
heparo
for Extent
was
city
to
on: joinsa considered
Order.
the
firearm
of
on
Court
ofs a
cour
he
have
as in
judgment.
may
Joce
court
aemen
YYY,
that
39
(Russellin
validly
the
a pr
persona
ev
case
his
ined OFthe of
claim.
which
(1997
s
waived
he
be
ofyn
dence
The
o
default?the
two
on Authority;
DOCUMENTS
should
causes
take
sproper? to
Appeals,
deny
who
RTC
enforced
hear
Sec
v.and served
was
mayor
VRIS court
In
Rules
Vestil, be
cases
bank
such
(Sec. and
into
5 his
her
ng
did his
obe
hethe
of
(2%)for a ofMan
distinguished
municipal
complaint
PERIOD
against
or
for
nor
procedure
main
the
demurrer
warrant
den
v
un
s
annc
RuleacEE
instituted
emen
Reconsideration
ude
nforman
censed
court
any
Evidence; grounds
ed
m estimation
he
9); 1
(e)
prejudice
2.
B
(c)
SUGGESTED aroffice ng
Industries
had
and
C,
an
plain,
he
of
Yes
couBESTAThe had
to
Civil and
of
who v
circuit
ha
e
arrest
demurrer
against
ifdprior
and
ec
petition
d of
evidence
3215 ed
po
it
he Roman
from
speedy
no since
Case
motion
Legal be tohe
ronbeing
his
is
EVIDENCEsustainable?
and, days
operations
and
prosecujurisdiction
ce
towo
trial
conv
the
ANSWER:
ANSWER ca denied,
"Defense
c X
title
REMEDIAL
filed
the
its
vs.
for off
interest documen
searched
and
ober
B's
days
rights A
without
therefore,
to within
ccourt
Corporation
filing,
ev
the M47
counterclaim
cers
Criminal thereto,
within
dismiss
ed adequate
sole
on he dence gun ofParties;
earNo
are
adms
Explain.
probate
of
against correct
canover
may
RULE the
which
opped
heir,
his
eachleave
as
he er
thein
the
Case RTJ
and
on accused
re-fLAW
pun move
house
def
his
ed Prosecution
remedy
on
Cebu
cap
both; acquired
reglementary
for
necessary
action
of the in
a
to
is 93
ofserve
deemed
[2%]
Th a
(2003)
ened
shab
person
accoun
car
a only
a 904
file
its
which
to
court.
he without
the
ground
or s City
will may
he bein
offense
Ru reconsider,
n
waseruling?
suchthe
nforma of
February
permissive,
Compare
the
documen
the
payment
ng
as
hese and
be
he
involving
party.
e by Offenses
prescribes
of notice
there
property.
dr
within
(Sec. s
of a
ordinary
affidavit
period?
ordered
accused
h
adop Ru
search
not
ven
Why?
pr
lack
Obosa23s
on
(Sec. was
es
s 28
and
ary
the
s in
ofby
the
ofed
foron
it
ab
an of
wn
%)
notion
nied eisdiction
unsel,
ecution
mm siness
bian
ended the
minal
connection ended,
fendant gment.
yintiff
e.
endant
the courtSupreme
judgment
be as
ssue
Alex
MeTC's
made
men
is
of
the
byhad acquired
election
and
filed
was
the
Reconsideration
to
for
such
inallegation
servednowould
and
file
with
ofiled
such
on
petition
asuch
issued
answer
lack
cause
orders
petition
registrar,
execution
an
Delia’s
andhe
cases. (2000)
(2001)
fruit not in
aawyer jurisdiction
amount
of
action
against
of
filedmay necessary
ground
for
concerning
motion
be
jurisdiction
of action
for injuries?
(Thorntonregarding
as
ah
back
for be of s6)as habeas
poisonous C,
in cr
lack filed
oppositionquo
against until
may
fact
for
ha
who
me and Why?
of
v. the over
warranto
the
inhe
corpus
a) afive
reconsideration
the
Thornton,
................................................................................................................. being
be
due
appropr
tree the Wha
order
sale
continued
superven
(3%)
evening
the
found process.
(withand defendant
Court B's against
of whom
subject
to wou
in
ahou
can G.R. eand
sole
pay
supportingdue the
his of
ng
for
of
be to
daccused; offered in evidence tois1996 In
(a) so crThe ong m offer
na as procedure
he 47 by search
Plea A oon of pay s
Guilty; awithin
conduc comp he to hosp a ain ed
Lesser nfile achild
n seashould zaaheOffense sworn on
p ace expenses (2002)wrwhere en
as he pena y 1
(c)
304
(See
mposed OR
Define
The
constitutional
Upon
11
Ru
consideration
project
action
damages
by
denied
right
motion,
obligor
upon
filed
for
b)
mo
accoun
under
bes
co-pe
2 of
e
Reso
not The
SCRA
motion
ba THINGS.
130
of prosecu
Rule
Sandiganbayan
identity
on
ev
Talsan to him
in onconv proper
against
he
his
has
appeal,
dence
present
was
Civil
he
oners
ve
othe temporary
resides.
When
What CX 738,[1999]).
the quash
h Rev
if within
motion
been
was
Enterprises, he
m c
defendant
allegedly
no
of theon
Upon
fruthe on
courtrights
cour
Procedure)
Mo parties,
sed
argue
evidence.
Perry
the es
Howeverfiled
nos set
e fIn
he
Return
rongpossible
a
on
is the effect of an Order of Default? (2%)ed
by onrestraining
Pena
claim motion
and
aside.
func
warran
this mo
where san
with
inaga
the of
alleged
Inc. years identity
o w he
the he
causedwill
Quash
case
his
(Id.)
heonon
isnforma
ground
Code
Two
ns
v. the effect
against
RTCRTC
Sand
of
the
Baliwag
not
cour ng
the complaint
o
showthat,order
theany
arres
he
Commissioners
of any
suspend
as
RTC
under
by
purely ganbayan
of ofon
criminal
that
Af
subject
by
ob party
judgment
a (TRO).
immediately
that
the
ev
action
its
and
er
Transit, aga
an
awyer
ec the
a dence
Ruleverdict
the
for
it
executor
personalproceed
r ns
offense
motion
onso b)
showing
matter,
Order
a was wh
within (2%)
action
w
Inc., Jose
partition
nor When
obligor
for heof ch
hdraw
latter’s
sided
upon
done
uponhadwas
ngs
and can
and
he
for
the
he for
has
no
or good
is Rule
Sec
the
(5%) not 119).
P100,000.00
appeal
Did
if
effects
upon
to
Explain.
course
cannot
Manila.
no
warrant.
as
wounds
correc
ev
D 1vs
reconsideration
and
provide
dence
valid
hav
method
the 9
jurisdiction
estate
murder
for
SUGGESTED
2 oordered
the
of be
of
ona
of
in
ng
Is
Cour Ru
(5%)
failure
a)
Because
service
Ruleof
entertained
a
he sheriff
the
law,
the ewa
support
Candenial
of for 3n
n
3) ohe
valuedcontention
preven
So h RTC,Ru
vedenforcing
substo of
Appeastorage
thesm ofover Prosecu
of of
ANSWER:
situated whilees
ismax
of
becounsel
pendente
summons
ogun
h odenied,
RTC.by
demurrer
counted
on
u open
s
s
at filed
the Emumcharges
gu
266 the
used
of ec
rof
as to rights
ongh
subject
200.000.00 ron
Cars
of XMunicipal
he
SCRAy
latter
fraud
(Russel lite
heper" by
onto
hecto
from
p and Ev
runk
omay
Co.
hus
ea
be adverselyor
odto
B him
inform
evidence
281
matter
nforma dence
presen
has
and
v. sixty
the
other
obtaining
Noeand
correct?
receipt The
eav because
Vestil,shooting
Court.
possession
falls
s the (60)
advances
was
ng
the off f
onec
dec in
ev ne
of
304 Why?
affectedcourt ve
born
cers
special
forconv
a he
redress
(Revised dence
days
the of
within
ared A,
the Augus
civil
be
SCRA homaccused
found
no
sheriffs
which
to
for
of
(5%)
of
c order
from
denied. oby aa
case
ed
civil
the
and
Rule for
the
cB's1738
ess
the
be of
de
cupy
dme
ntending
veur rlo peals
se tintiff
r,
tter. trial
perty
face
day.
that and
acquired
opmen
adv
purposes
against
inheAfter
value
for
in
So,
his
the
and
cehe the ofjudgment prove are the not qualifying binding. circumstance under the information for s(1)
of A aed QUESTION
B emen Yes, swarran no because charg
adm OF ssLAW upon
ng bbe eudgmen is motion
aeopardy nmse when person
ev dence the of any
doubt
w ocrime. hand party
prove or an showing
difference
hhain offense
sof gu
idavits) ed mo toquestion,
that
be?
the
damages,
Court
due
had
had
theif
aforesaid
onthe
Pablo the
sheriff
granted,
Exp
onthe
hearing,
occurred
property.
motion.
Echegaraysued
of
civil
G.R.
he
therebysdefense
Genera
necessary
pun
cause
SUGGESTED
the
with
against
encroachment
next
already
receipt
resides
through
pending.
pend
conv
he
spouses check
urhefor
as
agh Appeals
nto served
sd well
approval
groundbe 45. usurping
action
out
shab position
political (3%)
the
be
c
administrator
identity
Chairman
nforma
five
ng
c cons on
phys If
ed
in Perry
become
of as
Ob
on
reso
Ceresthe
ascertained
MeTC
e you
Substituted
extinguished, writ
the
the
for
Bulacan.
years.
ha cou ob)
of is
..............................................................................................................
An
oaquin amicable
No. After vtherefore,Me 126258,
Secrefiled due the
in ca
dered
the ec
ANSWER:
over by
ANSWER
of vu
of following
deemed
writ
thesummons,
were
arySuppose
stability
onand the
Manila
on and
dof
appended
settlement
hearing,
aJuly
Peop ons
causes
he
so
had Go,
on (1)
nfinal
a
summon,
the be othe
dea
orderly
as
(Rule office.
habeas
ur
cr court
Marvin.
The
as of
complaint
offense
of
or counsel
os
(RuleJus
8,
suff
butruled
eexercise
Examp
mes es
h by
Compromise
an Service included
to
1999)
G
plaintiff’s
a andofo
theand attachment
the
successor
39) c
ur grounds:
he
courace
thec Rtogether
may
conv compel
trial
deed
ndependen
39,action.
v that
wasen
sd corpus
(Sec.
administration
rec comm
can
party eg
he
That cr
court
G No
The
economicofecase
chargedcus
majority
sec.36). R me
ng
order
for the
on
because
nce nohis
C,
of5,
saw
onL
consin
signed
against on issued
causes
lot.
is
(San
should conv
ear heed
longer
no
in nu
any
Agreement.
he
notthe perpe
In ac
votedby
counse
no before
interest
er
Diego welfareng
cour
bound
c the
his
be of Jose
sfplaintiff
of
party
the wbe on aob
cons
ua
action
ed
answer,
v. to
defendant
case
hs
amended
substituted ec
consu
o to anby
for
uphold
Wa ofor
and a XXX Lupon
couruons
produce
may
with and
the
ow
ver
the the
ngheng fe
or by 2001
onhe
their
goods.
action
with his search
Summary
dismissing
death
attached
offended
notice
return
was
subm
frus
bag
han e con
rainvasion
seized
or
[1999]; ALTERNAT
SUGGESTED
Jurisdiction
The
because
essen P15
those
constitute
of
of
or edno
Xa property,
certiorari
party
the
000
proof
n hom Procedure.)
room
Corporation
heng
aof
Copioso
counterclaim
a duringjudgment,
00 no
(Bustos motion
osevera
c VE
case
allegedly
a
direct
of de of o
ANSWER:
he ANSWER
47
denial
I for
and
v.
doubservice w
defend
and
thethe for s
Copioso,
purev. contempt?
grave
k afor order he
filed
me
Metropolitan
e
Lucero, search
os copy
because
of
adm h
does served
of
aabuse
MTC
edG.R.
attorney's demurrer Prejudicial
orcoca
nnew
a thereof he
sof
not
(2%)
resolution
No.motion
f of
ra ha
ne Moreover
and
correspond
the
on trial
show
discretion
hasthe
149243,
Trial
on fees uponThey
tohas
v house
of he o
as to
or evidence
that
Courts subject
a
us exc
Octoberbas
the
se yedismiss
motion
ng Question
descr
tantamount
ng
zed
of
theus
sattaching
expenses
ce (Sec. pena
of
B,
ve
ssheriff
he
28,2002;
ached
Moran rb6the
in
Metro for
gh
the
be ng
and
car
he
ofay of
A 3 temporary For failurerestraining to seasonably order is an file order his Answer
issued to despite Cabutihan good distribution
Under cause, C rcu orthe ar othercourtNo disposition
in 2-92 which A the scouror action
en property ed is353 pending in
oJeopardy ba the
m urt
mm e, eorder
tober
at liciously.
h0rhe
ll
ctions
criminal
toafor
course
be
demurrer
indeed
copy
produce
March
he ed
7,
lack
enforceable
case thereto.
2004,
aga of
case.
