PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE 2019 BAR EXAM ON CORRECTIVE DUTY A.1. ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. sued Mr. X in the Regional Court of First Instance (RTC) for collecting unpaid dues to the club. Mr. X filed a motion for impeachment solely for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Council had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between landlords and their associations. The RTC rejected Mr X`s request, stating that it had jurisdiction in the case. This led Mr X to lodge an application for certiorari with the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure, alleging a serious misuse of powers on the part of the RTC by rejecting his application for rejection. (a) Is the remedy chosen by Mr. X certiorari and the direct appeal to the Supreme Court correct? Explain. (2.5%) b) Assuming that mr. X was instead welcomed by the RTC, what is the correct way for ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. to challenge the RTC`s decision? Explain.
(2.5%) PROPOSED ANSWER: (a) No, the use of the certiorari and the direct recourse to the Supreme Court chosen by Mr X are inappropriate. According to the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts in certiorari applications, direct recourse to the Supreme Court should be made in Certiorari cases only if there are special and important reasons for doing so. There is no particular and important reason for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the direct submission of the certiorari petition to the Supreme Court is inappropriate. [Montes v. Court of Appeal, 4. May 2006] (b) Assuming that Mr. X`s application to dismiss lack of jurisdiction was instead granted by the RTC, the ABC Homeowners Association`s reasonable remedy to challenge the RTC`s judgment is to file a notice of appeal.
According to the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal arising from a final decision is an appeal against it. In the present case, the decision dismissing the case is a final decision. Therefore, vocation is the right remedy. (Another answer is that the appropriate remedy is certiorari under Rule 65, since dismissal is without prejudice.) A.2. Ms A brought an action for damages against Ms B, arguing that Ms B had negligently caused the demolition of the concrete fence of her house, the upper half of which fell on the front part of Ms A`s car and permanently damaged the engine. In her response, Ms. B denied any personal liability for the damage to Ms. A`s car and claimed that she simply followed the advice of her contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete fence demolished.
Therefore, the damages, if any, should be confiscated from him. Subsequently, Ms A filed an application for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Ms B`s statement in her reply was in fact negatively pregnant. Ms B rejected the application and reiterated her defence in her reply, which would have made the judgment on the pleadings inappropriate. Wife. B also requested that the case be dismissed on the grounds that it was not affiliated with XYZ Construction Co., which it believed was an indispensable party to the case. (a) Is Ms A`s request for an assessment of the pleadings correct? Explain. (3%) b) Is XYZ Construction Co. an indispensable or necessary part? Explain. (3%) c) Assuming that XYZ Construction Co. is an indispensable party, is its non-affiliation grounds for rejecting the proceedings? Explain.
(3%) PROPOSED ANSWER: a) Yes, Mrs A`s request to evaluate the entries is appropriate. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment on pleadings is correct if the defendant`s response allows for the essential allegations of the other party`s pleadings. In the present case, the defendant`s response to Ms B that she merely followed the advice of her contractor XYZ Construction Company does not expressly deny whether she acted negligently or not. It is assumed that B has admitted the allegation of negligence on the merits and that a judgment on the pleadings is therefore correct. b) XYZ Construction Company is only a necessary part. The SC decided that an indispensable party is a party that would be directly affected or necessarily disadvantaged by the judgment on the merits. [China Bank v. Oliver, 390 SCRA 263] In the present case, XYZ Construction Company would not be directly affected or necessarily affected by the judgment that would have been rendered.
XYZ Construction Company is a necessary part. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a necessary party is a party that must be joined for the establishment or full settlement of the claim that is the subject of the action. Here, XYZ CC must be joined for a full determination or settlement of the claim so that Defendant B can seek compensation from XYZ Construction Company. [Article 8, Rule 3] (c) No, assuming that XYZ Construction Company is an indispensable party, the non-affiliation of XYZ Construction Company is not grounds for dismissing the action. The SC decided that non-membership of an indispensable party is not a ground for rejection of the procedure. [Vesagas v. Court of Appeal, 371 SCRA 508; § 11, rule 3] A.3. Mr C brought an action against Mr D for restitution of property and interest, arguing that, by fraud and falsification, Mr D had been able to obtain ownership of lot No 1234, which had previously been registered in Mr C.`s name. The complaint was filed with the Regional Court. Instead of filing a reply, Mr. D. dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was no way.
In the opposition, Mr C. argued that the absence of a plea was not a ground for seeking rejection, since the ground referred to in Article 16(g) of Section 1(g) of the Rules of Procedure was the absence of a plea. Distinguish between the concepts of absence of means and absence of means. Is Mr C.`s opposition defensible on the basis of this distinction? Explain. (5%) PROPOSAL FOR REPLY: The absence of a means differs from the absence of a means as follows: AS REGARDS NATURE. The absence of a plea relates to the absence of a plea by the allegations in the pleadings, while the absence of a plea relates to a lack of evidence, that is to say, to the fact that the applicant has not substantiated his claims relating to his plea by means of evidence. THE REASON FOR A REQUEST FOR REJECTION. The absence of a plea constitutes a ground for rejection under Article 16 CRP; Admittedly, the absence of a plea is not a ground for rejection under Article 16, but a ground of proof under Article 33. The rejection of the complaint on the ground that a plea has not been raised would not prevent the complaint from being lodged again, while a judgment of the defendant on the ground that there is no means would be final and would therefore prevent the complaint from being lodged. On the basis of these distinctions, in particular the second, Mr C`s opposition is defensible. A.4. Ms E lodged a complaint against Mr F in the amount of ₱1 000 000 000 before the Regional Court of First Instance (RTC).
After due process, the RTC ruled in favor of Ms. E., and since no appeal was filed, the judgment became final and enforceable, according to a memorandum of judgment dated 2. July 2012. However, Ms. E. was not in a position to immediately apply for the enforcement of that judgment because she had a professional commitment abroad. On June 29, 2017, Ms. E. returned to the country and, on the same day, filed an application for an enforcement order with the RTC. On 7 July 2017, the RTC granted the application and consequently issued an enforceable title in favour of Ms E. Was the issuance of the enforceable title by the BTI procedurally insolvent? Explain. (3%) PROPOSED ANSWER: Yes, the issuance of the enforcement order by the BTI was exempt from procedural insolvency.
According to the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment must be enforced on request within 5 years of its registration. In this case, the application for enforcement was filed within the 5-year period of 2 July 2012 or until 2 July 2012. July 2017, but not enforcement, as the enforceable title was issued after the expiry of the 5-year period. [Article 39, Section 6] Consequently, the issuance of the enforceable title was procedurally exempt from insolvency. A.5. Ms G has failed to pay her credit obligation to Z-Bank. As such, Z Bank forcibly auctioned Ms G`s mortgaged property amicably and sold it at a public auction, where it appeared to be the highest bidder. Eventually, a purchase certificate was issued in favor of Z Bank, and ownership of the property was later consolidated under the bank`s name. Ms G. claimed that Z Bank had used fraudulent schemes to increase interest and penalty fees on the loan, which prevented it from paying, and filed a lawsuit with the Regional Court of First Instance (RTC) for the annulment of the consolidation of the ownership of a property, with the prayer for the issuance of an injunction against Z Bank. Immediately thereafter, RTC issued a unilateral injunction requiring Z Bank to dispose of or take possession of the seized assets. Did the RTC err in issuing the ex parte injunction? Explain.
(3%) PROPOSED ANSWER: Yes, the RTC erred in issuing the injunction ex parte. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, an injunction cannot be issued ex parte, but only after notification and hearing of the opposing party. [Article 5, Article 58] A.6. Mr H. filed a complaint against Mr I with a view to recovering the amount of 500,000.00 pesos on the basis of his service contract. In his reply, Mr I admitted that he had not yet paid Mr H. for his services on the basis of their contract, but nevertheless brought a counterclaim alleging that Mr H still owed him rent arrears for the rental of his apartment in the amount of 500,000.00 pesos. Mr H.
noted that Mr I had not paid any deposit fee when he filed his reply. Mr H. therefore requested that the counterclaim be dismissed. In response to Mr H.`s request, Mr I pointed out that the non-payment of the filing fees was based solely on non-intention and that those filing fees had already been paid at the time of the proceedings, as is apparent from the official receipt of the Registrar. (a) What is the nature of the Lord?.