1.
In a recent case decided by the court with respect to remedies in A mandatory injunction is an extreme remedy and will be granted only on
case of quashal of search warrant, it ruled that it has to be first
identified if the application for search warrant is merely incidental to
a main action or is made in anticipation of filing a case.
If the application for search warrant before the RTC was made
incidental to an action for violation of RA9165 already filed with the
court, the quashal of the warrant is merely interlocutory as the court
still has to render a decision with the main case. Hence, Petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 should be the remedy.
However, if the application of the search warrant is made in
anticipation of filing a case, the quashal of the warrant is a final
judgement, hence the remedy of PDEA would be ordinary appeal to
the Court of Appeals through Rule 41.
2. It depends on the amount involved in the case that would be
determinative whether it will be governed either by the Rules on
Summary Procedure or by the ordinary rules.
If the amount of damages subject of the case exceeds 200,000 Php,
the case would be an ordinary civil action and would subsequently
be governed by the ordinary rules. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, if the defending party fails to answer within the time
allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party
with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare
the defending party in default. Thus, the trial court would be correct
in granting the motion upon compliance by the pleader of the
requisites required therefor.
On the other hand, if the amount of damages does not exceed
200,000 Php, the case shall be governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure wherein a motion to declare defendant in default is
prohibited. Thus, the court’s decision would be erroneous as the
right remedy would be motion to render judgment on the pleadings.
3. Yes. Under the law, the RTC in its exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction may issue necessary orders as would ultimately aid said
court in resolving the appeal. It may also issue orders as it may
deem just. The order for the conduct of a relocation survey should
be upheld as it is also just because the RTC before reaching its
decision is making sure that whatever judgement is rendered it is in
accord with law and justice.
4. Yes. Under Rule 39, execution is classified as a matter of right and a
matter of judicial discretion.
In the instant case, the execution of the judgement is already a
matter of judicial discretion as an appeal has already been perfected.
Although a judgement has already been entered by appellate court,
it has not yet been final.
If I were to decide for the court, the motion for execution
should be granted as the appellate court already affirmed the
decision of the court and the records have already been forwarded
to said court. The motion however should be accompanied by the
copy of the judgement and with notice to the other party.
5. No. Under Rule 57 Sec 1, one of the cases that allows preliminary
attachment is when it is an action for a specified amount of money
or damages other than exemplary or moral & it is an obligation
arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict & the
defendant is about to depart the Philippines with intent to defraud
his creditor.
Absent any allegation as to the specified amount of damages &
if it cannot be shown that defendant Pedro is about to depart the
country, preliminary attachment would not lie.
Furthermore, for Preliminary Attachment to be availed of, Juan
should show in his affidavit the following:
a. There is a sufficient cause of action
b. The amount due to the plaintiff is as much as the sum to
which the order is granted
c. That there is no other sufficient security to cover for the
obligation
d. An affidavit & bond duly filed with the court before the
order issues
e. That the case is one of those enumerated in sec 1 of Rule
57
6. Under the provisions of rule 58 of the 1997 rules of Civil Procedure
governing Preliminary Injunction, the remedy of the party against
whom the injunction was issued is to file a bond in an amount fixed
by the court executed in favour of the applicant conditioned on the
fact that he will comply with the judgment if it be favourable to the
plaintiff.
Hence, Fe should file a bond executed to the plaintiff in an amount
fixed by the court so that she can retain the property. This is
however only applicable if the main issue in the civil case is not
recovery of possession.
On the contrary, if the civil case is mainly premised on recovery of
possession, the claim of damages being merely incidental, the proper
remedy should have been Rule 60 which is an action for Replevin. If
this is the case, I will advise Fe to move for the setting aside of the
injunction order, it being an improper remedy.
a showing that:
1. The invasion of the right is material and substantial;
2. The right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable;
3. There is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent
serious damage;
4. The effect of the mandatory injunction would not be to create a new
relation between the parties which was arbitrarily interrupted by the
defendant
Some limitations on the issuance of the RTC of preliminary injunction:
1. Limited to those being or about to be committed within its
territorial jurisdiction;
2. It could not issue writs of preliminary injunction in unfair labor
practices, or where the issue involved is interwoven with an
unfair labor practice case (labor disputes);
3. Cannot issue a writ of preliminary injunction against quasi-
judicial agencies (SSS, SEC, Patent Office, COMELEC)
4. Could not interfere by injunction with the judgment of a court
of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction
5. Issuance would adversely affect the expeditious implementation
and completion of government infrastructure projects– only the
SC can issue writ of PI; i.e. commencement / continuation of a
government infrastructure project
6. Extrajudicial foreclosure – cannot issue such, not unless there is
proof that there was already payment made by the debtor
mortgager
7. Bureau of Customs – cannot prevent BoC from doing its acts
8. In any case involving or growing out of the issuance, approval
or disapproval, revocation or suspension of, or any action
whatsoever by the proper administrative official or body on
concessions, licenses, permits, patents, or public grants of any
kind or in connection with the disposition, exploitation,
utilization, exploration and/or development of the natural
resources of the Philippines
7. I will advise Maria to file a Petition for Declaratory Relief in order for
the divorce decree she received from Jose to be judicially
recognized.
Under the said remedy, any person interested under a deed, will or
contract or any other written instrument should file said Petition with
the RTC so that it can exercise its power to construe written
instrument & the declaration of rights and duties specified therein.
Hence, the divorce decree should be submitted to the RTC.
Art. 26 of the Family Code provides, where a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
8. Under the rules on jurisdiction, if the assessed value of the property
if this be a real action exceeds P20,000, the case should be filed with
the RTC.
As Juan’s counsel, I will file a Motion for Reconsideration on the
ground that the decision of the trial court is contrary to law. As
required by the rules I will indicate the issue of jurisdiction as the
decision which is contrary to law & such motion shall be
accompanied with notice to the other party.
Mandamus is not the proper remedy for correcting that error, for this
is not a case where a tribunal "unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office" or "unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right." (Section 3, Rule 67, Rules of Court.) It is
rather a case where a judge is proceeding in defiance of the Rules of
Court by refusing to dismiss an action which would not be
maintained in his court. The remedy in such case is prohibition
(section 2, Rule 65), and that remedy is available in the present case
because the order complained of, being merely of an interlocutory
nature, is not appealable.
Section 2. Petition for prohibition. — When the proceedings of any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or
any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or
otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of
the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
9. It depends. It has to be determined first whether the decision of RTC
was rendered in its original or appellate jurisdiction.
 If the decision was made in its original jurisdiction, Rule 41 requires
that filing of the notice of appeal and payment of appeal fees is with
the court a quo. If this is the case, the trial court would be incorrect
in denying the appeal.
However, if it was decided by RTC in its appellate jurisdiction, Rule
42 mandates that said notice of appeal and corresponding appeal
fee should be filed with the CA and in this case, the trial court’s
decision would be correct as it was erroneously filed with the RTC.
Also, under Rule 17, Sec 3, the trial court can dismiss the appeal
motu propio for failure to comply with the rules or order of the court.
If this is attendant in this case, then the trial court may dismiss the
case.

10. The court would be correct as the municipality of Base failed to

comply with the requisites for exercising expropriation as prescribed
by law. For a municipality to exercise its power of eminent domain,
the following requisites should concur:
1. There should be a local ordinance expressly allowing the
exercise or expropriation;
2. There is taking of private property
3. The taking of said property is for public use/purpose,
4. Upon payment of just compensation.
In the instant case, there is no showing that the
aforementioned requisites were complied as there was no local
ordinance expressly empowering said municipality to exercise
its expropriation power.

11. The court should dismiss the petition for mandamus as it is an

improper remedy. A Petition for mandamus can be filed only against
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person who 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 to
which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Thus, DVOREF cannot be a proper respondent in a case for
mandamus pursuant to the aforementioned rule. Moreover,
mandamus will only lie to compel the performance of a ministerial
duty, not a discretionary duty, and petitioner must show that he has
a well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.
Thus, mandamus will not lie to compel the school authorities to
graduate a student who has failed to comply with the disciplinary
and academic rules of the school as said writ cannot review or
control the exercise of discretionary powers.

12. I will advise B to file an action for Foreclosure of Mortgage as it is a

remedy provided to a creditor so that the proceeds of the sale of the
property subject of the mortgage should be applied to the
mortgaged debt of A from B.

13. No. the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not proper
considering that there are still factual issues raised.
Under Rule 45 for such petition to prosper, it should be a case
decided by the RTC in its original jurisdiction and it should only raise
pure questions of law.

14. a. A special judgement is one which requires special performance by

the judgment obligor. It is not a judgment for payment of sum of
money or delivery of property. Rather, it requires the performance of
skills which the judgment obligor possesses in order to satisfy the
judgment.
b. A letters rogatory is a letter sent by our court addressed to a
certain foreign court who has jurisdiction by a person which the
court requires its oral or written deposition, such letter also assures
the foreign court, that should the said court experienced the same
need, it shall also do the same. This is only availed of if letters of
commission is unsuccessful.
c. In quo warranto in elective offices, it questions the irregularities of
the election proceeding while in appointive office, it questions the
legality of the appointment. In the former, if the elected officer is
found to be disqualified, the one who filed the quo warranto case
shall assume office provided he garnered the second highest number
of votes. While in elective office, this does not necessarily follow. It
is the court who shall decide as to who is the rightful holder of the
office.

15. The sheriff should first ascertain the validity of the Third Party Claim
of Fe since the latter is not a party to the action. He should make
sure that there is an affidavit showing Fe’s title or right to possession
of the jewelry stating the grounds for such title or right to
possession and served to him and a copy of which served to the
parties to the action.
If there is the case, the sheriff will not be bound to keep the
property unless a bond is filed by Sofia.