1. What do you think are the features of Rule 65 to make it fall under the special civil action? Enumerate at least five to distinguish it from other modes of appeal.
ANSWER:
Rule 65 Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus is a remedy available when there is no
appeal, nor plain or speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
directed against any tribunal, board or officer, whether exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial function.
A petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65, in comparison with Rule 45, is an original action and not a mode of
appeal. It raises questions of jurisdiction, whether a tribunal, board or
officer acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Secondly, a petition
for Prohibition under Rule 65, in comparison with injunction, has its basis on
the ground that the court against the writ imposed with acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction when jurisdiction is not a necessity in an injunction.
Lastly, in a petition for Mandamus, in comparison with Injunction, the
proceeding is directed against the tribunal, board or officer for the sole
purpose to compel the performance of ministerial and legal duty.
2. Two drugs cases were filed against Jose Uy, one under section 5 and section 11 of R.A. 9605. He was convicted in the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the judgment of which became final and executory since his counsel did not file an appeal. Jose Cruz himself wrote a letter to the Supreme Court stating that the cases against him were all ‘set-up” fabricated, or a “frame up”. The Supreme Court en banc took a look at his case and found indeed that there were many lapses both in the procedure used and substantive issues, such as the lack of witnesses during the arrest, inventory and marking contrary to Section 21 of R.A. 9605. Questions: (1) State the rule on immutability of a final judgment (2) State the exceptions to this rule (3) In this case, is it correct for the supreme court to invalidate a final judgment and render a judgment of acquittal instead? Explain.
ANSWER:
(1) The rule of immutability of a final
judgment provides that when a judgment has attained finality, it can no longer
be disturbed. The reasons behind this rule are to have the speedy disposition
of cases and to end judicial controversies at the expense of occasional errors.
(2) However, there are exceptions with
applicability of this rule: correction of clerical errors; in cases of that
judgment is void; nunc pro tunc entries; when there are grounds for annulment
of judgment or petition for relief; when circumstance will rise that after
judgment attained finality, the execution of the same is unjust and inequitable
and in cases of exceptional in nature when the interest of justice so requires.
(3) Yes, the Supreme Court may invalidate the
final judgment rendered by the lower court.
Under the Rules, when judgment has been
rendered, it becomes final and executory and the court has no power to revoke
the said judgment. This is the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment.
However, the said doctrine has an exception. The Rules provides that in cases
of exceptional in nature, when it is necessary in the interest of justice to
modify the judgment in order to render proper disposition of the case and
whenever circumstances arise, after such finality of the decision, rendered the
execution of the same as unjust and inequitable, the judgment can then be
revoked or invalidated.
Wherefore, the findings of the Supreme Court of the lapses and procedures that were neglected by the lower court gives the former the power to invalidate the prior judgment and revert back the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
5. You are the mayor of Liloy. You need a site for the construction of your public market and you think that the lot of Maria Decena is the perfect site. You want to buy said property for the use of the municipality. State the proper procedure and the rule to be followed in buying said property.
ANSWER:
Rule 67, Expropriation, one of the inherent
powers of the State is the power of Eminent Domain. This power aims to take
property owned by individuals for public purpose of the government upon payment
of just compensation.
The authority of the
local government unit to exercise the power of eminent domain must be
established. Local Government Unit, under the constitution, has given the power
to expropriate property provided that the use for the subject property must
solely be for public purpose and just compensation must be given to the owners
of the expropriated property prior to the transfer of the property to the local
government unit. An ordinance must also be passed for expropriation of a
particular private property and the same authority is granted to the Chief
Executive for the execution of the said ordinance.
A public market is an
essential infrastructure within a community. The construction of the said
public market is a public purpose that qualifies the expropriation proceeding.
The local government of Liloy must pay Maria Decena just compensation prior to
the expropriation of her lot.
6. You are the Chief of Police of Sergio
Osmeña. One day you apprehended a Navarra pick-up passing along your
jurisdiction, without a certificate of registration while the driver also
possessed an unlicensed firearm. You then arrested the driver and impounded the
Navarra. Two days later, two claimants of the Navarra came: one is the alleged
registered owner, while the other one is the BPI Bank Inc. which claims that
said car is still owned by their company pursuant to the contract of sale and
chattel mortgage executed by the registered owner. You doubt where to hand over
the said vehicle. What legal action if any, would you take to solve your confusion?
Explain the elements of said legal action.
ANSWER:
I will file for a special civil action to
interplead under Rule 62 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1, Rule 62, an
action filed by a person against two conflicting claims over the same subject
matter of which he has no interest nor if he has, in whole or in part, does not
disputed the claimants. The purpose of this rule are to compel the conflicting
claimants to interplead and litigate the several claims among themselves and to
protect one from double vexation in respect of one liability.
7. You are the judge of a Regional Trial
Court. Atty. Juan Sy, a disgruntled lawyer after losing a civil case in your
court, wrote a letter in the Nandau and even spoke over DXDR that the judge is
biased, corrupt and a nincompoop. You heard it over the radio. Then Maria
Capra, the client of Atty. Juan Sy wrote a letter to you saying that you never
understood her predicament as a mother who had to support three young kids, and
that when she lost her case in your court, she can no longer feed her children.
The case is still in your sala with a pending motion for reconsideration to
resolve. What legal action is any, shall you take to maintain the integrity of
your court? Granting that the case is now pending appeal to the Court of
Appeals, what any other legal action would you take to vindicate your honor?
Explain.
ANSWER:
I will take legal action to submit Atty.
Juan Sy and his client, Maria Capra, for an indirect contempt before my court.
The letter and the provocation in the radio that the judge is biased by an
officer of the court, Atty. Juan Sy, is an improper conduct intend to degrade
the administration of justice and a valid ground for an action of indirect
contempt against him.
In an indirect
contempt, a hearing is necessary. An appeal from a final order or judgment of
an indirect contempt can be done in a proper court as the same with criminal
cases.
ANSWER:
Declaratory Relief,
under Section 1, Rule 63, is filed by any person who has interest in the deed,
will, contract or other written instrument and whose rights are affected by a
statute, executive order, ordinance or any other governmental regulation,
before breach or violation, may bring an action in the appropriate Regional
Trial Court in the question of construction or validity of the said documents
and for a declaration of rights and duties.
Section 1, Rule 63,
paragraph 2, provides the similar remedies such as: Action for reformation of
an instrument; an action to quiet title or remove cloud of a real property; and
an action to consolidate ownership.
Declaratory relief
cannot be used as a special civil action, under the Rules, when there will be a
breach or violation thereof. Such breach or violation will convert this action
into an ordinary civil action.
9. Chief Justice Sereno, as you all know was
removed from her seat, through a Quo Warranto Proceedings. Discuss how the
Supreme Court ruled that said action is proper under the circumstances. In some
ways, quo Warranto is also used in Election laws, and civil service laws.
Distinguish these two “quo warrantos”. Explain.
ANSWER:
In the case of Chief
Justice Sereno, the ground for prescription was taken an issue of which Quo
Warranto proceeding has a limitation of within one (1) after the cause of
arises. However, the Supreme Court held in this case that an action for quo
warranto is imprescriptible if brought by the State at its own instance.
Quo Warranto in
Election laws can be filed by any voter against the members of the congress or
a provincial or city official, of which it must be filed before the COMELEC, or
against municipal or barangay official, of which it must be filed with the
appropriate RTC or MTC. However, Quo Warranto, under Rule 66, can be filed by the Office of the Solicitor
General or by any person who claims to be entitled in a public office.
10. State the similarities and distinctions of
“extrajudicial foreclosure” and “Judicial foreclosure”. In your opinion, which
procedure is more convenient and efficient as a remedy or a tool to help your
suffering client. Explain.
ANSWER:
Judicial Foreclosure
is an action that requires court intervention and governed by Rule 68 of the
Rules of Court. This involves only an equity of redemption and there could be a
deficiency judgment as result. On the other hand, an Extrajudicial Foreclosure
has no court intervention. A right of redemption also existed and a mortgagor
has a right to redeem the foreclosed property within one (1) year from the registration
of the deed of sale. There shall be no deficiency judgment and recovery for any
deficiency shall be through an independent action.
CASE PROBLEM
ANSWER:
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
differentiate Forcible Entry from an Unlawful Detainer. The former, forcible
entry, is invoked when a person has been deprived of the possession of any land
or building by force, intimidation, threat or stealth. On the other hand,
Unlawful Detainer, a possession is initially lawful but it becomes illegal by
reason of termination of the right of possession as based in the contract, such
as a lease contract and a demand is necessary.
The case filed before the Municipal Trial Court that
contemplates an action for unlawful detainer has no merit. The Municipal Trial
Court has erred in its decision to order the occupants to vacate the premises
of the subject lot.
The issue raised must be in accord with Rule 70, Forcible
Entry. The spouses in this case were deprived of their right to possess the
property for more than 70 years. It is not an unlawful detainer for there was
no legal right vested to the occupants to possess the subject lot.
Wherefore,
this case shall be set aside and revert back to the Municipal Trial Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment