REMinisce Flashcards
Petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title against Concepcion. The complaint is grounded upon their claims of ownership over the disputed properties and insistence that the latter’s acts of instituting tenants and receiving a share from the produce of the land cloud their title. The averments show that the remedy sought constitutes an accion reivindicatoria. Can the court determine the ownership over the disputed properties in an action for quieting of title where such is not included in the reliefs prayed for?
Yes. The true nature of the action is not determined by the caption of the pleading, but by the allegations it contains. The court should grant the relief warranted by the allegations, substantiated by proof, even if no such relief or a different relief is prayed for. As the allegations in this case constitute an accion reivindicatoria, the court should determine ownership of the properties and award possession to the lawful owner, even if the complaint prayed for the quieting of title. (Spouses Velarde v. Heir of Candari, G.R. No. 190057, October 17, 2022)
Is the CIR guilty of forum shopping when it posted for a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, while having sought reconsideration before the CTA En Banc for the decision rendered by the BIR’s Litigation Division?
No. There is forum shopping when there exist: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such parties as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other case. Here, there is an identity of parties in both cases. However, there is no identity of rights asserted. The first is a request for more time to file a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, while the other is a motion filed with the CTA En Banc for reconsideration of the Decision. Moreover, a “judgment” rendered in first will not amount to res judicata as the Resolution will be limited to the granting or denying the motion for time. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. East Asia Utilities Corporation, G.R. No. 225266, November 16, 2020)
Vitarich Corporation filed an action for sum of money against Femina before the RTC Branch 11 of Malolos City. Upon receipt of summons, Femina’s counsel, Atty. Solilapsi, moved to dismiss the case on ground of improper venue. On August 17, 2010, the RTC denied the motion and directed Femina to answer the complaint. Atty. Solilapsi received the Order on November 3, 2010 but Femina did not submit any responsive pleading. On January 5, 2011, Vitarich sought to declare Femina in default. Meantime, Femina’s new counsel, Atty. Emilio Quianzon, Jr, entered his appearance and filed on January 31, 2011 a motion to admit answer. On February 8, 2011, RTC declared Fermina in default thereby allowing Vitarich to present its evidence ex parte and ruled in favor of Vitarich. Was the RTC correct in declaring Fermina in default?
No, the RTC should have considered Femina’s answer since it was filed before the declaration of default. The rule is that the defendant’s answer should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff. Where the answer is filed beyond the reglementary period but before the defendant is declared in default and there is no showing that defendant intends to delay the case, the answer should be admitted. Femina moved to admit her answer before she was declared in default. Femina filed her motion through registered mail on January 31, 2011 while the order of default was issued on February 8, 2011.
Also, there is no showing that Femina intended to delay the proceedings. Thus, this circumstance must be fully appreciated in favor of Femina. The RTC should have considered Femina’s answer since it was filed before the declaration of default. (Vitarich Corporation v. Femina R. Dagmil, G.R. No. 217138, August 27, 2020)
Myrna initiated a Complaint for Quieting of Title against respondents, asserting that their father had sold the disputed parcel of land to a beach resort and subsequently to her. Respondents countered with an answer seeking dismissal, alleging that the deeds of sale were falsified due to forged signatures. The case was initially scheduled for pre-trial on September 28, 2016, but was postponed several times, eventually happening on June 28, 2017. RTC set the trial to commence on October 25, 2017, but it was repeatedly postponed at the instance of Myrna or her counsel. Instead of proceeding to trial, the RTC ordered the case to undergo mediation on June 27, 2018, leading respondents to file a Motion for Leave for an Amended Answer. RTC denied the motion, citing that the case had already undergone preliminary and pre-trial conferences. Is the RTC correct?
No. Bona fide amendments to pleadings are allowed at any stage of the proceedings so that every case may, as much as possible, be determined on its real facts, affording complete relief to all the parties involved in the case. The Motion for Leave and the Amended Answer should be examined with circumspection, keeping in mind the purpose of the rules in allowing amendments to pleadings, and the general policy that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. The only limitation under the rules was that the leave to amend the pleading may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. Here, the RTC denied the Motion for Leave essentially because the case had already gone through pre-trial conference, and a Pre-Trial Order had already been issued. This constitutes grave abuse of discretion as the facts show that the delay is attributable to several postponements of trial at the instance of the complainant. (Heirs of Pio Tejada v. Hay, in substitution of Myrna L. Hay, G.R. No. 250542, October 10, 2022)
Antonio and Remedios formed Metro Isuzu Corporation (MIC) and secured loans from Westmont Bank through signed promissory notes. Remedios later filed a complaint alleging forgery of her signatures on loan documents, seeking to nullify the Real Estate Mortgage (REM) and amendment. At the trial, Westmont Bank presented witnesses and documentary evidence, and during rebuttal, Remedios identified checks and receipts as proof of her genuine signature. She also resubmitted the previously expunged NBI QDR and PNP Crime Laboratory Report as part of her rebuttal evidence, which the trial court admitted despite objections from Westmont Bank. Is the admission in evidence of the BPI checks showing Remedios’ sample signatures, and the various promissory notes containing her forged signatures during the rebuttal stage proper?
No. The admission in evidence of the BPI checks and various promissory notes during the rebuttal stage is not justified. Section 5, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides that the parties may respectively adduce rebutting evidence only, unless the court, for good reasons and in the furtherance of justice, permits them to adduce evidence upon their original case. Thus, a plaintiff is bound to introduce all evidence that supports his case during the presentation of his evidence in chief before the close of the proof, and may not add to it by the device of rebuttal. The circumstances in which additional evidence may be allowed at the rebuttal stage are: a) when it is newly discovered; b) where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake; or c) where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered. Here, Remedios failed to justify the presentation of the promissory notes and the BPI checks containing her forged and genuine signatures as rebuttal evidence. These documents constitute direct proof of forgery, which is the main issue of the case, hence, these should have been presented as evidence in chief. It was an error on the part of the trial court to allow these evidence on rebuttal. (Strong Fort Warehousing Corporation vs. Banta, G.R. Nos. 222369 and 222502, November 16, 2020)
What is the doctrine of immutability of judgments?
Under the doctrine, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest once a judgment becomes final. No other action can be taken on the decision except to order its execution. The decision becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. (U R Employed International Corporation et al vs. Pinmiliw et al.,, G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022)
What are the exceptions of immutability of judgments?
The principle of immutability of judgment admits several exceptions: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. The Court has further allowed the relaxation of the rule on finality of judgments in order to serve substantial justice, taking into account: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (3) the merits of the case; (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (Estrella et al vs. COA, G.R. No. 252079, September 14, 2021)
LCL Capital, Inc. obtained a loan from Bank of Philippine Islands secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over its two condominium units. Due to LCL’s failure to pay, BPI applied for extrajudicial foreclosure. LCL filed an action against BPI for the annulment of the certificates of title alleging that the consolidation of ownership is premature having been made before the lapse of the redemption period. The RTC, in its November 14, 2008 decision, declared the consolidation void and directed the Register of Deeds of Pasig City to reinstate the certificates of title of LCL subject to the exercise of its right of redemption, but did not mention the actual amount of the redemption price. CA considered the RTC Decision is already final and executory. Later, LCL asked the RTC to determine the cost of redemption. The RTC ruled the total amount due with legal interest of 6%. BPI sought reconsideration then elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari. Did the recomputation of the redemption price violate the doctrine of immutability of judgment in light of the November 14, 2008 decision of the RTC?
No. It is undisputed that the RTC Decision dated November 14, 2008 declaring void the consolidation of the condominium certificates of title in BPI’s name and directing the Register of Deeds of Pasig City to reinstate the certificates of title of LCL subject to the exercise of its right of redemption, already lapsed into finality. The recomputation of the redemption price will not violate the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment. The RTC Decision dated November 14, 2008, did not mention the actual amount of the redemption price. The CA and the RTC have conflicting findings as to the applicable interest rate. Thus, there is no final determination yet on the correct computation of the redemption price. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. LCL Capital, Inc., G.R. No. 243396, September 14, 2021)
What are the three modes of appeal from decisions of the Regional Trial Court?
The first mode is through an ordinary appeal before the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 where the decision assailed was rendered in the exercise of the RTC’s original jurisdiction. In ordinary appeals, questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law may be raised. The second mode is through a petition for review before the CA under Rule 42 where the decision assailed was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In petitions for review, questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law may be raised. The third mode is through an appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 where only questions of law shall be raised. (Sugar Regulatory Administration vs. Central Azucarera de Bais, G.R. No. 253821, March 6, 2023)xxx
May the Supreme Court review the factual findings made by NLRC?
Yes, but it is only when the factual findings of the NLRC and the appellate court are in conflict that this Court will review the records to determine which finding should be upheld as being more in conformity with the evidentiary facts. Where the CA affirms the findings of the labor agencies and there is no showing whatsoever that said findings are patently erroneous, this Court is bound by those findings. (U R Employed International Corporation et al vs. Pinmiliw, et al., G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022)
Is a motion for reconsideration required when filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45?
No. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not require the filing of a motion for reconsideration for this Court to take cognizance of appeals through petitions for review on certiorari. The use of the word “or” in Section 2 indicates an alternative or choice, as opposed to being mandatory. Verily, the petitioner has an option to file a motion for reconsideration of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or directly file an appeal or a petition for review to the appellate court without filing a motion for reconsideration. (Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, G.R. No. 224944, May 5, 2021)
After a robbery incident, the Adjudication and Settlement Board found Estelita’s estate liable to pay P1,300,000.00 payroll money. Estelita elevated the case to the COA through a petition for review but COA denied Estelita’s petition on April 13, 2015. Estelita sought reconsideration, however, on June 6, 2016, COA denied the motion for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. Estrelita averred that she received the decision on August 18, 2016. Hence, on September 19, 2016, she filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Was the petition for certiorari timely filed?
No. Under Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved party may file a petition for review on certiorari within 30 days from notice of the COA’s judgment. The reglementary period includes the time taken to file the motion for reconsideration, and is only interrupted once the motion is filed. If the motion is denied, the party may file the petition only within the period remaining from the notice of judgment. The aggrieved party is not granted a fresh period of 30 days. In this case, Estelita’s Petition for Certiorari was filed beyond the reglementary period.
Estelita sought for a reconsideration before the COA, which would no longer entitle her to the full 30-day period to file a petition for certiorari unless such motion was filed on the same day that she received the decision denying her appeal, which did not happen in this case. To be sure, COA denied Estelita’s motion for reconsideration because it was belatedly filed and has no merit. (Estelita A. Angeles v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 228795, December 01, 2020)
In their petition for review before the Court of Appeals, Spouses Cordero only attached copies of the judgments and orders of the trial courts. CA dismissed Spouses Cordero’s petition because the Spouses Cordero failed to append to the petition a legible duplicate original or true copy of the assailed decision, as well as other pertinent portions of the records necessary for a thorough evaluation of the case. Was the dismissal of CA proper?
No. Spouses Cordero complied with the requirement of attaching copies of the judgments and orders of the trial courts. These attachments are already sufficient to enable the CA to pass upon the assigned errors and to resolve the appeal even without the pleadings and other portions of the records since the assailed decisions of the trial courts substantially summarized the contents of the omitted records. Likewise, the CA can resolve the issues by relying on the principle that the factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight. It can also direct Spouses Cordero to submit additional documents or the clerk of court of the RTC and MCTC to elevate the original records of the case. Thus, the subsequent and substantial compliance of a party may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. (Spouses Cordero v. Octaviano, G.R. No. 241385, July 7, 2020)
Is denial of due process of law a ground for annulment of judgment under Rule 47?
Yes. A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the grounds for annulment of judgment are: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, recognizes a third ground – denial of due process of law. Thus, a decision which is patently void may be set aside on grounds of want of jurisdiction or non compliance with due process of law, where mere inspection of assailed judgment is enough to demonstrate its nullity. (Charnnel Shane Thomas v. Rachel Trono, G.R. No. 241032, March 15, 2021)
What must be established for the court to issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction?
Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that a preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: 1) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; 2) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or 3) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. (De Lima v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199972, August 15, 2022)
What is the nature of an action to quiet title?
An action to quiet title or remove clouds over the title is a special civil action specifically governed by Rule 63 of the Rules on declaratory relief and similar remedies.
Distinguished from ordinary civil actions, the subject matter. In special civil actions under Rule 63 is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or construction of documents; and the relief sought is the declaration of the parties’ rights or duties vis-à-vis, the questioned documents.
Two indispensable requisites must concur for an action for quieting of title to prosper, namely: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on their title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
What are the rules that should be observed with respect to the legal standing of private complainants in assailing judgments or orders in criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals?
The private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. The appeal or petition for certiorari must allege the specific pecuniary interest of the private offended party. The failure to comply with this requirement may result in the denial or dismissal of the remedy. The reviewing court shall require the OSG to file comment within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from notice if it appears that the resolution of the private complainant’s appeal or petition for certiorari will necessarily affect the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute. The comment of the OSG must state whether it conforms or concurs with the remedy of the private offended party. The judgment or order of the reviewing court granting the private complainant’s relief may be set aside if rendered without affording the People, through the OSG, the opportunity to file a comment.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Renato against Puregold, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in Renato’s favor. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) remanded the case due to LA’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over Puregold for improper service of summons. Despite denial of Renato’s Motion for Reconsideration on October 28, 2016 which resolution was received by his counsel on December 29, 2016 and Renato himself on February 12, 2017, Renato filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). Puregold claimed that Renato filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. Renato argued that the reglementary period should be reckoned on February 12, 2017 when he received the assailed resolution. Is Puregold’s contention meritorious?
Yes. Petitions for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. There can no longer be any extension of the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari save in exceptional or meritorious cases anchored on special or compelling reasons. Contrary to Renato’s contention, the reglementary period to avail the remedy of certiorari must be reckoned on December 29, 2016 or the date his counsel received the NLRC Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, and not on February 12, 2017 when he received the assailed resolution. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel. Notice to the client or to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record, is not notice in law. Moreover, while decisions, resolutions, or orders are served on both parties and their counsel/representative, for purposes of appeal, the period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel representative of record. Thus, Renato had 60 days counted from the date his counsel received the NLRC resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, or until February 27, 2017, within which to avail of a petition for certiorari. (Puregold Price Club, Inc v. Court of Appeals and Renato M. Cruz, G.R. No. 244374, February 15, 2022)
What is grave abuse of discretion?
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public officer concerned, which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.
Gloria died testate and named Salvio as executor. Salvio then filed a petition for the probate of the will and the issuance of letters testamentary to himself. Norma, the legitimate child of Gloria, filed an opposition. The lower court initially ruled in favor of Salvio due to Norma’s American citizenship. For the failure of Salvio to comply with his duties, the lower court finds that Norma is the most suitable person to replace Salvio. Salvio moved for reconsideration but the RTC denied. Norma then filed an omnibus motion against Salvio and Diana (who claimed to be a legitimate child), to revoke the letters of special administration issued to Salvio for Gloria’s estate, to issue new letters of special administration to her. Does Diana have legal standing to file a petition for certiorari assailing the order?
Yes. Diana may be considered a person aggrieved, permitted to initiate the special civil action for certiorari against the assailed RTC Orders. A person aggrieved refers to one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. To have the legal standing to avail of the remedy of certiorari, he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the assailed act. She is an heir of the decedent and has a material interest to the administration of their estate. Thus, it cannot be denied that she would suffer or sustain direct injury in the event the estate is dissipated. (In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Gloria Novelo Vda. De Cea, G.R. No. 197147, February 03, 2021)
When can a petition for mandamus be availed?
It is available when a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office. The remedy lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. It cannot direct the exercise of judgment unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The following requirements must be present to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to wit: (1) the petitioner has a clear and unmistakable legal right to the act demanded; (2) it is the duty of the respondent to perform the act because it is required by law; (3) the respondent unlawfully neglects the duty enjoined by law or unlawfully excludes the petitioner from the use or enjoyment of the right or office; (4) the act to be performed is ministerial; and (5) there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
What must be alleged in a complaint for unlawful detainer?
A complaint for unlawful detainer must sufficiently allege and prove (1) initially, the possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. (Galacgac v. Bautista, G.R. No. 221384, November 09, 2020)
Merly Maligaya filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth certificate under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC. In her petition, Merly prayed to change her first name from “MERLE” to “MERLY.” As supporting evidence, Merly presented the original and certified original copies of her SSS Member’s Data E-4 Form, Voter’s Registration Record, Voter’s Certification, Voter’s Identification Card, Police Clearance and NBI Clearance. After finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC ordered the publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. After trial, RTC granted the petition to reflect Merly’s accurate personal circumstances and to avoid confusion on her public and private documents. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for a reconsideration and argued that the mistake is clerical that must be corrected through administrative proceedings under RA No. 9048, as amended by RA No. 10172. Is the error in Merly’s first name a clerical error under R.A. No. 9048?
Yes. RA No. 9048 amended Rule 108 and authorized the local civil registrars, or the Consul General, as the case may be, to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry, or make changes in the first name or nickname, without need of a judicial order. The law provided an administrative recourse for the correction of clerical or typographical errors, essentially leaving substantial corrections to Rule 108. The correction of Merly’s first name from “MERLE” to “MERLY” refers to a clerical or typographical error. It merely rectified the erroneous spelling through the substitution of the second letter “E” in “MERLE” with the letter “Y,” so it will read as “MERLY.” The correction will neither affect nor prejudice any substantial rights. The innocuous errors in Merly’s first name may be corrected or changed under RA No. 9048 by referring to related documents. (Republic of the Philippines v. Merle M. Maligaya, G.R. No. 233068, November 9, 2020)
Sandiganbayan convicted petitioners Ismael and Ajijon for violating Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 3.3.1 of the IRR of RA No. 8291 or Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997. The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the dismissal of the cases by attacking the validity of the Information filed against them. While the the two Informations against petitioners charged them for their failure to perform their duties as mayor and treasurer to ensure full and timely remittance of the municipality’s GSIS contributions, they claim that the information was insufficient as they alleged conspiracy but some conspirators were not impleaded nor their participation in the alleged conspiracy stated. Petitioners argued that their constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusations against them was violated. Are the petitioners correct?
No. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides the necessary allegations to a criminal information, namely: (1) the accused’s name; (2) the stature’s designation of the offense; (3) the acts or omissions complained of that constitute the offense; (4) the offended party’s name; (5) the approximate date of the offense’s commission; and (6) the place where the offense was committed. The two Informations against petitioners clearly and sufficiently stated that they were being charged for their failure to perform their duties as mayor and treasurer to ensure full and timely remittance of the municipality’s GSIS contributions. The indictment of the purported conspirators, as well as a statement of their part in the alleged conspiracy, is not necessary to sustain the sufficiency of the Informations. So long as the criminal information clearly alleges the acts constituting the offense specifically imputed against the accused for them to properly prepare their defense, the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations is not transgressed. (Ismael v. People, G.R. Nos. 234435-36. February 06, 2023)
May a person be held civilly liable despite acquittal for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The dismissal of the criminal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. (Matobato, Sr. vs. People, G.R. No. 229265, February 15, 2022)
In a case for robbery with homicide, Ronald, the accused,pleaded not guilty and afterwards questioned the warrantless arrest. Can he still raise the question of the validity of warrantless arrest after he pleaded not guilty?
No. it is too late for Ronald to question the legality of his warrantless arrest in view of his arraignment and active participation at the trial. Neither did he move to quash the information, hence, any supposed defect in his arrest was deemed waived. It is settled that the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Any objection must be made before the accused enters his plea. Otherwise, the defect is deemed cured. (People v. Laguda, G.R. No. 244843, October 07, 2020)
Jasper was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs after a buy-bust operation. During the trial the prosecution presented PO2 Jose, the police officer who conducted surveillance and buy-bust operation. He merely testified that after securing a search warrant, the police officer gave a marked money to the poseur-buyer who transacted with Jasper at the gate of the latter’s house. The police officers were observing the transaction. The buy-bust operation was successful so they served him a search warrant which led them to search Jasper’s room in the presence of Barangay Captain. Recovered were the marked money drug paraphernalia, and white crystalline substance found on a table and on top of a cabinet inside Jasper’s room. Is the search valid?
Section 8, Rule 126 - No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
When is bail a matter of discretion insofar as the imposable penalty is concerned?
Under the Rules of Court, upon the accused’s conviction by the Regional Trial Court of a non-capital offense, admission to bail is discretionary. However, when the penalty imposed on the accused exceeds six years, and any of the bail-negating circumstances exists, the accused’s application for bail must be denied or cancelled. If an accused who is charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua is convicted by the trial court and sentenced to suffer such a penalty, bail is neither a matter of right on the part of the accused nor of discretion on the part of the court. Bail must not then be granted to the accused during the pendency of his appeal from the judgment of conviction. (People vs. Revillar, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021)
Napoles was convicted of Plunder on December 7, 2018. She filed a Motion before the Supreme Court alleging that she is at risk of contracting COVID-19 inside the prison due to her Diabetes, an underlying COVID-19 health condition. She contends that she is entitled to be provisionally released on humanitarian grounds. Is the allegation of Janet Napoles citing humanitarian grounds meritorious to grant her prayer of provisional release?
No. Napoles’ allegation is a question of fact which is not within the province of the Supreme Court to determine. Neither can the Court take judicial notice of her medical condition. However, even assuming that she is indeed suffering from diabetes, that, in itself, is not sufficient to grant her provisional liberty, post-conviction. Unless there is clear showing that Napoles is actually suffering from a medical condition that requires immediate and specialized attention outside of their current confinement — as, for instance, an actual and proven exposure to or infection with the novel coronavirus — she must remain in custody and isolation incidental to the crimes with which they were charged, or for which they are being tried or serving sentence. Only then can there be an actual controversy and a proper invocation of humanitarian and equity considerations that is ripe for this Court to determine. (People vs. Revillar, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 247611, January 13, 2021)
Mangali was charged with robbery committed against JCLV Realty before the RTC. Allegedly, Mangali removed JCLV Realty’s electric facilities with intent to gain and intimidation against persons. After the prosecution rested its case, Mangali filed a demurrer to evidence claiming that the prosecution failed to establish intent to gain and that the metering instruments belonged to JCLV Realty. RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the criminal case for lack of evidence that Mangali perpetrated the robbery. Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, JCLV Realty elevated the case to the CA through a special civil action for certiorari. Has double jeopardy set in?
Yes. Double jeopardy attaches when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is charged under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (2) the court has jurisdiction; (3) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and (4) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his/her consent. In this case, all the elements are present. A valid Information for the crime of robbery was filed against Mangali before the RTC. Also, Mangali had pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after the prosecution rested, the criminal case was dismissed upon a demurrer to evidence. (JCLV Realty & Dev’t. Corp. v. Mangali, G.R. No. 236618, August 27, 2020)
Mercado, a fuel retailer, delivered fuel to Byron Express Bus Company. The fuel was received by the company’s clerk, Juson, under a trust receipt. Juson failed to remit the proceeds, prompting Mercado to file estafa charges against both Juson and Cacdac, the alleged owner of Byron Express. The prosecution presented evidence including the Trust Receipt Agreement, demand letter, and sworn statements. However, Cacdac moved for a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, arguing he was not party to the trust receipt, the transaction was a sale, and the demand letter was addressed solely to Juson. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the criminal charge against Cacdac but affirmed his civil liability to pay the amount with interest. Did the trial court violate Cacdac’s right to due process when it held him civilly liable?
No. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases is governed by Rule 119, Section 23 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. Here, Cacdac filed a demurrer to evidence, which partakes of the nature of a motion to dismiss the case for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As such, Cacdac was not deprived of due process when the trial court rendered judgment on his civil liability. He is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence when he filed a demurrer without leave of court. (Cacdac v. Mercado, G.R. No. 242731, June 14, 2021)
What are the requisites for a newly discovered evidence to be admitted?
Newly-discovered evidence may be admissible in evidence if the following requisites are present: (1) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (4) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.
AAA, a 12-year old girl went missing after her parents instructed her and siblings to collect the payment of rice cakes from their neighbor, Milo. Her lifeless body was found the following day underneath Milo’s wooden bed. She was lying flat on her back with a cloth wrapped around her mouth and nose, and with both hands tied and twisted at her back. The Autopsy report found that AAA died due to asphyxia by suffocation. The medical examination also revealed that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations due to the insertion of a blunt object like a human penis or any hard item and suffered multiple injuries and abrasions on different parts of her body. Accordingly, Milo was charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide. The RTC found adequate circumstantial evidence that Milo was guilty of the crime. Can Milo be convicted based only on Circumstantial Evidence?
Yes. The Rules of Court allows resort to circumstantial evidence provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, compatible with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and in conflict with the notion that he is innocent. In this case, the corpus of circumstantial evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of events pointing to Milo’s guilt. AAA went to Milo’s house and remained missing until the discovery of her lifeless body the following day in the same place. The medical examination revealed that AAA sustained hymenal lacerations. The most incriminating evidence against Milo is when AAA’s body was found underneath his bed. These proven facts, when weaved together, lead to no other conclusion but of Milo’s culpability for the crime. (People vs. Leocadio, G.R. No. 227396, February 22, 2023)
In determining the admissibility and reliability of an out-of-court identification, what are the factors that a court has to look into considering the totality of circumstances?
In determining the admissibility and reliability of an out-of-court identification, the Court must look at the totality of the circumstances and consider the following factors, namely: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the length of time between the crime and the identification; (5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
These rules assure fairness as well as compliance with the constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court identification, and prevent the contamination of the integrity of in-court identification. (People v. Campos, G.R. No. 252212, July 14, 2021)
Napoleon engaged Atty. Capela for legal services in a civil case regarding breach of contract and damages. The retainer agreement included provision of Napoleon’s Toyota Corolla GLI model, official receipt, and certificate of registration as an acceptance fee. Although Atty. Capela filed an appearance and answer before the RTC, the draft retainer agreement remained unsigned. Atty. Capela’s absence during the preliminary conference and subsequent hearings led to Napoleon agreeing to a Compromise Agreement approved by RTC, without legal representation. Atty. Capela later denied being engaged as counsel, citing lack of a signed retainer agreement and absence of compensation in the form of a motor vehicle. Are the contentions of Atty. Capela tenable?
No. A written contract or retainer agreement is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney; a contract may be express or implied. To establish a lawyer-client relationship, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession, as in this case. Neither does the claim that no payment was received defeat the existence of the relationship. It is not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged for, to constitute professional employment. (Quitazol v. Atty. Capela, A.C. No. 12072, December 9, 2020)
What are the tests to determine the existence of conflict of interest?
The three tests developed by jurisprudence to determine the existence of conflict of interest are: first, whether a lawyer is duty-bound to fight for an issue, or claim on behalf of one client and, at the same time, to oppose that claim for the other client; second, whether acceptance of a new relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer’s duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to the client, or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty; and third, whether the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment.
(Pilar v. Atty. Ballicud, A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)
KWP is a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). KWP engaged the services of Atty. Ballicud to draft legal documents, such as policy on retirement benefits, voluntary resignation, and shareholder’s agreement, from 2010 to 2013. Allegedly, KWP had previously lost several project bids to Engel Anlagen Technik Phils., Inc. (EAT) that resulted in the loss of clients and business opportunities on their part. KWP found out that EAT was registered with the SEC on March 27, 2013, with Atty. Ballicud as its President and one of the incorporators. The other incorporators are the nephews of KWP’s former President who resigned in 2014. KWP’s Vice President AND KWP filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ballicud due to conflict of interests. Atty. Ballicud contends that he never handled a case for, or against KWP and that he has no knowledge of any confidential information relating to KWP’s business operations. Are his contentions valid?
No. Actual case or controversy is not required for the proscription against representation of conflicting interests to apply. The important criterion is the probability, and not the certainty, of conflict. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be, even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer’s private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity. In this case, Atty. Ballicud caused the registration of EAT with the SEC on March 27, 2013. He occupied the highest position as EAT’s President. Atty. Ballicud’s new relation with EAT would prevent the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to KWP and would invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of his duty. (Pilar v. Atty. Ballicud, A.C. No. 12792, November 16, 2020)
What is the nature of a disbarment proceeding?
Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis; neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. (Capinpin v. Atty. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, September 03, 2020)
Substantive law vs. Procedural law
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or which regulates the rights and duties which give rise to a cause of action; Substantive enacted by Congress
Procedural law refers to the adjective law, which prescribes rules and forms of procedure in order that courts may be able to administer justice. It ensures the effective enforcement of
substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes; Remedial promulgated by SC (Art. 8)
In case of conflict, SUBSTANTIVE PREVAILS (Separation of Powers)
XPNS:
- Violation of due process
- Issue involved is purely legal question
- Administrative action is patently illegal
- Estoppel
- Irreparable injury
Test for determining whether a rule is procedural or substantive
If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.
Can the Congress pass a law deciding that an offense can be subject to plea bargaining?
No. It is already well-settled, as stated in the case of Estipona vs. Lobrigo that plea bargaining in criminal cases, by nature and tradition, is squarely a rule of procedure which falls within the
Court’s exclusive rule-making power as provided under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
- there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most immediate time;
- the issues involved are of transcendental importance. such that the imminence and clarity of the threat to fundamental constitutional rights outweigh the necessity for prudence;
- in cases of first impression;
- the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the [Supreme] Court;
- the time element presented in the case cannot be ignored;
- when the subject of review is an act of a constitutional organ;
- when petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and
- when the petition includes questions that are dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy
Reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend strict adherence to procedural rules
a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
X filed a case with the RTC questioning the validity of a statute. RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Was the dismissal proper?
No. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of any law-but they are not the sole and exclusive forum before which constitutional questions may be posed. Regional trial courts, including the one before which Criminal Case No. 2008-895 is pending, are vested with judicial power, which embraces the power to determine if a law breaches the Constitution. In Garcia vs. Drilon: “It is settled that [Regional Trial Courts] have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, ‘this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law.’ The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all RTCs.
Cases exempted from mandatory barangay conciliation
1) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
2) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;
3) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
4) Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants
or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
5) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin eachother and the parties
thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon;
6) Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
7) Offenses where there is no private offended party;
8) Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention (see Sec. 412
(b) (1), Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law);
b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody
over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf;
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations.
9) Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice;
10) Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) (Sec. 46 & 47, R.A. 6657);
11) Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations (Montoya vs. Escayo, et al., 171 SCRA 442; Art. 226, Labor Code, as amended, which grants original and
exclusive jurisdiction over conciliation and mediation of disputes, grievances or problems to certain offices of the Department of Labor and Employment);
12) Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court (See Sanchez vs. Tupaz, 158 SCRA 459).
Residual jurisdiction
The residual jurisdiction of the trial court is available upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called “residual jurisdiction” to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
The trial court will not reach the residual jurisdiction stage if the case was dismissed without prejudice because the order of dismissal is not appealable. Without the perfection of an appeal, let alone the unavailability of the remedy of appeal, the trial court cannot acquire residual jurisdiction.
Prior to the transmittal of the original records to appellate court, trial court can still retain jurisdiction to issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals of the indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal and allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
When prior exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with
a) when there is a violation of due process;
b) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
c) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
d) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency concerned;
e) when there is irreparable injury;
f) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the latter;
g) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable;
h) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
i) when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;
j) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; or
k) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention
X filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Case was decided against Y. Y argues that since no summons had been served upon him, the Regional Trial Court failed to acquire jurisdiction over them. As a result, they insist that the Regional Trial
Court’s June 6, 2014 Decision is void. Is Y correct?
Contrary to Y’s postulation, summons need not be issued in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65, Section 6 of the Rules of Court states that the court, upon the filing of a petition for certiorari, shall determine if it is sufficient in form and substance. Once it finds the petition to be sufficient, it shall issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition. Compared with an ordinary civil action, where summons must be issued upon the filing of the complaint, the court need only issue an order requiring the respondents to comment on the petition for certiorari. “Such order shall be served on the respondents in such manner as the court may direct, together with a copy of the petition and any annexes thereto.
X filed a collection suit against Y for nonpayment of rental fees. Simultaneously, X filed an ejectment suit against Y. Is there forum shopping?
No. There is no splitting of cause of action when a collection suit is filed separately from an action for ejectment. The causes of action are not the same, the rights violated are different, and the reliefs sought are also different.
Requisites of a valid class suit
a) When the subject matter of the controversy is of common or general interest to many persons;
b) When such persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all as parties; and
c) When such persons are sufficiently numerous as to represent and protect fully the interests of all concerned.
Effect of non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping
Verification: Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
CAFS: Non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of “substantial compliance” or presence of “special circumstances or compelling reasons.”
Elements of forum shopping
The elements of forum shopping are: (i) identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interest; (ii) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the latter founded, on the same facts; and (iii) any judgment rendered in one action will amount to res judicata in the other action.
Requirements to declare defendant in default
(1) the claiming party must file a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default; (2) the defending party must be notified of the motion to declare them in default; and (3) the claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period provided by the Rule.
Period to file Answer to the complaint and third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint
Within 30 calendar days from service, unless a different period is fixed by the court (Secs. 1 and 5)
Period to file Answer of a foreign private juridical entity where service of summons is made on the government official designated by law
Within 60 calendar days after receipt of summons by such entity
Period to file Answer to amended complaint, amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention
Within 30 calendar days from service (if filed as a matter of right)
Within 15 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same (if filed not as a matter of right?
An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed. (Sec. 3)
Period to file Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim
Within 20 calendar days from service
Period to file Answer to supplemental complaint
Within 20 calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed.
Period to file Reply to an answer with attached actionable document
Within 15 calendar days from service
Elements of res judicata
(a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.
When can a complaint be dismissed due to plaintiff’s fault?
Section 3, Rule 17 of
the Rules of Court:
(1) if he or she fails to appear during a scheduled hearing, especially on the date for the presentation of his or her evidence in chief;
(2) if he or she fails to prosecute his or her action for an unreasonable length of time;
(3) if he or she fails to comply
with the rules; or
(4) if he or she fails to comply with any order of the court.
Thus, failure on the part of the plaintiff, without any justifiable cause, to comply with any order of the court may result in the dismissal of the complaint either motu proprio or on motion by the defendant.
Different modes of discovery
a. Depositions pending action (Rule 23);
b. Depositions before action or pending appeal (Rule 24);
c. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);
d. Admission by adverse party (Rule 26);
e. Production or inspection of documents or things (Rule 27); and
f. Physical and mental examination of persons (Rule 28);
What is the proper remedy on the grant of a demurrer to evidence?
Given the result brought about by the grant of a demurrer to evidence, that is, a dismissal of the case on its merits, an appeal would be the appropriate remedy available to an aggrieved party.
Rule 41 vs. Rule 42
An ordinary appeal is an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment or final order of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, while a petition for review is an appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. An ordinary appeal under Rule 41 is deemed perfected upon
the filing of a notice of appeal before the Regional Trial Court. The notice of appeal must be filed within the period of 15 days from their notice of the judgment. On the other hand, an appeal under Rule 42 is deemed perfected upon the filing of the petition for review before the Court of
Appeals. Additionally, an appeal under Rule 41 is a matter of right, while an appeal under Rule 42 is a matter of discretion.
Exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of judgment
A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. Nevertheless, the doctrine admits
certain exceptions, to wit: (1) correction of clerical errors; (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) supervening events rendered the decision unjust and inequitable. (Landbank of the Philippines vs. Garcia)
What is a petition for relief and when can you avail of such remedy?
A petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings is an equitable remedy which is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. The petition is the proper remedy of a party seeking to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing, was prevented from taking an appeal, or a judgment or final order entered because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed (i) within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment, order, or other proceeding to be set aside and (ii) within six months from the entry
of such judgment, order, or other proceeding. These two (2) periods must concur.
What is a petition for annulment of jusgment and when can it be availed of?
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances, where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies.
The same petition is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the party’s own neglect in promptly availing of the same. Sec. 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court explicitly
provides two grounds for the annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. If the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. Chico vs. Ciudadano
Execution shall issue as a matter of right when:
(1) the right of appeal has been renounced or waived;
(2) the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken; or
(3) the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin.
What is a writ of preliminary injunction?
A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary and interlocutory order that bars an act or requires performance of a particular act pending litigation of a case.
Requisites for preliminary injunction
(1) The applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, that is a right in esse;
(2) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right;
(3) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(4) No other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.
Two instances when a temporary restraining order may issue
first, when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant even before the application for writ of preliminary injunction can be heard; and second, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
Conditions to allow the conversion of a petition for declaratory relief into an ordinary action
- The interested party files a petition for declaratory relief before breach of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument;
- There is a breach or violation of the statute, contract, deed or subject written instrument which occurred before the final termination of the case; and
- The interested party should indicate the ordinary action he or she has chosen.
Prescription for quo warranto proceedings
The one-year prescriptive period applies only when the quo warranto petition is filed by an individual in his/her own name or by the Solicitor General/public prosecutor at the request and upon relation of another person, with leave of court. When the petition is filed by the State at its own instance, through the Solicitor General, prescription shall not apply.
Requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain
(1) the property taken must be private property;
(2) there must be genuine necessity to take the private property;
(3) the taking must be for public use;
(4) there must be payment of just compensation; and
(5) the taking must comply with due process of law. It is settled that a property already devoted to public use can still be subject to expropriation, provided this is done directly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to a delegate, as in the case of MORE.
Just compensation in expropriation
Just compensation is defined “as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.” The qualifier “just” modifies the meaning of the word “compensation” to impress the idea that the equivalent to be given for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, and ample. The true measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. Heirs of Dimao vs. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines
Reckoning period of taking for just compensation
Just compensation shall be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of the actual taking, whichever transpired earlier.
While the just compensation shall be appraised as of the date of the filing of the complaint or the date of the actual taking, whichever transpired earlier, the legal interest shall run from the time that the government took possession of the property and not from the time of filing of the expropriation complaint.
What is the a ppropriate recourse in case a governmental entity, in the exercise of its eminent domain powers, takes over the possession of a property without the benefit of expropriation proceeding?
Recovery of possession. Manila Railroad annunciated that a public entity stands on an equal footing as other trespassers/intruders if it enters a private property or constructs establishments thereon without the acquiescence or consent of the owner.
3 kinds of actions to judicially recover possession
Summary action of ejectment (accion interdictal), plenary action to recover the right of possession (accion publiciana), and action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession (accion reivindicatoria).
What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a
reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. Unlawful detainer suits (accion interdictal), together with forcible entry, are the two forms of ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reivindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession. Unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits are designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.
Forcible entry
The act of depriving a person of the material or actual possession of a land or building or of taking possession thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, against the will or without the consent of the possessor.
No previous demand to vacate is required by law before the filing of the action.
Unlawful detainer
The act of unlawfully withholding the
possession of a land or building against or from a landlord, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the detainer’s right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.
Deed form mnemonic
[TAF-CAS-SA]
Title
Announcement
First Party
Consideration
Act or Conveyance
Second Party
Signature
Acknowledgment
Contract form mnemonic
Unless required by your bar examiner, sparingly use the CONTRACT FORM [TAA-RAC-SA]
Title
Announcement
Actors
Recitals
Agreement
Conditions
Signatories
Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment
Acknowledgement refers to a formal declaration before an official that one has executed a particular legal document. They are are notarial acts that apply to contracts.
*check Buenviaje notes
Jurat
A jurat is a certificate attached to an affidavit or deposition to signify that the affidavit or deposition was properly made before a duly authorized officer.
*for sworn statements and affidavits
Affidavit template mnemonic
VeTiPe-OStaSiJu
Venue of Execution
Title
Person’s Bona Fides
Oath
Statements
Signature
Jurat
Parts of a Typical Judicial Form
Cap-TIBRA-A
Caption
Title
Introduction
Body (Parties, Cause of Action)
Relief
Attorney’s Box
Addenda
Contents of a judicial affidavit
a. Case caption and the personal circumstances of the witness;
b. The identity of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the examination of the witness;
c. The place where the examination is being held; and
d. A statement that the witness is answering the questions under oath and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.
Complaint
sworn statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated
Information
accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states
- The name of the accused
- The designation of the offense given by the statute
- The acts or omission complained of as constituting the offense
- The name of the offended party
- The approximate date of the commission of the offense
- The place where the offense was committed
Revised Lawyer’s Oath
I, (name), do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
In doing so, I shall work towards promoting “the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.” I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice.
I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion. So help me, God.
Four-fold duties of a lawyer
Society - Bar - Courts - Client
Lawyers Shane and Badet work for the same law firm representing a construction firm. One night, Shane admitted to Badet that she is romantically involved with a man who supplies her cocaine. When Badet pontificated that Shane should desist promptly from taking cocaine for being immoral, Shane laughed it off saying that it helps her be awake to earn more billable hours for the firm and eventually income for herself. When advised to go into rehabilitation, Shane exploded and asserted that the matter is none of her business. Is Badet duty bound to report Shane to the authorities?
No. None of Shane’s conduct is dishonest, deceitful or misleading in relation to a court, tribunal or government agency.
Prohibition against claim of influence, familiarity, solicitation, self promotion or self-aggrandizement (Secs. 15, 17-19)
Professional business cards may only contain the following details:
a. Lawyer’s name;
b. Name of the law firm with which he is connected;
c. Address;
d. Telephone number; and
e. Special branch of law practiced (Linsangan v. Tolentino, 2009)
Tarpaulin Ad alerting the public about Atty. X as Regional distributor of Amway Philippines or Avon Cosmetics. Is this an ethical advertisement?
No. Nothing wrong if lawyer engages in commercial activities, but not as “attorney.”
The website of ABC Law Office enumerating all the lawyers of the firm and citing its practice areas, with the words “Hire us!” Is this ethical advertisement?
No. Remove “hire us” and it would be appropriate.
Accused of murdering his sons, Leopoldo has his case followed by the public due to the gruesome details of the case. A national TV network covers it with Atty. Marjorie as co-anchor. Carina, her co-anchor, openly discussed that Marjorie is a seasoned litigator and was a former associate of the judge handling the case before his appointment in the judiciary. Carina asked Marjorie how the judge would resolve the motion to quash filed by Leopoldo’s counsel given Marjorie’s familiarity of the judge and his thought processes. What would be proper for Marjorie to do?
Refuse to answer the question and discuss publicly the reasons why he can’t respond to the question citing the sub-judice rule. This way, the lawyer also aids in disseminating information regarding law and jurisprudence.
Atty. Mel continued with his tirade against complainant manufacturing company in his TV and radio programs and broadsheet columns saying that the company’s liver spread contained a colony of worms, all despite the pendency of a civil and criminal case against him and the TRO issued restraining Mel from doing such acts. Is Mel liable?
Yes, because the continued publication of such criticism despite the pending case was calculated to arouse public sympathy for him and against the manufacturer.
May the government engage private lawyers?
As a rule, no. Except when unavoidable and/or justified under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.
COA Circular 86-255: In the event that such legal services cannot be avoided or is justified under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances for government agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations, the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the written concurrence of the Commission on Audit shall first be secured before the hiring or employment of a private lawyer or law firm.
Essential criteria in determining whether a person is engaged in the practice of law
(HACA)
Habituality
Application of Legal Knowledge
Compensation
Attorney-Client Relation
Non-lawyers who can practice law
a. Law student practice (Rule 138-A)
b. Pro Hac Vice representation (Sec. 33, Rule 138) ** repealed by CPRA - no longer controlling
c. Pro Se practice (Sec. 34, Rule 138) - rendered moot by CPRA as well
d. DARAB Cases (Sec. 50, RA 6657)
e. Cadastral Cases (Sec. 9, Act 2259)
f. Labor Cases (Art. 222, Labor Code)
g. Small claims cases (A.M. 08-8-7-SC)
h. International and domestic commercial arbitrations (Sec. 22 and 33, RA 9285)
Pro se - You can no longer represent yourself.
Lawyers who are absolutely prohibited from practicing law
a. President, Vice President
b. Cabinet members who are lawyers
c. Governors, city/municipal mayors
d. Solicitor General, Government Corporate Counsel
e. Judges/Justices in the active service and SC officials/employees
f. Government lawyers unless given limited authority to practice
g. Ombudsman, Members of the Constitutional Commission
h. Disbarred lawyers
i. Suspended lawyers
j. Dead lawyers
k. Lawyers residing abroad
l. Foreign lawyers
Lawyers authorized to do Limited Law Practice
a. Senators, Congressmen who are lawyers
b. Vice Governor, Vice-Mayor, members of the local sanggunian
c. Government lawyers authorized to engage in limited law practice
d. Retired Judges
e. The rules on Small Claims and Katarungang Pambarangay put limits to a lawyer’s authority to practice
f. Former government lawyers cannot engage in the private practice of law within one year from resignation, retirement, or separation from public office in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with
Remedies against unauthorized legal practice:
a. Petition for Injunction
b. Contempt of Court
c. Criminal Complaint for Estafa
d. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment
e. Administrative complaint against an erring lawyer or government official
When does a lawyer-client relations commence? (Sec. 3, Canon III)
Upon the signing of a retainer
When there is an implied agreement
When there is a consultation
If the President grants amnesty to Atty. Gadon, will he be allowed to continue his practice of law?
No. Amnesty only applies to criminal cases, not administrative cases.
But he can apply for judicial clemency after 5 years.
There is inconsistency of interests within the meaning of the prohibition under the CPRA when
the acceptance of a new relation will prevent a lawyer from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the performance of that duty; also when the lawyer would be called upon in the new relation to use against a former client any confidential information acquired through their connection or previous employment
Spouses Brian and Leah were Atty. Charlotte’s clients in the past. Hannah engaged Charlotte’s services to compel payment from debtors, who turned out to be the spouses. Eventually, Charlotte won the case in court for Hannah. On appeal, the spouses’ counsel moved to disqualify Charlotte for taking inconsistent interests. Charlotte insists that since the spouses never objected when the case was tried in the trial court, they effectively approved her appearance for Hannah. Is Charlotte right?
No, because the approval she pointed at falls short of the required consent.
July Sims asks Atty. Hunyo to represent him in a complex tax matter. Hunyo readily disclosed that he is young and inexperienced in tax practice but July would not hear it professing his full trust in him. a) Will Hunyo be disciplined if he accepted the case and gets help from a competent co-counsel? b) What options are available to Hunyo as regards this retainer offer to avoid administrative liability?
No, Hunyo will not be disciplined here provided he gets July’s written consent before working with a competent co-counsel. The law prohibits a lawyer from undertaking a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. But he may render such service if, with the client’s consent, he can obtain a competent collaborating co-counsel. Given his candid admission to July about his incompetence, Atty. Hunyo’s cooperation with another counsel will not incur him liability, as long as he obtains July’s consent.
To avoid administrative liability, Atty. Hunyo may take any of the following options given his inexperience:
a. Refuse to handle the matter, given the clear command to lawyers to serve clients with competence and diligence
b. Accept the matter because he expects, in good faith, to be competent through diligent study convinced that such research would not cause client undue delay and expense
c. Accept the matter and associates with a competent co-counsel after obtaining his client’s consent to do so consistent with the CPRA.
Atty. Nora represents Rommel on a charge of homicide. One afternoon, Rommel barges to Nora’s office and threw a gun in her desk, confessing his guilt. He also tells Nora that he is going to kill Beth, the witness. He also admitted that he removed some things from the crime scene. After trial, Rommel got convicted and later slams Nora for her incompetence. In the civil suit that Rommel filed against Nora, the latter took the stand in her own defense and, disclosed that Rommel confessed his guilt.
If Nora tells the prosecution that Rommel removed evidence from the crime scene, what, if any, would be her liability or liabilities?
Was it ethical for Nora to take the stand in her own defense and offer work-product information?
a. For disclosing such information to the prosecution, then Atty. Nora becomes vulnerable criminally, civilly and administratively as such revelation constitutes a violation of her lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to Rommel.
The law punishes the revelation of a client’s secret as prevaricacion. The law also holds her civilly responsible for all damages which Rommey may reasonably attribute to her for such wanton breach of obligation. She may also be held administratively liable as lawyers are forbidden from revealing the confidences or secrets of his client, save for limited exceptions, without obtaining his client’s consent.
b. Yes, Nora may testify in her own defense and offer work-product information without violating her ethical duties to Rommel. The law explicitly authorizes a lawyer to reveal a client’s confidence or secret when necessary to defend himself, his employees or associates or when a breach of lawyer’s duty is involved. Since Rommel sued Nora upon a charge of professional incompetence, then the disclosure that Rommel confessed his guilt becomes necessary to defend herself from such a charge.
Exceptions to the rule on Sec. 24 (Rule 130), Disqualification by reason of privileged communication
I. Furtherance of crime or fraud: If the services or advice of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit what the client knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud;
Ii. Claimaints through the same deceased client: As to a communication relevant to an issue between parties who claim through the same deceased client, regardless of whether the claims are by testate or by inter vivos transaction;
Iii. Breach of duty by lawyer or client: As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by the lawyer to his or her client, or by the client to his or her lawyer;
Iv. Document attested by the lawyer: As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness; or
V. Joint clients: As to communication relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication, when offered in an action between any of the clients, unless they have expressly agreed otherwise.
Complainants engaged Atty. John in connection with the recovery of their properties from Fevidal. Complainants signed a contract of legal services, where they would not pay acceptance and appearance fees to their counsel, but that they would share the docket fees. Under their contract, complainants would pay him 50% of whatever would be recovered of the properties. Later, however, complainants terminated John’s services and settled with Fevidal. John opposed the withdrawal of their complaint in court. Thus, complainants filed a case against him alleging that counsel’s motion to record attorney’s charging lien was the “legal problem” preventing them from enjoying the fruits of their property. Is Atty. John’s action proper?
No. John’s retainer is void for being champertous. Atty. John’s retainer with the complainants in this case is in the nature of a champertous contract–an agreement where a lawyer undertakes to pay the expenses of the proceedings to enforce the client’s rights in exchange for some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute. These contracts are contrary to public policy and are thus void or inexistent.
Prescription for disbarment proceedings
None. Disbarment complaints are imprescriptible. - neither civil nor criminal, no double jeopardy, no pari delicto
Serious offenses for lawyers
Gross misconduct or any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct
Serious dishonesty, fraud, or deceit, including falsification of documents and making untruthful statements;
Bribery or corruption, sexual abuse;
Gross negligence in the performance of duty, or conduct that is reckless and inexcusable, which results in the client being deprived of his or her day in court;
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
Grossly immoral conduct, or an act that is so corrupt or false as to constitute a criminal act, or so immoral as to be reprehensible to a high degree;
Misappropriating a client’s funds or properties
Less serious offenses for lawyers
Simple misconduct, or such misconduct without the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules
Simple dishonesty
Other violations of the conflict of interest rules
Prohibited borrowing of money from a client
Prohibited lending of money
Other unlawful threats
Instituting frivolous or baseless actions, on the basis of a final decision or order dismissing such action for being frivolous or baseless;
Violation of the sub judice rule
Deliberate failure or refusal to pay just debts
Light offenses for lawyers
Violation of IBP rules and issuances governing membership in the IBP
Use of vulgar or offensive language in personal dealings
Fraternizing with the officials or employees of a court, tribunal, or other government agency where the respondent has a pending case or cases, to such a degree and frequency as would give the appearance of power or influence over them, or which tends to create an impression of impropriety
Filing of frivolous motions for inhibition
Failure to promptly call upon client to rectify a fraudulent act; or
Deliberate failure or refusal to pay just debts
Department of ABC, which is a National Government Agency, entered into service agreements with Atty. G, Atty. M, and Atty. C. The lawyers were assigned to perform the following services, among others: (i) review documents papers and any proposed rules and regulations which Department of ABC may find relevant; (ii) prepare draft scheme of legal steps or requirements; (iii) render legal opinion on issues presented; (iv) draft measure for legislative actions; and (v) represent the agency before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
However, upon post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance (NOD) on the engagement, on the ground that it did not have the written conformity and acquiescence of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The Department of ABC did not deny the absence of written conformity from the OSG but justified the agency action by asserting the “dire need” to hire technical assistance from outside the agency to augment its deficient staff.
Is the issuance of the NOD proper and meritorious?
Yes, the issuance of the NOD is proper and meritorious, as the engagement of Atty. G, Atty. M, and Atty. C by the Department of ABC did not comply with the existing rules in hiring private lawyers by government agencies and instrumentalities.
While our jurisdiction generally restricts government agencies and instrumentalities in hiring private lawyers to render legal services for them and handle their cases, the government has allowed deviation, subject to certain conditions. Under COA Circular No. 2021-003, the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG are indispensable requirements, for purposes of validating the necessity and procuring services of a private lawyer.
Here, the Department of ABC admitted the absence of the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG, which contravenes the requirements set by COA Circular No. 2021-003. Thus, COA has basis in issuing the NOD. (Ricalde v. COA)
Atty. JT allegedly notarized ABCDEF’s General Information Sheets (GIS) for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 without the affiants’ personal appearance. It was also alleged that Atty. JT assigned the notarial particulars of documents he previously notarized and entered in his notarial register on the ABCDEF’s GIS. Hence, ABCDEF’s GIS were not recorded in Atty. JT’s notarial books. Atty. JT claimed that he found out about the unrecorded notarized ABCDEF’s GIS when he received a copy of the complaint filed against him. He then learned from his staff that they failed to enter the five GIS in his notarial books. Atty. JT explained that as an office practice, he would sign the documents after reading and ascertaining their authenticity and due execution and then refer to his staff for filling in the notarial details and affixing his notarial seal. He admitted that there were lapses committed by his office staff to which he is responsible. Should Atty. JT’s notarial commission be revoked?
Yes. The notary public’s failure to make the proper entry or entries in the notarial register concerning his notarial acts is a ground for the revocation of his commission or imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions.
Jurisprudence has been consistent that notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act, but invested with substantive public interest. It is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity and due execution. Here, Atty. JT did not deny notarizing the five ABCDEF’s GIS and even stated that the affiants appeared before him for the notarization of the GIS.
However, he failed to record the GIS in his notarial register. Atty. JT’s failure to record the GIS in his notarial book is inexcusable and constitutes gross negligence in carefully discharging his duties as a notary public. Hence, revocation of his notarial commission is proper. (Re: John Mark Tamaño, A.C. No. 12274 (Resolution), [October 7, 2020)
The Regional Trial Court issued an Order putting on record that Atty. MR appeared as private prosecutor in a criminal case despite her disbarment from the legal profession. Accordingly, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) docketed the Order as an administrative complaint against Atty. MR. Despite due notice, Atty. MR did not file an answer and did not attend the mandatory conference. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline reported that Atty. MR is guilty of unauthorized practice of law. It is undisputed that Atty. MR was previously suspended from the practice of law, prior to the pending administrative case. Should Atty. MR be found liable in the pending administrative case, can the penalty of suspension or disbarment therein be further imposed?
The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes. There is no double or multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. Thus, should Atty. MR be found guilty and be given due penalty in the pending administrative case, the corresponding penalty thereof should still be adjudged for recording purposes on the lawyer’s personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which should be taken into consideration in the event that he subsequently files a petition for reinstatement. (In Re: Order Dated October 27, 2016 Issued by Branch 137, Regional Trial Court, Makati in Criminal Case No. 14- 765 v. Ramon, A.C. No. 12456, [September 8, 2020])
Ms. LC filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. RE for using and taking advantage of his legal knowledge to achieve his malicious, evil and unlawful purpose. Ms. LC narrated that Atty. RE served as her legal adviser and retained counsel. Sometime in 1993, Ms. LC approached Atty. RE with regard to a mortgage she obtained from Banco de Oro (BDO). Allegedly, Atty. RE advised Ms. LC to execute a Deed of Sale in his favor, so that the former can transact directly with BDO. At the same time, Ms. LC gave Atty. RE P200,000.00 to settle her indebtedness to BDO. At one point, she went with Atty. RE to BDO to settle her account. However, Atty. RE left her in the car to wait. Upon his return, Atty. RE told Ms. LC that the bank refused to receive payment, and that a case was already filed in court. Later on, Atty. RE made Ms. LC execute a Special Power of Attorney as she will be leaving for Germany. While Ms. LC was in Germany, she entrusted to Atty. RE her Toyota Lite Ace, which she was selling. In January 1994, Ms. LC arrived in the Philippines and found out that Atty. RE was able to transfer the land and vehicle in his name. Ms. LC talked to Atty. RE, who promised to return her properties, but this promise was not heeded. After a long time, it was only in 2014, that Ms. LC and Atty. RE’s paths crossed at Seahorse Hotel, Pollilo, Quezon. When Ms. LC approached Atty. RE, the latter dismissed her saying, “ayaw kong pag-usapan ang bagay na nangyari 20 years ago.” For his part, Atty. RE denied receiving money from Ms. LC, as well as, serving as her legal counsel since he was a lawyer of the Quezon City District Office of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO-QC) from 1990 to 1994. He only accompanied Ms. LC to BDO, sometime in 1992-1993, as a favor when she visited him at PAO-QC. Per Atty. RE, he validly acquired Ms. LC’s properties, when the latter offered them for sale as she was contemplating on settling down in Germany. They negotiated and agreed on a reasonable price. In 1994, Ms. LC requested to repurchase the lot, but Atty. RE did not acquiesce to her offer. Thereafter, from 1995 to 2015, they would see each other from time to time, and Ms. LC even sought legal advice from Atty. RE, but he was never retained as counsel. Finally, Atty. RE denied having met Capinpin at Seahorse Hotel because, on that specific day, he was in Quezon City with a client and, in the afternoon was in a Financial Rehabilitation Seminar at Max’s Restaurant in Quezon City Circle. Upon consideration of the submissions on record, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case against Atty. RE. Assuming that the factual appreciation by the IBP Board of Governors, giving more credence to the submissions of Atty. RE, is accurate and indisputable, provide for a meritorious discussion on upholding the recommendations of the IBP Board of Governors.
Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. Jurisprudence is replete with cases reiterating that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Further, the proper evidentiary threshold in disbarment cases is substantial evidence. The complainant must then prove by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. It is likewise well to remember that, in suspension or disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence. In this case, Ms. LC failed to discharge her burden of presenting substantial evidence to prove that Atty. RE took advantage of his legal knowledge and profession to deceive her and appropriate her properties to himself. Thus, it cannot be established that Atty. RE engaged in unlawful and dishonest conduct. (Capinpin v. Espiritu, A.C. No. 12537, [September 3, 2020])
Ms. SR, the surviving spouse of the late Mr. TR, and Mr. NR, who is Mr. TR’s son from another woman, filed a civil case for annulment of documents, cancellation of title and damages against Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The case was entitled “Ms. SR & Mr. NR v. Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.” The controversy is over a land registered in Mr. TR’s name. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Immediately, Ms. SR and Mr. NR elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings. Aggrieved, Ms. SR and Mr. NR sought assistance from Atty. BD who prepared a motion for reconsideration. In due course, the CA granted the motion and ruled in favor of Ms. SR and Mr. NR. Upon finality of the decision, Atty. BD filed a motion for execution of judgment and then a motion to clarify writ of execution. Later, Ms. SR discovered that Mr. NR and his wife Ms. EL executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication with Sale involving Mr. TR’s property. The land was sold for P100,000.00 to Spouses JM and MW, who were later issued title in their names. Meantime, Ms. SR filed a complaint for the annulment of the affidavit of self-adjudication with sale and the cancellation of title before the RTC. Likewise, Ms. SR consigned the P100,000.00 in court. In their answer, the Spouses JM and MW attached a Deed of Absolute Sale with a consideration of P4,000,000.00 and notarized by Atty. BD. However, Ms. SR claimed that the deed was antedated to prevent the consignment. Moreover, Atty. BD was aware that Ms. SR has an interest over the property of her late husband. Did Atty. BD exhibit unethical conduct?
Yes, Atty. BD exhibited unethical conduct, when he acted in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), particularly the provisions on Propriety. In Canon II of the CPRA, a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Here, Atty. BD cannot argue that he did not represent Ms. SR. Foremost the caption of the case he handled for them was “Ms. SR & Mr. NR v. Mr. FP and the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.” Atty. BD cannot deny that Ms. SR is Mr. TR’s wife or that she has an interest in the disputed land. As such, Atty. BD should have been circumspect in notarizing the deed of absolute sale over the property knowing that a legal heir was left out. The transaction disregarded the rules on succession that the widow is a compulsory heir of the decedent. Corollarily, Atty. BD should have refused the notarization of the deed. (Rivera v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 12724, [July 28, 2020])
BC Bank engaged the services of AIT Co., Ltd. to reserve hotel accommodations and to purchase airplane tickets bound for Singapore from November 27 to 30, 2013 for its board of directors and employees. Mr. NE, the owner of AIT Co., Ltd, received P244,640.00 from BC Bank as advance payment. However, a day before the departure, Mr. NE advised BC Bank to postpone its travel abroad because the accommodations were not yet confirmed. Accordingly, BC Bank cancelled the trip and asked for a refund but Mr. NE did not heed the demand. Aggrieved, BC Bank filed an action for sum of money against Mr. NE. On the other hand, Mr. NE, through his counsel Atty. JA, blamed BC Bank for cancelling the trip after the airplane tickets were already issued. He explained that the tickets were nonrefundable and any reimbursement was contingent on the airline company’s approval. Moreover, any refund was processed using the VIA Philippines system which could take some time. At the pre-trial conference, Atty. JA asked another lawyer to appear on his behalf and to pre-mark four electronic tickets which Cebu Pacific Airline issued on November 18, 2013 for a flight on November 27, 2013. The four tickets bore the “VIA” logo but two of them have no booking reference number. The tickets were then marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11. BC Bank learned that Mr. NE’s PreTrial Brief did not mention any electronic tickets as documentary evidence. Thus, BC Bank moved for the issuance of a subpoena against VIA Philippines to verify the genuineness of the tickets. During trial, VIA Philippines’ representative testified that the four electronic tickets marked as Exhibits 8, 9, 10 and 11 were altered. The two tickets without booking reference were not genuine while the tickets with reference number correspond to different flight schedule, airline company and set of passengers. As supporting evidence, VIA Philippines submitted the correct electronic printouts of tickets. With these, BC Bank filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. JA before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). BC Bank alleged that Atty. JA failed to examine the authenticity of the evidence before presenting them in court and tolerated the commission of fraud in pre-marking altered documents. In his answer, Atty. JA claimed good faith because there was no indication that the electronic tickets were not genuine and he has no expertise to determine their authenticity. Further, Atty. JA presented Mr. NE’s judicial affidavit clarifying that he did not participate in the printing of the tickets. Should Atty. JA be held administratively liable in the disbarment complaint?
Atty. JA should be held administratively liable, as he did not measure up to the exacting standards of candor and honesty towards the court. In acting with propriety, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability has been expressive in stating that a lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Foremost, it was clearly established that the electronic tickets pre-marked as exhibits were altered. The representative of VIA Philippines attested to this fact. Atty. JA cannot hide on the simple excuse that he has no expertise to determine the authenticity of these documents especially that the introduction of such evidence can potentially mislead the trial court. It is of no moment that Mr. NE printed the tickets and handed them for premarking. The fact remains that Atty. JA did not observe greater care to prevent the court from being misled. (Bukidnon Cooperative Bank v. Arnado, A.C. No. 12734, [July 28, 2020])
Mr. OS was Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur. In 1999, before entering the Judiciary, Mr. OS and his wife obtained a loan from Ms. JS in the amount of PHP810,000.00. Mr. OS and his wife issued and delivered to Ms. JS seven checks for the repayment of the loan. However, the payee bank dishonored the checks upon presentment due to “account closed.” In 2005, Ms. JS filed criminal cases against Mr. OS for violations of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). When Mr. OS promised to pay his loan, Ms. JS moved for the provisional dismissal of the criminal cases, which was granted. Mr. OS executed a promissory note obligating himself to pay PHP1,000.00 every month starting on January 31, 2006 until the amount of PHP564,000.00 is fully paid. But Mr. OS failed to make good his promise; thus, Sorensen filed the instant administrative complaint for “Willful Failure to Pay Just Debt” against Mr. OS. Will the administrative complaint prosper?
The administrative complaint for willful failure to pay just debt against Mr. OS should be dismissed. Willful failure to pay just debt, particularly on claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor, under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, is no longer included in the administrative charges set forth in A.M. No. 21-08-09- SC, providing for, among others, the discipline of members, officials, and personnel of the Judiciary. Here, the factual circumstances of Mr. OS fall within the ambit of the application of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC. Since the alleged infraction of Mr. OS is no longer punishable, pursuant to A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, there is thus no basis for disciplinary action against Mr. OS. Accordingly, the complaint against him must perforce be dismissed. (Sorensen v. Santos, OCA IPI No. 13- 4069-P, [April 12, 2023])
Owing to the compulsory retirement of Judge RF, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit of Branch 7, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Davao City, from August 25, 2020 to September 7, 2020. The OCA discovered delays in the rendition of judgment, resolution of pending incidents and motions, appropriate actions in the implementation of writs of execution, release of orders requiring the submission of counteraffidavits in criminal cases, and submission of returns and periodic reports in the implementation of writs of execution. It also identified the MTCC Br. 7’s incorrect practices relating to case records management, reportorial requirements, implementation of the writs of execution, and incomplete details in the court-issued orders, such as the absence of the original signature of the presiding judge in some court documents and details of hearing dates in some of the pre-trial orders. Assume that cause has been found against Judge RF. What provision of the New Code of Judicial Conduct may have been violated by Judge RF?
Judge RF may have violated, among others, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC). Under Canon 6 of the NCJC, the judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Here, there have been delays in a number of court processes under the judicial function of Judge RF. It is to be emphasized that competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferraris, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 (Resolution), [December 6, 2022])
Sub-judice rule
A lawyer shall not use any forum or medium to comment or publicize opinion pertaining to a pending proceeding before any court, tribunal, or other government agency that may:
a. Cause a pre-judgment, or
b. Sway public perception so as to impede, obstruct, or influence the decision of such court, tribunal, or other government agency, or which tends to tarnish the court’s or tribunal’s integrity or
c. Impute improper motives against any of its members or
d. Create a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before a final decision
Prescriptive period for forcible entry
For forcible entry, the one (1)-year prescriptive period is generally reckoned from the date of actual entry on the land. However, if forcible entry is done through stealth, the period is counted from the time the plaintiff discovered the entry. In marked contrast, the one (1)-year
period in unlawful detainer is counted from the date of the last demand to vacate.
Is there identity of causes of action between a case of forcible entry or unlawful detainer and accion reinvindicatoria?
No. Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a “judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land.” Since there is no identity of causes of action, there can be no multiplicity of suits.
Define contempt
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of, its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due such a body.
It consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before it. It includes: (i) disrespect to the court, (ii) offensive behavior against others, (iii) refusal, despite being lawfully required, to be sworn in or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition.
Indirect contempt
It is committed through any of the acts enumerated under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, thus:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing
acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under
section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him
Can a person be held in direct contempt even without a hearing?
Yes. A person can be punished summarily without
a hearing.
But for indirect contempt, a person can only be punished after a written
petition is filed and an opportunity to be heard is given to the party charged.
Criminal contempt vs. Civil contempt
Crim: It is a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect
Civil: It is one’s failure to fulfill a court
order in a civil action that would
benefit the opposing party. It is,
therefore, an offense against the
party in whose behalf the violated
order was made.
Crim: The Government, the courts, and the people are interested in their
prosecution. The private parties’
interest in the criminal contempt
proceedings is tangential, if any.
Civil: The party in whose favor that
judgment was rendered is the real
party-in-interest in the proceedings.
Crim: It is punitive in nature.
Civil: It is remedial and civil in nature.
Crim: Intent is a necessary element only in criminal contempt cases. In such proceedings, the good faith, or lack thereof, of the person being cited in contempt should be considered.
Can contempt be the subject of compromise, mediation, conciliation?
No. Regardless of the nature of the proceedings, contempt is always treated separately even when the allegedly contumacious act is incidental to another action. It is not subject to compromise, mediation, or conciliation between the parties.
Bank of Commerce vs. Borromeo
Is the determination of heirship a pre-requisite to an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession?
No. The rule laid down in Ypon, Yaptinchay, Portugal, Reyes, Heirs of
Gabatan, and other similar cases, which requires a prior determination of heirship in a separate special proceeding as a prerequisite before one can file an ordinary civil action to enforce ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, is abandoned. Henceforth, the rule is: unless there is a pending special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s estate or for the determination of heirship, the compulsory or intestate heirs may commence an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or instrument, and for recovery of property, or any other action in the enforcement of their ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession, without the necessity of a prior and separate judicial declaration of their status as such. The ruling of the trial
court shall only be in relation to the cause of action of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the nullification of a deed or instrument, and recovery or reconveyance of property, which ruling is binding only between and among the parties.
Can wills of foreigners be probated in the Philippines?
Wills of foreigners executed in the Philippines may be probated if they have estate in the Philippines because probate of the properties can only be effected under Philippine law. The
will may be proved in the Regional Trial Court of any province in which they have an estate.
Probation
To probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal, vested by law with authority for that purpose, that the instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of the deceased person whose testamentary act it is as alleged to be; that it has been executed, attested, and published as required by law; and that the testator was of sound and disposing mind.
Y had X’s will probated in the RTC. Consequently, it was published in the Official Gazette to give notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees. Z, who as an heir and had lost contact with X and Y’s family, found out the probate in the middle of proceedings months later. Z contends he was not notified personally. Does Z’s contention have merit?
Yes. In an allowance or disallowance of a will, there are two (2) notification requirements both of which are mandatory and jurisdictional: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette, and (b) personal notice to the designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees.
However, individual notice upon heirs, legatees, and devisees is necessary only when they are known or when their places of residence are known. In other instances, such notice is not necessary and the court may acquire and exercise jurisdiction simply upon the publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation.
X contends that he wasn’t notified of the rescheduled date of hearing. Is X correct to complain of not being notified for subsequent scheduling?
No. The Court regards that it is sufficient that publication of the notice of hearing has been done prior to the commencement of the proceedings notifying all persons of the verified petition for the allowance of will and giving them an opportunity to defend their interests on a scheduled date of hearing. After which, it then becomes incumbent upon all persons concerned to appear
and actively protect their interests. That the hearing date indicated in the notice did not push through is beside the point as for all intents and purposes, all interested parties have already been notified of the existence of the probate proceedings by virtue of publication and any subsequent development is easily verifiable.
Under Sec. 4, Rule 76, how many days prior to hearing shall personal notice be served?
Under Sec. 4 of Rule 76, personal notice must either be (1) deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least 20 days before the hearing or (2) personally served at least 10 days before the day of hearing.
Actions which may be brought against executor or administrator
Rule 87, Section 1 of the Rules of Court enumerates actions that survive
against a decedent’s executors or administrators, and they are: (1) actions to recover real and personal property from the estate; (2) actions to enforce a lien thereon; and (3) actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property.
Can the privilege of writing of habeas corpus be suspended?
Under the Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
Writ of habeas corpus
The writ of habeas corpus or the “great writ of liberty” was devised as a “speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.” The primary purpose of the writ “is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.”
Presumption of regularity may invoked (unlike sa writ of amparo)
When can writ of habeas corpus be availed of as a post-conviction remedy?
(1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;
(2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
(3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as such excess.
Whatever situation the petitioner invokes from the exceptional circumstances listed above, the threshold remains high. Mere allegation of a violation of one’s constitutional right is not enough.
Jurisdiction of courts over petitions for habeas corpus
Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, gives the CA original jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The CA’s original jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions was re-stated in R.A. No. 7902. Similarly, B.P. Blg. 129 gives the RTCs original jurisdiction in the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Family courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and the CA in petitions for habeas corpus where the custody of minors is at issue, with the Family courts having exclusive jurisdiction to issue the ancillary writ of habeas corpus in a petition for custody of minors filed before it. In the absence of all RTC judges in a province or city, special jurisdiction is likewise conferred to any Metropolitan Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge or Municipal Circuit Trial Judge to hear and decide petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus.
Requisites for writ of habeas corpus in case of custody of minors
The grant of the writ depends on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondents; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondents.
Writ of amparo
The writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. The writ is designed to protect and guarantee the (1) right to life; (2) right to liberty; and (3) right to
security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.
Elements constituting enforced disappearances
a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;
c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and
d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Writ of habeas data
The writ of habeas data “is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”
Is change of name a matter of right?
No. A change of name is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion.
Grounds sufficient to warrant a change of name
The Court, in Republic vs. Hernandez, recognized the following grounds as sufficient to warrant a change of name: “(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.”
Rule 103 vs. Rule 108 vs. RA10172
Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her documents with the civil register. It also governs the correction of substantial errors in the entry of the information enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule and those affecting the civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person.
A change of one’s name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name.
However, Republic Act No. 9048 amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, effectively removing clerical errors and changes of the name outside the ambit of Rule 108 and putting them under the jurisdiction of the civil register. In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was amended by Republic Act No. 10172. In addition to the change of the first name, the day and month of birth, and the sex of a person may now be changed without judicial proceedings. Republic Act No. 10172 clarifies that these changes may now be administratively corrected where it is patently clear that there is a clerical or typographical mistake in the entry. It may be changed by filing a subscribed and sworn affidavit with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.
Can a person file a petition for change/correction of entry under Rule 103/108 without filing it administratively first?
Yes. Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.” Verily, even with the advent of RA 9048, as amended by RA 10172 prescribing the administrative remedy for correction of entries with the civil registry, the regional trial courts are not divested of their jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for correction of entries.
Writ of kalikasan
A suit for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan is a special civil action. The writ of kalikasan is extraordinary in nature and is issued not only when there is actual violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. Threat of violation through an unlawful act is enough,
whether the threat be committed by a natural or juridical person, or a public or private person or entity.
A writ of kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy that ‘covers environmental damages the magnitude of which transcends both political and territorial boundaries.’ The damage must be caused by an unlawful act or omission of a public official, public employee, or private individual or entity. It must affect the inhabitants of at least two (2) cities or provinces. This Court explained that ‘the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage.’
Oposa v. Factoran
A petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan may be brought “on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated,” an exception to the rule that the party bringing suit must be the real party in interest, or one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. Since this Court’s promulgation of Oposa vs.
Factoran, it has allowed representative suits brought on behalf of “minors and generations yet unborn” in environmental cases. Given that no specific quantum of evidence is required in writ of kalikasan cases, and that representative suits are generally allowed in environmental advocacy, petitions for issuance of a writ of kalikasan must be examined on a case-to-case basis.
Requisites for a Writ of Kalikasan to issue
1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology;
2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and
3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two (2) or more cities or provinces.
Writ of Continuing Mandamus
The Rules define a writ of continuing mandamus as a court issuance in an environmental case which directs any governmental agency or instrumentality or officer to “perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.”
Precautionary principle
Under the precautionary principle, when in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
The conditions for the application of the precautionary principle are (1) uncertainty, (2) threat of environmental damage, and (3) serious or irreversible harm.
Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides for the applicability and standards for application of the precautionary principle as a rule of evidence. Reading Rule 20 and its interpretation in Mosqueda, it appears that our jurisdiction adopts the weak version of the precautionary principle, as opposed to its strong version. In his article, The Paralyzing Principle, Professor Cass Sunstein (Prof. Sunstein) defined the weak version of the precautionary principle to mean “that a lack of decisive evidence of harm should not be a ground for refusing to regulate.” On the other hand, the strong version of the precautionary principle requires
governmental regulation “whenever there is a possible risk to health, safety, or the environment, even if the supporting evidence is speculative and even if the economic costs of regulation are high.”
X, a 16-year-old boy was charged with homicide. The Information failed to allege that he had acted with discernment, but the same was proven during trial. On appeal, X contends the prosecution’s failure to allege his discernment in the Information. Is X correct?
No. While it is true that the circumstance of acting with discernment must be specifically alleged in the Information, the child in conflict with the law (CICL)/accused may waive the right to question the defects or insufficiency of said Information. Hence, he may still be convicted of homicide if discernment was established during trial.
Will the lack of signature of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information divest the court of jurisdiction?
No. all previous doctrines laid down by this Court, holding that the lack of signature and approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall divest the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal action, are hereby abandoned. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint, as the case may be, that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 5180 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Gomez vs. People of the Philippines
Amendments after arraignment/plea in criminal cases
After arraignment, there can be no substantial amendment except if it is beneficial to the accused.
Substantial amendments to the information after plea are prohibited because they will violate the accused’s constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of his/her accusation and against double jeopardy.
Effect of death of the accused on criminal and civil liability
The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict.
However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be.
Guidelines in the prosecution of criminal actions for violation of tax laws
I. When a criminal action for violation of the tax laws is filed, a prior assessment is not required. Neither a final assessment is a precondition to collection of delinquent taxes in the criminal tax case. The criminal action is deemed a collection case. Therefore, the government must prove two things: one, the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and two, the accused’s civil liability for taxes by competent evidence (other than an assessment).
II. If before the institution of the criminal action, the government filed (1) a civil suit for collection, or (2) an answer to the taxpayer’s petition for review before the CTA, the civil action or the resolution of the taxpayer’s petition for review shall be suspended before judgment on the merits until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. However, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, it may be consolidated with the criminal action. In such a case, the judgment in the criminal action shall include a finding of the accused’s civil liability for unpaid taxes relative to the criminal case.
Once the court acquires jurisdiction to decide what to do with the case, within how many days is it required to arraign?
Upon the lapse of the 60-day period, the court is bound to arraign the accused or deny the Motion to Defer Arraignment whether or not the petition before the DOJ has been resolved. The reason behind this course of action is easy to discern. As explained in Crespo vs. Judge Mogul (Crespo), when an Information has been filed in court, the prosecutor would be stripped of the power to dismiss the case, motu proprio. Instead, the court acquires the exclusive jurisdiction to decide what to do with the case even if it is against the position of the public prosecutor or even the Secretary of Justice.
Suspension of the arraignment under Rule 116, Sec. 11(c) cannot exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office even if the petition before the office has yet to be resolved. Upon the lapse of the 60-day period, the court is bound to arraign the accused.
Requisites of an in flagrante delicto arrest
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. In an arrest made in flagrante delicto, it is required that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught. Probable cause refers to “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent [person] to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.”
Twin requisites of a hot pursuit arrest
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. Verily, under Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.
Requirements of a valid search warrant
The requirements of a valid search warrant are laid down in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and in Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules Court, viz.: “(1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.” The absence of any of these requisites will cause the downright nullification of the search warrant.
One-specific-offense rule
The Court issued the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sec. 4, Rule 126 of which provides the requisites for a search warrant. The one-specific-offense rule, mentioned in the foregoing, is intended to prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant or a warrant issued for more than one offense. The one-specific-offense requirement reinforces the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of probable cause. Contrary to the suggestion of the OSG that the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed from the valid portions, the Court cannot simply decide to uphold the enforcement of search warrant in relation to one of the crimes stated therein. The evil sought to be avoided cannot be delineated since the totality of the search warrant could have led the law enforcement authorities to implement the same in a wholesale fashion considering all the offenses mentioned therein, and seize any and all evidence seized related to all of the crimes mentioned in the search warrant.
However, the Court sustains the validity of Search Warrants and the admissibility of the items seized which were particularly described in the warrant.
Requisites of plain view doctrine
The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
Is a warrantless search based on only 1 suspicious circumstance valid?
No. To sustain the validity of a stop and frisk search, the arresting officer should have personally observed two (2) or more suspicious circumstances, the totality of which would then create a reasonable inference of criminal activity to compel the arresting officer to investigate further.
For a valid stop and frisk search, the arresting officer must have had personal knowledge of facts, which would engender a reasonable degree of suspicion of an illicit act.
Chief Justice Bersamin cautioned against warrantless searches based on just 1 suspicious circumstance.
Kinds of cybercrime warrants
Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD)
Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD)
Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD)
Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD)
Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD)
An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to issue an order to disclose and accordingly, require any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control.
Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD)
An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to carry out any or all of the following activities: (a) listening to, (b) recording, (c) monitoring, or (d) surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of computer data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.
Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD)
An order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon application of law enforcement authorities, authorizing the latter to search the particular place for items to be seized and/or examined.
Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD)
Upon acquiring possession of a computer device or computer system via a lawful warrantless arrest, or by any other lawful method, law enforcement authorities shall first apply for a warrant before searching the said computer device or computer system for the purpose of obtaining for forensic examination the computer data contained therein.
Lifetime of cybercrime warrants
Cybercrime warrants are valid for up to ten (10) days, which may be extended for justifiable reasons by the issuing court for up to an additional ten (10) days.
Requisites for double jeopardy
(1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as in the first.”
With regard the first requisite, the first jeopardy only attaches: “(a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.” The test for the third requisite is “whether one offense is identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether the second
offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.” Also known as “res judicata in prison grey,” the mandate against double jeopardy forbids the “prosecution of a person for a crime of which he [or she] has been previously acquitted or convicted.”
Exceptions for double jeopardy/finality-of-acquittal rule
The finality-of-acquittal rule has one (1) exception, it is inapplicable where the Court which rendered the acquittal did so with grave abuse of discretion that is strictly limited whenever there is a violation of the prosecution’s right to due process.
Exceptions to prohibition on a motion for postponement in the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(1) acts of God, (2) force majeure, or (3) physical inability of the witness to appear and testify
Is a motion for new trial still available when the case is already pending appeal before the Supreme Court?
No. A motion for new trial is no longer available when the case is already pending appeal before the Supreme Court.
Under Section 14 of Rule 124, a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be filed at any time after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the judgment of the CA convicting the appellant becomes final. Further, Rule 45, Section 1 clearly provides that a motion for new trial is not among the remedies which may be entertained together with a petition for appeal on certiorari.
In criminal cases, can the appellate court correct unassigned errors from the lower court’s judgment?
Yes. An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or unassigned.
Can the accused who did not appeal his conviction benefit from the successful appeal by another accused?
Yes. The accused who did not appeal his conviction of violation of R.A. No. 9165 will benefit from the successful appeal by another accused, where the reviewing court finds serious defects in the chain of custody of the items seized and the evidence against the former and accused-appellant are inexplicably linked.
It is well-established that “an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties.” Sec. 11, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a judgment shall not affect a non-appealing accused unless it is applicable and favorable to him: “Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.”
Can you appeal an order denying motion to quash?
An order denying a Motion to Quash is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable. In general, the same cannot even be the proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari in view of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law. However, when special or exceptional reasons obtain, immediate resort to filing of a petition for certiorari may be allowed.
The proper remedy from an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial and raise the issue as an assignment of error in the appeal of the final judgment.
In cases where the prescribed penalty is death, but where reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment was imposed by reason of R.A. No. 9346, appeal shall be made by…
By filing a notice of appeal either before the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals, as the case may be, pursuant to Sec. 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
In cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed not by reason of R.A. No. 9346, appeal shall be made by…
By filing a notice of appeal either before the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals, as the case may be, pursuant to Sec. 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
When the case records of a criminal case imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, whether due to R.A. No. 9346 or not, are elevated motu proprio for automatic review, the following rules shall apply:
a) If the order to elevate the records for automatic review was issued beyond fifteen (15) days after the promulgation of the judgment or notice of final order and the accused did not file a notice of appeal within the same period, the automatic review shall not be given due course. The Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall issue an order of finality of judgment.
b) If the order to elevate the records for automatic review was issued within fifteen (15) days after the promulgation of the judgment or notice of final order, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall issue an order requiring the accused within ten (10) days from receipt thereof to manifest whether they are adopting the order to elevate the records as their notice of appeal. If the accused shall refuse to adopt or fail to timely manifest despite due notice, they shall be deemed to have waived their right to appeal, and the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court shall issue an order of finality of judgment.
X was convicted of murder with treachery. On appeal, he contended that the Information did not state the ultimate facts relative to treachery. Thus, the same shall not be appreciated against him. Is he correct?
No. The Information may be subject to a motion to quash under Section 3 (e) (i.e., that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by said Rules. But failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the Information, and consequently, the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.
Quantum of proof in civil cases
As a general rule, the quantum of proof in civil cases is preponderance of evidence, which means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.
Quantum of proof in civil cases where the success of of the action rests on refuting a presumption
In civil cases where the success of the action rests on refuting a presumption, such as nullity of marriage cases, the quantum of proof required is clear and convincing evidence. This is a quantum of proof that requires more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Is confession made out of court of proceedings sufficient for conviction?
No. A confession made outside of court proceedings is not sufficient for conviction unless accompanied by evidence of the corpus delicti.
Corpus delicti
Corpus delicti is the body, foundation or substance of a crime, and which refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical body of the deceased.
Jurisprudence explains that in order to prove corpus delicti, “it is sufficient for the prosecution to be able to show that (1) a certain fact has been proven—say, a person has died or a building has been burned; and (2) a particular person is criminally responsible for the act.
When is circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Quantum of proof in administrative cases
Substantial evidence, the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, has been defined as such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
Hierarchy of evidentiary values
In the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is placed at the highest level, followed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of evidence, and substantial evidence, in that order.
Quantum of proof in illegal dismissal cases
The quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases is substantial evidence.
Evidence, to be admissible, must be…
(a) relevant and (b) competent
Evidence is relevant if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce a belief in its existence or nonexistence.
On the other hand, evidence is competent if it is not excluded by the law or by the Rules of Court.
Requisites for judicial notice
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.
Do admissions require proof?
No. It is well settled that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
If the testimonial evidence is inconsistent with the object evidence, which one shall prevail?
It is well-settled that object evidence, when offered in accordance with the requisites for its admissibility, becomes evidence of the highest order. Thus, when the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the object evidence should prevail.
Original Document Rule
When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in cases provided under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence
such as “when the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror.”
Before a party is allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original, the offeror must prove the following:
(1) the existence or due execution of the original;
(2) the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its nonproduction in court; and
(3) on the part of the offeror, the absence of bad faith to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, a witness may be disqualified to testify due to:
(a) want of personal knowledge, (b) spousal immunity, (c) privileged communication, (d) parental and filial privilege, and (e) privileged trade secrets.
Effects of death on spousal and filial privileges
None. Spousal and filial privileges continue to exist even after the death of one spouse.
Res inter alios acta rule
A person’s own acts are binding upon him/herself, but s/he is not bound by the acts of unauthorized strangers.
Exceptions to res inter alios acta rule
Under the res inter alios acta rule, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Among the exceptions to the rule are:
(1) admission by co-partners or agent
(2) admission by conspirator;
(3) admission by privies; and
(4) admission by silence.
Admissibility of character evidence
a) In criminal cases, the prosecution may not at the outset prove the bad moral character of the accused which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. If the accused, however, in his defense attempts to prove his good moral character then the prosecution can introduce evidence of such bad moral character at the rebuttal stage.
b) Also in criminal cases, the good or bad moral character of the offended party may always be proved by either party as long as such evidence tends to establish the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
c) In civil cases, the moral character of either party thereto cannot be proved unless it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
d) In both civil and criminal cases, the bad moral character of a witness may always be proved by either party, but not evidence of his good character, unless it has been impeached.
A private document (whether original or secondary) cannot be admitted into evidence unless its due execution and authenticity is proven by:
(a) anyone who saw the document executed or written;
(b) evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting of the maker; or
(c) other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity.
Effect of failure to observe the requirements in issuing a a) warrant of arrest b) search warrant
a. Warrant of arrest: Shall not render the arrest unlawful or render the evidence obtained inadmissible.
b. Search warrant: Failure to observe the requirement, without reasonable grounds, during the execution of the search warrant shall render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search warrant was applied.
Circumstances when body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices may be turned off
1) Communications between law enforcement personnel unrelated to the conduct of the search or the arrest;
2) Encounters with undercover officers or confidential informants;
3) When law enforcement officers are on break or otherwise engaged in personal or non-work-related activities;
4) Inside restrooms, locker rooms, or other places where there is a similar expectation of privacy, and there is no legal reason to be present unless the premises are covered by the search warrant;
5) In locations where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as in residences, unless the recording is being made pursuant to a valid arrest or search warrant of the individuals or locations;
6) Strip or body cavity searches when such is necessary as provided in the warrant;
7) Conduct of tactical planning before conducting the search or the arrest;
8) Privileged communications between the subject of recordings and other individuals, such as attorneys, members of the clergy, peer support counselors, and medical professionals;
and
9) Such other circumstances as may be provided by the trial court issuing the warrant which is part of constitutional privilege and where the dignity of an individual may outweigh the public necessity for recording. (Rule 4, Sec. 10, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC)
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be
a) a citizen of the Philippines
b) at least twenty-one years of age
c) of good moral character, and
d) resident of the Philippines; and
e) must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. Section 2, Rule 138
The Revised Lawyer’s Oath
I, ________________, do solemnly swear that I accept the honor, privilege, duty, and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our people.
I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of Philippines. In doing so, I shall work towards promoting the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.
I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion.
So help me, God.
Can the CPRA apply retroactively?
Yes. The CPRA expressly provides that it shall have a retroactive application, that is, it shall be applied to all pending cases.
CPRA Canons
I - Independence
II - Propriety
III - Fidelity
IV - Competence and Diligence
V - Equality
VI - Accountability
Canon I - Independence (Legal Ethics)
The independence of a lawyer in the discharge of professional duties without any improper influence, restriction, pressure, or interference, direct or indirect, ensures effective legal representation and is ultimately imperative for the rule of law.
Merit-based Practice
A lawyer shall rely solely on the merits of a cause and not exert, or give the appearance of, any influence on, nor undermine the authority of, the court, tribunal or other government agency, or its proceedings. Section 1, Canon I, CPRA
Canon II - Propriety (Legal Ethics)
A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior.
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Section 1, Canon II, CPRA
Proper Conduct; Dignified Conduct
Use of Dignified, Gender-Fair, and Child- and Culturally-Sensitive Language
Duty to correct false or inaccurate statements and information made in relation to an application for admission to the bar
A lawyer is not allowed to divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.
Duty to report dishonest, deceitful, or misleading conduct
Duty to disclose relationship or connection
Duty not to mislead the court, tribunal or other government agency on the existence or content of any document, argument, evidence, law, or other legal authority, or pass off as one’s own the ideas or words of another
Duty not to solicit or advertise one’s legal service
Sub-judice rule
Duty not to give gifts and donations to any court, tribunal or other government agency
Duty not to institute multiple cases
Duty not to encroach or interfere in another lawyer’s engagement
Canon III - Fidelity (Legal Ethics)
Fidelity pertains to a lawyer’s duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, to assist in the administration of justice as an officer of the court, and to advance or defend a client’s cause, with full devotion, genuine interest, and zeal in the pursuit of truth and justice.
Prohibition Against Conflict-of-Interest Representation
Prohibition Against Dating, Romantic, or Sexual Relations with a Client
Prohibition Against Conflict-of-Interest Representation
Accounting and Turn-over of Funds and Properties upon Termination of Engagement
Practice of Law
The practice of law is the rendition of legal service or performance of acts or the application of law, legal principles, and judgment, in or out of court, with regard to the circumstances or objectives of a person or a cause, and pursuant to a lawyer-client relationship or other engagement governed by the CPRA. It includes employment in the public service or private sector and requires membership in the Philippine bar as qualification. Section 1, Canon III, CPRA
Lawyer-client relationship
A lawyer-client relationship is of the highest fiduciary character. As a trust relation, it is essential that the engagement is founded on the confidence reposed by the client on the lawyer.
Therefore, a lawyer-client relationship shall arise when the client consciously, voluntarily and in good faith vests a lawyer with the client’s confidence for the purpose of rendering legal services such as providing legal advice or representation, and the lawyer, whether expressly or impliedly, agrees to render such services. Section 3, Canon III, CPRA
Canon IV - Competence (Legal Ethics)
A lawyer professionally handling a client’s cause shall, to the best of his or her ability, observe competence, diligence, commitment, and skill consistent with the fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship, regardless of the nature of the legal matter or issues involved, and whether for fee or pro bono.
Duty to provide competent, efficient, and conscientious legal service
Duty to diligently and seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by the client
Duty to engage in lifelong learning
Canon V - Equality (Legal Ethics)
Every lawyer shall adhere to the principle of equality and hold firmly the belief that every person, regardless of nationality or ethnicity, color, sexual orientation or gender identity, religion, disability, age, marital status, social or economic status, and other like circumstances, has the fundamental right to equal treatment and representation.
As such, the lawyer shall accord equal respect, attention, dedication and zeal in advancing the client’s cause, regardless of personal opinion, religious or political beliefs pertaining on the personal circumstances of the client, except for justifiable reasons.
How are disbarment proceedings instituted
Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of lawyers may be commenced by the Supreme Court on its own initiative, or upon the filing of a verified complaint by the Board of Governors of the IBP, or by any person, before the Supreme Court or the IBP. However, a verified complaint against a government lawyer which seeks to discipline such lawyer as a member of the Bar shall only be filed in the Supreme Court.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers shall be confidential in character and summary in nature. Nonetheless, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
NCJC Canons
Canon I - Independence
Canon II - Integrity
Canon III - Impartiality
Canon IV - Propriety
Canon V - Equality
Canon VI - Competence and Diligence
Canon I - Independence (NCJC)
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional aspects.
Canon II - Integrity (NCJC)
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Canon III - Impartiality
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision to made.
Instances when judges may be disqualified or inhibited from proceedings
Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where:
a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy;
c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy;
d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;
e) The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or
g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. Section 6, Canon III, NCJC
To what sense or extent may procedural laws be applied retrospectively?
May operate retroactively as to pending proceedings even without expression to that effect.
When shall objections to jurisdiction over a) subject matter b) person be raised?
Unlike objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter which may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, objections to jurisdiction over the person of the defendant must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; otherwise, the objection to the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is deemed waived. (Villagracia vs. 5th Shari’a District Court, 2014)
What is the remedy of a defendant who has been declared in default?
Motion to set aside order of default upon proper showing that the failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence and that he has a meritorious defense. (Rule 9, Sec. 3(b))
What are the remedies against a judgment by default?
Motion for new trial and petition for relief from judgment. These 2 are mutually exclusive, not alternative or cumulative; appeal from the judgment under Sec. 1, Rule 41; special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65; annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
What are the effects in case there is deliberate forum shopping on the part of the party or his counsel?
Summary dismissal with prejudice, and the act shall constitute direct contempt and a cause for administrative sanctions.
May a party who filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the judgment of the RTC, file a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, after he filed a Motion to Withdraw his Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC?
No. A motion is not presumed to have already been acted upon by its mere filing. Prudence dictates that a party await the court’s action on his Motion to Withdraw, before considering his Motion for Reconsideration as withdrawn.
Motion to withdraw will not constitute forum shopping if it was withdrawn at the initiatory stage where the defendant has not yet filed an Answer.
May the party be held liable for forum shopping if he files a Petition for Review before the court of Appeals after filing a Manifestation before the RTC, stating that he considered his Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC as abandoned?
No. Upon a party’s filing of said manifestation, his motion for reconsideration with the RTC is deemed abandoned.
It is an established principle that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by the party.
What are the remedies of the party who wants to set aside the Court’s judgment based on compromise agreement?
Provided these are availed on time and appropriate grounds exists, his remedies may include the following: a) motion for reconsideration; b) motion for new trial; c) appeal; d) petition for relief from judgment; and f) petition for annulment of judgment (Gadrinab vs. Salamanca)
May an order denying a motion to dismiss be the subject of an appeal?
No. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory in character. Hence, it may not be the subject of an appeal.
Which court has jurisdiction over petitions under Rule 45?
SC HAS JURISDICTION OVER RULE 45, NOT CA.
What would happen in case an appeal is taken from the RTC to CA raising only PQL?
The appeal shall not be transferred to the appropriate court. Instead, it shall be dismissed outright.
Questions of fact may be raised in Rule 45 if:
a) There is grave abuse of discretion
b) The findings are grounded on speculations
c) The inference made is manifestly mistaken
d) The judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts
e) The factual findings are conflicting
f) The CA went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties
g) The CA overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion
h) The findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court
i) The facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent
j) The findings of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
What are the 2 grounds by which annulment of judgment may be availed of?
Extrinsic fraud, which must be brought 4 years from discovery, and lack of jurisdiction, which must be brought before it is barred by estoppel or laches.
May a trial court issue a TRO even without prior hearing?
A trial court may issue a TRO even without prior hearing for a limited period of 72 hours if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. In this instance, a summary hearing, separate from the application of the preliminary injunction, is required only to determine if a 72-hour TRO should be extended.
When may a trial court issue ex parte a TRO for 20 days?
A trial court may issue ex parte a TRO for 20 days if it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice.
This is an exception to Rule 58, Sec. 5 - no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined (so hindi pwede ex parte)
Judge CANNOT issue a writ of injunction after the 20-day effectivity of TRO. It shall be done within 20days, with a non-extendible period.
Replevin
It is an action for recovery of personal property. It is both a principal remedy and a provisional relief.
Is personal notice required in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings?
GR: personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings is not necessary, and posting and publication will suffice. Sec. 3 of Act 3135 governing extrajudicial foreclosure of REMs as amended by Act 4118, requires only posting of the notice of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of general circulation.
XPN: If stipulated in their contract - failure to comply will render foreclosure proceedings null and void
Basis for just compensation in expropriation proceedings
Zonal value of the property by the BIR at the time of the filing of the Complaint or at the time of the actual taking of the property, whichever is earlier.
May the RTC issue a TRO or injunction to prevent the DPWH from expropriating a property, which shall be used for the expansion of the Expressway?
No. All courts, excluding the SC, are prohibited from issuing a TRO, preliminary injunction, or mandatory preliminary injunction to enjoin the government from acquiring the site of any national government project.
May the mortgagors redeem their property from the bank despite the lapse of more than 1 year from the time when the property was foreclosed and sold at public auction, by filing a Complaint for Judicial Declaration to Redeem, on the ground that the Certificate of Sale was not registered by the Bank in the TCT of the Property on file with the Register of Deeds?
Yes. Certificate of sale issued by sheriff after extrajudicial sale is a mandatory requirement. - period of redemption does not begin to run.
Right of redemption of juridical persons
Juridical persons are allowed to exercise the right of redemption only until but not after, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale and in no case more than 3 months after foreclosure, whichever comes first.
What is the remedy against the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases?
Should be appealed to the CA under Rule 43.
When may a party avail of Rule 65 without filing any MR?
a) Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction
b) Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court
c) Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable
d) Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless
e) Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extremely urgency for relief
f) Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable
g) Where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process
h) Where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object
i) Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved
Are findings of the Secretary of Justice subject to review?
Findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review, unless made with grave abuse of discretion - Rule 65
Remedy in error of jurisdiction/judgment
Errors of jurisdiction - certiorari
Errors of judgment - by appeal
May the lessee ask for the dismissal of the ejectment complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for failure of the lessor to send him a demand letter to vacate the property, if the action is premised on the expiration of contract of lease?
No. The requirement under Rule 70, Sec. 2 of a prior demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate would be unnecessary. The jurisdictional demand is not necessary if the action is premised on the termination of lease due to expiration of the terms of contract.
May the Secretary of Justice motu proprio reverse or modify resolutions of the provincial or city prosecutor or the chief state prosecutor, even without a pending petition for review? Why?
Yes. The SOJ exercises control and supervision over prosecutors and it is within his authority to affirm, nullify, reverse or modify the resolutions of his prosecutors. Rule 112, Sec. 4
What are the requisites for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible?
1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) it must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferably of the confessant’s choice; 3) it must be express; and 4) it must be in writing.
What are the instances when the offended party may still claim civil liability ex delicto even when the Accused is acquitted in the criminal case?
Jurisprudence has enumerated 3 instances: (a) if the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) if the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil; (c) if the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which accused is acquitted.
Landmark case on civil aspect of criminal cases
Mamerto v. AAA and BBB
When should a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest be raised?
Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an accused is “estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest.”
Why is lack of express consent of the Accused for the dismissal of his case required, before double jeopardy could set in?
Lack of express consent is required because the accused’s consent to dismiss the case means that he actively prevented the court from proceeding to trial based on the merits; and in rendering judgment or conviction or acquittal. In other words, there would be a waiver of the right against double jeopardy if consent was given by the accused.
Equipoise Rule
when the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt as to which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue
X, Y and Z were having a drinking session at X’s house in the kitchen area. All of a sudden, X stood up and said, “Pare, I was hit. May tama ako.” As Z was about to hug X, Z heard a cracking sound from behind him, causing him to run awhile. X’s wife was breastfeeding when she heard the gunshot coming from the kitchen.
The wife went to the kitchen and saw X bloodied on the floor. X asked the wife, “You see if A is still there?” The wife and her child hid in a room until help arrived to bring X to the hospital. The wife told the police that it was A who shot X due to X’s last statement. Is the wife’s testimony on X’s last statement admissible and credible as direct evidence that A committed the crime?
X’s utterance cannot be treated as direct evidence to positively and categorically implicate A of the crime charged.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Preponderance of evidence
Preponderance of evidence refers to evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means probability of truth.
Substantial evidence
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.
Curative Admissibility
when an inadmissible fact has been offered by a party and received without objection, and the opposing party, for the purpose of negating/examining/contradicting it, offers a fact similarly inadmissible, such fact is admissible if it serves to remove an unfair effect upon the court which might otherwise ensue from the original fact.
Ex: A brings an action for sum of money against B. A presents evidence that B is a scammer, having scammed C – should not have been admitted, but if admitted, B must be allowed to present evidence that he did not scam C
Fruit of a poisonous tree
Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule stating that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the fruit of a poisonous tree. Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding (Gonzales v. People)
Are all items seized under warrantless searches inadmissible?
NO. The constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. There may be valid warrantless searches and seizures.
a) Custom searches
b) Searches of moving vehicles - vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity
c) Seizure of evidence in plain view
d) Consented searches
e) “Stop and frisk” measures - Terry Search
f) Searches incidental to a lawful arrest
g) Exigent and emergency circumstances
The lawful occupant was in the premises of the house to be searched for drugs, pursuant to a search warrant. In implementing the search warrant, the police directed the lawful occupant and his relatives to stay instead in the living room while they conducted the search and confiscation of drugs in the other areas of the house in the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Is this valid? What is its effect?
NO. Section 8, Rule 126 is a mandatory rule and preventing the lawful occupant or a member of his family from actually witnessing the searching and choosing instead 2 other witnesses to observe the search taints the search with the vice of unreasonableness, rendering the seized articles inadmissible due to the application of the exclusionary rule or for being the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Since the drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the accused must be acquitted.
A went to the police station to report B regarding a mauling incident. A also reported that B was illegally planting marijuana. The police and A proceeded to B’s home and arrested B as he was walking the trail leading towards his house, after A identified B. After the arrest, the police found marijuana plants planted beneath the gabi plants outside B’s home and a meter away from where he was arrested.
The police called the barangay captain and a representative of the farmer’s association to witness the uprooting of the marijuana plants, which were taken to the police station for marking and inventory, in the presence of said witnesses. The plants were tested positive for marijuana. Are the plants admissible in evidence?
NO. The plants were illegally seized without a warrant and are inadmissible in evidence against B for being fruits of the poisonous tree. When the police officers proceeded to B’s home, they were already alerted to the fact that the could possibly be marijuana plants in the area. The discovery of the plants was not inadvertent and the seizure thereof cannot fall under the plain view doctrine.
X was arrested without a warrant. The police then conducted an initial cursory body search on X, and nothing was found in his person. After X was brought to the police station, the police conducted another thorough search on the person of X which yielded 5 sachets of shabu. Is the shabu admissible in evidence?
NO. The shabu was obtained on the second search, after a substantial amount of time had elapsed from the time of the arrest, and at a place other than the venue of the place of actual arrest. The lawful search as an incident of a lawful arrest was done during the first search where no shabu was found. The subsequent search was unlawful and unreasonable. The shabu is inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule.
Generally, there are 4 links in the Chain of Custody Rule:
- The seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the apprehending officer;
- The turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
- The turnover by the investigation officer of said item to the forensic chemist for examination; and
- The turnover and submission thereof from forensic chemist to the court.
Does the breach in chain of custody rule render the evidence seized inadmissible?
No. If the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to the inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution’s case but rather to the weight of evidence presented for each particular case.
In a buy-bust operation, should the required witnesses be present at the time of the apprehension?
Yes, they must be physically present at the time of apprehension. It is a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. A buy-bust team has enough time to gather and bring with them the said witnesses.
GR: All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investment in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as for an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office.
What are the exceptions?
- Upon written permission of the depositor
- In cases of impeachment
- Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation
- AMLC pursuant to court order when there is probable cause deposits are related to anti-money laundering, prosecution of plunder (unexplained wealth) and anti-graft and corrupt practices act
What will happen if the judicial affidavit submitted does not conform with the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement under Section 4?
The court shall not admit as evidence judicial affidavits that do not conform to the content requirements of Section 3 and the attestation requirement of Section 4 above (Sec. 10 C)
The court may, however, allow only once the subsequent submission of the compliant replacement affidavits before the hearing or trial provided the delay is for a valid reason and would not unduly prejudice the opposing party for their preparation and submission pays a fine of not less than P1,000,000 nor more than P5,000,000 at the discretion of the court.
Is presence of counsel required in extrajudicial confession?
Yes. Any extrajudicial confession made under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel. But in the counsel’s absence, upon a valid waiver in the presence of:
Any of the parents, elder brother and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him
Otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding
X, a minor, had a relationship with Y, a 24-year-old. X’s mother learned of the relationship as X would borrow her mother’s cellphone to access her Facebook account, and x x x
Y was charged with Child Abuse. Y, on appeal, objected to the admissibility of the conversation which allegedly violated his right to privacy of communications under the Bill of Rights. Is Y correct?
No. SC rules that Bill of Rights was intended to protect private individuals against government intrusions. Hence, its provisions are not applicable between and amongst private individuals. SC clarified that while the case of Zulueta may appear to carve out an exception to the abovementioned rule by recognizing the rule on admissibility of evidence between spouses when one obtains evidence in violation of his/her spouse’s right to privacy, such a pronouncement is a mere obiter dictum that cannot be considered as a binding precedent.
Violations of the right to privacy between individuals is properly governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and Data Privacy Act and other pertinent laws, while its admissibility shall be governed by the rules on relevance, materiality, authentication of documents, and the exclusionary rules.
No violation of privacy when the reasonableness of a person’s expectation privacy depends on a two-part test:
- Whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and
- This expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable
RA4200 - Anti-Wire Tapping Act
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.
XPNS:
1. Shouting
2. Landline with extension
May a void deed of sale be admissible as evidence to prove the amount of the purchase price stated therein that should be returned to the buyer?
Yes. There is no provision in the Rules of Evidence which excludes the admissibility of a void document.
Doctrine of processual presumption
where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that the foreign law is the same as ours
If the accused pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information, will judgment be immediately rendered?
Yes. If the accused pleads guilty to the crime charged in the information, judgment shall be immediately rendered, except in those cases involving capital punishment. Court also has discretion to still require presentation of evidence for any qualifying circumstances.
Who may be witnesses?
all persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses
The phrase “conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law” takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which states that persons “convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony are disqualified from being witnesses to a will.”
If not provided by law, conviction of a crime will not disqualify one to be a witness, however, the conviction may be cause to impeach a witness. Impeachment - discredit
Crime punishable by penalty in excess of 1 year
Crime involving moral turpitude
Every child is presumed competent and qualified to be a witness. A witness’ young age will not deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness. To be a competent child witness, the following criteria must be met:
Capacity of observation
Capacity of recollection
Capacity of communication
If the testimony will be in favor of the spouse, is it also disqualified?
No. Testimony in favor of spouse is not a disqualification.
H and W are married but have been separated in fact. W had been living with her sister when H burned down W’s sister’s house, knowing that W was inside. S filed a case against H for the arson of the house. H sought to have W disqualified from testifying on the ground of marital disqualification rule. May W testify against H?
YES. When an offense directly attacks, or directly and vitally impairs, the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed by one against the other.
The marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason for the marital disqualification rule based upon such harmony and tranquility fails.
H, X and Y were charged for committing a crime in conspiracy with each other. H’s wife, W, was called to testify against X and Y. Prosecution then sought to adopt the testimony against X and Y as part of the evidence against H, or alternatively, moved that the court take judicial notice of W’s testimony against Y and X in the trial against H. May W testify against X and Y, and consequently apply the same to H?
No. H timely objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule. The testimony cannot be used against H directly or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the murder case without violating the marital disqualification rule. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. But, W could testify against X and Y.
List under the rules on disqualification is not exclusive. Give other examples.
- Editors may not be compelled to disclose the source of published news
- Voters may not be compelled to disclose for whom they voted
- Trade secrets
- Information contained in tax census returns
- Bank deposits (pursuant to the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act)
- Executive privilege, presidential privilege communication, national security matters and intelligence information
G left an unregistered parcel of land to her children A, B, C who are entitled to ⅓ portion each. A filed a petition to register her portion. In her petition, she alleged she is registering the ⅓ portion, that she is entitled to, acquiring it from G by succession and B and C are the owners of the other ⅔. A, for some reason, withdrew the petition. After A’s death, her daughter, D, sought to register the whole lot in her name as successor of A. B and C opposed and used in evidence A’s petition admitting she is entitled to only ⅓. Is A’s admission binding upon D?
Yes.
Dying declaration requisites?
a. The statement concerns the crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death
b. At the time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death
c. The declarant would have been competent as a witness had he survived
d. Dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of the inquiry involves the declarant’s death
In the early morning of December 8, 1995, accused-appellant hired Jimbo Pelagio, a tricycle driver working the night shift, to take him to Paco, Obando, Bulacan. When they reached their destination, he ordered Pelagio to get off the tricycle. Accused robbed Pelagio of his money and repeatedly struck him on the head with a gun. Pelagio fell on the ground unconscious. Accused-appellant shot him on the head and fled on board his tricycle. In the hospital, Pelagio was asked, after he regained consciousness who attaked him, and he identified the accused. When asked whether accused shot him, he responded no, and said that the accused almost did but he did not. Pelagio later died. Is his statement admissible under dying declaration?
Not a dying declaration, but res gestae. The time the statement was being made must also be the time the victim was aware that he was dying.
Res gestae refers to those circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such act. In a general way, res gestae includes the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to illustrate its character and which are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with the main fact as to exclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication.
The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is:
a. Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that characterizes as to be regarded a part of the principal fact or event itself
b. Whether the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose to manufacturer
The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or immediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement.
Victim was stabbed twice, one was fatal and the other was not. Victim was rushed to the hospital where he immediately underwent surgery for the fatal injury. After surgery, he stated the author of the crime, which statement was made only a few hours after the incident. A few hours later, he died from the seriousness of the wound that contracted an infection. It is argued that the statement was not made under consciousness of impending death as it was made after surgery, when the victim was already recovering from an operation. Is this correct?
Yes. Considering the seriousness of the stab wound inflicted and the fact that he died shortly thereafter, despite undergoing an operation, it can be concluded that he was aware of his impending death when he made a statement that it was accused who stabbed him.
X was charged with kidnapping A. The prosecution’s witness testified that A had an illicit affair with X’s wife. The witness testified that A confided in him that A and X’s wife were having an affair, that the wife gave A money to pay for a motel room. It is being claimed that such affair was the reasons for the kidnapping. A has not yet been found. Is A’s revelation regarding his illicit relationship admissible to prove motive of the accused?
YES. Motive is generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identity of the perpetrator. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence or facts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused was the malefactor, motive may be sufficient to support a conviction.
A’s revelation to the witness regarding his illicit relationship with Bernal’s wife is admissible in evidence. A, having been missing since his abduction, cannot be called upon to testify. His confession to the witness is definitely a declaration against his own interest, since his affair with X’s wife was a crime, and is admissible in evidence because no sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.
Teopista filed an action for recognition as illegitimate child against her alleged father Casimiro. In his answer, Casimiro denied plaintiff’s allegations. Teopista presented the following witness:
Niece of Casimiro, saying that Casimiro was the father of Teopista because Casimiro’s brother, the witness’ father, and Casimiro’s mother, his grandmother, so informed him.
Both the mother and brother of Casimiro were already dead at the time the witness niece gave his testimony. As proof of the relationship among Casimiro, his mother and brother, a deed of extrajudicial partition of estate of Casimiro’s father was submitted, showing them all to be heirs.
Is the testimony inadmissible hearsay?
It is admissible hearsay. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and Casimiro.
Rule on the use of body worn camera in the execution of warrants
- need inform yung accused as soon as practicable
- To ensure no tampering – subjects of recording/counsel shall be allowed to witness the downloading prior to safekeeping
Chain custody over BWC recordings
a. Recording using BWC/ARD
b. Turn over devices used or data by media representative to data custodian of law enforcement agency to which they belong
c. Downloading of data by data custodian
d. Redaction of personal identifiers by data custodian or his representative
e. Retrieval of recording data and their transfer to external media storage device by data custodian
f. Submission and delivery of recordings contained in external media storage device to the court
Prior to submission to court, data custodian shall limit viewing of footage to:
- Person subject of recording or counsel
- Parent, guardian or counsel of any minor subject of the recording
- Spouse, next of kin, legally authorized designee of a deceased subject of the recording or counsel
- Employees of law enforcement agency to which officer whose camera captured the recordings belongs
*1-3 are entitled to obtain a copy of the recording within 5 days from downloading should person subject of recording content to its use in court proceeding; shall not release recording to other persons, including media, before use in trial; contempt for violation
Data recorded by BWC/ARD are not public recordings subject of disclosure, unless
Unless recordings involve an incident resulting in a loss of life or an assault made in law enforcement officers during arrest or search.
Recordings and copies of such recordings that depict or record circumstances in which a person dies while being apprehended by or while in the custody of law enforcement officers or when assault is made on law enforcement officers, are considered public record.
Consent to use BWC recording in a court proceeding
If declined, recording may not be used against him. In case of minor subjects, consent shall be secured from his parent or guardian.
Is BWC recording a substitute for presentation of witnesses?
Recordings shall not be deemed substituted for the presentation of witnesses - suppletory only
Is a court order to test DNA appealable?
No. Order of dna not appealable. Remedy is certiorari 65
Is a court order to test DNA appealable?
No. Order of dna not appealable. Remedy is certiorari 65
Whether or not the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office toll the running of the prescriptive period?
No. It is covered by RSP, hence you have to comply with 60-day period for Information. Jadewell Parking System Case
It is the filing of the INFORMATION in court that tolls the running of the prescriptive period
Is the finding of probable cause appealable?
Yes. Go to OPP or OCP and file MR within 15 days. If still denied tapos within jurisdiction of MTC, petition for review to PG/RSP. If within RTC jurisdiction, SOJ. If denied and the penalty is less than reclusion perpetua or life, rule 65 to CA. Period is 60 days. Can extend + 15 with compelling reasons. If denied, 45 to SC, PQL. 15 + 30
In an administrative case, if penalty is admonition, reprimand, fine, suspension of not more than 30 days , is it appealable?
No. Final and executory. Hence, CA rule 65.
Convicted ka ng MTC, MR mo denied. Assuming hindi covered ng RSP, what’s your remedy?
(Rule 40) akyat to RTC, notice of appeal within 15 days (non-extendible).
Any invite by police officers is deemed an arrest. T or F.
True. Sanchez vs. Demetrio case
Mere invitation by armed group of the government which prohibit the physical movement of a person and he is inside a military or police station is considered as an arrest.
During police custody, when the accused is being asked questions, shall he be accompanied by counsel already?
Yes.
GR: all offenses are bailable
XPN?
if crime is punishable by RP/L
XPN to XPN: if the evidence of guilt is strong
Kapag application for bail, nasa prosecution ang burden of evidence kasi presumed innocent yung accused
Kapag naarrest ka sa place na outside your jurisdiction, cannot avail bail to them. Under custody ka talaga nila, they will transfer you first and then you can avail of bail to proper court of jurisdiction
Is plea bargain allowed in RA9165?
Yes, if not more than 1g
Beatrice filed an action for recovery of the sum of P2.5M against Tess in the RTC of Taguig City. Attached to the complaint was the promissory note, the check issued by Rafaelle Beatrice to Tess covering said amount, and a copy of the withdrawal slip of Tess from Banco de Otso - Rockwell Branch, Makati City. In her answer, Tess raised as her compulsory counterclaim the recover of her attorney’s fees in the amount of P500,000 arising from the case, and a permissive counterclaim against Rafaelle Beatrice for rescission of contract of sale involving an Arturo Luz painting valued at P2M. Tess paid the filing fees of her permissive counterclaim. Are the counterclaims within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig City? Discuss your answer.
Yes. The compulsory counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Taguig City while the permissive counterclaim is not.
Under Rule 6, Sec. 7, a compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other relief that a defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of plaintiff’s complaint. An original action filed before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount involved. On the other hand, a permissive counterclaim is essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case. This claim must be filed with the Court having jurisdiction over the amount involved. (PNTC Colleges v. Time Realty)
The counterclaim in the amount of P500,000 arises out of the claim existing in court while the counterclaim of P2M does not. Thus, compulsory counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the RTC regardless of the amount while the permissive counterclaim is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Trinca borrowed P1.5M from Ida. Trinca executed a promissory note promising to pay Ida in three equal monthly installments. When Trinca failed to pay her obligation, Ida filed an action for recovery of a sum of money against her in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City. The case was raffled to Judge Risa, who upon reading the complaint, noticed that Trinca and Ida were neighbors in Barangay 189 in Pasay City and that there was no prior referral of the case for barangay conciliation. Hence, Judge Risa dismissed the case motu proprio for failure to comply with a condition precedent. Was the dismissal by Judge Risa proper? Explain your answer.
Prior recourse to barangay conciliation is not a jurisdictional requirement that non-compliance therewith would deprive a court of its jurisdiction either over the subject matter or over the person of the defendant. Where, however the fact of non-compliance with and non-observance of such procedure has been seasonably raised as an issue before the court first taking cognizance of the complaint, dismissal of the action is proper. In this case, the court acquired jurisdiction notwithstanding the absence of barangay conciliation. The dismissal would be proper if Tricia raised an affirmative defense the failure to comply with a condition precedent. (Ngo vs. Gabelo et. al.)
Pauline and Regine had a dispute over a 500-square meter parcel of land that they inherited from their deceased parents, Milcah and James. During the barangay conciliation proceedings, both Pauline and Regine agreed to partition the lot in equal shares. As a result, the title to the property was cancelled and new titles were issued in favor of Pauline and Regine as to their respective lots. However, Regine discovered that the lot covered by her title was on the eastern portion rather than the northern portion, contrary to their agreement. Hence, Regine filed a “Petition for Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and Barangay Partition, with Prayer for Judicial Partition of the Intestate Estate of the Spouses Milcah and James” against Pauline. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of Regine. Pauline then consulted a newly-minted lawyer, Atty. Terry, who explained to her that there was a misjoinder of causes of action when Regine included both annulment of TCT and the barangay partition, as well as judicial partition in the petition. Hence, the trial court erred when it ruled on both causes of action instead of dismissing the petition of Regine. Is Atty. Terry correct? Explain.
Atty. Terry is correct that there was misjoinder of causes of action however Atty. Terry is incorrect that the trial court should have dismissed the petition of Regine. Under Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules explicitly states that a misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action and that a misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (Unicapital Inc. vs. Consing)
In this case, there was no motion of the party nor initiative from the court to sever the misjoined causes of action thus there exists no bar in the simultaneous adjudication on both causes of action.
Hannah Corporation (HC) is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Kapitolyo, Pasig City. Saint Aaron School (SAS), occupied said lot by mere tolerance since 1992 until december 2018. HC informed SAS that beginning January 1, 2019, it will be charging P100,000 per month for the use and occupation of the property. SAS refused to pay the monthly rentals prompting HC to issue a demand letter for the payment of the amount of P4.8M, representing the unpaid rentals from January 2019 to December 2022. SAS failed to heed the demand of HC. Hence, HC, which holds business in Quezon City, filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money against SAS in the RTC of Quezon City. SAS filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping since HC had also filed an ejectment case against it before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. Should the RTC grant the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum shopping? Explain your answer.
No. HC did not violate the rule on forum shopping when it filed the collection case while the ejectment case is pending. The determinative factor in the violations of the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
In the instant case, the second and third elements of forum shopping and litis pendentia are lacking. Thus, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between a suit for collection of sum of money and an ejectment case, and that any judgment rendered in one of these actions would not amount to res judicata in the other action. Any judgment rendered in the ejectment case will not amount to res judicata in a civil case of collection of sum of money for unpaid rent of the same property and vice versa. Thus, no violation of the forum shopping rule was committed. (Asis et al vs. Heirs of Calignawan et al)
Anjan and Pam were married in 1996. However, in November 2003, Pam left for the United States (US) due to her alleged irreconcilable differences with Anjan. In 2020, Anjan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Pam before the RTC of Makati City, where he resides. Subsequently, Anjan filed a motion for issuance of summons by publication because Pam already resided abroad. The RTC issued an Order dated August 27, 2020 granting the motion and directed the summons to be served upon Pam by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the US. However, the copies of the order, summons, and complaint were not served at her last known address. Meanwhile, no answer was filed by Pam. Thus, the RTC rendered a decision granting the petition, which eventually became final and executory. Was the August 27, 2020 Order of the RTC proper? Explain your answer.
No. If the defendant is out of the country like Pam, summons should be served through substituted service under Section 6, extraterritorial service under Section 17, or under Section 18 when residents are temporarily out of the Philippines, Rule 14 of the amended 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Sabado v. Sabado)
Under Rule 14, Sec. 17, when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under Section 6; or as provided for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. In this case, there was no service made to the last known address of Pam, thus the Order dated August 27, 2020 directing publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the US is improper.
Extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem but not if an action is in personam (Gesolgon et al vs. Cyberone Ph Inc. et al)
Clarisse and Myra offered Gaita a job as a domestic helper in Indonesia. Clarisse gave Gaita her plane ticket and luggage to bring on her trip. Upon reaching the airport of Yogyakarta, Indonesia, she was apprehended by the police for allegedly carrying two kilograms of heroin inside her luggage. She was then charged before the Indonesian courts with drug trafficking, and subsequently convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, Clarisse and Myra were arrested and charged with Qualified Trafficking of Persons, Illegal Recruitment, and Estafa in the RTC of Angeles City. Gaita was given an indefinite reprieve by the Indonesian Government to give her the opportunity to testify in the case against Clarisse and Myra. Hence, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion to take the testimony of Gaita upon written interrogatories under Rule 23 (Deposition Pending Action) of the Rules of Court. The RTC granted the motion of the OSG. Was the action of the RTC proper? Discuss your answer.
Yes. Nowhere in the present Rules on Criminal Procedure does it state how a deposition of a prosecution witness who is at the same time convicted of a grave offense by the final judgment and imprisoned in a foreign jurisdiction, may be taken to perpetuate the testimony of such witness. The Rules, in particular, are silent as to how to take testimony of a witness who is unable to testify in open court because he is imprisoned in another country.
Depositions, however, are recognized under Rule 23 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Although the rule on deposition by written interrogatories is inscribed under the said Rule, it may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is compelling reason. Although the deposition is in writing, the trial court judge can still carefully perceive the reaction and deportment of Gaita as she answers each question propounded to her both by the prosecution and the defense.
It must be mentioned that a “dying declaration” is one of the recognized exceptions to the right to confrontation. In this, it will not be amiss to state that Gaita’s deposition through written interrogatories is akin to her dying declaration. There is no doubt that Gaita will be answering the written interrogatories under the consciousness of an impending death – or execution by a firing squad to be exact. (People vs. Sergio and Lacanilao)
Kyna, a resident of Antipolo City, is the registered owner of a house and lot located in Tondo, Manila with an assessed value of P900,000. Kyna claimed that she allowed Sarah, her sister-in-law, to stay in the house out of compassion. Years later, Kyna decided to distribute the property to her children, so she demanded that Sarah vacate the premises. However, Sarah ignored the demand. She even filed a case against Kyna questioning her ownership of the property and contending that she obtained title over the property through fraud, deceit, and falsification. On August 23, 2023, Kyna sent a formal demand letter to Sarah to vacate the property, but this remained unheeded. Kyna wants to commence an action against Sarah no later than May 16, 2024, before Kyna leaves and temporarily stays in the United States. If you are the counsel of Kyna, what action will you file, where, and in what country? Explain briefly.
I will file an action for Unlawful Detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. An ejectment case, based on the allegation of possession by tolerance, falls under the category of unlawful detainer. Where the plaintiff allows the defendant to use his/her property by tolerance without any contract, the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he/she will vacate on demand, failing which, an action for unlawful detainer will lie. (Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Sps. Barbarona)
In 2014, Karina filed before the RTC a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court to change her first name, include her middle name, and correct the spelling of her surname from “Karen Lapus,” as stated in her birth certificate, to “Karina Garcia Lapuz.” According to Karina, she has been using the name “Karina Garcia Lapuz” since childhood. Will the petition of Karina prosper? Explain your answer.
No. With the enactment of RA 9048, which amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, it vested primary jurisdiction over the correction of certain clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name with the civil registrars. In 2012, RA 10172 expanded the coverage of the summary administrative procedure provided under RA 9048 to include clerical corrections in the day and/or month in the date of birth, or in the sex of the person, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry.
Presently therefore, when an entry falls within the coverage of RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172, a person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 after the petition in the administrative proceedings is first filed and later denied. (Bartolome vs. Republic and Republic vs. Gallo and Republic vs. Sali). Failure to comply with the administrative procedure generally renders the petition dismissible for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to comply with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
William and several other persons were charged with violation of the Anti-Hazing Act. During their arraignment, William and his co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge that they unlawfully subjected Carding Cruz to hazing. The information was later amended by adding the suffix “III” to the name “Carding Cruz.” Trial ensued without the accused having been re-arraigned on the amended information. After the accused were convicted by the trial court, William appealed, contending that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated when he was not re-arraigned after the amendment of the information. Is William correct? Discuss.
No, William is not correct. Any amendment to an information which only states with precision something which has already been included in the original information, and therefore, adds nothing crucial for conviction of the crime charged is only a “formal amendment” that can be made at any time. It does not alter the nature of the crime, affect the essence of the offense, surprise, or divest the accused of an opportunity to meet the new accusation.
Further, second arraignment is not required for a formal amendment. This is so because a formal amendment does not charge a new offense, alter the prosecution’s theory, or adversely affect the accused’s substantial rights (Villarba v. CA).
Hence, William is not correct.
Angel was charged with Murder before the RTC. After trial, the court convicted her of Homicide due to the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. She then filed a notice of appeal and applied for bail with the RTC before transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals. The prosecution opposed the application, contending that the RTC has no jurisdiction to act on the application for bail. The RTC granted the application for bail on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the five bail-negating circumstances. Did the RTC have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel? Discuss your answer.
No, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel.
Under Rule 114, Section 5, if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. Here, Angel was charged with Murder but was convicted by the RTC for Homicide. Hence, the application for bail by Angel must be filed with and reviewed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the RTC did not have jurisdiction to act on the application for bail filed by Angel.
On October 18, 2021, a warrant of arrest was issued against Erica. At 11:00PM, on October 30, 2021, police officers arrested Erica at her house pursuant to the arrest warrant. Before arraignment, Erica moved to quash the information on the grounds that the warrant was served at nighttime and beyond ten days from its issuance. Is the position of Erica tenable? Explain.
No, the position of Erica is not tenable. Unless specifically provided in the warrant, the same remains enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed. The ten-day period provided under this Rule is only a directive to the officer executing the warrant to make a return to the court. However, it is natural to assume that an arresting officer, who under the law is given only ten (10) days to serve an arrest warrant, would serve it as soon as possible.
That Erica was served with the warrant at nighttime and beyond the ten day period is of no moment. Section 6, Rule 113 provides that an arrest can be made at anytime of the day or night. In Colorado vs. Agapito, complainant faulted respondent for having been arrested on a Friday, causing him to languish in jail for two days and two nights. The Supreme Court held that it was of no moment that the warrant of arrest was issued by respondent on a Friday, because it is clear in the Rules that an arrest may be made on any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in any jurisprudence can it be found that a warrant of arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited. Thus, respondent cannot be held administratively liable for this particular matter. He did not commit grave abuse of authority for issuing the warrant of arrest on a Friday, the same not being prohibited by law.
Hence, the position of Erica is not tenable.
Lifetime of a search warrant vs. warrant of arrest
Rule 126 - search warrant that is effective only within 10 days from issuance → kapag warrant of arrest, enforceable until executed, recalled, or quashed.
An Information for Corruption of Public Officials was filed against Bel. Assistant City Prosecutor Chi, the investigating prosecutor, certified in the information that the same was filed with the prior authority of Jill, the City Prosecutor. After the presentation of evidence by both parties, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the case on the ground that Chi does not have the authority to prosecute the case because the information does not bear the signature of Jill or any other indication that she approved the same. The trial court explained that the lack of authority to file an Information is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. Is the trial court correct? Explain.
No. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information of Complaint, as the case may be, that the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of RA 5180 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. In this case, since Information was certified by the investigating prosecutor, thus the trial court was incorrect in motu proprio dismissing the case. (Villa Gomez vs. People)
Raisa filed a case for support against Ton on behalf of their 9-year-old daughter, Rox. During trial, Rox was presented as a witness. The counsel of Ton invoked the rule of incompetence of Rox to testify against her father given her tender age. The trial court allowed Rox to testify. Is the trial court correct? Explain why.
Yes. Under Rule 130, Sec. 21, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. In this case, the tender age of Rox by itself is not a sufficient basis to render her incompetent so long as she has the ability to perceive, remember and tell the truth in court.
Thus, under the Rules of Court, a child may be a competent witness, unless the trial court determines upon proper showing that the child’s mental maturity is such as to render him incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which he is to be examined and of relating the facts truthfully. The testimony of the child of sound mind with the capacity to perceive and make known the perception can be believed in the absence of any showing of an improper motive to testify. Once it is established that the child fully understands the character and nature of an oath, the testimony is given full credence.
In a criminal case for Murder filed against Erika, the prosecution presented Chelle as an eyewitness to the killing of Ly. Chelle testified that while the three of them were on board a boat, Erika shot Ly with a .45 caliber pistol and threw both the gun and the body of Ly into the sea. Efforts to retrieve the gun and the body of Ly were unsuccessful. Evidence was likewise introduced to prove that Ly was thrown in a shark-infested area. Erika consulted her nephew, Ted, a recent law school graduate who is reviewing for the Bar examinations. Confident of an acquittal, Ted recommended that Erika file a demurrer to evidence because 1) there is no corpus delicti due to the failure to recover the gun and the body of Ly; and 2) the prosecution failed to prove that Erika fired the gun due to the lack of a paraffin test. Is Ted correct? Discuss.
No. In People v. Briones, citing People v. Tuniaco, the SC ruled that the presentation of the murder weapon is not indispensable to prove the corpus delicti, as its physical existence is not an element of murder. To prove the corpus delicti, the prosecution only needs to show that: a) a certain result has been established and b) some person is criminally responsible for it. Further, in the same case, the Supreme Court citing People vs. De Guzman, ruled that paraffin testing is conclusive only as to the presence of nitrate particles in a person, but not as to its source, such as firing from a gun. By itself, paraffin testing only indicates a possibility, not infallibility, that a person has fired a gun.
While relaxing one Sunday afternoon, Kesh suddenly felt sick. While she was on the verge of losing consciousness, Kesh called for Robert, her personal nurse, who was told: “Call Dr. Nancy forthwith!” Robert asked Kesh about what happened and Kesh further relayed: “I’m probably going to meet my Creator! I ate the instant noodles prepared by my husband last night and I think he put poison in it!” The following day, Kesh passed away. The certificate of death issued by the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy reflected the cause of her death as aneurysm or rupture of a blood vessel. Later, the husband of Kesh was prosecuted for Murder. During trial and apart from the medico-legal certificate, the prosecution also offered in evidence the testimony of Robert to prove the utterance of Kesh. Is the statement of Kesh admissible as a dying declaration? Explain.
Yes. For a dying declaration to constitute as an exception to the hearsay evidence rule, four (4) conditions must concur: a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declaration’s death; b) that at the time the declaration was made, the declarant is conscious of his impending death; c) the declarant was competent as a witness; and d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for Homicide, Murder, or Parricide where the declarant is the victim (People v. Palanas; People v. Rarugal). This is because a dying declaration is an evidence of the highest order; it is entitled to the utmost credence on the premise that no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.
Further, the declaration was made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every motive of falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth, the law deems this as a situation so solemn and awful as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath administered in court. (People v. Palanas)
Exceptions to the hearsay rule
a. Dying declaration
b. Statement of decedent or person of unsound mind
c. Declaration against interest
d. Act or declaration about pedigree
e. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree
f. Common reputation
g. Part of the res gestae
h. Records of regularly conducted business activity
i. Entries in official records
j. Commercial lists and the like
k. Learned treatises
l. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding
m. Residual exception
Vangie filed an action of compulsory recognition with prayer for support against Jay, her putative father. During trial, she presented and identified the following documents on the witness stand: 1) the birth certificate of Vangie reflecting Jay as the father of Vangie per information supplied by the mother of Vangie, but was unsigned by Jay; and 2) letters from the siblings of Jay, addressed to private schools where Vangie was enrolled, which attested that Jay is the father of Vangie and that he regularly supports her education. Rule on the admissibility and sufficiency of the documents as evidence of acts or declarations about pedigree. Explain briefly.
As to the admissibility, the birth certificate is admissible while the letters from the siblings of Jay are not. An act or declaration about pedigree is admissible when: a) the actor or declarant is dead or unable to testify; b) the act or declaration is made by a person related to the subject by birth or marriage; c) the relationship between the declarant or the actor and the subject is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; and d) the act or declaration was made ante litem motam, or prior to the controversy.
Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support or inheritance. The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child.
In this case, the birth certificate being a public document can be admitted as evidence while the letters are considered hearsay and therefore inadmissible. As to the sufficiency, both documents are insufficient because the unsigned birth certificate does not prove that Jay recognized Vangie as her daughter. The letters from the siblings of Jay being hearsay is not sufficient to prove filiation.
2 types of determination of probable cause
a) executive for the purposes of filing an Information; b) judicial for issuance of warrant
Is non-giving of support considered a criminal act?
No. People v. Acharon - Court declared Sec. 5(i) of 9262 that non-giving of support is not a criminal act.
Can Sandiganbayan be dissolved?
Yes. Sandiganbayan - constitutionally-mandated court and can be dissolved by Congress
Who has jurisdiction over violation of 3019(E)?
Pursuant to PD 1606, if it is for violation of 3019(E) SB has original jurisdiction
Is MR a sine qua non for filing a Rule 45 petition?
MR not a sine qua non for filing rule 45 petition pursuant to secs 1 & 2 of r45 “OR”
Is MR a sine qua non for filing a Rule 65 petition?
MR is a condition sine qua non under RULE 65 PETITION
Equity Jurisdiction
principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate
Estoppel
if a person is given a chance to speak and he does not speak, his mouth is forever closed
Indispensable element for DARAB to acquire jurisdiction
- Tenancy relationship between the parties
- Parties are land-owners
- Subject matter is an agricultural land
- Consent between the parties
- Personal cultivation on part of tenant (if naghire sya iba nagcucultivate di daw pwede)
Is concurrency of jurisdiction subject to hierarchy of courts?
Yes. De Lima Case
RTC, CA, SC - even if may concurrent jurisdiction sila, SC remains to be court of last resort
Proper mode of appeal from adverse judgment by Sandiganbayan
Originally filed in SB - MR denied (regardless of penalty) - notice of appeal to SC
Different if SB is exercising appellate jurisdiction
If imposed penalty by rtc is reclusion perpetua or life, affirmed by SB - notice of appeal to SC (Rule 122, Sec. 3c and e. Rule 124, Sec. 13c)
If penalty is less than reclusion or life, notice of appeal to SB - affirmed by SB - rule 45 raising PQL to SC
Jurisdiction for body-worn cameras
Body-worn cameras - regional na yung jurisdiction nya; if the issuing court in Manila, within NCR lang, cannot implement it outside; new rule
XPN: if issued by special commercial court, implementable anywhere in the Philippines
Katarungang Pambarangay Law - If both parties live in the same or adjoining barangay
XPNS?
- One of the parties is the government
- Party is a public officer or employee
- Dispute involves real properties in different cities or municipalities
- Partnership, corporation or juridical entities
- Parties who actually reside in different barangays
- Offenses which the law has a maximum of more than 1 year
- Fine must not be more than 5,000
- Crimes with no private complainants
- Disputes with urgent legal action necessary
Applicability of RSP
- Unlawful detainer
- Forcible entry
- Violation of traffic laws
- Rental laws
- Municipal ordinances
- BP22 (Sec. 1(b), Rule 111 of 2000 Rules on CrimPro regardless of amount)
In a civil case, if one cause of action is under RSP and one is ordinary, beyond the ambit of RSP
No declaration for default
Small claims
Any money owed for:
1. Loan
2. Lease
3. Services
4. Contract of sale of personal property excluding recovery of personal property unless it is made the subject of a compromise agreement
5. Enforcement of barangay amicable settlement
6. Money claim does not exceed 1M
7. Violation of traffic laws
8. Municipal ordinance
9. BP22
10. Prescribed penalty does not exceed 1 year
11. Prescribed fine does not exceed 50,000
XPN:
a. Offenses including negligence (365) if imposable fine does not exceed 150,000
If offense has both prescribed penalty and fine, penalty will be the determining factor
Motion for Extension
- only allowed in responsive pleading
After service of summons
a. If natural - 30 + 30 + no further extension
b. If juridical - 60 + 30 + no further extension
- After 20 days lang for supplemental pleadings
Rule 45 and 65 - will there be forum shopping?
No, magkaiba ng prayer. Ground for 65 is GAD. Sa 45 is error of judgment, you want it to be reviewed.
Lifetime of a summons
same as warrant of arrest (imprescriptible) so alias is only applicable in lost or destroyed summons
When one files a motion to dismiss, is it considered voluntary appearance?
Motion to dismiss + other form of prayer = voluntary appearance
But if motion to dismiss lang on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, res judicata, litis pendentia, prescription = not voluntary appearance
Testimonies are considered hearsay. T or F.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan - testimonies are considered hearsay unless cross-examined
Petition for annulment of judgment
Petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity exceptional in nature and it may be availed only when other remedies are wanting and only if the judgment, final order, final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by the court through lack of jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud, lack of due process. (Thomas v. Trollo, March 15, 2021)
Is the right to counsel mandatory in administrative proceedings?
No. Right to counsel not mandatory in administrative proceedings for the reason that you are not endangered to lose your liberty
Criminal case - mandatory
Cudia vs. Superintendent Military of the Philippines
Jurisdiction in election cases
Election cases in the municipal level - RTC, not COMELEC
Election cases in barangay level - COMELEC
Lifetime of order of execution
10 years max
5 years by action, 5 years by motion
Jurisdictional amount
Real Action - jurisdiction is based on ASSESSED value (from BIR), not market value, not purchase price
Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein
< 400,000 MTC
> 400,000 RTC (RA 11576)
For all other actions that are capable of pecuniary estimation, where the claim does not exceed P2M, jurisdiction is with inferior courts and exceeding P2M, jurisdiction is with the RTC
If incapable of pecuniary estimation, jurisdiction is with RTC
Prescription for action to quiet title
If in possession of land, action is imprescriptible - plaintiff has the right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right
Legal v. Equitable Title
Legal title denotes registered ownership
Equitable title means beneficial ownership
To draw himself an equitable title, he must show that the one from whom he derives his right had himself a right to transfer
Equitable mortgage
Art. 1602 equitable mortgage
- When the price of sale is grossly inadequate
- When lessee is in possession of property
- When buyer remains to be in possession of part of purchase price
Rule 45 vs. Rule 65
(1)
R45: Mode of appeal
R65: Original action
(2)
R45: SC - appellate jurisdiction
R65: RTC, CA, SC - original concurrent jurisdiction
(3)
R45: Generally raises questions of law, subject to xpns
R65: Does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence
Questions of fact cannot be raised except to determine whether the public respondent was guilty of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
(4)
R45: Seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court - errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings/evaluation of evidence
R65: Seeks to correct errors of jurisdiction - where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction
(5)
R45: Appeal of judgment or final order
R65: Only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, adequate remedy
(6)
R45: From denial, remedy is MR
R65: If judgment by RTC, appeal to CA by Rule 41 but memorandum instead of appellant’s brief, unless pure question of law is raised, rule 45 SC
If judgment by CA, remedy is rule 45 to SC
(7)
R45: 15 days subject to fresh period rule
R65: 60 days, subject to fresh period rule
(8)
R45: Subject to an extension of 30 days provided that docket and lawful fees are paid upon filing the said motion
R65: No provision for grant of extension, subject to exception; most persuasive and weighty reasons therefor
Mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive
Cases that are not appealable
a. An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment
b. Interlocutory order - leaves something else to be done; does not dispose of case
c. Order disallowing or dismissing an appeal
d. Order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent
e. An order of execution
f. A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaint, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
g. An order dismissing an action without prejudice
In such cases, rule 65 may be filed
Is impeachment the same as quo warranto?
No. Impeachment (political) and quo warranto (judicial) are mutually exclusive and may proceed simultaneously
QUO WARRANTO JURISDICTION
- Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdcition over all election contests involving elective barangay officials (Omnibus Election Code)
- RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over those contesting the election of any municipal officer
- COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings to contest the election of any regional, provincial or city officer and any member of Congress, before said member of Congress takes his oath of office after his proclamation; also has appellate jurisdiction from any decision of the trial court
- HRET/SET has jurisdiction once elective official of Congress takes his oath, pursuant to Constitution providing that HRET/SET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and disqualifications of their respective Members
Can land be reverted back to private owner if just compensation is not paid?
No.
Fery ruling - land reversion if there is no just compensation - ABANDONED - remedy: seek relief with the COA which must act upon it within 60 days. If denied, certiorari through SC
Land reversion back to private landowner is only allowed for the reason that the land is not to be used for public purpose - Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada
Right of redemption in judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage
In judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, the right of redemption, where the debtor may repurchase his property within 1 year from registration of the certificate of sale, is not recognized. —— if allowed lang. Generally, no right of redemption. Meron lang equity redemption not less than 90 days and not more than 120 days
XPN: where the mortgagee is the Philippine National Bank or a bank or banking institution within the purview of the General Banking Law of 2000
Grounds to dismiss outright (for FE and UD) before serving summons
- Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter
- Improper venue
- Lack of legal capacity to sue
- Res judicata
- Prescription
- Failure to state cause of action
- No CAFS
- Fail to comply with condition precedent such as prior barangay conciliation, among others
If motion to dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is denied, can you assail the order denying the motion by a motion for reconsideration?
YES. What the rules prohibit are motion for new trial or for reconsideration of judgment on the merits or reopening of proceedings (AM No. 08-8-7-SC)
Order denying motion to dismiss is not a judgment but interlocutory order
Presumption of death for purposes of succession
Art. 390 CC, there may be an opening of succession of a person only presumed to be dead after an absence of 10 years; unless he disappeared after the age of 75 years, in which case, an absence of 5 years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.
There may be a division of the estate among the heirs for a shorter period of absence that would warrant a presumption of death if: (1) a person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage or an airplane which is missing, has not been heard of for 4 years since the loss of the vessel or airplane; (2) a person in the armed forces who has taken part in war has been missing for 4 years; and (3) a person has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for 4 years.
Do you need a judicial pronouncement of death presumption for purposes of succession?
No. The court will not issue an order declaring the absentee as presumptively dead. The presumption of death is established by law and no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise. (Valdez v. Republic)
***Different from subsequent marriage - need ng judicial pronouncement
Deed of Extrajudicial settlement and Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
If the decedent left no will and no debts, and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit.
Rule 74, Sec. 1
If parties cannot agree as to partition, they can file an action for partition (Rule 74)
It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within ___ years after the death of the decedent.
2
If a case gets dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance with prior barangay conciliation proceedings,
it is dismissed without prejudice for 15 days. Hence, if within 15 days the barangay finds no conciliation, you can simply revive the case. If after 15 days, you have to refile.
Adoption proceedings
RA 11642 - ADMINISTRATIVE ADOPTION AND ALTERNATIVE CHILD CARE ACT
Effective Jan. 28, 2022
Jurisdiction - National Authority for Child Care (NACC)
All adoption proceedings are now administrative
Adoption
socio-legal process of providing a permanent family to a child whose parents had voluntarily or involuntarily given up their parental rights, permanently transferring all rights and responsibilities, along with filiation, making the child a legitimate child of the adoptive parents
GR: No child shall be a subject of administrative adoption unless the status of the child has been declared legally available for adoption
XPN?
relative or step-parent adoption where such declaration is not required
Abandoned child
a. Child who has no proper parental care or guardianship
b. A foundling; or
c. Deserted by one’s parents for a period of at least 3 continuous months
Who May Adopt
a. Any Filipino citizen at least 25 years of age
b. In possession of full civil capacity and legal rights
c. Not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude
d. Good moral character and can model the same
e. Emotionally and psychologically capable of caring for children
f. At least 16 years older than the adoptee (waived if adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee’s parent)
g. Is in a position to support and care for adopted children in keeping with the means of the family
h. Legal guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and clearance of financial accountabilities
i. Legal guardians with respect to the foster child
j. Philippine government officials and employees deployed or stationed abroad: provided, that they are able to bring the child with them; and
k. Foreign nationals who are permanent or habitual residents of the Philippines for at least 5 years possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals prior to filing of the petition
Instances when Foreigner’s residency requirement may be waived in adoption proceedings
- A former Filipino citizen, habitually residing in the Philippines, who seeks to adopt a relative within 4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
- One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the Filipino spouse; or
- One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with the spouse a relative within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse
GR: Spouses shall jointly adopt
XPN?
a. If one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other; or
b. If one spouse seeks to adopt own illegitimate child; provided that the other spouse has signified consent thereto; or
c. If the spouses are legally separated from each other
Can LGBTQ couples legally adopt?
They cannot adopt jointly because the law provides that it should be spouses. Marriage between same sex is not acknowledged here in the Philippines. Hence, either one of them can only adopt if he/she is a relative or a kin who has been taking care of said child for at least 3 years
Required ba consent ng biological father na iadopt illegitimate child nya even if married na yung mother and subsequent spouse or adopter?
Yes
Generally, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed when the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer or under process issued by a court or judge.
Nevertheless, it may be available when the violation of one’s constitutional right results in the unlawful restraint of the accused. When the custody becomes vexatious, capricious and oppressive amounting to an infringement on the constitutional right to speedy trial of the accused, the writ of habeas corpus may be provisionally availed of.
Petitioner, who was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Plunder (punishable by reclusion perpetua) and sought for her release from detention during the pendency of said case, by petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that she has been detained for close to 9 years already, on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial.
One witness a day lang daw eh ang dami pa witnesses
There is confusion as to which pre-trial order ang iaapply
Delay due to wrong markings in the pre-trial kaya inulit yung marking
Confusion as to which pre-trial is controlling
She has been detained for 9 years
1 witness only per day tapos twice a week lang yung trial
Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)
An action whether civil, criminal or administrative, brought against any person, institution or any government agency or local government unit or its officials and employees, with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person, institution or government agency has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights.
A defense in those cases claimed to have been filed merely as a harassment suit against environmental actions.
RA9048 (as amended RA10172)
Remedy for a person seeking to change his or her first name or nickname on the grounds that: the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce, the new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community, or the change will avoid confusion
Also to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil register
To change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or
To change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake
May the father of the illegitimate children or the court compel the use of the father’s surname upon his recognition of their illegitimate filiation?
It is not the father or the mother who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children. Neither can the court order the minors to use Antonio’s surname. (Grande v. Antonio)
Can the adopted child retain his/her biological surname?
Yes. Astorga case
Sps. Dima and Amalia Bueno has a Discounting Line with Bank of Iraga. It consists of the following:
PN Nos. 2-104-980258 BDC and 2-104-980888 BDC at PhP10,000,000.00 each or a total amount of PhP20,000,000.00; PN Nos. 2-104-980259 BDC, 2-104-980296 BDC, 2-104-980975 BDC, and 2-104-981149 BDC at PhP5,000,000.00 each or a total of PhP20,000,000.00. After it became due and demandable, Sps. Bueno defaulted from payment in view of the pandemic. The Bank of Iraga sent a demand. However, Sps. Bueno failed and still fails to settle the obligations. The obligations are
supported by both Real Estate and Chattel Mortgages. Can Bank of Iraga choose to extrajudicially foreclose the Real Estate Mortgage insofar as the first PhP20,000,000.00 loan is concerned and institute a collection suit for the second PhP20,000,000.00? Explain your answer with reasons.
No, the Bank of Iraga cannot split its cause of action on the Discounting Line.
Section 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. If two or more suits are instituted based on the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as ground for the dismissal of the others.
Here, the Bank of Iraga may institute two alternative remedies against the Sps. Bueno, either a personal action for the collection of the promissory notes issued under the Discounting Line or a real action to foreclose the mortgage – but not both, simultaneously or successively.
Jose Dimas owned a parcel of land consisting of 20,000 square meters located at San Nicolas, City of Iraga, Province of Katbanga. On January 15, 2016, he entered into a contract to sell with Laging Panalo Corporation. The contract price is PhP10,000,000.00 payable in three (3) years. The down payment is P2,000,000.00 and the remaining balance shall be paid in equal monthly installments for two (2) years. After the lapse of three (3) years and full payment of the contract price, Dimas failed to execute the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale and to deliver the original copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title of the subject property to Laging Panalo Corporation. Thus, a formal letter of demand was sent to Dimas. However, despite receipt thereof, Dimas did not comply. A case for specific performance and damages was filed against Dimas with the Regional Trial Court of Iraga on February 1, 2019. After the submission of the parties’ respective pleadings, the case was set for Pre-Trial on March 1, 2019. However, on February 28, 2019, Dimas died. His counsel filed a Notice of Death to the
court. Will the case of specific performance and damages survive the death of Jose Dimas? Explain.
Yes, the case will survive the death of Jose Dimas.
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court allows the substitution of a party-litigant, who dies during the pendency of a case, by his heirs, provided that the claim subject of said case is not extinguished by his death.
Jurisprudence has settled that if the claim in an action affects property and property rights, then the action survives the death of a party-litigant. Therefore, the death of the party-litigant, Dimas, did not render the case dismissible on such ground, but rather, calls for the proper application of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court on substitution of party-litigants.
ABC Inc. is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 11,451 square meters located at Mabalacat, Pampanga. The property is being occupied by EFG Ent. for the longest time or from 1983 up to 2002, when ABC Inc. wrote a letter to EFG Ent., with the former demanding the latter to pay its monthly rent in the amount of PhP50.00 per square meter. EFG Ent. refused to pay the monthly rental.
Another letter was sent by ABC Inc. that if EFG Ent. will not pay the monthly rental, the latter should
vacate the property within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the formal demand. In view of the continued
refusal of EFG Ent., ABC Inc. filed a collection suit for the monthly rental in the Regional Trial Court of Makati where the principal business address of ABC Inc. is located. While the collection suit is pending, ABC Inc. instituted an ejectment suit with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga. Is there forum shopping committed by ABC Inc. in violation of the Rules? Explain.
ABC, Inc. did not violate the rule on forum shopping when it filed the ejectment case while the collection case is pending.
The determinative factor in the violation of the rule against forum shopping is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another.
In the instant case, there is no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for between a suit for collection of sum of money and an unlawful detainer case, and that any judgment rendered in one of these actions would not amount to res judicata in the other action.
J. Dima, Jr., D. Kuraparoko, F. Katoy, G. Ariel, C. Panoy, Garry L., Celito S., Romeo T., and Vivian, are the respondents for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Preliminary Investigation started in 1990 and was terminated only in 1998 when the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict them. No one from the respondents filed a motion for early resolution to invoke their constitutional right to speedy disposition of their cases. Is the non-invocation of their right to speedy disposition of cases equivalent to waiver that can no longer be invoked in the Sandiganbayan when the Information was filed? Explain.
No, the non-invocation of the respondents of their right to speedy disposition of cases is not tantamount to a waiver.
As respondents, they had no duty to expedite or follow-up the cases against them, since there are determined periods for the termination of the preliminary investigation.
Thus, the mere inaction on the part of the accused does not qualify as an intelligent waiver of their constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy disposition of cases.
Jose Dima, who was driving a red motorcycle, passed by the mobile check point at Barangay San Nicolas, City of Iraga, where SPO2 Madlang-bayan together with three (3) other police officers were stationed. The motorcycle was then flagged down, and SPO2 Madlang-bayan asked Dima for his OR/CR. However, he failed to produce the documents. The police authorities then became suspicious that the motorcycle might have been stolen considering Dima’s failure to produce the OR/CR. Upon
inspection of the motorcycle, the police officers chanced upon a plastic cellophane protruding from the tools compartment. When Dima opened the tools compartment, the police officers found a small bundle
of dried marijuana placed inside a transparent cellophane. The police officers then scrutinized the motorcycle and further found the same transparent cellophane in the driver seat. Upon opening the
driver’s seat, the police officers discovered five (5) more bundles of marijuana wrapped in a cellophane.
Immediately after, the police officers brought Dima to the police station where he was further interviewed and eventually detained. The marijuana specimen was brought to the laboratory for examination. Jose Dima was charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. Was the extensive intrusion by the police officers of the motorcycle valid, and the illegal drugs confiscated from Jose Dima admissible as evidence? Explain.
No, the intrusion is invalid and the confiscated drugs are inadmissible as evidence, since there was non-compliance by the police officers with the rule on chain of custody.
The procedure laid out in Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 is considered a substantive law and not merely a procedural technicality. Further, the law requires that police authorities implementing RA No. 9165 should strictly comply with the chain of custody procedure.
Here, there was no clear showing that there was a duly recorded, authorized movement, and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, extending even until the time it is presented before the court.
X filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for mandamus against a government agency (GA) to compel the latter to release X’s gratuity pay. GA filed an Answer raising the defense that gratuity
pay are public funds that cannot just be released without proper appropriation and qualification therefor.
X moved to strike out GA’s Answer for having been improperly verified. The RTC directed the Answer to be expunged from the records for being a mere scrap of paper, and declared GA in default. GA moved to lift the Order of Default and to Admit Attached amended Answer, interposing a prima facie meritorious defense involving the issue of disbursement of public funds. The RTC denied the motion to
lift default. GA filed a petition for certiorari against the order of default with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The RTC then rendered judgment by default against GA, who amended its petition for certiorari to include the decision. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, since appeal was an available remedy, for there was already a judgment rendered as a supervening event. Was the CA correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari? Explain.
The Court of Appeals was incorrect, as the petition for certiorari should not have been dismissed.
While it is true that in cases of default judgments, the remedy of the party declared in default is appeal, yet, it is to be recognized that when a party charges the trial court with grave abuse of discretion in declaring the party in default and eventually rendering judgment against it, the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may be availed of.
A party who was improvidently declared in default has the option to either perfect an appeal or interpose a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the order of default even before the promulgation of a default judgment, or in the event that the latter has been rendered, to have
both court decrees – the order of default and the default judgment – declared void.
X filed an action for interpleader against Y and Z for determination of who has a better right to the goods covered by the warehouse receipt. Y filed an Answer alleging that Z’s right to claim the goods had prescribed. The court issued an order granting the affirmative defense, which Z received on March 1, 2024. On March 5, 2024, Z filed a motion for reconsideration, assailing the said dismissal. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, which Z received on April 1, 2024. On April 2, 2024, in accordance with the fresh period rule, Z filed a Notice of Appeal. The trial court denied it outright. Was the denial of the appeal valid? Explain.
Yes, because the appeal was filed out of time.
A motion for reconsideration against the court’s action on an affirmative defense is prohibited.
Thus, as applied in the case, it is pro forma and did not toll the prescriptive period to appeal,
which should have been filed on March 15, 2024. The ordinary rules apply to special civil actions when no contrary rule is otherwise provided.
X brings an action for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus against the Congress
of the Philippines in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, within the jurisdiction of where Batasang
Pambansa is located. X’s action is based on the ground that Congress has not promoted an improved
quality of life for all, in violation of Article II, Section 9 of the 1987 Constitution, which, according to X,
is the State’s duty. X, in his petition, attached the status of the environment, the mountains with fewer trees in different provinces, the proof of the amount of air pollution in the country, and studies on climate change caused by environmental changes where the environment declines without proper issuance and enforcement of appropriate environmental laws. Will the petitions for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus prosper? Explain.
No, the petitions for issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and Continuing Mandamus will not prosper for
lack of jurisdiction.
The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over petitions for Writ of Kalikasan; it is the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that has jurisdiction.
Also, for the petition to prosper, there must be showing of a law or rule violated, which was not present in this case. Article II, Section 9 of the Constitution is a declaration of policy that is not self-executing, and there is need for legislation.
X surreptitiously entered Y’s land on January 1, 2023. Y discovered this on February 1, 2023. Y then ignored X and did not do anything, letting X stay on the property. After 11 months from February 1 or on December 31, 2023, Y made a demand for X to vacate in 24 hours, which X did not heed. Thus, on March 31, 2024, Y filed an action to recover possession against X. Assuming the assessed value of
the land is PhP600,000.00, which court has jurisdiction over the action? In answering, give the nature
of the action. Explain.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the accion publiciana.
Under the law, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.
Here, the dispossession was surreptitious so the reckoning point is from discovery or February 1, 2023. The action should have been filed within a year from February 1, 2023, but it was filed beyond that or on March 31, 2024. Thus, the proper legal recourse is accion publiciana to
recover possession, and the basis of jurisdiction is the assessed value.
Since the assessed value is more than PhP400,000.00, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction.
Ma. Cristina Torres was married to Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr., and they have children. After Pablo died, Ma. Cristina and her children found out that Pablo had subsequently married respondent Lucille Celestial Titular with whom he fathered a son, Patrick Alvin Titular Braza. Ma. Cristina, joined by her children with Pablo, then filed a petition under Rule 108 with the Regional Trial Court to correct the entries in Patrick’s birth record in the Local Civil Registry (LCR). Patrick’s birth record with the LCR shows that he was legitimated by the marriage between Pablo and Lucille, which occurred during the marriage between Ma. Cristina and Pablo. It is argued that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo, said marriage being bigamous on account of the previous valid and subsisting marriage between Ma. Cristina and Pablo. Will the action prosper?
No, the case should be dismissed.
In a special proceeding for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.
Here, Ma. Cristina and her children actually sought the declaration of Pablo and Lucille’s marriage as void for being bigamous, and the impugnation of Patrick’s legitimacy, which causes of action are not governed by Rule 108. The validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and
filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack.
Gold Roger was arrested for unauthorized dealing of bitcoins under Republic Act (RA) No. 12999 or the Bitcoin Law of the Philippines.
Section 23 of the said law provides that “any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.” Gold Roger, through counsel, filed a “Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement” for him to enter a plea of guilty with a penalty of arresto mayor in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity and value of the bitcoin he dealt with the public. He argued that Section 23 of RA No. 12999 violates the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the Constitution, since plea bargaining is a rule of procedure whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. In its Opposition to Gold Roger’s Motion, the Prosecution moved for the
denial of the Motion for being contrary to Section 23 of RA No. 12999, which is said to be justified by
the Congress’ prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea bargaining. Is Gold Roger’s contention correct? Explain.
Yes, the contention of Gold Roger is correct.
Jurisprudence holds that pursuant to Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules which is limited to the preservation of substantive rights. The test to determine whether the rule really regulates procedure is that, if the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural.
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right, and, therefore, fall under the Supreme Court’s rule-making powers and outside the ambit of Congress’ legislative power. Therefore, Section 23 of Republic Act No. 12999 violates the Supreme Court’s rule-making powers under the Constitution, as
correctly pointed out by Gold Roger.
On January 1, 2023, Nami borrowed PhP500,000.00 from Zoro and bound herself to pay the loan in full on December 31, 2023 plus 10% interest per annum. However, despite repeated demands from Zoro, as of January 31, 2024, Nami failed to pay the principal amount of the loan and interest. On February 1, 2024, Zoro visited your law office and inquired whether he can file a small claims case against Nami for the payment of the loan and interest and seek the attachment of Nami’s properties while the contemplated small claims case is pending. Would you advise Zoro to file a small claims case with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against Nami? Explain.
No, I will not advise the filing of a small claims case with the provisional remedy of preliminary attachment.
Under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts, a “small claim” is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money not exceeding PhP1,000,000.00. It excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with provisional remedies.
Here, while the principal claim of Zoro for the collection of a sum of money does not exceed PhP1,000,000.00, the same claim would be coupled with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, a provisional remedy. Accordingly, since Zoro’s claim for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money against Nami is coupled with a provisional remedy, a small
claims case would be improper.
Deo was acquitted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati in a case for estafa on the ground of double jeopardy. Khali, the private complainant, through his private counsel and without the conformity of the State, filed a Petition for Certiorari with Court of Appeals assailing RTC of Makati’s judgment. Khali argued in his Petition that the RTC of Makati gravely abused its discretion when it acquitted Deo considering that the elements of double jeopardy are utterly absent. Deo contends that Khali has no standing to file the Petition for Certiorari and should have obtained the conformity of the State, since the cause of action in a criminal case pertains to the State. Khali countered that, as the offended party in the estafa case who has interest in the civil liability arising from the said crime, he is considered an aggrieved party, and thus, has standing to file the Petition for Certiorari. Which contention is correct? Explain.
Deo’s contention is correct.
According to the Supreme Court, a private complainant has the legal personality to appeal the civil liability of the accused or file a petition for certiorari to preserve his or her interest in the civil aspect of the criminal case. However, the private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of the case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
In the case at bar, Khali is assailing the criminal aspect of the Regional Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal, specifically, the supposed absence of the elements of the double jeopardy. Khali’s petition for certiorari assailing Deo’s acquittal does not relate to the civil aspect of the crime supposedly committed by Deo. Moreover, Khali did not obtain the OSG’s conformity when he filed his petition for certiorari through his private counsel. Hence, Deo’s contention that Khali has no standing to file the petition for certiorari is correct.
Usopp killed his three (3) business partners and for which he was convicted of three (3) counts of murder by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong. Usopp appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals and raised for the first time that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, although proven in the course of the trial, were not properly alleged in the Informations which deprived him of the right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. In particular, the Informations merely alleged that the killings were carried out with “treachery” and “evident premeditation” without stating the ultimate facts relative to such circumstances. Is Usopp’s appeal meritorious? Explain.
No, the appeal of Usopp is not impressed with merit.
Jurisprudence holds that any information, alleging that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance – in which the law uses a broad term to embrace various situations – is present, it must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. Otherwise, the information may be subject to a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars under the parameters set by the rules.
However, failure of the accused to avail any of the said remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to question the defective statement of the aggravating or qualifying circumstance in the information, and the same may be appreciated against him if proven during trial.
In this case, although the Informations against Usopp were defective absent factual details describing the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, Usopp waived such defects when he failed to question the insufficiency of the Informations either through a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars. Accordingly, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation may be appreciated against Usopp if proven during trial.
Doflamingo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig for rape and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua. In May 2020, or during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and while his appeal with the Court of Appeals is pending, Doflamingo filed an Urgent Motion for Recognizance/Bail or House Arrest for Humanitarian Reason Due to COVID-19, wherein he alleged that he is at risk of contracting COVID-19 inside the prison due to his diabetes and hypertension. Doflamingo thus argued that he is entitled to a provisional release based on humanitarian grounds, invoking the Supreme Court’s ruling in Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan and because there are compelling reasons to support his acquittal from rape. Will you grant or deny Doflamingo’s Motion? Explain.
No, I will deny Doflamingo’s Motion.
Under the Rules of Court, if the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, pending appeal. To invoke humanitarian grounds for the grant of bail, the circumstances of the accused must be on all fours with those in Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, namely, the accused is not yet convicted of the crime charged against him, was of advanced age and ill health to require special medical attention.
In the case of Doflamingo, he was convicted of a capital offense, rape, and was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua or 20 years and 1 day to 40 years of imprisonment. This is more than six years, which justifies the outright denial of bail pending appeal. Also, Doflamingo’s circumstances are not on all fours with that of Enrile considering that his diabetes is not shown to require immediate and specialized attention outside of his current confinement and that bail is being sought post-conviction and not pending trial.
Sanji D. Vinsmoke contracted a second marriage with Nicole D. Robin without his first marriage with Vivi D. Nefertari being annulled.
When a case for bigamy was filled against him by Vivi, Sanji presented a Certification from the Civil Registrar of the City of Iriga written in this way:
After a diligent search on the files of Registry Book on Application for Marriage License and License Issuance available in this office, no record could be found on the alleged issuance of this office of Marriage License No. 12345678 in favor of Mr. Sanji D. Vinsmoke and Ms. Vivi D. Nefertari dated July 17, 1987. Is this Certification admissible in compliance with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence? Explain.
No, the Certification in this case is not in compliance with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
Pursuant to the rules, the certification issued by the local civil registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite a diligent search.
Here, the Certification does not prove that Sanji’s first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. It does not categorically state that Marriage License No. 12345678 does not exist.
Atty. KNJ posted a photo in social media which says “Annulment of Marriage Expert, Reasonable
Fees, Consult Anytime. Call 0900-090-9876.” His arch nemesis, Atty. BPD, called the number and pretended to be a prospective client. He talked to Ms. Ami, who claimed that her boss is an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within six (6) months. Hooked, Atty. BPD checked several public groups and found the same post of Atty. KNJ. Is such post proper?
No, Atty. KNJ’s post is not proper.
Section 17, Canon 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) prohibits solicitation and impermissible advertisement. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that an advertisement where a lawyer refers to himself as a “specialist” is self-laudatory; an improper advertising that is violative of the CPRA. The same thing is true with a lawyer calling himself an expert in a field of law such as in this case.
Since Atty. KNJ posted said photo referring to himself as an expert in annulment of marriage, while not stating his name, is a violation of the CPRA and jurisprudence; hence, such post is improper.
Atty. W posted the following in his Facebook account: “Just prosecuted and helped convict a member of the LGBTQ community for large scale estafa. The new convict then began cussing at me accusing me of being a bigot. The judge (who is somewhat effeminate) comes to my defense and warns the felon to behave. All in a day’s work.” Attys. X, Y, and Z, being Atty. W’s Facebook friends,
commented as follows: Atty. X: “Sino yung bakla na judge sa Taguig MTC sa first floor? Naka eyeliner and eyeshadow pag naghehearing. Ang taray pa!” Atty. W: “Na promote na yon, Boss. RTC Judge na kaya yon.” Atty. X: “The joke among lawyers is that sa Taguig sa 2nd floor puro may sira ulo mga judge, sa baba bakla at mga corrupt” Atty. W: “No comment, Boss. May mga kaso pa ako doon eh.” Atty. Y: “Baka type ka” Atty. W: “Bad ka, Prof” Atty. Y: “malay mo. Nakita n’ya intelligence mo given na good looks eh na convict mo pa s’ya. Tapos syempre di ka mapapasakamay n’ya kaya ayon imbyerna. Charot haha” Atty. W: “Ang bad mo sakin, Prof” Atty. Z: “Oo tama. Feel ko type ka bossing. Hehehe”. The screenshot of the said Facebook post and comments circulated on social media and went viral. A justice of the Supreme Court saw the viral posts and called the attention of his colleagues. When
directed to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them, Atty. W invoked his right to privacy – that his social media account is locked and the contents thereof cannot be accessed by outsiders, and apologized for his comments. Rule on Atty. W’s case.
Atty. W’s defense deserves no consideration.
The Supreme Court has held that there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards
social media postings, regardless if the same are “locked”, precisely because the access restriction settings in social media platforms do not absolutely bar other users from obtaining access to the same. Moreover, Section 36 of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability mandates lawyers to understand the risks of use of social media while Section 37 thereof mandates lawyers to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and shield it from disrepute in his or her online posts, regardless if made in a public or restricted privacy setting.
The lawyer’s right to privacy, especially when it comes to their social media account, is limited. They cannot use this right as a shield against any liability. Therefore, Atty. W’s defense deserves no consideration and he shall be subjected to disciplinary action.
Judge Dan rendered a decision in favor of Ann and against Stan in an unlawful detainer case. His Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, Stan filed an administrative complaint against Judge Dan before the Office of the Court Administrator alleging that Judge Dan committed impropriety in rendering the decision in the unlawful detainer case and in denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
Meanwhile, in the unlawful detainer case, Ann filed a Motion for Execution before the same court where Judge Dan is presiding. Stan opposed the same and moved for Judge Dan’s inhibition on the ground
that the administrative complaint he filed against him before the Office of the Court Administrator renders him partial. Should Judge Dan inhibit in this stage of the case?
No, Judge Dan should not inhibit.
The filing of an administrative case against a judge does not automatically disqualify him or her from sitting in a case. It must be shown that there are other acts or conduct by the judge which constitute a ground for his or her disqualification. Mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition, especially when the charge is without basis.
Here, there being no showing of other acts or conduct by Judge Dan which constitute a ground for his disqualification, he should not inhibit. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.
Is judicial courtesy a ground for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
We must emphasize, at this point, that judicial courtesy is neither a substitute nor a ground for the issuance of a WPI under the Rules.
Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that a preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
On all these grounds, the existence of a clear and unmistakable legal right is invariably necessary. This paramount consideration differentiates mere exercise of judicial courtesy from the issuance of a WPI, albeit both are essentially for purposes of maintaining status quo between the parties until the merits of the main suit are fully heard. Judicial courtesy is exercised by suspending the proceedings before a lower court, even without an injunction or an order to that effect from a higher court, to avoid mooting the matter raised before the higher court. Such exercise is merely as a matter of respect and practical considerations.
Whereas, the issuance of a WPI, although it also preserves the status quo, does not suspend the proceedings in the main case. It only prevents the threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the party who has a clear legal right, entitled to be judicially protected during the pendency of the main case. Courts are consistently reminded that the power to issue the writ “should be exercised sparingly, with the utmost care, and with great caution and deliberation.” A WPI may be issued only upon showing of a clear and positive right calling for judicial protection during the pendency of the principal action.
Is determination of just compensation within the jurisdiction of administrative agencies?
No. We emphasize at the outset the well-settled rule that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function, vested with the RTC as (Special Agrarian Court), not with administrative agencies.
In the exercise of such function, the RTC must work within the parameters set by governing law and rules. Certain factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA No. 6657, as amended, cannot be unjustifiably disregarded, viz.: SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by the government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.
Proving forgery
Evidence that is ordered expunged from the records cannot be considered in favor of, and against a party for any purpose. To expunge means to strike out, obliterate, or mark for deletion. In all respects, an expunged evidence does not exist in the records and, therefore, has no probative value. Here, it is undisputed that the QDR issued by the NBI, and the PNP Crime Laboratory Report were expunged from the records by virtue of this Court’s final and executory Resolution dated August 20, 2008.
Though admitted in evidence, these expunged documents were not the bases of the trial court in concluding that Remedios’ signature was forged.
Forgery must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged.
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
While it is settled that resort to handwriting experts is not indispensable in the finding of forgery, their opinions are useful and may serve as additional evidence to buttress the claim of forgery.
Can government agencies and instrumentalities hire private lawyers to render legal services for them?
No. The long-standing rule in our jurisdiction restricts government agencies and instrumentalities in hiring private lawyers to render legal services for them and handle their cases.
The regulation was primarily aimed to curtail unnecessary expenditures of public funds on legal services of private lawyers since the law has already designated the OSG to discharge such functions.
The rule, however, recognizes exceptional situations which unavoidably call for the services of private lawyers. Thus, over the years, the government has allowed deviation from the general prohibition subject to certain conditions.
Under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended by COA Circular No. 95-011, the following indispensable conditions must then be satisfied before a government agency or instrumentality hires a private lawyer (1) the hiring must be justified by an exceptional circumstance; (2) the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG must be secured; and (3) the written concurrence of the COA must also be obtained.
Recently, COA Circular No. 2021-003 dated July 16, 2021, further amended COA Circular No. 86-255 by exempting national government agencies and instrumentalities from the requirement of the COA’s prior written concurrence subject to specific conditions, the existence of which is to be determined by the COA. The dispensation was brought about by the COA’s recognition that the purpose of the COA’s written concurrence, i.e., “to ensure the reasonableness of the amount of legal fees” “may be guaranteed by safeguards other than the requisite COA’s written concurrence.” On the other hand, the written conformity and acquiescence of the OSG remains to be an indispensable requirement under the new guidelines for purposes of validating the necessity of procuring services of a private lawyer before actually engaging one.
In this case, petitioners attempt to justify their failure to comply with the requirements under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended, by asserting the BOI’s “dire need” to hire technical assistance from outside the bureau to augment its deficient staff. This general allegation is, however, a factual matter that could have been verified by the OSG had the BOI complied with the requirements under the established rules before it hired private lawyers. At this point, the OSG had already expressed its disapproval of the BOI hirings in arguing for the propriety of the disallowance. Hence, absent any semblance of grave abuse of discretion and also for lack of evidence on record for the Court to make a judicious factual determination, we are constrained to uphold the disallowance.
Furthermore, contrary to petitioners’ viewpoint, the prohibition under COA Circular No. 86-255, as amended, does not only cover the engagement of private lawyers on retainer fees for actual case litigations. The amended guidelines in the hiring of private lawyers made no qualification as to what legal service the lawyer is to perform, nor was there any specification as to how his or her services were to be paid. The rules clearly prohibit government agencies and instrumentalities “to hire the services of private lawyers for a fee, chargeable against public funds, unless exceptional or extraordinary circumstances obtain.”
Can the penalty of suspension or disbarment be imposed on a lawyer who had already been disbarred?
The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes. We observe this rule in this administrative case involving an attorney who practiced law despite her previous suspension.
It is undisputed that Atty. Ramon was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. In Mercullo v. Ramon, the Court en banc found that Atty. Ramon engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct. Atty. Ramon obtained substantial amount from her clients and made them believe that she could assist in redeeming the foreclosed property because she is working in the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. Yet, Atty. Ramon did not notify her clients that she is no longer connected with such agency. Worse, Atty. Ramon took advantage of her client’s full trust and falsely informed them that she had initiated the redemption proceedings. Absent contrary evidence, it is presumed that Atty. Ramon received a copy of the suspension order and must desist from practicing law during such period. Notably, a lawyer’s suspension is not automatically lifted. The lawyer must submit the required documents and wait for this Court’s order lifting the suspension before resuming the practice of law.
Unlawful
An “unlawful” conduct refers to any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law.
It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element. To be “dishonest” means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straight forwardness. A “deceitful” conduct means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.
Judicial Clemency
Judicial clemency is the Court’s extraordinary act that does not transgress existing laws and override the choice of those who have been wronged. It should, as much as possible, be based on established facts and accepted normative ethical values.
In resolving requests for judicial clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in In re Diaz:
(1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
(2) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation.
(3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he [or she] still has productive years ahead of him [or her] that can be put to good use by giving him [or her] a chance to redeem himself [or herself].
(4) There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
(5) There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
Remorse and reformation
The Court refined these guidelines in In re Ong and explained remorse and reformation, sufficient lapse of time to ensure reformation, and other relevant factors.
Remorse and reformation must reflect how the claimant has redeemed their moral aptitude by clearly understanding the gravity and consequences of their conduct. There is an element of reconciliation in clemencies. When there is private offended party, there should be an attempt at reconciliation where the offender offers an apology and, in turn, the wronged gives a full and written forgiveness. Only after this reconciliation can this Court acquire jurisdiction on the plea for clemency.
Where there is no private offended party, the plea for clemency must contain the public apology.
In Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Villalon-Pornillos, this Court denied a plea of clemency that did not show any sign of repentance and acceptance of the judgment. This Court ruled that the respondent is not deserving of clemency when she still defends herself and insists on her innocence and self-righteousness. She still showed no remorse for her misdeeds even though they transpired more than eight years ago.
Again, there must be an acknowledgment of the wrongful actions and subsequent showing of sincere repentance and correction.
This Court must see to it that the long period of dismissal moved the erring officers to reform themselves, exhibit remorse and repentance, and develop a capacity to live up again to the standards demanded from court
officers.
This Court has also considered other factors such as the petitioner’s advanced age, deteriorating health, and economic difficulties. For instance, in Paredes v. Padua, when the dismissal has already caused a tremendous suffering to the individual and there is a showing of dire health and financial condition, this Court lifted the penalty.
Furthermore, there are degrees of clemency. Generally, unless for extraordinary reasons, dismissal or disbarment cannot be the subject of any kind of clemency in less than five years.
There should also be no disruption of the service. Moreover, we must be clear which kinds of offenses are subject to various forms of clemency and the equivalent extraordinary circumstances that should be considered. This Court lifts and modifies penalties if there are intervening factors that merit mitigation. Penalties “are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.” “Thus, when an errant officer “demonstrates [their] sincere repentance and remorse for the wrong [they] committed” and the penalty imposed has already served its purpose, judicial clemency is warranted.
Remorse on the part of the person asking for judicial clemency can be demonstrated by their clear understanding of the gravity and consequences of their conduct. The petitioner must acknowledge their wrongful actions.
