EXAMINATION ANSWER/ LINALYN BATION

 

Bation, Linalyn T.

Special Civil Action

JD-III

 

I.

          Certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. It is not a mode of appeal. It invokes the original jurisdiction of the court to annul a decision made by a judicial or quasi-judicial body. It is different from other modes of appeal, in the sense that Certiorari under Rule 65: (i) is a remedy to correct an error of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment; (ii) is an original and independent action; (iii) the decision under Rule 65 is appealable; (iv) the court uses its original jurisdiction and (v) it should be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of judgment.

 

II.

(1)

          The rule on immutability of judgment bars the court to modify a decision that has already attained finality of judgment. It becomes immutable and unalterable even if it is meant to correct erroneous conclusions.

(2)

          The doctrine of immutability of judgment, however is not absolute. It is subject to some exceptions. The following are: (i) nunc pro tunc entries; (ii) void judgment and (iii) correction of clerical errors and (iv) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.

(3)

          Yes, the Supreme Court can invalidate the final judgment as it falls under one of the exceptions of the doctrine of immutability of judgment. The law provides that whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that would render its execution unjust and inequitable, immutability of judgment may not apply.

         

III.

          If I were the counsel of Maria, I would file for a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for Certiorari can be filed by an aggrieved party when a court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which has no appeal or any other speedy remedy.

          Although, an appeal can no longer be made when accused are acquitted, however, petition under Rule 65 is an original and independent action. Moreover, there is no double jeopardy in this case, as the court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, Maria can avail of Rule 65 petition for Certiorari.

 

IV.

          The two (2) kinds of contempt of court are the direct contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person has obstructed or interrupted the proceedings inside the court while indirect contempt is committed outside the presence of the court.

 

V.

          The rule on expropriation shall govern when buying a private property for public use. In order for me, the mayor to legally appropriate the property, I should file for a complaint and state therein the property and the purpose why the property should be appropriated. Just compensation shall then be ascertained for the property sought. Proceedings shall then be made regarding the expropriation.

 

VI.

          I can file for an interpleader in this case. An interpleader can be filed when there are two conflicting claims on the same subject matter and the petitioner has no interest therein. The requisites for an interpleader are the following: (i) there are two or more claimants; (ii) the conflicting claims involves the same subject matter; (iii) conflicting claims are made against the petitioner and (iv) the petitioner has no interest therein.

 

VII.

          I can file for contempt of court against the defendants to maintain the integrity of the court. One of the acts that is punishable under indirect contempt of court is when there is an improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.

VIII.

          Declaratory relief can be filed by any interested person in a deed, will or a contract to determine any question of construction or the validity of said written instrument. Only construction or the validity of the instrument can be raised in an action for declaratory relief and the declaration of his rights and obligations from the instrument.

          Similar remedies include the quieting of title to a real property and the removal of clouds therefrom.

         

IX.

          A chief justice can only be removed in office through impeachment; however, Chief Justice Sereno was ousted from her position through a quo warranto. An action for a quo warranto may be filed against: (i) a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public position or franchise; (ii) a public officer who does act which under the law, constitute a ground for forfeiture of office and (iii) an association and corporation without being legally incorporated.

          The Supreme Court held in Chief Justice Sereno’s case, that she unlawfully holds the position as she failed to submit the required SALN. The court further argues that, she can be removed through quo warranto proceedings as she was never qualified in the first place to hold the office. According to the court, they cannot impeach someone who in the first place did not qualify to be the Chief Justice. Thus, Chief Justice Sereno was ousted in the office through quo warranto.

          Quo warranto in election laws, raises in issue the disloyalty or the ineligibility of the winning candidate. It is a proceeding to unseat the respondent from office.

 

X.

          Judicial and extrajudicial foreclosure are both means to terminate the rights of the mortgagor over the property. Judicial foreclosure is governed by the rules of court, while extrajudicial foreclosure is governed by another law. A filing for an action is required in judicial foreclosure while it is not in extrajudicial foreclosure. There is a right of redemption to both.

 

CASE PROBLEM

I.

          The Municipal Trial Court erred when it rendered the case to be one of an unlawful detainer, the case involves an accion publiciana. Ejectment cases can only be filed within one (1) year from the dispossession of the property, otherwise accion publiciana should be filed. The MTC has the jurisdiction to hear and try cases involving ejectment whereas, the RTC has the jurisdiction to try and hear cases involving accion publiciana.

          In the case at bar, it is evident that unlawful detainer can no longer filed as it already lapsed one (1) year from the dispossession of the property, hence accion publiciana should be filed. And since, the petitioners filed the improper remedy in the MTC which does not have jurisdiction over the case. The judgment therefore is void.