Accordingly,
of
22 lacked
af action
ns
the
their
toknowledge
erat The h(a)
evidence
YY
1950complaint,
8:30
heirs
qualified
Actions;
Bu
Bar
(1999)
However,
Petitioner
Special
Tagapamayapa
1
foreclosure
(Sec
and
nation?
the
be
defendant
respect
to
confronted
can
Reso
by
of son,
ha
hes would
mprcourt
gher den
anywhere
by
conformThe
changed by
jurisdiction
dec between
he desp
o'clock
justice
offense
permit
contract.
par
CXnot before
deceased.
he her
37
sonmen
u s
ro
or histreeoffPrior
be
4% prov
Derivative
applied
ma
on
gh P
reconsidered
the
or
you
on of
aga
Cardona,
The torape on on
ecoo
deniedthe
information
servedor
ofFabian
Ru theof
had
er the
bu
hisin
a
with
executorthetake?
court
himns
o s
Judgment
the
in
foreign
firstDhevs
to a under
he ona
the
e
a action
only
over
on
ncourt
onw
inspection
mind Suit
scuss
samefac Bu
the
mortgage
avoid
132)
become defendant’s
MM f
Section
Secre
awyer
70the [3%]
hemorning.
personally
can with appna d
den
dismissed
....................................................................................................................................
Civil Action; Ejectment then
January
hou Phil, vs.
too
s R.A.
its
orrefers sm vs.
Philippines.
and
the
d
plaintiff’s
and du for
oppression
judgments
each
be parties,
for Classo
sufficient
py aryorder
the
ca fanymore
mus
his
administrator.281 y 2,
filedssaEv
for
na
oma No.
Conclusiveness
filed
subject
of
andof
(1997)
opposed esannulment
accoun on
of 3,May
Ruledence
Suit
a
within
[1940]) her18-of
and
and
receipt
abbe
Jus 8353.
the
he
2001.
furniture
cof
copying
Ricky
only he a (2005)
claim servhe
done
shed
68. or
a
f 2004
which
ce
thehe
ng
a
onve eg The
case
On
multiplicity
ce
reasonable
and
Aggrieved,is
accused
evidencing
and
(Sec. dur or
motion
(5)
the ng
and
Crespo n of
factory July was
wr fruit,
a Judgment
ha
photographing
Perry,
alleged
cannot
ng
argumen
grounds
Sec
16, personal
damages v
Rule 3)
proper
6,
ng
he on
4 of
with Ifof2001,
time
cwith
AB was
andthe
rthat
his the
be
ofa
PD he
s a he
Rule
complaint
aga
and
lack g
lack shabu
61.)
reconsideration.
to
criminal
party.
petition.
first
admitted
prosecu
When
or ns
na
or subscr
made
G.R. Yes,
arises
Actions;
a)
SUGGESTED
Manila
litigation
Vo
custody hen
Ga bo
he
(Sec.se
or case.
coca
on
in
(Secs.
vez No.
5 the
ur hbecause
prosecu
f- as
excess
on a Cause
bed
n
evidence?
14, v ncr
evsd
(Sec.
p heA ne Municipal
to
v.
Commencement
genuine
L-2068,
of 4% theCour an
Ruleis
121 COUNTERCLAIM
c
dence
c by m
[Neypes
the
what
Landcenter ANSWER:
asand
19[4] vof
on of
ground
a unde
na
on 57) the
he
court
Action;
ev
o
If and
the 4.)b) the
over
compulsory
October of on offended
attempt
Appea earned
The
aIn
dence
et. last Circuit
erm
Is cr
lower
BP par
orchave oflaw
Shou
al. Joinder
Construction,
due the m day
ned
of
third-party
20,
129,
of a s
vs. yres na
of
and is
47
arrest
an237 anTrial
par
court's
to d
1948).
as s meon
ofof
cases
amoun
offenses
judicata.
he
officer servephe
counterclaim
amended). n y is
Action
Action; a
Prejudicial
v
of
aced filing
Court anyany
certain
383
jurisdiction.
c he
possessclaimant
B Ru
the
thereof.m (1999)
SCRA
legal?Dpeace
cour
X claim
Doubles
pun
s was
a
egran 130
summons
dea
under setmotion
suff
Corporation
on correct
shab
c)
mayoff
Question which
of
rendered
h
because or
of c [2002]).
Under facts,
cer
en
arres
(Sec. e
deny also
f
such for on in
or
y
by
ed a
1, it
mplaint
ar-old
hose
form ed ition
tter
regain
gmen
endant
cu that
oryof
contention
adaughter,
forbelief
the
Saturnino
custody.
properly
andmandamus
(7%) complaint;
ordered
as is to
whoSherestrain
because
take due
Default;
poisonous
(1997)
(2000)
Distinguish
D
action
Summons
Arrest; could
correct?
the sNo was
the notice,
ngu
alleged
and
truth
an
against
not Remedies;
and
Warrantless the
plaintiff
a appeal(2)he
sh
Explain.
college
(1999) file
thereof. aA
opposite
accused
Burden
the ordered
in Pablo
adoctrine
derivative was venue Substantial declared
of
....................................................................................................................................
separate
from
the and student.
(5%)
Arrests; Is petition
but
it party
gave
thatits
said proof
proper depends suit
action.
surety
Objection the Forhwith
order?Compliance
and stofrom
and
thatin
case express
trial
the
for that
toIs
to default
burden
on
(2000) rule
amaintain class the (2000)
consen ofin of suit.
residence aev
evidencethe case dence status
here instituted
thatof ovtheto par cu omay because
No.
Sec
proceeding
defending
reconsideration
while
a)
An
(2004)
Special herar 27
eadv As order
ec aCivil
peace our he
ronexpressly
What QUESTION ehwas
party
Action; any
c141524, par
voffto documen isconv may
was
cer party
hear the
Foreclosure provided OF
charged March rule ed
the to FACT sx47of adm produce
against
on (2003)hom
in
case.
w 15 is
joinder
ss the
Prejudicial
hmo if cwhen an
bhe he de eand
Rules,
Ithomicide?
February opposingand
nnhasofthe
enforcemen ev permithence
when
causes exclusive
Question;
dencedoubt had party. the
he of28
ftoor of
Mogu
1606
2 On
the
actions;
2
large
SUGGESTED
comm
pena
of
respect
it
enforced
files
payment
despite
showed
br
excess nvo
n was any
ef
ground 10
prevailing
he v number
a
y
asy the
ng
151 January
Because
bu
of ed
petition
to c)
designated
presence of
diligent
amended
Ifany by and ha
the When
plaintiff
SCRA
jurisdiction comp
that
he
the
ANSWER:
mpr
mere af of
loan that
amoun party
actioner
he 1990,
he machinery
the
for efforts
462
bye double
sonmen
of
motion. but
e f
documents,
the
who Jose’s
offense
RA certiorari
RTC
y edasked
1987
isor s X
ndependen
not (10%)
plaintiff
sub
made
for in
grave
No leased
jeopardy
he has exceeds
fact and ecthe
demurrer
un
7975
recovery comm against
to no
abuse awfu
etc.
respect
hadof the
Lupon
equipment.
assured
serve is The or
counse
more he s warehouse
clearly
encroached
of x
ed
ofbeen o
order
the
tocr en
Sand
theto
years
discretion
money him he ry execute
jurisdiction.
was
them Court apparent;
During
anyev
summons
na ganbayan
partition
Peop bu
that
es n denceof
on
arising party
case andeafa the
no
he
tantamount Ahe
his alleged
intervene
defendant
the
w
QR
W udgmen
mpr
Rule
from hcircumstances,
hou
s 65)n
CA,
SCRA ADDITIONAL
SUGGESTED
necessarily
ev sonmen
mo for that
f
dence G.R.or
on?
feen Peop
personally
nd
685 file s Raphael
Reason
No. nong
(15)
ngand 1994 a ANSWER:
ANSWER:
arose exceed
hhe
separate
canw days Tee
m accused
before
(5%)
B
hho of G
should
out be ng
September R
herefrom
h ds action convicted
s serving
of s gur gh have
and yearshe toy 14,a of
o vindicate
it
is
presump incorporated
of rema
2005]thru connected
Sec on
offense his 2 sRo
his
on wife.
A en
amend naclaim
charged
with
No inand
uraIs 7691 his
thethe he yo
against
excludes
For failure him by of evidence B. K.J. The to which following file may an have day,
answer A's awithin
mistress
derived the aor
who is inspection 3
ALTERNATIVE
ev dence Intervention
of of gu ANSWER: designated will documents. not sunduly delay The or
ofof murder easunder no rong y(Rule
No,
Evidence; because Admissibility; acomplaint court Photocopies is required v(2000) to take into No. (b)
Remedial It An isRule 27).
yurt refore
endant’s
pite
court
may
jointly
dismissed
court’s
her
defendant
toshouldefforts,
to
failure
render the
order
Fabian’s quo
and
beproperly
defendant
judgment Suspension
SUGGESTED
either
Appeals;
a)
FG
under
2)
Meanwhile,
amicable
d)
w
ALTERNATIVE
SUGGESTED
pendency
Mah
comp
more
permit
which
(defendant’s)
CD.
would
personally.
As
pun
to
contract,
acquired
to
she
s forwarded Theanswer
Where
alack hou
Rule nay na
he until
granting could
was
shabWill heaA
petition 302
han
instruct
prosecu Period
challenge
wo
nan
ona What
lease
entry
includes
or on or awithout
offended
arrestedP1.5
esettlement
eave
expressthe of
excess of
no
the
SCRA
the by hearing
’sANSWER:
ANSWER
kLinda,
Fotokina
ANSWER
20 B.
to
the Criminal
ofthe
contending
nds
contract
charges
courANSWER:
petition longer
is abode
upon
motion
his
or Hence,
Appeal;
million
land.
mpr the the
foreclosure
455
years of
Marvin.
Sec
of or
said
trial?
without
nlawyer
the par
11999 for proper
motion
ob
because
sonmen
jurisdiction,
Nunez he
implied,
Action
effect
filed
are locate
with
designated
for
15 Wasorder
assuming
secretaryyec
Fresh
ba determining
Accordingly, it
crExplain.
as that was
manifestly
Peop
certiorari
The
Ruto should
within
mvons
with (1999)
aactual
of RTC
asuit, Period
thru
he
sha of her quo
period
ewithdraw
na
of
Sand
and
for
ewarrantno
absence
are the
joinder
119 Joaquin
that
ofup Esp
nforma
case
while land
the be (1) of
RTC the
fnon-compliance
oed
false
prosper?
defendant
ganbayan the
Ru uthefive
den
br
defendant by
eob
the
es of
or
is propriety
302
records
gh Ion
ef and
learned summons
eced SCRA
obetween was
..................................................................................
be
Rule brought (2003) policemen
years.
petition
complaint.
second correc
property
ydefendant
Explain.
years
111 Cr on
dCarlos,inscuss
upon have
m from
SCRA
dies
no
is of
othe
On na of for
aby
yabefore
basedforamend
complaint
the
motion
beyond
have
nformaonproperty
Nos Solicitor
(Sec.
jurisdiction
days
difference
action?
comp
Provisional
SPO1
A
SUGGESTED
ADDITIONAL
complaint.
ar
If
he
ng sesborrowed
theBon
hereasonab
to 6,
aw
ass
140546 or
Pfor es
CNC
dismiss (2%)
oB
action hasnot
Law;
vMarch
involved w oapplication
General
Remedies;
gupgrade
interpleader
ance 6)47
In aein
arises direct
ANSWER: hConcept
ANSWER: edfiled
from
doub
he all16
he
meritorious?
January
an
affects
ru
Sec contempt
matters
ifas
and
original
be he
an commences
Support
with
and (2006)
February
es
the to
3his
charge
er afor
20
title
48
on
secure Ru
accord of
the
Development
orney
claim
2003
ev Pre-Trial
adm
Pendente
actionto
probate,
110
What from
dence had
truth
MTC
or
writ
theng ssfor the 1985
hey beforebySec.
29
frus
possession
Agreement
is Lite
necessary or
storageof
action
in
smposboth
days.
Ru
ques
the ra1w
(2001) preliminary
falsehood
prescr
Quezon
Bank es
the of ed purpose
ng
hhe Rule
testate
oAlthough
onedfeesfor
hom (2004)
RTC,Cr
of on bed
ofdmreal
reliefs, h71,
quohand
City
andcforthe
namof
by of
thede
m
%)
n. mages,
mediately.
pecial
rranto
onsiderationreglementary civil
isP0.5 theactionWas
proper
correct?
million
period, A Burden
(1)
grantingworking
reglementary
533
Article
consideration
If DERIVATIVE
the 1999
The 1144
photocopies from as
of bap
a a proof
preliminary a
clerk
of
....................................................................................................................................
necessary
b
RTC
mandamus
Defendant
on
while for the If
remedy.
the of
certiorari?
Why?
as the I
court's were
moral
judgment
he the trial for
(5%)X Isplace
compel
was period,
court,sma
only
the
received hetainted
he
ruling
damages
Reason. the rendered SUIT
offended
counse
where
court
walking in
of s Civil
cer
the
on the
or
the he
official
concerning
an motionlegal
(5%)
polluted
isf
injunction
either
correctand
COMELEC sala
Code du
Court,
ca
adverse
in a for in par suit
e
the yP0.5 of
issues
receipts
of can
of
a of
y
he
in
source.
requiresthe
in
upon
case?the o
Decision
busy a equity
show
accused
(Sec. Judge
and
g par
and
parties ve
tomotion
Such
motion
(2%) that the
4[c] y her
implement
street. f before
thatof
evidence
an
photocopiesoI a
resides. of
evidence
consen
and the ispresen
wouaction
on filed
LM,
[d],
AfterRTCwhom or d is
the his but
129 prejudice
(b)
defendant
In
1)
Certiorari;
injunction
What
b)
warranto,
intestate,
the
alleged
(MeTC-QC)
Philippines
Procedure nhe o a In
ma
it No civil
original
case Ru is appeal
on indirect
the
facts.A es
was Mode Ithe
case,
it
where has
Amendmen
may wh concept
secured
may
motion
(DBP) of s
foreseen of
(Ramos adjudication
a the
by
e the
be rre
Certiorari
contempt
be
Cour the
an 48 granted
sworn
the right
for evan
defendant
certiorari
of brought
v. twoPre-Trial;
Supe
nforma
to remedial
value (2006)
reconsideration
Pepsi-Cola
amount and
take to within of
ven
by
loans
written The
in
of inspect
two onre the
has
Criminal
under
ng a ofa law? the a Even
Municipal
the
RTC ob
from
long
Bottling s
P1 rights
the
ed an(2%) and
purview
estate ga
Rule
s
statement
million right
Case in
was
years 1997
accusa
aws B?Co., or
on
the verify vs.to
45,
Court
defective
does original
one of
City
because
19 and
securedfile
Civilon the
Sec the
duly he
in
of
notfor ans
433
entry 08
ques
the
reliable
prepared
show
inspecting,
partition
counterclaimed
(5%)
The
must
your
pr
Procedure
the
inadmissible snot June
other
errorson
trial
1982 on
ng
likewise
grounds
of yet mayor sources
final by
court
and 1996,ofpropounded
by
Iparty
been However forhas
measuring,lawhe ajudgment he
under
bedenied
n
forwarded
sum A
prosecu
on
having of
that
of against
shown
suppor thefiled
prosecu
y the of Jose
one
he he
the money,
lower in
emanated n
terms
surveying,sa toon? an r
venue
defendant’s
the
toof
the was d abe heon the unlawful
Why?
Code cour
your
court.
courta of
plaintiff
but course
quietly
a
CA. w
competent
from the (5%)
presen
or
oppos
No shou
h
PARTITION
in (2%) which
spurious detainer
agreement.
photographing and
no
appea of
for d whce
on nqu
person he
gradually
damages
because
the ch
hav o o
origins. case
reora is
action sThe
he
ng
in as hea ntheadvances
such
summons
regard
he
o pena
consumma
was The
SUGGESTED
counterclaim
fraudu
property
SUGGESTED as
ng yand and
preliminary
heprescr
en by then coca
ed that purposes whom ANSWER
ANSWER bed hom ne
itfor may is herefor
may
injunction,
cIn his a real de Franc rep it
be failure Noe
be y
Is sco
action served? D
he
considered which
he Ruopposed
sa udgmenand es dwas Explain.
o “I will
Cour
jurisdiction barred don’ of
he
compulsory not
(5%)he
vo mo know
from r V be a
is on
byev
prove
Rule case
declared
Case
upon
admitted
of
surrender here dence
a is
minority
58,1997
affidavits oa ped pending,
(1997) judgment on
KJ ingree
he Rules he
in
the
accusedshareholder I informed
fac
default. (though
s s one n of
........................................................................................................
were of case. Civil attached and Procedure). The In him ssue
app in without he duebehalf of necessary
political
to
y o for thetime,
her the ba declaration
of
distinction)
means a KJ
stability
position becausecorporation
o aes
filed owed ab
mustof
paper and
he an default.
sh b)
3
wr parties;
original
demurrer
T
petitioner
Explain
A
an
P500,000.00
Manila,
SUGGESTED
exceed
because
au nsurance
a
of was
hen action cour
Rule
ng T a A
accused
each
as
P100,000.00
charg
ca it of toshou
and
71. n
of
ed company
in
lacked counterclaim
the
ANSWER: evidence
Absen
mode
and forcible
The
this
ng d
respondent
nno promissory
deny
of
the
aRaphael a 48
case, he of
lawyer
person a noticehom
(nowother s without
Au Provisional
QR
certiorari:
entry
in
manner based
oma
c is
s
are
can
thefor de
P200,000.00).
wof mo note
and distinguished
cthe
Court leave
for
also
P1,000,000.00,
hearing, on
Rev on so
Dismissal
original
unlawful be he ewof If heof that
the k n
o
Appeals court.
The con he he
Conv
parties
ng
subject
defect from
detainer.rac
(2002)
value pre could
If
of
payable c or was rhis
onofto
B of
ina in a
isdiction
ruling? lion
plaintiff, asWhy? correct?
declared
exemplary (5%) Mepending
contract.
b)
in
motivated
preliminary
against
exam
SUGGESTED
Lupon
disposing
accused
property
special
resulting
it
charge
mo
been
2
The Was
o was an
why the
ro on the
ordinary
na
doctrine, Man
aken
not X oWhen
damages.
defendant
civil
of Sec
he
ator
The
The
court's
on
from by
without
concerned
of
suspend of
accompanied
defendant's
the any 8
investigation,
ANSWER:
accusedasome ofhowever,
herefrom
action
first
o Office
additional
civil
un
timethe Ruorder
he lust
designated
should in
aproceed
of Evaluate
e caseprior
allegedw
under
of RA 117
f his of
fordefault.
fo to
ed such ness refused
office
sa
does by on be
the
No
ow defendant
forward
vengeance;
demand
machinery he
dRule ngs an02 and
relevantng
encroachment
filed
death,
Solicitor
was
7975
udgmen
not the
demurrer A January
affidavit
where (5%)
69, (2)
within for
apply charged
to
or provis
and
which
itextraneous e)
ob
X
object
shallsummonsGeneral
oimpleaded
2003.
Where
w
ofto
of ec
execute
equipment
sixty
to herdnot with
vacate
hou ng
merit.
conv
on on
or(60)
cannot
the He fors(OSG),
there
operation
his
be m
was
results filed
rape
oceave Thethe anin
lot.
on
be
days
dismissed wo the
toar any hSCRA
interposing
considered
ccouram
from 2subscribed
of
pp
by
Par
regardless
determined va
ngB 121
the abou
dconceptha (b)
289,
and
who 122
titled
his
as heavily he [19670]).
proper?
he by
interference
ofclaim. dby may Iof land
dadm
the him,
sn’
the clogged
file
amount. of
Reason
ss charging
even
assessedappea aon his petition
with of
my court
friend
(Sec. (5%)
replied
can car
he
value ah7lies
RGR for an
of B prescr
calendar
amended
”court
be D
Rule of
offense
(an
certiorari
who, that
benef was the 6) bed
of actual
he however,
charged
property.
subscr
before ifbyby
coordinate
ednforma
could resident
he hese
has
wthebed
not
he didIton h
undness nth case later, proper?of the the Explain to
judgment h
Yes.
under On
Adm
unverified
Jurisdiction;
economic
submitted
offense
representing
the s redress thec
ss
action, Thea b same
m s y wrongs
welfare
mere or
motion
court
Incapable by Adm
.................................................................................................................................
be brought he Ru within
is Chairman day,
es An
it defense
ss
plaintiff
y erred
of hom
necessary on
10to
ofA
committed
appealof Cour o presented
lift
Pecuniary
years
the c Go, Gu in by de the
nation
in from
issuing
and from
that aRequ
opposed he
order
an against
non-cap speca
Estimation
areamoun
the
the
action
summons motion
emen ofan a
the it,
default
RTC
time Order s
a for
aws(2000)
for
petition of
2006 under
the
offenseto
be which ev
without
o granting
right
unlawfulthe
served toshow oath
dence
on the
ACourt
the of the to set
of Day
1. The
agreemen
by 4
CROSSCLAIM
intelligently
demurrer
Dur
(Sec.33
disciplinary
on
the
this
cured
Ru nnsurance
1998 o es ma
action
different
Supreme
vs.
he ng
case of
RTC
onon
prosecu AsIntervenor’s
heBP of and
sis
Mo
andtime a of gned prepare
129;
action.dates. r
Court.
mode denied,
on a
Zamboanga,
P95,000.00 or Remedial
the s in48o
by no
by
and that
Quash
lower
he
Both
of(Sec.(Sec. his
Remedies;
itsheadm
f3of
appeal he puba
rightsanswer.
ed
16, have
7 Law
cross-claim
accused
G
court
191
filing
is of ss
has
w ounds
c
within
Rule Rule b
The
from prosecu
fallen
SCRA610.
h sSCRA e
may
Void
the3)ison he
66) and nau at
1998
not
the its
cour ev
Judgment
right
due.
March the
hen is
hnot dence
s
impleaded.
or
jurisdiction.
Regional any verycounse
Is receto be
c[1995]; B 15claim
yphysical core
aga
(2004)
present
ved
obliged
of fully
of
Trial dany ns
Inby
heofIn a
otrial
cbut is
SUGGESTED
premises.
offer
settlement/agreement.
and
athereon.
joined
The
defendant
served
became
obtained
notice Notice
clearly
her
rcums businessman briefly.
whethe
plaintiffcourt
ofbranches from
with
(Sec.
of f ev
ances
(Sec.of
her
pursuant no
corresponding
na the filed dence
7, (5%)
Appeal
ANSWER
other rendered
prima
hthe
filed
1, Is
Rule s Rule
judgment, n
a point
to awyer
friend
he n facie
causes
an
14). Cebu
special
Sec. on wr udgmen
ex of judgment
10a) 1,case
information
knewwho
parte ngand
of view January
order Rule Is
civil action. against
Ob the
was
n
motion
of of
ha 28, ec Cagayan
action
or conv 2003.
Lupon
he
1997 on
alsowas
(See.
resolutionfor effec
c o
for On
on
5[b],
Rules filed a
engaged
extension de the
ques
correct
of
certiorari
va Oro
Rule
of in
soughtf d? other
Civil the
on ng
2,) Is in
of in
s have (Acenas
jurisdiction.
wou ega
tothe d of
judgment
not
SUGGESTED
dec claimed
p Cebu
possess assume
ace
s been
on II Sec
h of v. mCity)
may
storage
on illegally
personal
Court ANSWER:
2he n of obe doub
Cour with
Ru ofrendered.
coca fees edeclared
liability
Appeals, e the ne eopardy
and d offense
Appea aIf 247 forotherin
you
proh default,
the Reso
wh were b of loan.
advances ch ed 773 slight
vethe se.g. A
drug Sec lawyer
he
favorab defaulted during
4inmo Upon Sec. his of e on
directors
requ Provisional
aside shall red the instead
refuse
by Remedies;
order aw of
to be default
sue, TRO Iallowed the vs. on oStatus
real to the continue
party Quo ground Order
inwh interestuntil that
eadm(2006) burden entry
his being failure of final tobeCourt is
procedural within due the process, jurisdiction which means therefore
raand law which of hears the
dingcedure. the(5%) defendant No
CD’s
ped
judgment.
Wha
an
(b)
As
Appeals
A
action
case.
detainer
ground
(a)
1
upon
hand,
RTC.
propounded
refusing
furniture
Also,
time
under
Procedure,
assailed mphe
he wfiles pre-
Can The
affidavit
The he
gree
the
liable
emen
sa
are
prayer
They
him?
On
hou
to the an
plaintiff
Rule d prosecu
accrues.
that rTha
accused
answerXmo
to aggrava
is
filed
(Sec.
he
..........................................................................................................................
causesaction
aarraignment,
Tr
for
udgmen
as A
can deemed
mandamus
contest
Explain.
execute
manufacturing
ed 65 eave nrequ
on
Ifor
n
it
of the
he
4.
with
wou have
dadA
he
challenging
favorable does
or
and
the merit
foreclosure
in
There
of
Rule sng
oaccused remen
Sec
vhis
entire
received
course dthe quash
the
(2%)
actionperfected
oCour
arev
defendant’s
not
cw
persuasive
Municipal
make does
motion
65) he
wa rcums
1ejectmentattached
Municipal
seems
ewab
osamount
contemplate
judgment of
, pleaded
such ve sargue
the
pertain annot
while
he
Ru the ofahesorder ance
Appea
to e
eas
he
rec
denial nforma
pu 131
mortgage
lieno quash
same
ora
that to
influence
Trial ontoha aof
Trial
dnot
presen
counterclaim,
hru
the to
ha
cogent
sav
obtained
it.
the
examon289
the
fromun
Court
enforce
order.
different
a
search
second on he
Decision
sguilty. an on
ofKJspecaawfu
appellant
Court and
but
SCRA
ground
quasthat mo
nafac shou
on however
reason
on ordering
they
contractual
Trial
confirmed
by withina
should on ss
on
against
sbut
venuesof
-re-c en
188
the
wcdthat
which
on of on ry
upon
are v onbe
oh06
to
he
the adofbe
plaintiffvmow sfiled
horon
complaint 1,
(Ongone
accused
(2)
(a)
reasons
before
Judgment;
protected
1.
evidence.
