CivPro q&a

of 280
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
    I. General Principles   A. Concept of remedial law   Q: What is the concept of remedial law? 2% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:  The concept of Remedial Law is that it is a branch of public law which prescribes the procedural rules to be observed in litigations, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, and in special proceedings, as well as the remedies or reliefs available in each case. Q: How are remedial laws implemented in our system of government? 2% (2006   Bar Question)   SUGGESTED ANSWER:  Remedial Laws are implemented in our system of government through the judicial system, including the prosecutory service, our courts and quasi-judicial agencies. X’s action for sum of money against Y amounting to P80,000.00 accrued before the effectivity of the rule providing for shortened procedure in adjudicating claims that do not exceed P100,000.00. X filed his action after the rule took effect. Will the new rule apply to his case? (2011 BAR)  (A) No since what applies is the rule in force at the time the cause of action accrued. (B) No, since new procedural rules cover only cases where the issues have already been joined. (C) Yes, since procedural rules have retroactive effect. (D) Yes, since procedural rules generally apply prospectively to pending cases. B. Substantive law vis-á-vis remedial law   Q: Distinguish between substantive law and remedial, law. 2% (2006 Bar   Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:  Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights and obligations, the violation of which gives rise to a cause of action. On the other hand, remedial law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion (cf. Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 540, 650 [1948]).  C. Nature of Philippine courts   1. Principle of judicial hierarchy   Which of the following NOT TRUE regarding the doctrine of judicial hierarchy? (2011 BAR)  (A) It derives from a specific and mandatory provision of substantive law. (B) The Supreme Court may disregard the doctrine in cases of national interest and matters of serious implications. (C) A higher court will not entertain direct recourse to it if redress can be obtained in the appropriate courts. (D) The reason for it is the need for higher courts to devote more time to matters within their exclusive jurisdiction. Q: What is meant by “hierarchy of courts”? (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:   By “h ierarchy of- courts” is meant that while the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent srcinal jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,  prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus, such concurrence does not accord litigants unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor may be directed. The application should be filed with the court of lower level unless the importance of tHe issue involved deserves the action of the court of higher level. (Uy vs. Contreras. 237 SCRA 167) (NOTE: The rules and cases are cited merely for reference purposes)   2. Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability   What is the doctrine of judicial stability or non interference? (2011 BAR)  (A) Once jurisdiction has attached to a court, it can not be deprived of it by subsequent happenings or events. (B) Courts will not hear and decide cases involving issues that come within the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals. (C) No court has the authority to interfere by injunction with the judgment of another court of coordinate jurisdiction. (D) A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress sought cannot be obtained from the appropriate court. Q: AB. as mother and in her capacity as legal guardian of her legitimate minor son, CD, brought action for support against EF, as father of CD and AB's lawfully wedded husband. EF filed his answer denying his paternity with counterclaim for damages. Subsequently, AB filed a manifestation in court that in view of the denial made by EF, would be futile to pursue the case against EF. AB agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint, subject to the condition that EF will withdraw his counterclaim for damages. MB and EF filed a joint motion to  dismiss. The court dismissed the case with prejudice. Later on, minor son CD, represented by AB, filed another complaint for support against EF. EF filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata.   A. Is res judicata a valid ground for dismissal of the second complaint? Explain your answer. (3%)   B. What are the essential requisites of res Judicata (2%) (2000 Bar Question)   SUGGESTED ANSWER:  A. No, res Judicata is not a defense in an action for support even if the first case was dismissed with prejudice on a Joint motion to dismiss. The plaintiff’s mother agreed to the dismissal of the complaint for support in view of the defendants answer denying his paternity with a counterclaim for damages. This was in the nature of a compromise of the right of support which Is prohibited by law. (Art. 2035. Civil Code; De AsIs v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 176 ( 19991]. B. The essential requisites of res judicata are: 1. the judgment or order rendered must be final; 2. the court rendering the same must have Jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties; 3. it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and 4. there must be between the two cases identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action. [San Diego v. Cardona, 70 Phil. 281 (1940].) A judicial compromise has the effect of and is not appealable. (2012 BAR)  5. Estoppel; 6. Conclusiveness of judgment; 7. Res Judicata; 8. Stare decisis. and is immediately executory   Q: Evelyn filed a complaint for a sum of money against Joan but the complaint was later dismissed for failure to prosecute “within a reasonable length of time.” Thereafter, Evelyn filed another case based on the same facts against Joan. Joan moved to dismiss the same on the ground that the cause of action therein is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata). Evelyn opposed the motion claiming that res judicata has not set in since Joan was not served with summons and the complaint in the first case was earlier dismissed, so that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over her person and, consequently, over the case. How would you decide the motion of Joan? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)  Answer:  The motion to dismiss is denied. One of the essential requisites of res judicata is jurisdiction over the parties. Inasmuch as Joan was not served with the summons in the first case which was earlier dismissed, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her  person and, hence, the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of another action against her. (Republic Planters Bank vs. Molina, September 28,1988) II. Jurisdiction   A. Over the parties   1. How jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired   Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a Complaint for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of P19,700.00. Appended to the complaint is Amorsolo’s verification and certification of non -forum shopping executed in New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., a notary public in the State of New York. Brigido filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:  [a] The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of the Philippines; (2%) (2009 Bar Question)   SUGGESTEDANSWER-  The first ground raised lacks merit because jurisdiction over the person of a plaintiff is acquired  by the court upon the filing of plaintiffs complaint therewith. Residency or citizenship is not a requirement for filing a complaint, because plaintiff thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court. Q: How is jurisdiction acquired by a court over the person of: (1994 Bar Question)  1) the plaintiff in a special civil action for mandamus? SUGGESTED ANSWER:   1) Jurisdiction is acquired over the plaintiff in a special civil action for mandamus by the commencement or filing of the action. ALTERNATIVEANSWER:  Such Jurisdiction is acquired by the filing of the action and the payment of the prescribed docket fees.

Tulio 601

Apr 16, 2018
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks