BAR

QUESTIONS
2003-2006
Statistical Overview
2003 2005
 No Provisional  Rule 57
Remedies and Special  Rule 65
Civil Actions 2006
2004  Rule 57

 Rule 65  Rule 58

 Rule 70  Rule 65
 Rule 67
2004 BAR
EXAMINATION
I. Charged with the offense of slight physical injuries under an
information duly filed with the MeTC in Manila which in the meantime
had duly issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed by the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the accused filed with said court a
motion to quash on the sole ground that the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do so. The MeTC denied the motion on
the ground that it is a prohibited motion under the said Rule.

The accused thereupon filed with the RTC in Manila a petition

for certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the nullification of the MeTC's
denial of his motion to quash. The RTC in due time issued an order
denying due course to the certiorari petition on the ground that it is not
allowed by the said Rule. The accused forthwith filed with said RTC a
motion for reconsideration of its said order. The RTC in time denied said
motion for reconsideration on the ground that the same is also a
prohibited motion under the said Rule.

Were the RTC's orders denying due course to the petition as well as
denying the motion for reconsideration correct? Reason. (5%)
Suggested answer:
 The RTC’s orders denying due course to the petition for
certiorari as well as denying the motion for
reconsideration are both not correct. The petition for
certiorari os a prohibited pleading under Section 19 (g)
of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and the
motion for reconsideration, while it is not prohibited
motion, should be denied because the petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading. (Lucas v. Fabros,
AM No. MTJ-99-1226, January 31, 2000, citing Joven
v. C.A., 212 SCRA 700, 707-708(1992).
II. During trial, plaintiff was able to present, without
objection on the part of defendant in an ejectment
case, evidence showing that plaintiff served on
defendant a written demand to vacate the subject
property before the commencement of the suit, a
matter not alleged or otherwise set forth in the
pleadings on file.

May the corresponding pleading still be amended to

conform to the evidence? Explain.
Suggested answer
 It depends. In forcible entry, the motion may
be allowed at the discretion of the court, the
demand having been presented at the trial
without objection on the part of the
defendant. In unlawful detainer, however, the
demand to vacate is jurisdictional and since
the court did not acquire jurisdiction from the
very beginning, the motion to conform to the
evidence cannot be entertained. The
amendment cannot be allowed because it
will in effect confer jurisdiction when there is
otherwise no jurisdiction.
III. After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action before
the RTC; ZZ has completed presentation of his
evidence, defendant without prior leave of court
moved for dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for
insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence. After due hearing
of the motion and the opposition thereto, the court
issued an order, reading as follows: The Court hereby
grants defendant's motion to dismiss and accordingly
orders the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, with the
costs taxed against him. It is so ordered." Is the order
of dismissal valid?

May plaintiff properly take an appeal? Reason. (5%)

Suggested answer
 The order or decision is void because it does not
state findings of fact and of law, as required by
Sec. 14, Article VIII of the Constitution and Sec. 1,
Rule 36. Being void, appeal is not available. The
proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65.
2005 BAR
EXAMINATION
I. May the aggrieved party file a petition for
certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure instead of filing
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
thereof for the nullification of a decision of the
Court of Appeals in the exercise either of its
original or appellate jurisdiction? Explain.
Suggested answer
 The remedy to nullify a decision of the Court
of Appeals is a petition for review on
certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule
45, instead of a petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65, except in certain exceptional
circumstances such as where appeal is
inadequate. By settled jurisprudence,
certiorari is not suitable for a lost appeal.
II. Katy filed an action against Tyrone for collection of the sum of P1
Million in the Regional Trial Court, with an ex-parte application for a
writ of preliminary attachment. Upon posting of an attachment bond, the
court granted the application and issued a writ of preliminary
attachment.

Apprehensive that Tyrone might withdraw his savings deposit

with the bank, the sheriff immediately served a notice of garnishment on
the bank to implement the writ of preliminary attachment. The following
day, the sheriff proceeded to Tyrone’s house and served him the
summons, with copies of the complaint containing the application for writ
of preliminary attachment, Katy’s affidavit, order of attachment, writ of
preliminary attachment and attachment bond.

Within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons, Tyrone

filed a motion to dismiss and to dissolve the writ of preliminary
attachment on the following grounds: (i) the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over his person because the writ was served ahead of the
summons; (ii) the writ was improperly implemented; and (iii) said writ
was improvidently issued because the obligation in question was already
fully paid.

Resolve the motion with reasons.