1
certiorari,
(d)
copy
to
determining
supplemental
Venue;
pr
injuries
SUGGESTED
Virginia,
and
and
Metropolitan
heRule va
ofNo.
file accused
The An
DBP
appv. party
of
WhaeD
the
for or onlyThe
Personal
19,
Tating,
it
defendant
Gehe
allegedly
(4%)
adm
theAnnulment
in If
1997
filed
interpleader
cab
condemns, heec ega
ve
pendency
what against
because
under
marr
are gun
one a48
his
ANSWER:
ANSWER the
Court
ron
ecour 149
Trial
swo
separate
pleading, Search
Actions
Rules
an heseized
yodemurrer
age
complaint
cSCRA
action he
h
is
ob
jurisdictional
(2) of
Rule
inflicted
action Court.
requ
of anot
documen
of
suppressed
m which
cerJudgment;
documen
agrounds
(1997)
of because
was
Appeals
Civil co-party
Warrant;
proceedings.
during
nedprovided
265, srequired
for hisfis
65,
should
Sec
no
ca
es granted
against ex
Procedure.)
on judicial
proceeds
[1987]) eof
motion
11
theGrounds
offered
Motion
to
SPS
he
ary
othera
of
amount,
mus he[a]
arising
athe
quash to
that
yousearch
was ud
A A (an
use
evdeny
lowerand to
foreclosure
Ru
upon
acfor
Supremeto by
motion
be
not
(1998)
aeQuash
dence
an
actual
take of onB ofthe
excluded
n122 out
under
dismiss he
Informathe
appeal
confess
proved
yet
inquirycocacourt
absen to
Ru
accused
(2005)
recovery
was of
of house
Court.
resident
certainof oath
ne
es help
and
a?thehe
by
on
set
areison
oby
or
the as
the
ev
AB Differentiate
answer
of
attached
den
suspend
filing
B,
exclude
obligations.
not
basis
settlement/agreement?
c) 1998
he dence
the corporation
ed
togu
the
prosecu of
the Hepay
naturalwas
because Isa to
foreign
main s
court s no
notice
rs of
...............................................................................................................
n he comp the
CD
summons due
aheo a
During
on nan
son TRO
n du
itself
ILgnac
factorsan
motion
the
rendered whto wh
order
of
judgments ’s
of y fraud
appeal
full chfrom
of
accused
abode
e(Lint
A’s the
o
requiredfor
his
that(3%) a
wou Conhe
amount
judgment and a
par
father, answer
v.
in he fromstatus
has
prov
proceedings,
should
d y
Lim-Yu,
b) he
the
vfo dur
show
to o
o s
of
Courhas
ow
RTC
for
the
What quo
go
inbe ng
under
ona
be thebethe aspec
ng
G.ILorder.
forward
operation
favorha in
o meritorious
should
served a
d reasons
mortgageoath,
due
partition
Appea
considered sm
theno fNo.
of cus
ed (2%)ssa
time w od
stating
plaintiff?
offense 138343,
be
upon of n
majority
s h
of he
had
debt
this
300or
the a defense.
in hea within prosecu
The the
of
(2.5%) Jurisdiction
Default
Special
Demu
transaction
bu
What
Yes
impleaded.
nu
attorney’s
for
X, B
both by motion
genuineness
a[2%] The
plaintiff,
f
hearing e(2000)
49 Civil
without
es
resident he
areloans? on o he vs.
Trial;Ev
Actions;
nsurance
udgmen
fees, or
the
and to Venue
dence
of n a
the Trial
occurrence
does
dismiss
r
Explain.andgrounds
search
ns
served
litigation
Angeles (2006)
Mandamus
appellate Conc in
nocompany
dueof va Absentia;
is vac
warrant
(2%)
on he
execution
City,d o
not for o
that a
expenses
the (2006)
court
y r eCa wh of the
meritorious
a h is
adverse
borrowed Automatic
is cours age
ch the
he of r
not
reverses annulment gh
and sthe 2004
confess subject
no s
admissible
party aga Review
promissory
costs;
P300,000.00 va h
becausethe s ns atd
on matter
agen of
order
theseseof
The
and
least the
in f- a
yed for in the complaint. 2. there
A.
A
January
the
w
ev
reports
hab
moaning
and
court
ac erna ness
denceIs
on ground
27, merits
ua was
certiorari
jurisdictions.
denied
for ve
1997 sha2003
If
of de for
Joaquin Answers
ceryou
the no has ensued.
Rule
nquen behe
the and,
law. prior
orar were been under
27
made
accused motion on?Rules
(People The gathered,ordemand
denied.
the
Reason The 19as Rule
has of judge,
case
v. January
soon
on Peop Civil court comm the65 for
(5%) asfor ethe the
Procedure.)
will he
ground
vs him
2003,
rendered
a ed
Fores proper
grounds
you machinery
sum tohe filed grant
that 269vacate
cr
of remedy?
a
judgment
it herefor
me
SCRA Motion
Tina's
moneyshould the
aggrava
and as
ev ed
dence
to [2%]
ev
of
Virginia
real
Cr who dence
Quezon
m na before
andestate
was in
Procedure ha d City).
the
liable the
sm mortgage meantimessed had
expiration therefor. The The been he Judgebenef especially
impleading of dcharges
Resolve gthe of awtime the y with saga
the a gned
branch
to
A so answer.
the
motion
ns app and and to
problem
h y m B oowith
which her
C asD
shall
ev
SCRA
February
includingwithin
SUGGESTED
Conviction
Thereafter,
1
(b)
in
a
the
Commissioners
parcel
rule, nves
nforma
ready dence
said The
reglementary be345
subject ga fifteen
ofbecome
answer
The enforced
nforma
on 19, on1998
interest land he oANSWER:
tobe
o2001)
c (15) went
herw
his (1998)
over
adm
permanen
filed
v
the on
period
located and ,in days reasons
requirements
case abroad.
while
may
a se the
hrow ed
other manifestation from
of manner
inbe
f n a canno
appeal. ev
for he
charges
ed f After
pr
Taytay, notice
CLASS ma
dence?
edprescr
his
by of provided
e his
be An of
her
failure
not
Rule
CX fac
that p (2
Rizal SUIT
cons the
return
.............................................................................
appeal
laterve5%)
n e
agaChairman
39, judgment
in
Ca
todered
per ev is
than
with
nsSec. a the
amba
file
by od week
dence
filed record
120
MM rules
as
an
for
48 Go or final
later,for
on
for renders
either
defendant
note, Distinguish
Actions;
SUGGESTED
Defendant
In
AX
judgment
2)
Parties;
accused
evidence.
and
(a)
SUGGESTED
renders ncr In1996, mrenders
Can a na
appeal
becauseofRealjudgment
Maka
Third-Party d ofon
the
Congress
d
unre actually jurisdiction
Actions
was
he ANSWER:
the
no
ANSWER: by
judgment of Horiginal
-bound RTC
ab s only
declared
certiorari,
ask
pub Claim
the &e Personal
awyer
passed
received
for (RTC)?
non-compliance
as c 49after
pay
(2005)
for evfrom
action eave
prosecu the theng
dencein trial,
canno
Republic venue?
Actions [2%]the or
default
passenger
filing
o
plaintiff, Venuef and
or
of of
summons
e (2006)
f he (2%)
of bycontemplates
e a
he
move Act by
thea a counterclaim
the
ru demurrer of
motion mo
No. the
defendant
h for(1997)
PBU
on
plaintiff on8189,RTC for
time an
he o o a
motion
62A deciding
Explain.
course
was
defendant
premises?
Why?
SUGGESTED
for
convicting
sha
equipment
by
pertains
have status he comm
Reconsideration
(See (2%)
become
been of
ctorcums (2%)
cases
toquo a action
declare
set who
left
the case. ed
ANSWER
him. cited
order for reasonab
ance
with
municipal of was A CarlosOn
hearing. the
in(SQO) decision
ofJose of
Roberts, substituted
reappeal, the
yin were
court era Onis apparen Decision.
default? should
Jr.,
more on
the no
and FG vs. for
longer
defendant’s
incannot be
(2.5%)
claims
Court
oofthe the
On
herw based of13
sufficient
nature be deceased?
sethat
Appeals, on
January
filed
motion, of the
the inato sperson. reasons.
commenced are
three
2.
from
2
appropr
SUGGESTED
the
of feeding
defendants.
even
SUGGESTED considered
(4%) case (3)
fA,
If proceed
h129, aIf an days
sy(Matute eas (Secs.
athe
was
appea secur
he ANSWER
accused
ANSWER: resident
In child? before
only
Informa
ngs 2
raffledduevs. ys aga and
fordmeasures
(5%)who
Courtthe
sm ofcourse,
ns 3[2],
determining on date
thereupon
ssed Pasaywas
ofhe shave Art.of
Appeals,
pono
because sen
the City.III
hearing. ce beenthe
accompan issued
enced of
court
for of filing
26In app Constitution).
hhe(Sec. SCRAstheoan fees.
ed
rendered
recovery
escape Moran
ed4,
dea loan
Rule
order
768;
Sec
by h a
regarding
es
Yes
aggrava order
prosecuting
with
SUGGESTED
or
was
answer
fALTERNATIVE ng n254not or
the
he
Maka he authorized
on ngresolution case
murder claims
.........................................................................................................................................................
ab shed udgmenaaga ANSWER
time, controversy
C ns still
y8because
as by oh
charge against
no ofappealed
mthe
well undecided, conv nBau
COMELEC as
had Tagay the
of cwas
sMotion afrom,
his estate
common
on
vTecum
no Sa ay hefor
defenses. m
prescr or
EnC en of
receivedyoang
hef
Banc or the
deceased
where
o138
bed Will upon
toSCRAgeneral denial
oppose
There the no
the an
587 of
order thew fromCertiorari
opportunity
a.
therein.
The
with Adm
What
(RTC).
otherwise
pub
SUGGESTED
(B.P.Blg.
Moreover,reconsideration
ALTERNATIVE
A
ev
2amendmen o hdraw
obtained
dence ssamended
cthe his ebdo
u257 5The
PlaintiffA order A
wife.
He you
known
dthe yPto
counterclaim
ANSWER:
Sec.
athe apre-
va
rule
bus
ANSWER:
money bemode
nforma
ssearch
for is epresent
mean was
33,
Service
deemed heard
rDocumen
as
dnot on aas
production ed the of
allowed
was order
amended) JOINDER
by on
required,
judgment ns appeal
before
is
onVoter's
onot a)
an 2005
against
ohave the spo 49 yno
real
consumma
to
an and is
judgment on
while
against present governed
OF
Registration
wife
wa
incident an needed
actions;
board
inspection ved opposing
in
was CAUSES B. ed is
evidence
hthe to he
s412.) hom
After by
arendered
and
rBayas
sufficient. ghhparty
bus
specialAct
of
lawful Rule che
the OF
b)
the onof
in de
ov
days Discovery;
appeal
assessed
of
accoun
law,
(b)
B.
Explain.
2003,
judgment
wa
answer the
Did
ved from
prevailing
rules
In isfor
defendant Rules
ng value
case
the
SCRA
(2%)
An Modes;
deemed is receipt
of and ANSWER:
void Sec
ANSWER:
procedure,
trial
offer of
party
the of
307 Subpoena
damages X perfected
of
P20,000.00.
court Court
of Municipal
[1996] in theRu
filed ob such Order.
ejusticeabuse Duces
110
does
eche which
a and as
a on RevB
case? to
no The
and
Trialmoves
its
Brocka the
sed
n establishes
illegally nvo
(2%)courtRu
equity.
discretion
wr (1997)
appellant
Court
withdrawing v. to
es
ve should
dismiss
an
Enrile,
arrested. Cr
However,
sha or with
certain
renders m
ssue nahave
192 act
be his If s respect
m ar loses
agreement,
vo
15)
declaring
(b)
judgment
cer . 5Ru
The escapes
f his
pca Court right
on Acosta-Ofalia
that
directing of ha s to the
could s he he
parties
here
a case preA nforma
fru
declare s vs.
to shallm evidence.
of Sundiam,
stipulated
pay a
nary a B on be theega in osonous
governed
nves default (Rule
charge
85
outstanding that
necess SCRA ga 33).
ree"the
because A
byony w the
forhas parties
account B Rulebeen hedid
cease
1
(2)
(Sec.
The 2
Pasay
therefore,
petitioner's
If
declaring no oIthe
1985 En were 20,claim City
and r Tha
es
The the the
him desist the
because
n
of motion adm court
judge, he he latter’s
defendant
inXX famorder,
ss default. declared
the
accused
for on
Ithereof willy mortgage
plaintiff
mus new b since isb not
The e the
trial
valid,
be s
may it
grant vois
motion doesindebtedness.
plaintiff
found or from
be
un because rece not
reconsideration
Tina's ary Manila
o in default
have
direct
ved motion although as In
while prev
the the
tonoon of
ous
filed h y
in s 45
(Albert
The
ACTION JURISDICTION
Since
May
cases
personal car of grounds
a In
the
v.
shall the
pr University
action? h
va
is Rules be s
supplemental
that e for d dealt documenrec a treats
of
annulment
(2%) Publishing,
party Court
with exam of may be
utmost thena
which
pleading of
offered
in on
power
judgment
one allows
confidentiality. D was
pleading
The and of es the
admappeal
ofnot
adm f ed the Court
assert,
ss set ha
edRTC
on from for nhe
to
of in
interest
rendered Procedure
the
offense
3d)
motion
was
to
In
action
requisites nforma Yes
an
or ma
petition.
SCRA no subject
admiralty
nandon onin
hadW
to on
doub
ma ain behalf
Mo
183
the
forlift hou as for
judgment
efavor eon ye
[1990].)
matter ythe
ground
proving any
case
re ofoin
hef
eopardy been
orderQuash
a(3) many ed ev filed
that sdays
which
the comm dence
of ova persons
2000
because
the
foreign by default
he disfile
upon A
casebecause
from ed
ssue so
appealable.
the
against
judgment.prosper?
he
should numerous
he
approval fto he
accused
ars Y set
have cour
case
Explain.
Since
Shipping
Pursuant aside
of that been had
was
the he itdefault
record Sandwhile
from
original
arrest
(Boticano support
1996,
accoun
civil
(b)
SUGGESTED
finality
presen
cr
notme Supposeganbayan
actionaproviding
frus
of ev cross-claim
of of of
thereof.
aparr v.ara dence
person the
Chu, of he
his
ANSWER ed nsche 391 de? fa hom
certiorari,
ead complaint.
decision,
148 under SCRA
for
aSec is
of
SCRA head
c2002
8,23 against
computerization
de
omovSec. 415
osuch
the does wounds
541 Ru ng 2002}
Photocopies
12 a[1987]).
eaCity
court forno
of co-party.
119 motion Rule hepissued
he Peop ace Itsusamendmen
126. of
is isto e(Sec. of
ahe
atheaelections.
ned
vgenerally Fon accused
official
writ duty
8,
ores (Sec. as
Rule ofof a
in exceptional A sued cases Corporation the court (XXC), may inof esconsider afa
corporation ra sed ofinnorowned
the he
Montilla, SUGGESTED
judgment
without or G.R. in ANSWER: No. excess 123872, of of A, its is
January the
jurisdiction judgment 30,1998) in immediately
denying SUGGESTED
agree
Ba
on obtain
App
Summary to sue
ca writ
on ANSWER:
and Venue of
Procedure (Rule
be preliminary sued sec. in in 8).
the injunction
criminal of Manila." or
cases. temporary a) Soon In
evdoing notice
you
made
meantime
EVIDENCE
Ricky
the
escaped
due dence were
counterclaim.
time w of
or hthe
from
of
after appeal nundoing
judgment
Marvin ped Solicitor
hree
notice egagree Was are order
ofconf
of was General,
from
Sec the the acts, nemen to
rendered
plaintiff af
Batangas
................................................................................................................................................................
40 judgment. Ru er counsel
as no
erefusing 130 aevaded
validly Motion
byce
(Sec. Ru for
the ofthe es the
2, ohe
declared
sencase for
court
Rule People
Cour offer
ence New 45) has suchjudgment,
1are of
conduc
decide
Jurisdiction;
hearing, P1.5
heThe Supreme
Extrinsic
documen car aeed million
case
requ it bu final
RTC Is did on shad
Fraud ary Cour
(2002)
es (principal
the Informa
order
not ev reg of merits,
and cure
dence s accused ered
of
rLack revonsplus
while
resolution
aCOMELECthe ansha of vo ew nhas
defectabsen
owed interest)
d?
VENUE
Jurisdiction. he he
[3%] by name
of of aor dec
the
he arethe refers of
ru sthe
Court aas
original
e(a)
(Sec, tofrbank. 50 of
end
the he
2, of
issummary
2
appeal
ALTERNAT
declare
a)
was
BC
pr
(3%)
d
on
Lines
brought
to
cr
political
organized
City.
executory?
defendant’s ur sm m Yes,
impracticable
ma sd
appeal
these opposed
(Sec.nas c
ssed fac
(whose Carlos
wasthe
chargedTheon
in
provisions,
ac
stability
5, procedure
VE
e
filed before
the
Rule Lupon
on
under adm
ev ANSWER
by
taken,
motiono in
in
principal
RTC to
dence
2,) Bw ss
render
due
and default
joinon is
he h on
an therequires
because
Philippine correct
the
time.
economic
to of mus
all
accused
action ega
offices because
ground
judgment
lift as udgmen
he (Sec. be the merely
parties,in
possess
forprosecu
are nhad
action
welfare
laws,
9, that
wr
the summons
in
Rule a
became the
p onit ng
number
However
Manila)
enforcement 41)on
eaded
is was
of
for submission
to
ofone has
the was
execute
filed
f
final which
rearms
in
that
specific o
nation been not
thebefore he
ofison A G.R.
the
269 the
The
6)
(e) ev
12,
(b)
In
SUGGESTED
receipts
Pursuant
resu
ALTERNATIVE
required.
SUGGESTED
execution n
he dence
aFamily
The alternative
An criminal
No.
motion
doub
court
SCRA of
nforma L-19118,
reason ec
e Courts
and to bo
he thereto,
for
62 to ronANSWER:
ANSWER look h
case,
eopardy
s dismiss
ANSWER:
the
1997 onforor Act
original
rong c asJanuary documenof
otherwise
the
he
enforcement
into documen
the 1997)
should
mpac
Bernardo pub
ru As
the 30,
copies
e agac 1965).
provbe
of
sufficiency join ary
prosecu
v ns granted.he
thereof. Cour ded
of as
be evhe toco dence
many
regarded
obtain
affidavits
adm on Raphael
approved
of s Conformably on
presen
Appea he
ss
the causes and
leave
beon should
second
service.sween
were
ed of as
of
the
278 anof n
May
prohibitoryTrial
of
un
favor
default?
The
vSUGGESTED
Cha
Arrest;
3 othe ess acourt
ac the
which
of
nforma
ed Philippines,
ea The
Warrantless dhe
Joaquin
Why?
Ev OSG fferen or cond
dence he on (5%)
mandatory represent
butattached. per
prepared
Arrest; 2002 how
ons the od of would
same
Preliminary sChairman
hinjunctive On sby aba isthe owed 20
you not
he w
Investigation
order
January
refute
yet
prosecu byGo
hou
relief. final. he va of
before
saidA 2003,
cour
or dhas
TRO
(2004)
default
claim? sin
us the
no In the
is fdefault, cafor on conven a.
Appeals,
1Rule
2.
accused
case
restraining
thereafter,
If
No
place
(2)
motion. an
REAL
AFTER appeal
conv
The
ofwhere
47,
non-payment
ence nforma
defendant
1997
has the
was
cSandiganbayan,
ACTIONS
JUDGMENT
order on? the aeadump Rules Judge
On
ready taken on
[3%]
suit from
may of was
cross-exam
may of
ordered
by
are
aCivil BUT
thethe
fileAbe farra
actions on
the
loan,
RTC ed
BEFOREfiled. the
afHernandez
Procedure.) the RTC
motion na can prohibiting
ndismissalDecision
Infor
affecting on he A
criminal
ITS or to
file RTC-Man
he
other
FINALITY,
dismiss ofwithin
title theathe
actions, courts orney
to judge
case
the the
or he a
of
the
3
August SUGGESTED
properly
received
(c)
under
conver
charge udgmen position settlement/agreement
Admissibility
Assum ed an 25,served notice
The finds
was opapers, ANSWER:
ng
7Informa
proof
1999, first
ocontentiongross and of
sufficiently(1998)
ha beyond the
cannot anyway,
his
which yon he
and evidence
having sreasonab generally
because
Sand
gned
XXX
is aaposition
representative verified been submitted
ganbayan the be answer
declared
...............................................................................................................................................
bbe the an that by ydate
eec douberroneous
the aon of
RTC availed
who
Prov with
execution entry to
has may
nc the
The no of
aof moreas of aSCRA
The action
have
(b) P
ob
equ
court
paragraph
offer presented
Voter's
ev
with hesued
Sec ec
dencebus va
No.
sheriffs of
thetoev
782
2proceeding oA
as
incorporated
en and Two
A
comprom file in
dence? he
Registration
Ru said in
he
1997 of athe
warrantless negligence grounds
may an
court,
marr 118writ,RTC-Manila
demurrer Exp
However inor se 7have
age
Peop gbeen
his
ruck
the identified
nA na noin
arrestand
cer quash
eagainst
cecomplaint to
vha
sheriffnot documen
he to
evidence.
case gned
requires
happened recover
udgmen
Identification
ca
stating an
byelevied an as w Informa (b)
opposing
plaintiff under
an
in hou If
that the
interpleader
whhis
upon
260 he
adm sfrom he ono thehas
following
obehe
return
SCRA on
obtains
ss proper
System
on he
ec crime
certain been
party,
on are
Bes
50 busthe his
on
that
25 of
JURISDICTION
RTC RTC,
not
the
2
when
performance
judgment?
court
(5%)
bo h capable
foreign Davao
these
notwithstanding
denied
ns The
Sec
The ances Why? admCity,
of
judgment
ANSWER:
are when
reso
A’s Rupecuniary
capable
he ss
(3%)
Motion u the
ethe on
117
on
grounds court
that may mus
latter of of for estimation
his being
he be
issued failed
Reconsideration
for made
brought
ssue ob a
taken to w
subpoenan as
deliver is at hhe
into it
contrary he
any involves
musc andass
v duces
judicial
T-shirts time scase
X’s
be to ance for
represen from
for
charg
reglementary
however,
Remedial his
ng the ng complaint
he venue reason
D Law po w period. Sec
is
isce h in that
hom the
jurisdictional.
that asked to branch
Ru collect
case
cit de
failed
“Af was 117duringandof er
2000
the to
Jurisdiction
law not he
your the loan
pay which
Ru
was pendency
commenced arres
es the arres
is judgment
prescribes a d
Cr X
ed
matter
d
m
of you
na
in the
byn
only correc
3
D
Yes, urwas good
there because
prosecu for is 20 ed
substantial days for accused hom ifadmissible issued cthe
compliance shou de for
by dsdeclared have
theahe eged RTC;
with fbeen y the bea
60 charged days Itng
itrule. possession No,
position
(a)
No,
sue
var
judgment.
compe
that substitute
complaint
sought
Actions;
citing
Prosecu
ALTERNAT
jurisdiction
tecum
primarily
SUGGESTED
within
notice
to
accoun
Motion
spec
(3) the Yes.
sdor
ance
The
the
Rule
of Admissibility
fRevised
the
cdefend
of
ed
isng
Cause
directing
en
10
former
the cer
Tha
paper
on
or
3)
to
X
plaintiffbe
and afforrule
An
VE had
alreadyyears
majority? can
(Sec
w Af ween
over
determination
ndependen
ANSWER:
Withdraw f
aANSWER
of
are he
for
examp
ca
he
must
aslost
that
er already
Action;
no 2,(2002)
contest was
theproper
arra
Y,
from
relevant
on
accused
beyond
stipulated he appeal
theRule be
de benefit
case the
(5%)
eSummary
by
not
Splitting
ev Notice
of
motion
erm the hisbeen
counse 36)
he
dence
to is under
validly
venue
president
of
he
comm ejectment
time
the
ne
c not
in fno
(1999)
v
bu
Hence,
hereditary filed.
of
rs
period
to their
whe
Rules
and
correct
case. reg
set
the in
before
s(Sec.
Appeal.
ed
her
whenof evidence.
Moreover,
s
aside
heAB
right
contracton
of 40,
...............................................................................................................................................
gnmen of all.
rar
he12,
because
the
rights
or pre-six
rs the
udgmen
of
offense
41,
in may
Rule
had
no of
Plaintiff
he
months
default.
w
RTC
rof
shipping
and
he
42,
ground
(Sec.
ahe
3)
action be
up at sale.
ness
non-
43
BC
not cr
wh
is
made
theofis9to
Anand
mno
e 45.
time onhe
naateor
whenever
may
claim
du
a)
has
any complaint
c)
sums:
SUGGESTED
provided
Ev
leave
SUGGESTED
witness
(VRIS)
was
on
properties
Procedure
petition
information,
Quezon
debt
of
the
1996 ydence
Tha
she
first sno
in
Angeles file
for
ab of
erroneous
within
substantive
method
(1)par
madefor fact fstorage
Project.
C
aRu ed
he
stand that
court
rave
he
underyof
authorized
because
certiorari.
yng
motion
P200,000.00 ANSWER
of because
ANSWER: aeof
City?
as
real
sfac
just
conv
the
of genuine fees
fthe
he
nrequired
he
and
because
ngIt
ha
B'sand
wha
law;
sproperty
enforcing
been
period
of
cdefensefor
and
sissued
on
name.if
rruleby
charged
aon
par ahis no
the
pr
marked
cour EDSA
effort
venue,
law
new
advances,
by
and
on
of esnmotion
committed
here on or
refusal
demurrer
C
specified
ou toan
invitations
saidthe
he
cou
are
or
an
trial
(c)
filed
to do the
joinder
was or
accused interest
overdue
owards
serve
Rule.
cour
of rights
astheto
hdencouraged
no aSupreme
of
on
ou sAbe no dismiss
fa to
third-party
in
the
amounts
pu
and the
exhibits.
the
sproduction
procedural
cons
to of
show
may
ure therein
evidence
sha
the
or
Maka
conv plaintiff
readab
summons grounds
promissory
the ohas
Court
parties
pre-qualify
he ngof
unocoappear
decision.
obtaining
police
50 ed
app
which
eclaim been
eSaid
from
en The
be
law.
an by
to
byis
of ofisa
er
on y
if
4 w
Although
up
AX
proba
If
Doub issued h
V he qua
swindlede o on
Jeopaev deaThe by the paro
dence ed h the
dy motion
w
adm
RY respass
e
2002 CA; h of in or ssan is
the
under
gu until
on ron o
unverified,
amount dwe
mus pfurther
cond
s pe ng
be of the
notice
ona
s express
P10,000
rong answer
pardon ifand
Photocopies issued
sometimeattached
Peop beyond eby v b. Yes
were
(Fortune Judgment;
Remedies;
filed,
verified
fraud,
offenseobey
b)
note,
complied s he
NO,
unThe us arres
any
obviously
the
(2) can
because Motors,
petition
identity
accident, and f Enforcement;
Appeal
of
order
with;ab P80,000.00 be the e off cons
determinable to
grounds
as
Inc.
ofoffor
mistake, cers
SC;a thepartiesv. dered5-year
general
review Appeals
CA, ha
court
on for at
G. in
excusableas
period
the dismissal
the
raisingrule,
R. wasn’
to
for bo
child CANo.time
purchase theh
(1997) (2002)
certiorari documen
76431,
only
and your
of provided
negligence, the questions
family car?”
price filing
October is ary If
in
proper of
cases
of andand
or you
the
16, the
of aoa
that
A
of
worth
conv
December 4
Any
A.
better
from
anytime
a)
wh
found
SUGGESTED
Knowing
that
company,
merely
accrues.
Summons
ac
received
ava s
motion
the
be
Thech
on theab
objection
cthere
ng
the to
noting
for he
ouon petition
the What
Under
motion decide
after
cross-exam y
date
for
charge
eswhat
was 24,
to
the
was
sbare ha
ANSWER:
afa
of
extension
Rule
that
subs appearis1999 to
of
served for
notice
theto mayaJose
Ordertheno
right
records
on
ashean the
case
the
approve certiorari
ffirst,
derivative
ned
rule
within and
proceedprior
edProv
aon has illegality
butto on
settlement
of sdenying
and
Sec
the time
against
the nce
realtestify
s
the
ncbefore
been
the demand
which under
Procedure).
lower
15 asuit
corporation's
he
needed
todof
merits
he
compromise
property.
Sec cross
file
splitting
doing.
at within
Prosecu
ev is
5Ru
to his
the
Rule
judgment.
court
theaan
dence
Ru
to
rather
epay
exam o
110
e
arrestIf65
answer
representative
trial
Resolve
Motion
vacate
which
acashier
is
or
the
us
sfiled
you
had
na
than
cause
impleaded
had
and
fy
ofmay
Resolve
one
amount on been the
the
were on
by
the
and of
for no
to
for
he s
the
filed,as athe (Sec. sparr
denied,
arresting
bar documents
and
forego
over
b)
for
Consequently,
Jurisdiction
redress ngh
he proper
odefendant,
ba cbid
7 osaid or ng
comprom
de?
of ? for
he
ano
Suppose
RuleExp for ofac
has off
their
her
has
were
properties her
may 65; the
a spersonal
ce
should n
the
the Sec
means
among
ses offered
prosecu
Diaz
invasion the ke
project.
(3%) be court
right 14 not
v.parties he
Cour
claiming
not Diaz,
2
oknowledge shown
by to
Fhers
orderedon
prejudice Ar
After
be rearms present
plaintiff
s331 did for c were
shou
conferred SCRA
ethat the
not oan
the
III Exp
the of ref
devidence
duandCons
public
B302
stipulate offenseec
facts
os
plaintiff.
foreclosure yendeavor
had admitted
by es veab
[2002].
u hethatUn
bidding, on
already
in
consent wh (Mapa da
shedhis
the
salethe of
in ch
to the motion is verified. The answer contains what the were ob P D’s ec a orney
ev dence wou A d pr you va ob ev1on ec
documen o he ques
may be on? offered Why?
A May he prosecu on nofcanno roduce ev dence ha A, heeCourt aTPh anot
resident C m na of Case oDagupan
vs C Case
City, 1997
secured ato favorable
the
Pr in ns SC.
mid-2003. pe The G R SQONo On 135862the is without May 2 any 2002 prescriptive period 1989; complaint.
a) Rule What 4,
They Sec. areare 1). part the of Raphael's
(Bustos
modes v. ofcauseLucero, appeal of action
G.R. to No. which the
esof
premises.
be
suit,
due. 4
Yes,
reasonab
Jurisdiction
Katarungang
D
accused
Parties;
the
technicality.
Lupon
Motion.
action
party
au
Joaquin’s
the
bring
motion.
director.
Reconsideration
on
5 n ofor afa official
was
filed
hor
aperiod
ma
111
defendant
just
ma
the Death
and
respondent
with
(Sec. wh
onyex (2%)
In
OSG
charged
is Tha
without
Ru(2%)
likee((1997)
Would
er
Sec.
olift
himdoub
es Pambarangay;
receipts
authorized
parte
lawyer,
of
2,
Amendmen eits
no sof
case
aoappeal
gnmay
is
Rule he
2aeffect
class
he Cr
several
re
ofayou
Party;
the
and w
and
on(Sec.chen
evan
he
represent
warrant
m
Rule
68) and
rcums
udgmen
whathproper
suit.na
need
03offstrength
on Effect
consider 2001
accused
he
s5documents.
to
e70;
The YYY Objective
affidavits
Procedure
of gh
the
February
An
cour
not
he ances
is
action execute.
Casilan (1999)
remedy
Rule the
court
examp
deemed phys
be
respective
nforma
had swa
service
the
COMELEC
(1999)
of
set
65),one are
ca because
vs.Tomassi
would
not for
e while
gravely
2003
ves
sworn
hewaived
(Sec.
of on not
for
yet
of ega
nrights
h
accused
hearing.
and
he as ur
you
summons
s
417, statement
Chairman
under
expired. ywhen
admissible
es
appeal
hef
abused
second
r
l0was
filed
gh
conv
of
takeSCRA nor
Local
s
the
the
The heis
he cits h s caseParada
sistosecond,
Besides,
on
his o
if
v. law
motion
person
necessar
persuadeRules
inspection
shall
computer,
accura
defense.
SUGGESTED
evidence
Fotokina
on
Sometime
transferred
loan
ALTERNATIVE
SUGGESTED
through
of
there
ev
the
1.]
distinctly
b) agreement
may vs
eto
dence- for ispp
of
waiver
mortgaged
yby
If was no
yVenerac
be
heof
bebe
reconsideration
(3)his
later,
Appeals, ne the Sec nc Tha
ANSWER
ANSWER
the
the the pleaded
appeal
set
arrested
n-ch
declared
ANSWER: divulged
Nademurrer
udes
upon 1court
same
as forth.
promissory
joinder
P150,000.00based
gan on ef
to he
ona
214
land.
Ru s(Sec.
ainclude
269
he
by
the to as
on
court, ecour
has
SCRA nPo
the
on shall
to
4offensean
unless
SCRA
he
him.the
venue,
In awhen affirmative
of
winning
the cpnote.
evidence
committed
ce
but
that
for basis ry
not
417/1992). the
vaRule
same
A 371
ha ng
necessary
nwhere
venue
damages
charged ground
include
moved
foreclosure
[Rule
case ff65.)
of 1997 he
bidder is
factshe
TY which
may it. The
can
defense
29 ocase
granted,
accused However,
toof special
n(Sec.
so Sec.
giving
be
and
with
agree
A excessive
he the
esale,
purpose
deny his
file has
3(c)].
waived,he
5, inhe
formerhas
aRTC with
civil
rhis
rise
upon
Rule the
car
bid
the no
is
theof ifof a
and
without presen
motion
V
given
before
X
Judgment;
ALTERNATIVE
1991)
What
MTC
pleaded
When
not
Government nd had ca may
a murder
e
A He a to
by
the
courts
plain, proof
not is
he on
good be
Execution
(buyer) p Code RY
RTC eaded
probab
guilty of
issued the
ANSWER:
have
the
of
speedy repu of secondary
personally
failed
order
notwithstanding
loss pending
at no a without
jurisdiction
object
y
the ofon
and to gu
of of the for
Appeal
f
arraignment
pay
default y gh
adequate ev
ofa
to peacefu
originals.
and
the dence
bond. SPO1
(2002)
fover
the and
that
re
remaining
). wen A
eased the
ness his
the
without
remedy wh TRO
Juan
Katarungang
o ch
affidavit
and
position
on following
r a
balance badies
Ramos
inraising s
non-Af the he
or of
a er of (5%) appealhe
and
L-2068,
(a)
damages,judgment
G
Supreme
answer
(4)
authority
and
The may
ve ur
actions
Courtadm
P100,000.00
No not
October
hree
sd which
is Court?
of The in c be
insufficient ed
not
should the
or an d
on split. s 20,
ejectment
may
Informa
judge.
actions n nc
(2%)
aover for Hence,
1948;
not evspeedy ons evidence dence
attorney’s
he
governed
declare
(Id.) First
on case
be offense aLepanto
ween
canno
and bo against
Bor the
counterclaim. by hinfees
the adequate warehouseman
a as
defaultbe Ceramics,
charged
special X,
decision pre-
and documena
amended resident
r a
litigation
remedy,
rules,
inasmuch This
or Inc. n asks
final ary v.
he
but of
is ao
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Sec. 3 of Rule acquitted and the prosecution cannot appeal.
EVIDENCE
[Amante
261;
ediscretion parties
(a)
the
C
preserve
even
either emen y On Iesaca
lower Prosecu
if officer for
s vs.
what
that of court failure
Sunga,
vs.Cuevas.
amounting whatever period he valid
or
sufficient? is whowo to64
not ground
had comply
SCRA
125 crimp has
to mes SCRA
remaining
already
lack
Explain. leaded.
such192 can withare or (1975)].
335 Y
au no
expired,
excess
(2%) refuse
hor same?
he
machinery y
of samethe to Dur (2%)
jurisdictioncomply
records ng Lauro andhe of the perm
the D
comp
some
113). rendered
of
AX
to
third-party
SUGGESTED
complaint may
P6 the Here,
summons a
billion
n
fa o app
n r TY’sown
judgment
slight or
comprom
against y
claimthe ANSWER: and or
nforma
for ac
is crime
possess
physicalwas
ba
X?and on
to in se favor
on
issuedhas
aga
n
inform
to Ar he
when
he
hold not
ns
injuries of f RTC-Man
a
2029 rearm Notice
the
theB just
he
(a) andC plaintiff,
sub he
defendantcase,been
v wh of C graverec
Code a ch Award. committed
where
jointly the s
common
pursuant fa
offense
Dur
of a
CityBut
and he ng
the o
natural Notice
sAmando
merit
pho
Yes.
vP
Actions; haeoence ud ocopy
ence? he should
If
cavaFiling; ofev and
death itcourse
Ques was
Why? Appeal
dence
of was contain,
Civil ohe after
on charged
(2%) offered
counse
bafter
shown
Actions Suspens rbeon thehwhich cer 05 & that
allowable sCriminal
w
on fFebruary
such areno ca hsummons the eAnhe frus
waofAction bes
reasons Joce
period;ver 2003.
ra ev
ed
(2005) mus
yn
was dence
of The
hom
the movant’s
He be
validly SQO rs ccourt rde on CA, 2b.
the
ev except
land
Dismissal;
Quezon
cr
b) m All
dence G.R.
court
Yes was
na inother No.
City, criminal
case
Comment here
Motion sold
to
and 110571, ascertain
and
fromactions
to
sto
as sin cases
the ob
Dismiss;
ofathe onthe March
pre- aec DBP awho are
(Nocum
ega
MTCof rAnswer
proposal eva10,
Res PERSONAL
for among
necess
dencento. 1994).
Judicata aP1.2
et Manila. cal. to vfrom v. ytheA
amend million.
Tan,
for
(2000)
case defendants
documen
The he ACTIONS The
Supreme
judgment,
Rule 122,sale
can are
sometime
contrary motion to in should that mid-2004, of aundue granted. majority and rojudgment C
The m
without
of na the Ac on securing
Commission 1999
partition aaa of2. certiorari
change what
expenses.
Adm ss
person A As
did
bjurisdiction yche may Can of aprayed
Ob by special
offense
sec
he filing
A be accused move resorted
Rea civil
an charged
dEv to action
dence dismiss alleging
from
1994 the the
hom case vthe Regionalcand lack
on de the of o
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: order may being include contrary causes to law :C and
130)
in
San
The
The
cases
Pambarangay
5
the
ordinary
with
pre-
equipment
case
denied
failure
Before
wr
hedenying prosecu
os rngthe
hadtrial
question.
contract filed
general tohedue Tha
subpoena
Peop
execu not BC
answeren
in
are court
AB’s price
course
on Metro
eLaw?
yet
ered here
rule leftT
moves
ed 181 had
of been is
motion
as
rendered
hduces
with
w is
law. Manila?
s(2%)
SCRA
to well
s
presen
too
h p that
itha Jose?
forwarded
A’s ea he
In
became
tecum?as
late
praying 487
and a
ed
appeal,
he
Notice
his
ass
a) sk
Why? to
upon case
One sdue
ha
defenses.
s
counterclaim ance that
to action
ev
complain
of
the
(5%) and
dur
the
he
dence
offense
aga CD Appeal
of
ordering
defendant
adv ng
Court for
demandable,
ns be
compe
he
ce
specific
about
does
must
he
hdirected
onof
of pendency
m en
the
h noin be
Appeals.
the
be s
To
since
deve
pre-
complaint
(Rule
Cour
as
to
COMELEC
c)
carr
Prosecutor
severally
entitled
was he
nformathe help
the conv
er aarelief
oped
rsubsequently
4, period
for
(as to
Virginia
Suppose
Section on cour filed
liable
thedue obreach on was
filed of
Chairmangoods,
2004I) of
against two
oshou to whichsuperven
offor.
with of he
confirmed
the
ed himdays
he
he dparties
con MTC meantime,
accused
Upon
or
him Gener
also the
rec
include
Cour
had
rac
for nof ng
and wasreceipt
has same
bythe(Sec.
already
stipulated
he of fac
he action
Go
o to (Echaus
those
the
put
Ma her
RTC-Quezon
carr par
the smoney
enable
Appea
2,
objected
ofar
right
in
MeTC-QC
ar lawyer
lapsed,
age the
es
court, spertaining
Rule
arisingin v.
issue
ng sto
Court
ojudgment,
thetheir
Af
judgment37)
from
hascons
Cour
ask
and
should
to
er
court in
from loan
who the
TYhe
the
an
der
the yoto
he to
Ignac
does B
served,
Forum
Demu
members
b)
While
warrant,
depends
(b)
defendant
performance
SUGGESTED After
Yes, o Con
Shopping;
not.e cruising May
and
the
on othe
because in Ev
to A a v
police
ANSWER: the
or,that
dence
six-month
TRO D
Cour
determination
pay Definition
on
in COMELEC
the thethe
the n w
officer a is o roduce
o
judgment Appea
highway,motion
plaintiff Leave (2006)
provisional. period, arrested of o s ev
because supra
theto
Cou
of
moral dence
the
a the declare
taxicab
AX.
hereditary SQO 2001
prevailingthe
Municipal
and of
Forthwith (Sec.OSG
lastsdriven
exemplaryspec
Carlos rights 3 party [b]
is
untilTrialf the by cin
an of
of G.R.
Trial a
parr SUGGESTED
entered
AB,
Interlocutory
Section
legal
ground
A
thereafter.
Appeals,
apply If
Petition so the c)
hec be
as No.
Court
capacity
different de Tha
accused
for cons
mother
that
r
For on
2(b),
199 145022,
aF IfOrder
Support
ANSWER
or
rs he 15
of
the
SCRAdered
Certiorari of does
venues in
the
y and
off June
(2006)
EE
Ace court
motion September
relation
Court
cer
he
Pendente as
notin
381.)Industries
for marr
or an
1991,
her
who has
obtain
filed is of
v ob capacity
to
f
oage
denied,
jurisdictions Appeals
Certiorari
no ec
a
Lite 23,ed hadto
leaveSection
jurisdiction
on s for
he
sue 2005;
as no
appealnot
of as of purposes
to
nforma
because
provided legal
isa he
court Santos
as
3(c),
the
provided superven
sanctioned,
to yet
guardian
Supreme
over
Dangerous on
it
available
and of of
in III
is been
had
his the
not
one
the he
ng v.
necessar
to
answered dcour
b)
warrantless
B
default
Adm
SUGGESTED
The
Rule
ground
counse
vAdm
default
he sm (seller)
oreceive
ndependen
How
appea
en
ss
9, rules se
ssed bcan
1997 ac that
Acan
was
yhe
ywithin
he
the purchased
sued
syprovide
on
Rules O only
by
he
nc
ANSWER: arrest
he
counse
A con
eude
amount
man
duly V?
take
accused
he
of
period
him
oquestion
isoCivil
ten
nua
Mathat
fes
Why?
or after
ground
furnished
the
(10)
atendered.
for ysto
ed
on
lot
in may Ctestimony
(3%)
ncdays
trial
collection
the cums
happeals
appeal
ofuded
from
sin commha decisionhean
on w
from
Bhear
is
had he
bynfor
aof commenced
ngness
Carlos,
before
Ev
ano
he
service.
Y in
notice ng
Pl,500,000.00.
Informa
already dence oand the
her on
her
and
the light
present
cr
of
oplaintiff
ano
1998lapsed.
admme
on RTC.
appeal,
Sec
after
and her
of5(Sec s
isaa the Court.
1 Appea
acquirepolice
where
same
should
privity
Northwest
case
Rights
defendant
award
agreement
had
information
SUGGESTED
alleging
Three
confirmation he sd
ur poss res of
ac
ifOb
spay
cRuleson
he
of &Peop
arresting
d(2.5%) theed
sbRules
jurisdiction
that
on or the
appeals
was
for
contract.
Airlines, nc Accused;
that hyom
for
ANSWER
so40
Bthe esof
of ground
ons
such had 265
"venue
arres
sscase
attempted
an has
storagethe
G.R. to
on
be SCRA
Validity;
am
transferred
revover ed theween no
consthat
sale
No. for
ew) he
cab fees 456
or
Court
his suchHIVall
homicide
101538, awith
under
common
ewas oand f1996
uperson.
se Test
suits
pre-said
rev ngno personal
ofother the
emen the
registered
June ew r(2005)
Appeals
he udge
arising
against
properties RTC.
acounterclaim carr
Appropriations
Itrelated
23,former
he maybe
nheof Sec
dec
The
knowledge
erhereof
aenforce
1992). from
theclaiming
cr
awith sfto
1[a]
expenses. charge
m on
MTC
ed
same
served Cnathis
othe ofto sa
revoked.
a)
1.
oRu The
independent
What
A
should
Mans
Car
police
To
Court
damages.
da
He
completed
After
the
Id
defec
court
a)eeand osss
120
gaveobject
evidenceeged
alternative,
preserve
documents is
both
loses
bhit
veOn move
officer forum
againstThe
A he A
B, an
The
a party
parties
because
of
TRO
1998
and so
accused
jurisdiction
office;
he
down to
filed
which
effect
of the
shopping?
electricdfor
whatever
judgment asexecute
a the
may da Katarungang
with
judgment
submitted it's
not
damages
of B
paymente
exhibits
he nis
plaintiff. apost.
defendant
be the hands
aschedu
extendible,
over offthe parcethe (2.5%)
not
declared
was hef
remaining absence cer City
thetheir
other of are
settlement/agreement
As case
capable
served
ed
The of
thes
Pambarangay
Prosecutor
case gn X not
aP500,000,
in
conviction andbut
result
amountof
for
respective fng
default
defendant
than on
upon
shackled
ed
machinery
is the wh
summons of hearimmediately
the
through ofch
athereof,
SQO
the
demurrer
of
when
signed
acked
(Rule
pecuniary
ng
rendered
evidence, ALaw
Manila
cannot to
perfection
may on athe
and
he 11,
the
in
itser
he of even
by fac
under
Rules.
because
ava
or
The
executed.
of
Revised
aWhat
subject
Drugs
demurrer
Yes
should
Under
that
Act,
contract
demurrer
RGR.
defraud duly
ormer her
(b)
the no ar
cause
the
ab
the
filing
is legitimate
because
Ru
In smatter?
In
defer
Republic
he Ac
e
sheriff
an
au
registered
appeal
judgment
budget
him eec
ng
shall duehe to a)
fac
of of interlocutory
hor
criminal
20 o w from
(A).
In
evidence
further
the
as
he
action
Sec
was
s ev
time,
or be of
is
h
hor
Act
cons
for
July ev
yinterpleader
Explain. s
dence
his the
minor
2isCriminal
corporation
available, he
prosecu
41, any o[a]
not
the
dence
adm
No.actions
before notfalls1996,
proceedings
courts
deputy do
whichever
u is ac
oCOMELEC's (2%)
valid
son,
order?
denied,
ss
present
8353, new
ngme so
within
con
are
conson A
Procedure
on
where
arraignment,
is Ru
in
he
ropo
or with
end
CD,
one d)
because
available
hose
decided
(2%)
the
offers
madeeto
Quezon
graver
any he uwhen
the
pending
16 ng Tha
may abrought
basis
the
an ng
applicable.
waives
person
addressed when
jurisdiction
modernization
the to
be
ha
to
ncivil
charge
as the
City,"
RGR r provide
the
a ev
charged
RTC a
action
does
pcharge
his
authorized
ground dence
he
liability
result patent,
incident
a became
can
n
moved udge
owas
right
based no
of for
for
with
ff’s
he
for of
A is aa
sec.
Procedure;
be (4)
6%
hav
SUGGESTED
cause
aconducting
to
the
passenger, o so eveffect
subject ng4).
appropriate Dec
of
so
dence comm
However,
itsd an ara to Cf.client
Jovy, a wANSWER
o
ANSWER: hearing
amicable
agreement onCitibank,
hou X
city ed agency.
suffered a of or B he counterclaim
on
eave he
settlement
municipal broughN.A.
of offense
the The rsh
serious
of
the same v.
cour p Court
primordial
parties. aof
trial motion.
of nthat
injuries. The c serdisputes
v
court.ofa concern ous
raises
courAppeals, seac Mans(Id.) phys emen
on
den issues
among of was304 ca
the
for
ed conv
senses case
SUGGESTED
Registry
D
judgment
support
appeal
SUGGESTED sm and
ssac de toonof
of aagainst
Fa the pre-
sen he Deeds ANSWER:
usubs
ANSWER: eer
Court enc r7[a]
cour oahe Pan
EF, ng
on nof
osecu 05 aahe Sec cyJanuary
as
Appeals veeexercise
accused 2003
father
1 case Ru from e 2002. are oof130 dea as
the CD Ru fo
hsydecisions es ows
because
and o Cour AB’s he
of
judgment
fails The
estimation.
Petition
P180,000.00
equipment
executory
on
prosecu
promissory
against
invoke complaint
perished October barangay
to for answer or Relief wouldare
upon
fa Hence,
accused. 1,
note b) for 2001
ed cap
&
left An
within Action
motion
payable makeestafa
with aeven
onecessaryaction and n
appear the for repor
Jose, the
on thoughsupported
Annulment
unless
thirty for
time the
v.whereupon ed
judgment a
Joaquin’s writ
allowed the
defendant
days an o (2002) ofby
he
assessed
appeal
after po
lawyer
null RY"s
injunction.
therefor, he on
date, ce
e cour and
has value
October sworn
should
and ha andvoid
been c) of X
on time by
as capricious
hom
includeddamages.
pho
to
ques
such present conform
ocopy
RTC c oned
cpetition. and
support The
and
evidenceof
Secaf venue dismissal
whimsical
he for marked o and
was
lies the Ru therein; the
p of
offspring o P100
aced
117 he
case the prescr
Second
and 00
under complaint
is of
as bdecided a bed
discretion arres
consequence used form
af oner was by
np this
the ea hea
n
bthe receipt
in ano plane to prove
accident. payment Consequently, of his obligation his heirs
A
subpoena
(a) was Is the accused 4yfrom court’s the of
denial RTC? hav of ng X’s raped X Ru on he and found ofguilty (Eternal of qualified Gardens rape Memorial ifBanc he knew Park on or before
A au
the
proceed
Adm hor (Sec.
appeals
The ss yare prosecu
ng o[1999];of do
filed
yyDocumen
sof Rule so in
on of The due 45)
(People
itmay No Prov time asa nsed nc
roduce Cabiles,
and
Iaand nMotion
aparty
can he fProsecu
the
nPed
be
ev284
expiration
ead to
dence
made SCRA
ng Withdraw
or 2004 opposes n199,
of of he he the happened.
Jurisdiction;
dismissal
mun
known its
only
file
ev
to
Certiorari
Actions; s en dence
judgment
quash
the his P1 pacomplaint
court.
edSurvivesor billion.
The the CTA
soas
(Go the
rwere an ansuff
pre-aon Division
second
information
vs. au udge
Special
Death Hemereragainst
Court doma cascovered announced
enof or vs.
case.
nof photocopies
cCivil
the CTA
abecause
mun X
Appeals.
rev cr on
Defendant in
(Sec. ewm cEn onPasay
the
Action pa 4,
na toof 206 ythe Rule the ccase
ground daf and
(2000) SCRA City?
rcu (2006)
dis2,)er public no Itsa138).
affidavits
governed is
rsen
of
conduc paakin
show that ea
double udge to
was
the
(1)
by
edof a
Forum shopping is the act cof which consists ohe dea hon ence
An
No, 1of the interlocutory
because MTCof the order
RTC-Manila refers has to an jurisdiction order issued over
SCRA
which
The
because
upon
[1999]) OSG
family
nu
subsequently
statement
was
the
May
An
file
perfected,
5,
mo
a
brought
to
SUGGESTED
adm
Notice
nheur
the2001. land
action
security a on ss
es
fdemurrer
ancais679,
udgmen
ega
verified
motion
plaintiff.and
b
of of theisOn
order
an
to onThe and
for
AppealDa barangay
P20,000.00,court
action
deemed
see keep
supersedeas
for
ANSWER: ofd replevin
October prosecu
charged
other
denying ohe
application
sm the he
to
of
the would
proper?
Consul
second
ev
ng
ssed
for fo documentary
claiming conv automatically
members
dence
of
8, now
settlement
the
that
the on
before not
he
v.
habond
2001, for sof
motorcycle
settlement
ng
Consul,
case the
house
Municipal
probate have heneandon
party
pthe has at
the
the
eces
best
A the
appointment
17
asked
swith
Car
evidence.
jurisdiction
of of
been
defendant
few of of
joined
therev
Municipal SCRA
interest
barangay
aos
he
Trial
valued ev m an will
filed
notice
his ha
ewab
moved
barangay
nu amended
After
Court
obligation,
dence estate
667,
still
at
over
esbyhe
and of
by
to
filed level
edTriala sa 671
due
the the
has
be
the the
and by
er anoae trial When
Documen
amendmen
3.
(c)
of
Corporation lawfully
the
Bes
ground
“buy-bus
basis
ALTERNATIVE
After
v
the
114
compulsory
On
SUGGESTED o AFTER
the a Ev
commission
sec RTC
Yes.
10 judge
of due
on dence
crime a17
is the
January of ary
”wedded cr
withoutThe sin
FINALITY
hearing, opera
v. as
evidenceh
counterclaim Ru
and
ANSWER: maymANSWER:
s
Court ev
of eManila.
when na
criminal
cons gun
thedence
2003, 1997
beprejudice
on husband.
of the crimecase
done
OF
for
civil an
Ace
is
Appeals,u What
court cons
the
which,
the cases,
THE
ona notappeal
aspect
that on ob sprosecution.
to bank ynsof
r
heEF is
dindispensable
denied
164 sgh
the
JUDGMENT,
ec as
if
smwhere
thereof
is of
swhen will
SCRA
not filed
prosecution
oIs
afflicted
filed o ssed wr
ma procedure
the
be
set he not the
has
421 an ngs
his
ers up, nwith
nformed promptly
there
third-party roduc
not
[1988]). of or
in
shall
ex-parte
no
answer
penalty of form
Humanbeento any
are the eof
be
be
on
good to
ord he appeal mo
nary or on even acof on the on bad he
other for moraground par parties. charac on es
where er oppe ofsubpoena nared he as he BC
vva hec(1998) md
rs are fos’ no en
Rule Mark
persons
VRIS
jeopardy
PJ
on here
ha ered
engaged
e yYes, defendan
n65
"where project
filed nRu not
and
of he e with
the the has
presented
after former wasthe
Rules
services been due Bureau
comp neg set
hearing,
of of in aside.
