2017 Labor Bar Q and

QUESTIONS ON CIVIL PROCEDURE GIVEN LAST 2017 BAR
EXAMINATIONS IN REMEDIAL LAW (ALL IN ALL AMOUNTS TO 51%).

I.
What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over
the following cases? Explain briefly your answers. (a) An action filed on
November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being
occupied by the defendant by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, after the
former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served upon and
received by him on July 6, 2016. (2.5%)
(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a
seller's contractual right to repurchase a lot with an assessed value of
P15,000.00. (2.5%)
Ans:
Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts

and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. – Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the
question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.
B)
II.
Santa filed against Era 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 Era, 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 Era? Explain your answer. (4%)
The Supreme Court held that the proper course of action for a non-special commercial court
was not to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but simply to
refer the case to the executive judge for re-docketing as a commercial case. The reason is
that a Special Commercial Court’s exercise of its limited jurisdiction over corporate cases is
only a matter of procedure and has nothing to do with the question of jurisdiction.
Hence Branch 276 should not have dismissed the case but simply referred it to the
executive judge for re-docketing as a commercial case. [Gonzalez v. GJH Land, Inc., 10
November 2015, e.b., Perlas-Bernabe, J.).
IV.
Give brief answers to the following: (a) What is the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts? (2%) (b) What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?
(2%)
hierarchy of courts
Under this doctrine, a case must be filed before the lowest court possible
having the appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a special
reason which would allow a party a direct resort to a higher court.
harmless error rule in relation to appeals

Harmless error rule [People v. Teehankee, G.R. Nos. 111206-08 (1995)]
In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to
the substantive rights of the litigants. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it
will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party.
V.
After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan Returned to the
Philippines to retire in Manila, the place of his birth and childhood. Ten
years before his retirement, he bought for cash in his name a house and lot
in Malate, Manila. Six months after his return, he learned that his house
and lot were the subject of foreclosure proceedings commenced by ABC
Bank on the basis of a promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage
he had allegedly executed in favor of ABC Bank five years earlier. Knowing
that he was not in the country at the time the promissory note and deed of
mortgage were supposedly executed, Evan forthwith initiated a complaint in
the RTC of Manila praying that the subject documents be declared null and
void. ABC Bank filed a motion to dismiss Evan's complaint on the ground of
improper venue on the basis of a stipulation in both documents designating
Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the event of litigation between the
parties arising out of the loan and mortgage. Should the motion to dismiss
of ABC Bank be granted? .Explain your answer. (5%)
ndi siya party sa contract so pwedeng i grant ung motion to dismiss
The motion to dismiss should be granted.
VI.
Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition of a large
tract of land located in Oriental Mindoro. She impleaded her two brothers
John and Adrian as defendants but did not implead Leica and Agatha, her
two sisters who were permanent residents of Australia. Arguing that there
could be no final determination of the case without impleading all
indispensable parties, John and Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint.
Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your
answer. (4%)
The court should not deny such motion.
Under the Rules of court, neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is

ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage
of the action and on such terms as are just. Jurisprudence dictates that the
proper recourse is to file a motion of any party or upon’s court own
initiative, may add or drop a party.
VII.
Elise obtained a loan of P3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from
executing a promissory note in favor of Merchant
Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot
as security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence,
Merchant Bank filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real estate
mortgage. A month after, and while the foreclosure suit was pending,
Merchant Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of P3
Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously
executed by the latter. In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the
second action on the ground of splitting of a single cause of action,
Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid of
any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate
contracts, namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note,
and the deed of real estate mortgage. Is there a splitting of a single cause
of action? Explain your answer. (4%)
There is a splitting of causes of action.
When Merchant Bank commenced suit to collect the promissory note, he
waived his right to foreclose the mortgage. Merchant Bank split his cause
of action. ( Bar 1999; Industrial Finance Corp. v Apostol )

2017 Labor Bar Q and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Labor Bar Q and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Labor Bar Q and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUESTIONS ON CIVIL PROCEDURE GIVEN LAST 2017 BAR

EXAMINATIONS IN REMEDIAL LAW (ALL IN ALL AMOUNTS TO 51%).

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts

harmless error rule in relation to appeals

The motion to dismiss should be granted.

The court should not deny such motion.

Under the Rules of court, neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is

You might also like