You are on page 1of 3

RULE 65 CERTIORARI

Q: Petitioner engaged the services of KGLC law offices to pursue a civil collection case and
administrative case against the Municipal Government of Muria. RTC dismissed the case for failure to
prosecute. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to challenge RTCs
decision. Is the petition correct?

A: No. The SC explained that under Rule 17 Sec. 3 and Rule 56 of the ROC, the remedy against final
order is appeal and not certiorari. An appeal may be dismissed upon motion if a party resorts to an
erroneous mode. [SPIDC v. Municipal Gov’t of Muria, Mar. 16, 2016]

FRESH PERIOD RULE


Q: Petitioner filed a complaint in DARAB-PARAD for ejectment with damages against respondent.
DARAB rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. San Miguel filed a petition for certiorari arguing
that the DARAB Rules of Procedure adopted the “fresh period rule” of 15 days within to file a notice of
appeal. Which is the correct rule in filling a notice of appeal?

A: The SC ruled that “All cases pending with the Board of Adjudicators, prior to the effectivity of
2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure shall be governed by the prevailing rule at the time of their filing. The
old rule shall not be less than 5 days in any event, reckoned from the receipt of the notice of denial and a
fresh 15 days period under the new rule. [Milagrosa Jocson Vs. Nelson San Miguel, Mar. 9, 2016]

WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Q: Petitioner filed a petition of mandamus to compel COMELEC to implement Voter Verified Audit
Trail security feature. COMELEC refuses arguing that the use if this security feature will only delay in the
conduct of the elections and that it may also be used for vote buying. May the COMELEC be compelled
in implementing the said security feature through a writ of mandamus?

A: Yes. A petition for mandamus may be granted and issued when an agency “unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office.”
COMELEC fails to fulfill the duty required under the law through its inaction in utilizing the VVPAT
feature of the vote counting machines. [Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. et. al. v. COMELEC, Mar. 8,
2016]

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
Q: Petitioners were charged of the crime of estafa by the respondents. One of the respondents filed a
motion to inhibit against judge A. The case was re-raffled to judge B. Judge B nullified and set aside
previous proceedings and set the case a new for pre-trial conference. Can Judge B nullify the proceedings
previously conducted and ordered a new pre-trial of the case?

A: No. It cannot simply set aside the proceedings that have been previously conducted. Pre-trial is a
procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties and to take the trial of
cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Its chief objective is to simplify, abbreviate and
expedite or dispense with the trial. Absent any palpable explanation as to why and how said proceedings
were conducted in violation of the rules should be set aside [Zaldivar v. Dumasis, Mar. 2, 2016]

RTC JURISDICTION
Q: Petitioner bank filed a complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate and damages
against respondent on RTC Bulacan. On the other hand, respondent filed a motion to dismiss alleging
that RTC of Bulacan has no jurisdiction over the case because the subject property have an assessed value
of less than P20,000. Petitioner insists that the property involved has an assessed value of more than P20k
as shown in a Tax Declaration attached in the complaint. Does the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction
over the matter?

A: Yes. Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the RTC has
exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions which involve title to possession of real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20k. The tax declaration
showing the assessed value of the property is deemed a part of the complaint and should be considered
together with it in determining that the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction. [BSP v. Legaspi, Mar. 2,
2016]

RULE 70 UNLAWFUL DETAINER


Q: Petitioner and respondent lived in a house in the expense of respondent while the lot is registered
at the name of the former. They executed a contract of lease, MOA and special power of attorney. When
their relationship became sour after 16 years of living together, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer against the petitioner when the latter does not vacate the property despite demands. Can the
respondent eject the petitioner from the property through filing of unlawful detainer case?

A: No, because under Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, “a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration
or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within
one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding or possession, bring an action in the proper
Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession,
or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession together with
damages and costs.”
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
(1) initially, 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 [Fullido v. Grilli, Feb. 29,
2016]

CAUSE OF ACTION
Q: A contracted the services of B to overhaul two aircrafts engines. Due to its technical capability, B
contracted the services of C to do the work. A accepted the overhauled engines and released the amount
to B but C was not paid for the remaining balances despite the demands. C filed a complaint before the
RTC against B and A to pay the balance plus interest. CA dismissed the case against A because the
complaint does not state a cause of action against A but granted its complaint against B. Does C failed to
sufficiently state a cause of action?

A: Yes, according to the SC, cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. In pursuing that cause, a plaintiff must first plead in the complaint a “concise
statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the cause of action.” The standard requires that
“every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of
the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting
the statement of mere evidentiary facts.” [Magellan Aerospace Corporation vs. Philippine Air Force, Feb.
24, 2016]
Q: A alleged that they are the legitimate owners of a land. B using hired hands and without the
knowledge of A entered the subject land and planted palay. Despite the demands to vacate, B refuses
which prompt A to file a complaint. The RTC ruled in favor of A. B filed a petition for review 2 days after
the period expires because the period fell on a Saturday. May the court grant the petition for review
despite being filed beyond reglementary period?

A: Yes, as a general rule, appeals are perfected when it is filed within the period prescribed under
the Rules of Court. Specifically section 1 Rule 42 provides that appeals to CA should be filed and served
within 15 days counted from notice of the judgement appealed from or from the denial of petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration. The Court has long declared that the right to appeal is merely a statutory
privilege, subject to the court’s discretion by virtue of which no party can assume that its motion of
extension would be granted. Being discretionary in nature, it behoves upon the appellants to follow up
on their motions and ascertain its status, as the failure to strictly comply with the provisions on
reglementary periods renders the remedy of appeal unavailable. However, where strong considerations
of substantial justice are present, the stringent application of technical rules could be relaxed in the
exercise of equity jurisdiction as in cases where petitioners shoed no intent to delay the final
disposition of the case. [Sps. Cayago v. Sps. Cantara, Dec. 2, 2015]

You might also like