Suggested answer
 The fact that the writ of attachment was served ahead of the summons did not affect
the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant. The effect is that the writ is not
enforceable. (Sec. 5, Rule 57, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.) But, as pointed
by jurisprudence, all that is needed to be done is to re-serve the writ. (Onate v.
Abrogar, 241 SCRA 659 [1985])
 The writ was improperly implemented. Serving a notice of garnishment, particularly
before summons is served is not proper. What should be served on the defendant are
a copy of the writ of attachment and notice that the bank deposits are attached
pursuant to the writ. (Sec. 7[d], Rule 57, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.)
 The proper remedy where there is payment is a motion to dismiss under Section
1(h) Rule 16. A motion to discharge on the ground that the writ was improvidently
issued will not lie, since such a motion would be tantamount to trial on the merits of
the action which cannot be ventilated at a mere hearing of the motion instead of a
regular trial. The writ is only ancillary to the main case. (Sec. 13, Rule 57, 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, Mindanao Savings & Loans Assoc., Inc. v. C.A., 172
SCRA 480 [1989]; Davao Light & Power Co. v. Court of Appeals 204 SCRA 343
[1991]).
2006 BAR
EXAMINATION
 May Congress enact a law providing that a
5,000 square meter lot, apart of the UST
compound in Sampaloc, Manila, be expropriated
for the construction of a park in honor of former
City Mayor Arsenio Lacson? As compensation to
UST, the City of Manila shall deliver its 5-hectare
lot in Sta. Rosa, Laguna originally intended as a
residential subdivision for the Manila City Hall
employees. Explain. 5%
Suggested answer
Yes, Congress can enact a law to expropriate property, but it
cannot limit just compensation. The determination of just compensation
is a judicial function and congress may not supplant or prevent the
exercise of judicial discretion to determine just compensation (EPZA v.
Dulay, 149SCRA 305 [1987]).

Under Sec. 5, Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil

Procedure, the ascertainment of just compensation requires the
evaluation of three commissioners.
II. Explain each mode of certiorari:

As a mode of appeal from the Regional Trial

Court or the Court of Appeals to the Supreme
Court. 2.5%

As a special civil action from the Regional Trial

Court or the Court of Appeals to the Supreme
Court. 2.5%

As a mode of review of the decisions of the

National Labor Relations Commission and the
Constitutional Commissions. 2.5%
Suggested answer
 As a mode of appeal from the Regional Trial Court or the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. 2.5%
 A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Revised Rules on Civil Procedure is a mode of appeal on pure
questions of law from a judgment or final order or resolution of the
Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court.
 As a special civil action from the Regional Trial Court or the
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. 2.5%
 A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, it is an original
action from the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court against any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions raising the issue of lack or excess
of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, there being no appeal or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
 As a mode of review of the decisions of the National Labor
Relations Commission and the Constitutional Commissions.
2.5%
 The mode of review of the decision of the NLRC is via a special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, but pursuant to the
hierarchy of the courts enunciated in the case of St. Martin’s
Funeral Homes vs. NLCR, 295 SCRA 494 (1998), the same should be
filed in the Court of Appeals.
III. What are the requisites for the issuance
of
(a) a writ of preliminary injunction; and
(b) a final writ of injunction?
Suggested answer
 The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction are: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable
right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; (3) that there
is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the
writ to prevent serious damage (Tayag v. Lacson, 426 SCA 282
[2004])
 A final writ of injunction maybe granted if after trial of the
action, it appears that that the applicant is entitled to have the
act or acts complained of permanently enjoined (Sec. 9, Rule
58 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure)
IV. Distinguish between injunction as
an ancillary remedy and injunction
as a main action.
Suggested answer
 Injunction as an ancillary action presupposes the existence of a
principal or a main action (Vallangca v. Court of Appeals, 173
SCRA 42 [1989]). Its main function is to preserve the status
quo until the merits can be heard and resolved (Urbanes v.
Court of Appeals, 335 SCRA 537 [2001])
 On the other hand, an injunction as the main action is
brought specifically to obtaina judgment perpetually
restraining or commanding the performance of an act after trial
(Del mar v. PAGCOR, 346 SCRA 485 [2000])
V. Define a temporary restraining
order
Suggested answer
A TRO is an interlocutory order issued to preserve
the status quo, and is granted to a party until the
hearing of the application for preliminary injunction
(Sec. 5, par.2, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure).
VI. May a Regional Trial Court issue
an injunction without bond?
Suggested answer
 Yes, if the injunction issued is a final injunction.
Generally, however, a preliminary injunction may
not be issued without the posting of a bond, unless
exempted by the trial court (Rule 58, 1997 Revised
Rules f Civil Procedure) or otherwise provided for
by law.
VII. What is the duration of a TRO issued
by the Executive Judge of a Regional Trial
Court?
Suggested answer
 The duration of TRO issued by the executive judge
of a Regional Trial Court is 72 hours from issuance,
which is issue only if he matter is of extreme
urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury, and the duration of the TRO
issues by him as the judge assigned to the case, may
be effective for a total of 20 days including the
original period of 72 hours.
VII. Differentiate a TRO from a
status quo order.
Suggested answer
 A TRO is issued upon application of a party
and upon the posting of the required bond. On the
other hand, a status quo order may be issued motu
propio on equitable considerations, and does not
require the posting of a bond Unlike a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a status
quo order is more in the nature of a cease and desist
order, since it is neither directs the doing or undoing
of acts as in the case of prohibitory or mandatory
injunctive relief (Garcia v. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207
[1999])
IX. May a justice of a Division of the
Court of Appeals issue a TRO?
Suggested answer
 Yes, a Justice of a Division of the Court of
Appeals may issue a TRO, as authorized under Rule
58 and by Section 5, Rule IV of the IRCA which
additionally requires that the action shall be
submitted on the next working day to the absent
members of the division for their ratification,
modification or recall (heirs of the late Justice Jose
B.L. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 338 SCRA 282
[2000])