EXAMINATION - MARTINEZ

 Krizabel B. Martinez

1.) Rule 65 is an independent action. It is not a mode of appeal. Under the rule, a petition for certiorari may be filed when any tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or even with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This type of remedy is deemed corrective since it annuls or nullify a proceeding which is caused by usurpation of jurisdiction. The discretionary acts of any tribunal or board may be covered under this rule.

2. )

1. The rule on immutability of judgment states that once a judgment becomes final, it cannot be altered unless due to any clerical errors. A judgment is immutable once it attains finality upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal and no appeal is perfected within such period. No court can exercise appellate jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has become final. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice.

2. The exceptions to the rule are as follows: correction of clerical errors; judgment is void; nunc pro tunc entries; or when grave injustice would result.

3. Yes. The rule on immutability of judgment admits of exceptions where the court may alter a judgment which has become final. Among the exceptions is where there would be grave injustice resulting to the application of the rules. The lapse of 

3.) As the counsel of Maria, I would file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As a rule, a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant is immediately final and executory. However, a petition may be filed by the aggrieved party in a special civil action under Rule 65 where it is shown that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As previously held by the court, the CA which acquitted the rape case against several persons acted with grave abuse of discretion. Maria has suffered grave injustice through the acquittal of the accused. 

4.) Contempt of court may be classified according to nature and manner of commission. It may be civil or criminal as to nature. Contempt may be direct or indirect as to manner of commission. The power to punish for contempt must be used sparingly. It should be exercised with caution, deliberation and with due regard to the law, as well as the constitutional rights of the person. There must be clear refusal to obey the orders of the court in order for such power to be exercised.

5.) For the local government to acquire the said property, it must exercise the power of eminent domain. First, there must be an ordinance enacted by the legislative council. The power must be exercised for public use or welfare. It must be exercised by the local chief executive and there must be payment of just compensation. 

6.) I would file an action for interpleader to solve the confusion. Under Rule 62, a special civil action for interpleader may be filed against 2 or more claimants with conflicting claims over the same subject matter. It is necessary that the issue of ownership and possession be first determined by the conflicting parties before I could hand over the vehicle.

7.) To maintain the integrity of the court, I would file a case for criminal contempt against Atty. Sy. Criminal contempt refers to the conduct directed against the dignity of the court or judge acting judicially. Since Atty. Sy defamed the honor of the judge, he is liable for criminal contempt.

8.) Under the rules, declaratory relief is an action filed by any interested person in a deed, will, contract or other instrument to determine any question of construction or validity from said instrument. The terms of such instrument must be doubtful there must be no breach of the instrument yet. It is necessary that there is an actual justiciable controversy and that the issue is ripe for adjudication. The similar remedies under the rule are reformation of instrument, consolidation of ownership and quieting of title. If a contract does not reflect the true agreement of the parties, they may bring an action for reformation of instrument under such rule. An action for consolidation of ownership may also be filed for purpose of the registration of the property. The quieting of title is filed when the parties seek to remove a cloud in the title of the property or any interest.

9.) Quo warranto under rule 66 deals with the issue on the legality of the occupancy of the office regarding a legal appointment, while quo warranto in election laws deals with the issue on the eligibility of the person elected. 

The petition is filed within 1 year from the time the right of petitioner to hold the office arose in an appointive office. However, the petition is filed within 10 days after the proclamation of the results under the election laws.

The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Courts have jurisdiction over quo warranto in civil cases. COMELEC, RTC or MTC has jurisdiction over quo warranto proceedings under election laws. 

10.) Extrajudicial foreclosure does not require the filing of an action in court. While judicial foreclosure involves the filing of an independent action. 

The right of redemption exists in an extrajudicial foreclosure. Meanwhile, there is only an equity of redemption, no right of redemption, in a judicial foreclosure.

I think it would be better for my client to opt for an extrajudicial foreclosure since it would lessen the expenses that would have been used in court. Since the right of redemption exists within 1 year, it is an advantage on the part of debtor as compared to a judicial foreclosure where ownership is retained only by paying the debt within a shorter period than 1 year.

CASE PROBLEM 1.

While an ejectment case merely settles the issue of the right of actual possession, the issue of ownership may be passed upon if the issue of possession cannot be resolved without it. In the case, the petitioners should not vacate the property. The Spouses allege that petitioner's occupation was illegal from the start. The proper remedy should have been to file an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to assert their right of possession or their right of ownership. The Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the case.