I.

Following the series of gruesome killings of suspected drug peddlers and

criminals, the Department of Justice constituted a Special Panel of Prosecutors that
charged several members of the police force in a Joint Resolution. The Panel partly relied
on the twin affidavits of Rock and Debolnita. Rock was admitted into the Witness
Protection Program of the DOJ and was listed as one of the prosecution’s witnesses in the
pre-trial order. One of the influential police general implicated in the Joint Resolution
wrote to the Secretary of Justice requesting that Rock be included in the Information as
he already confessed his participation. The Secretary of Justice denied the said request.
The influential police general filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel Secretary of
Justice to charge Rock with the RTC of Manila. The RTC dismissed the Petition for
Mandamus.

Can the Secretary of Justice be compelled by Writ of Mandamus to charge Rock

as an accused for multiple murder in relation to the series of gruesome killings despite his
admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ? (10 points)

II.

TMS Bank filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages
against DEF Corporation (“DEF”). TMS Bank alleged that an event of default under its
Agreement with DEF makes the latter liable for the whole amount of the loan extended
by TMS Bank. An affiliate of DEF filed a bankruptcy petition in Germany, thus, the
ability of the latter to perform its obligations has allegedly been impaired and the loans
granted to DEF, as claimed by TMC Bank, become due and demandable.

President JC of TMS Bank filed an annulment case against his wife, Tisha. Tisha
was a former employee of DEF.

1
DEF terminated Tisha’s employment in the year 2009, because she was the wife
TMC Bank’s President. Tisha settled with DEF and accepted the amount of Five Million
Pesos (₱5,000,000.00) as full settlement of the illegal dismissal case, which she filed
against DEF.

In the year 2013, Tisha was diagnosed with a rare disease and is currently
undergoing treatment at St. Luke’s Medical Center.

The Vice-President of TMS Bank, Ron was the former lover of Tisha. Their
relationship carried on for five (5) years until their illicit affair was discovered by JC.

A Motion to Dismiss was filed by DEF on the ground that the Complaint fails to
state a valid cause of action. An Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was filed by TMS
Bank. In the Opposition, it was contended that there is a valid cause of action on the
following grounds: (1) that the TMS Bank’s legal right emanates from the Agreement and
its subsequent amendments; (2) that DEF obtained the loan from TMS Bank and issued a
promissory note as security, has the obligation to pay upon its maturity and/or happening
of any event giving rise to default under the Agreement.

A Reply to the Opposition was filed by DEF reiterating its previous stand that the
Complaint failed to state cause of action. An Order was issued by the trial court denying
the Motion to Dismiss and DEF was given 15 days from receipt of the Order within which
to file its responsive pleading. DEF filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims
alleging the following: (1) that TMS Bank failed to establish a cause of action because of
its failure to allege circumstances showing that the petition for bankruptcy of DEF’s
affiliate is valid and bona fide; (2) TMS Bank failed to state cause of action in not stating
the laws of Germany, the law voluntarily stipulated by the parties in its one of the
agreements; and (3) No breach of representations and warranties has occurred with respect
to the provisions of the Agreement. In the compulsory counterclaim, it was alleged that
TMS Bank’s action for collection of DEF’s loan is baseless and malicious. It has hastily
and unjustly attributed to DEF a breach of the Agreement and consequently, besmirched
and damaged its reputation and business standing. A Motion to Dismiss the Compulsory
Counterclaims was filed by TMS Bank alleging that no docket fees were paid when the
counterclaims were filed. An Order was issued denying the Motion to Dismiss the
Compulsory Counterclaimz stating that the resolution of the Court in AM No. 04-2-04-SC
dated 21 September 2004 suspending the payment of filing fees for compulsory
counterclaim remains in effect.

The Pre-trial of the case proceeded and before the presentation of the parties’
respective evidence, a Request for Admission was filed by TMS Bank pursuant to Sec. 1,
Rule 26 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, DEF filed its Objection, on the
following grounds: (1) that the request is a mere rehash and reiteration of the allegations
of TMS Bank’s previous pleadings, which have been answered and/or denied by DEF;
and (2) the request set forth facts that are both immaterial and irrelevant to the issues.

2
On the other hand, DEF also filed a Request for Admission. In the Reply to the
Objection of DEF for the Request for Admission filed by TMS Bank, the latter stressed
that the (1) use of modes of discovery is encouraged by the Supreme Court and is
accorded liberal treatment, (2) availment of discovery procedures is within the discretion
of the party, (3) sanctions under the modes of discovery would ensure faithful adherence
to the purposes of pre-trial and (4) failure to file a request for admission will be
detrimental to TMS Bank.

An Opposition to the Request for Admission of DEF was filed by TMS Bank on
the ground that the request is vague and that the request aver facts, which are immaterial
and irrelevant. An Order was issued denying the request for admission by TMS Bank
since the denial of DEF on the request for admission would be surplusage in light of the
allegations of its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims. On the same date, an Order
was issued granting the request for admission by TMS Bank on the ground that its
admission that DEF and its affiliate is relevant and material to the determination of the
case.

TMS Bank filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court on the basis of a settlement reached with DEF’s
foreign affiliate. Pursuant to this settlement, DEF’s loan obligations have been paid in
full. It was prayed therefore that the Complaint against DEF be dismissed without
prejudice.

1. Can DEF file an Objection to the Request for Admission of TMS Bank? (10
points)

2. What is the remedy of TMS Bank in the denial of its Request for Admission? (10
points)

3. How would you decide on the Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint filed by TMS Bank? (10 points)

III.

The deceased spouses Bartolome and Marcelina (“Spouses”) had five (5) children,
namely: Enrico, Encarnacion, Consolacion, Maximiano and Mariano. Mariano
predeceased his parents on 04 December 1943. Marcelina died sometime in September
1950, followed by Bartolome on 17 February 1964 in his home province of Pangasinan.
Enrico remained unmarried while Encarnacion died on 08 April 1966 and is survived by
her children — Nenita, Generosa, Felipe, Lolita, Dolores, Conchita and Beatriz.
Consolacion married Emigdio and begot eight (8) children, namely: Mariano, Alicia,
Amelita, Rodolfo, Leticia, Lydia, Luzviminda and Belen (“siblings”). Maximiano died
unmarried and without any children on 20 August 1986.

Nenita filed a Complaint for Partition and Amendment of Documents with Damages on
05 February 1991. After learning that some important allegations were missing in her
initial Complaint, she filed an Amendment Complaint through her lawyer following her
initial Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
Nenita alleged among others, that during the Spouses’ lifetime, they owned

3
several agricultural as well as residential properties in Pangasinan. Nenita averred in the
Amended Complaint that in 1987, Enrico executed several fraudulent documents covering
all the said properties owned by the Spouses in favor of Consolacion and the other
siblings, unlawfully excluding her.

As an affirmative defense to the Amended Complaint, Enrico, Consolacion and the

other siblings claimed that Nenita had long obtained their advance inheritance from the
estate of the Spouses and that the properties to be partitioned were already individually
titled in the name of the siblings. They also alleged that she has already renounced her
Philippine citizenship and swore allegiance to a foreign country. Thus, she has
misrepresented herself as a Filipino citizen in all her affidavits and other documents she
filed before the Court.

The RTC rendered a Decision on 24 November 1995 (“24 November 1995

Decision”) thereby awarding one-fourth (1/4) pro-indiviso share of the Estate each to
Enrico, Maximiano, Enacarnacion and Consolacion as the lawful and legitimate heirs of
the Spouses. The RTC also declared in the 24 November 1995 Decision that the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition executed by Enrico and other siblings, as well as
the other documents and muniments of title in their names are all null and void. The RTC
also directed the parties to submit a project of partition within thirty (30) days from the
finality of the said decision.

The siblings filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial on the 24
November 1995 Decision. After almost a year and without deciding on the Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial, the RTC issued an Order stating that in the event that
the parties have not settled the case, one (1) month from the date of the order, the motion
for reconsideration and/or new trial shall be understood submitted for resolution without
any further hearing. There was no project partition submitted by the parties to the case.
Hence, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution giving the parties a period of fifteen (15) days
to submit the nominees for commissioner for the partition of the estate. Subsequently, the
RTC discovered the pendency of the Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial and set
the same for hearing. Hence, the court set the case for hearing for the specific purpose of
receiving and offering evidence to support the pending motion.

Instead of presenting, the siblings filed a Demurrer to Evidence. In its Order, the
RTC denied the said Demurrer to Evidence. Subsequently, also denied was the siblings’
Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial. Due to the adverse decision for the
siblings, they elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying their Demurrer to
Evidence. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in favor of the siblings.

Nenita, while the case is pending has migrated to the United States, appealed to the
Supreme Court where the high court ruled in her favor through a Decision dated 22
February 2012 (“Supreme Court 22 February 2012 Decision”). The Motion for
Reconsideration filed was later denied, which prompted the Supreme Court to issue a
Notice of Resolution.

4
The siblings herein, thinking that the Supreme Court 22 February 2012 Decision
granted them the right to file a notice of appeal filed the same through their Notice of
Appeal dated 02 August 2012 before the RTC. However, the RTC issued an Order
denying their Notice of Appeal. The siblings’ Motion for Reconsideration on the
mentioned judgment was denied by the RTC. The siblings herein resorted to a Petition for
Certiorari
to question the order denying them the availability of an appeal. The Court of Appeals
granted the Petition for Certiorari, where it ruled in the following manner:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby

GRANTED. The challenged Order and Resolution of the Regional Trial
Court are SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioners’ notice of appeal is hereby
given due course. The court a quo, through its clerk of court, is directed to
transmit, with dispatch, the entire records of the case to the Court of
Appeals after petitioners’ payment of the appellate docket and legal fees.

SO ORDERED.”
 Nenita filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in
its Resolution. Thereafter, Nenita appealed the same to the Supreme Court.

1. May the counsel of Nenita file an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of the Writ
of Execution of the Decision of the RTC? (10 points)

2. How may the Prosecution have the grant of the demurrer judicially reviewed?
(10 points)

3. Suppose that the demurrer to evidence was raised by a party during the appeal,
would it be erroneous for the Court of Appeals to grant such motion? (10 points)

4. Is the Motion for Reconsideration of the decision on the merits of the case a
pre-requisite in the filing of a Notice of Appeal? (10 points)

5. May the Supreme Court issue a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary

restraining order against the siblings? (10 points)

IV.

Disney Ventures filed an ejectment suit against Enzo to recover possession of the Lipa
Property in Batangas. The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of cause
of action giving much weight on the written document executed by Disney Ventures
allowing Enzo to occupy not only its President’s heart but also the property as
compensation for Enzo’s legal services and their platonic relationship back in law school,
provided that he shall vacate the same until such property is sold and shall be entitled to
10% of the selling price. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the appeal. The Court of
Appeals, on the other hand, dismissed the Petition for Review on the ground that the

5
Certification was not executed by Disney Ventures but by its counsel without any proof of
authority to sign.

Disney Ventures filed a Motion for Reconsideration and attached a Special Power
of Attorney (“SPA”) authorizing its President, Christine, to file the Petition as well as sign
the Verification and Certification on its behalf. Christine totally explained herself in an
affidavit that she is still suffering from a terrible and serious heartbreak with Enzo; that
her
mental and health condition brought about by missing Enzo’s driving skills and his calm
and loving demeanor hindered her from executing the necessary documents; she did not
expect that nothing happened in their fondness and sweetness during law school; and
despite regularly sending coffee and sweets to Enzo during his exams in law school, he
chose someone else to grow old with. Considering all these that Christine have to go
through,

Whether or not the circumstances explained by Christine justify a relaxation of the

rules on Certification as to Non-Forum Shopping? (10 points)
-End-