REMEDIAL LAW MOCK BAR
1. Sergio filed against Eya in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific
performance praying for the delivery of a parcel of land subject of their contract of
sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC
designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment
adverse to Eya, who, upon realizing that the trial court was not a regular RTC,
approaches you and wants you to file a petition to have the judgment annulled for
lack of jurisdiction. What advice would you give to Eya? Explain your answer.
(10%)
ANSWER
The petition for annulment of judgment on lack of jurisdiction will not prosper. It has
been held that a special commercial court is still a court of general jurisdiction and
can hear and try a non-commercial case. (Concorde Condominium Inc. v. Baculio,
Gr. 203678, February 17, 2016)
Hence, the special commercial court has jurisdiction to try and decide the action
for specific performance and to render a judgment therein.
2. Distinguish Jurisdiction from Venue. (10%)
ANSWER
Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to decide a case on the merits, while venue
refers to the place where the suit may be filed. In criminal actions, however, venue
is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a court by consent through
waiver, but venue may be waived except in criminal cases.
3. Jon sued Roger for specific performance. Roger knew that Jon was going to file
the case so he went out of town and temporarily stayed in another city to avoid
service of summons. Jon engaged the service of Sheriff Matipuno to serve the
summons but when the latter went to the residence of Roger, he was told by the
caretaker thereof that his employer no longer resides at the house. The caretaker
is a high school graduate and is the godson of Roger. Believing the caretaker’s
story to be true, Sheriff Matipuno left a copy of the summons and complaint with
the caretaker. Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Discuss the
requirements for a valid service of summons. (2016 Bar) (10%)
ANSWER
No valid substituted service of summons. In an action strictly in personam,
personal service on the defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by
handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. If defendant, for
excusable reasons, cannot be served with the summons within a reasonable
period, then substituted service can be resorted to.
4. Dale Dizon had sons with different women — (i) Dexter with longtime partner
Dahlia and (ii) Dingdong and Dodong with his housemaid Divine. When Dale fell ill
in 2014, he entrusted all his property titles and shares of stock in various
companies to Dahlia who, in turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After
the death of Dale, Dexter induced Dingdong and Dodong to sign an agreement
and waiver of their right to Dale’s estate in consideration of PhP 35 million. As
Dexter reneged on his promise to pay, Dingdong and Dodong filed with the RTC
of Manila a complaint for annulment of the agreement and waiver. The summons
and complaint were received by Dina, the housemaid of Dexter, on the day it was
first served. Hence, Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to dismiss.
Dingdong and Dodong thereafter filed a new complaint against Dexter for
annulment of the agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his answer,
Dingdong and Dodong filed a motion to withdraw their complaint praying that it be
dismissed without prejudice. An Order was issued granting the motion to withdraw
without prejudice on the basis that the summons had not yet been served on
Dexter. Dexter filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He
argued that the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the “two-
dismissal rule” of Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in view of the previous
dismissal of the first case. Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second
dismissal with prejudice? (10%)
ANSWER
The two-dismissal rule will not apply, because the first dismissal was at the
instance of the defendant.
The requirements for the application of the two- dismissal rule under Sec. 1 Rule
17 are: (a) there was a previous case that was dismissed by a competent court;
(b) both cases were based on or include the same claim; (c) both notices for
dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and (d) when the motion to dismiss filed by the
plaintiff was consented to by the defendant on the ground that the latter paid and
satisfied all the claims of the former. (Ching v. Cheng, G.R. No. 175507, 8 October
2014)
5. What is an interlocutory order? (10%)
ANSWER
An interlocutory order is an order which decides some point or matter between the
commencement and end of the suit but it is not the final decision on the whole
controversy. It leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally
decided on the merits. (Metropolitan Bank&. Trust Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 110147,
April 17, 2001; Gallardo v. People, G.R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005)
6. Mr. X filed a complaint for sum of money against his old friend, Mr. Y. In order to
ensure that Mr. Y would not be able to file a responsive pleading and much more,
participate in the case, Mr. X paid off Mr. Y's counsel, Atty. Z, who deliberately let
the case proceed as such without his client's knowledge.
Eventually, judgment was rendered on March 1, 2016 in Mr. X's favor, a copy of
which was received by Atty. Z on April 4, 2016. Bothered by his conscience, Atty.
Z brought the copy of the decision to Mr.Y on June 1, 2016, thereby surprising the
latter and causing him grief. Meanwhile, the decision became final and executory
in due course on April 19, 2016.
Thereafter, Mr. Y took steps in vindicating his rights, which culminated on August
15, 2016 when he, as represented by a new counsel, filed a petition for annulment
of judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The
CA dismissed the petition on the ground that Mr. Y failed to submit a satisfactory
explanation as to why he directly resorted to a petition for annulment of judgment,
when he could have filed a petition for relief from judgment. What are the
differences between a petition for relief from judgment and a petition for annulment
of judgment in terms of grounds and periods to file? (10%)
ANSWER
In a Petition for relief from judgment, when a judgment or final order is entered or
any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court
and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
(Section 1, Rule 38) It must be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns
of the judgment, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment was
entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with affidavit
showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and
the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or
defense as the case may be. (Sec. 3, Rule 38)
Whereas, in annulment of judgment, the Court of Appeals can annul the judgment
of the RTC in civil actions when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition
for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of
the petitioner. (Sec. 1, Rule 47)
The grounds for annulment of judgment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, provides for the
third ground which is denial of due process. If based on extrinsic fraud, it must be
filed within four (4) years from its discovery and if based on lack of jurisdiction,
before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (Teaño v. Municipality of Navotas, G.R
No. 205814, February 15, 2016)
7. Dom was appointed special administrator of the Estate of Dakita Dragon. Dalton,
husband of Dakita, together with their five (5) children, opposed the appointment
of Dom claiming that he (Dom) was just a stepbrother of Dakita. After giving Dom
the chance to comment, the court issued an Order affirming the appointment of
Dom. What is the remedy available to the oppositors? (10%)
ANSWER
The remedy available to the oppositors of the appointment as special administrator
is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The
appointment of special administrators, being discretionary, is thus interlocutory
and may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court. (Ocampo v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 187879, 5 July 2010)
8. At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross- examining Lender, successfully elicited
an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid.
Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that
as proven only P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further
argued that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage
of the proceedings. Should the court dismiss the case? (2015 Bar) (10%)
ANSWER
The court should not dismiss the case. What determines the jurisdiction of the court
is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
complaint. The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the
ones to be consulted. (Navida v. Hon. Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr., G.R. No. 125078,
May 30, 2011)
9. What do you mean by a) real actions; and b) personal actions? (10%)
ANSWER
Real actions are actions affecting title to or possession of real property or an
interest therein. All other actions are personal actions. (Sec. 1, Rule 4)
10. Ms. B filed a complaint for damages against Ms. C, alleging that Ms. C negligently
caused the demolition of her house's concrete fence, the top half of which fell on
the front portion of Ms. B's car and permanently damaged its engine. In her answer,
Ms. C denied any personal liability for the damage caused to Ms. B's car, averring
that she merely acquiesced to the advice of her contractor, ABC Construction Co.,
to have the concrete fence demolished. Thus, damages, if any, should be collected
from it. Thereafter, Ms. B filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging
that Ms. C's statement in her answer is actually a negative pregnant. Ms. C
opposed the motion, reiterating her defense in her answer which purportedly
rendered judgment on the pleadings improper. Ms. C also moved for the dismissal
of the case on the ground of non-joinder of ABC Construction Co., which she
alleged is an indispensable party to the case. Assuming that ABC Construction Co.
is an indispensable party, is its non-joinder a ground for the dismissal of the case?
Explain. (2019 Bar) (10%)
ANSWER
The non-joinder of XYZ Construction Co. as an indispensable party is not a ground
for the dismissal of the case. The remedy is to implead the party claimed to be
indispensable, considering that the parties may be added by order of the court, on
motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action. In Plasabas
v. CA (G.R. No. 166519, March. 31, 2009), it was held that the non- joinder of
indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action.