Courtgena
Atty. court. the orTwo Internal
STand nforma
Judge to Commissioners
(2) thean
represent Revenue
granted ha
claim
on
aggrieved Heresuch
him his of a
[1966];
allegations Provisional
of
Venue;
government
without
made nforma filing Tolentino
Improper on
judicial Remedies; of is multiple
for upheld
the Venue; fv. rser
Complaint Carlos,
recoursefTRO; Compulsory
(COMELECous CA
suits, 66 phys Justice
Phil,
need
and ca 1450,
simultaneously
Counterclaim
not Dept.
consequently nhe
be (2006)
143-144
ur answered. Ifhes
[1938],
aga help or
ns between
the
prosequ
3relieve
ma followed
hYes.
denying
Sees
er subject
rand
e) The apho 10 his the
con oby
can
motion Ru matter. Tha
paternityahe
commencement
A ein nA 122 accused
in
aaggregate
to
ng er
more enforcing
Ru Pstipulation
dismiss be
eViruswith may
es ref
ers and
ahanov.counterclaim sue
Cr
is ed?
words counse
and
one the m
meritorious. A
(4%) na the
judgment?
offense in
numbers agree"
Procedure end one for of complaint
Substituted
sadamages. Ruthe
b)
fwrit
charged e With
Peop
gures 118
suit ae
cer
person
CIVIL
Court
presen
(a)
inquest,
Arma
no
overturned
court heajurisdiction.Y orar can
of oby
with ethe hRule
of one even
refuseA
sthe
M16 after
PROCEDURE
reckless
prosecutor
the ev or nsame denceto
the
morehdefendant,
no sof
comply appea
imprudence
eperiod favor filed
receivers. The On with
to had
the be cour
but heappeal dec
been
the resulting
requisite The sbut
if den
reng therefrom
the
Rules aken ded in
information defendant because
Car
of
providedduces
serious has ha A (a)
The
three imposed
When
counterclaim
of
Immuno-Deficiency
conviction s ahe 2.]amendmen
ways Ahe petitioner
because is oaned
ocopyto reclusion
of the assail nasothe
the
on from;subs
because sum
the he perpetua
same the
an
ground
judgment, of money
amount
athe eaction
injurious
(HIV)/Acquired or
obecause
in ha court thelife
which claimed cohe
because loan imprisonment,
Bmay
effectsBes are: w A
agreement shall
Ev rely yped
itchange
of
Immune dence is the be
on
defending ALTERNATIVE
periodic
notice
Certiorari;
mortgaged
(b)
moved Is prosecu theof for appeal deposits
party,
court’s the or 45ANSWER: (Russell
arr
dismissal vs. and
from denial Rule
ved proof
lot the v. 65
and current
ofto judgment,
(2005)of
the B. due opposed such
When collection
course rentals. failure. the to the note
suit. A’s following
sm any,
fell ssa
appeal due as of waived
barred. claim gh and or rendered rema
reserved san for en amended and separate decision
have civil compe declaring action, en and Bto
Nasser move
exerc
In
May
successively, ends comp
a s v. ong
justice quash
Court es a he nab of
ofr for he
forgh Appeals,
sh a Informa
Divisiona per
the n sum aany 191 n
purpose of ng on
of SCRA reasonab
money before
o
the he 783
Court
of deceden
f arra
[1992]).
e ed
obtaining degree
of gnmen
before Appeals he he he ra If vs when
party
which
asserting motion
complaint
defendant
sided
neg
motion.
in
Sec Espargas1 gence may
civil (Sec.
with
is wh with
Was not as valid?
case2,
for
file pewas
Chairman
260 a
Rule
many ea
the hefinal refund
a filed
SCRA hecourt
9,
Explain.
dismissal
verified
pre- decision
causes
Arreza
prox frus by
r 539Go,
of afor ra
OPmataxes
(3%)
petition
n of
of the
butedDiaz,
a of the
against
c
action issuance
cause
the
thevhom
paid, G.R. complaintagainst
case
whole majority asof
him but de he sofhe it
a
manda
controversywas
whichmay co
for wasvoted
decision, made
slight shave not
was
ory on of
[Gojo Amando
Bail
A.
relieve heor Under(2002) v.
zed Goyala,
the Wha ordinary
ha courts he 35 s eps
SCRA
never ofcircumstances, or docket so ac
557 dodered on
(1970)]. he congestion. shou proper the d properhe ysearch prosecu
oappearance remedy on symbo what
SUGGESTED
Jurisdiction;
service
Subsequently, excep court stest cannot or ybMTC should ANSWERncounse ohe aAB (2002)
be
her hose A effected
filed institute
modes cases haaof unless
manifestation of the
nand wh wr proceedings? the
ch en sheriffs
ex express
in s court ng return ons
aws
that
Vestil,
v.voluntarily physical
mo
tecum
P150,000.00.
with
lapsed?
that
determined
day,
May
Ba
1
and
correct?
you henforma
heQuyano-Padilla,
case Maon
(Sec.
A udge
the
are
supra) on
receivership
October
the
a65 eWhy?
failed oCongress;
an injuries.
MM
3,on
aggrieved
The
counse opresen
the Rule comm
appeared
poffer
byRnacour RTC.
gh
to ground
(3%)
9, d)9) the of September
2001,
vs
pay, Law
for poev An
is ed No
judgment
recons
A party
dMa
dence
before
BC ce
dB othat
proper
Expropriating apreliminary
eaction
the
omarry
grave
conduc
file
commenced wha he18, and the
D plaintiff sc resides
2002).
in
awill Xfor foreabuse
nsed
court,
petition
son san on
Property
and be ead
investigation
order
your more
ainterpleader
action
moved
2006
suit
(3%] his
made offorudgmen
and
(2006)
argumen toB
(Preamble dcertiorari
than
withdscre and
by
for
recover of
rec was50hon
the to
ed ofs
he (Vasquez
disputed
that
accused subject
P
Deficiency
sRu
The
Ba
compulsory
SUGGESTED
testimonialand
possession heeaena
ng
ndependen
....................................................................................................... o"the
Fo
the
a)
C eproh
court Gucopy
urems
ojointly
to vs.
order
may parties omay
of the Robilla-Alenio,
Syndrome
or
to of
Ba
ANSWER:
aruosand
counterclaim.
of beother right
oustalso
ehe
petition Lesse
jurisdiction 1999
agree
offense severally
ordered promnB of
dismiss
evidence. roduc
of O(AIDS)
to
for
from the ense
271
ssory
sue
Sec
to where
(Sec.
srelief accused
the
liable
aoownon
provide
the
SCRA 142002 or
6no of action of
under
ocho
land. be
the
to any
esecondary
Rule
Ru 67) A to wh
sued
claims
ece
support ewas
Iton
Rule
for appeal
16.)110 other
ch Hence
dalso
thein
the 38
D hey
in theground
evmoney
pendent onato
sexually
all
on
filed bo
City
dence65 the
the
do ahs
probab
(Leyson
No. predecessor-
MM
issue
A,
favorable
of
D
P.D.
purpor an ake
he was a a1508,
amoun
bas so RTC resident
party TRO? v.
charged
ed
s ha ofyjudgmenttheOffice
s or
wrongly gnahe
he o (2%)
former nof mprobab
amended
ev with
ack eres
uresof ff Lingayen,
dence the and
declared
or murder,appear no
Ombudsman,
excess the
for nforma yask men first
heof
ng Pangasinan
a in he
capital
of on
Katarungang
default
prosecu n h par
offense
or
G.R.
hesaga even
offense.
urf ns
is
on on
rs sued
No.sd charged
either as
us
Amando
deed
c
Was 134990,
Pambarangay X,
After
on co-hthe he nce
of ano ne
final
and
The
offered
acted
uphold
Shou
physical
docketed
As
P
shows
transmissible
in
Supreme
D
Secaher
sued
view was leaves
since
claim
prescr
dupon.
order
1genera
A
the
that
ofns
he injuries
ormer
and
Court.
charged
as
all be
the
contract.
or
something
of cour
proof
So,
he
disease B resolution
Civil
the
defendant
denial
Ru
a
he
in
(3%) madeegran
nor
proper?
when
claims
of ones
w
filed
20 and Case
ng made more
he h
he
Sec aor
e is
complaint
thea r
Was
cr
are prosecu
not
hef
similar
1deny
No.
genuine
con
virus
pun
by
m
to the
tribunal,
na
new
be
principally
valid
EF, en shmen
of
defendan
or123. done
in
complaint
grant
case
sRu
it
on
diseasebecause
an the
attempt
would ( A on body of
sRTC-Manila,
ar for
for its is
ssm
the
retainership
be
c
awaredemurrer
with
or
merits
recovery
under
e to
transmitted
motion
ssed
var
futile
board
wor effect
the
ous
ha
on
the to
hhs)
is (now
determine
conducted
house
SUGGESTED
Demurrer
1
mortgagee
appellate equivalent 100) of to X
court. who kilometers
Evidence
for either ANSWER:and to the the ndeed
before (2001)
foreclosure service from found or ofthe after summons.
of place
sa a d the
mortgage r wheref filing
e The he when of pois to it us of s
In
judgment. n gned
nadm Dacuycuy
insufficiency
wha
Manila"causes
eu
grounds of
ss A forms bVoid made
he Is of
ewas 108
does
ofor
the may
action
nDecision; g SCRA
of
fraud, wo na not the
ba are pho a) 736
evidence
be
make
accident, Is o g
principally he (xeroxed)
ven? Manilapho on
mistake (2%) its
ocopy forSec the owncop the
or 2
rea es
"exclusiveRu
initiative
recovery
excusable of
(ob e 130 eche
April
Law.)
[Ru
execution
in
When
D
from
SUGGESTED
2
refu
In
owners
awh
SUGGESTED
Jurisdiction;
Actions;
resident
Yes,
Thereafter, any othe ethis
ch e9,presen
A
130RA
27,
an
sSupreme
demand he
(Id
Cause
downgrades
the Will
ba
3019;
aThe
ordercase,
2000;
of
sec
of
pa )oppos
Incapable
Ombudsman
balance
Jovy
ha51
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
San
the
you
ofrhe sma
Mandatory
for
denying ofthe
Yuliencoev
(Sec.
Action
aRule
judgment
Court
grant
filedFernando
er
shor
3paymen dence
onof of
]he
8of
defendant’sIn
Pecuniary
vs. Case
a ofof the
P1,000,000.00.
the
na
under
rpan
Suspension
v.
Action
civil hng gh
formerBefore
ure CA,motion?
he pending
sDecisions
made
probate case
La
and
sdefaultof Prov
(1999)
action
Rule
aG.R. Rule
Estimation Unionon
he
when
he
(2001)
eged
counterclaim
he of nc appeal.
Explain.
70;
(2006)
65
nexev
defendan
No.
offense
against a aAfter
yfile Sec.
in
of
dence
131692,
(2003)
will
daathe
Prosecu
ef the
The
(2%)
19
may
cou
Lourdes, by of1997
before sRTC trial
is
June
d A
nonew
be be
elite
s................................................................................................................
(Sec. ema
securing of
20, er
ror?
Rule aa he (Gallardo that
of
1997
deficiency
Venue
Court
to
no
agreement
Remedies;
to
SUGGESTED he
o ev quash ev18
money,
the
to
has dence?
prosequ the
1997
cRules,
of
victim. m the
acted Tax
et
child
had
the claim
al. ANSWER: Reason
attempted Appeals
v.before
reception
Under dev
without
aggregate
ruling
born
ed
executed
People, for dence wobrto
Section
P800,000.00
he of
raffled
ef
homicide
or
Proper
G.R. of
the
days in
accused
amount
the
Cons
ybetween offended
No.
evidence (5%)
excess
Remedy
17(a) earto court uone
142030,
on ser
information
claimed of pcorrect?
against
of
PJ Aon
(2004)party.
of
aced
is
Republic its its
andaccoun
April not
sec
shall on A Explain.
(Sec.
Divisions.
jurisdiction Atty. 12
21,
required. rand
correct? 66
Actbeaof 6 of
2005; and
ST
the B.
No.
conv
14) appeal
arraignment,
(Sec.
sa
(a)
cour
2.
testify,
information
ra
ALTERNATIVE
Carlos
appears
Rule
court
Rules
of
came e
ders No, between
70). were
c correc from
third
granted
of the
se
filed
(Sec.ng
that Civil zed par.,
forger
court’s he
9 the
anda
the effect
the ANSWER:
of n accused
complaint
the he judgment
former defendants
the
property
Procedure, applied
es
preven denial
r of
motion 41)
accused
f ean
Thereaf
Rule of and Order
of
against
is by 23; for
instead in
uponhef
isX’sat Car
brough er
Sec.
dangernobail.
entitled of and
Motion
os
Pedro an
time
10
the Default
of or
of The
Informa
from
ofXn to new
posting
filing askedin v toreceive
being o o trial
the is
Rule a
presen a
Withdraw
aCA,he petition
that
for RTC
byon
ng21).
wasted
petition court
po the
such the
due
ng
thefor ce
of No. R
Rule
Ru
venue the
personal
pursue
Arrest;
p15
Meanwhile,
prom
after
SUGGESTED
ev
(4%) A es
dence cause
133113,offenses
7438
000
61)
of