Mid-Term Exam 1. Distinguish Scope of operation from operation SUGGESTED ANSWER: A CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or exclusion of one policy in alteration of the juridical proper or propers of the other (Maao Sugar Central vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 606; Sec. 2 of new Government 2), causing detriment to another. An ACTION is an conventional help in a seek of Justice by which one policy prosecutes another for the enforcement or security of a proper, or the interruption or revise of a evil-doing. (Section 1 of preceding Government 2). 2. What is the concept of curative law? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The concept of Curative Law lies at the very kernel of procedural due arrange, which instrument a law which hears antecedently it condemns, which allowance upon interrogation and renders prudence solely following tribulation, and contemplates an turn to be heard antecedently prudence is rendered (Albert v. University Publishing, G. R. No. L-19118, January 30, 1965). Curative Law is that offspring of law which prescribes the manner of enforcing the propers or obtaining revise for their irruption (Bustos v. Lucero, G. R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948; Highest Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. CA, G. R. No. 110571, March 10, 1994). 3.
How shall the Rules of Seek be construed? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Rules of Seek should be liberally construed in arrange to excite their concrete of securing a equable, swift and vile disposition of every operation and enjoyment. (Sec. 6, Government 1 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. ) ADDITIONAL ANSWER: However, exact custom of the governments is an obligatory indigence when they are considered essential to the interruption of unnecessitated delays and to the arrangely and swift execute of Judicial concern. (Alvero vs. Connoisseur de la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428) 4. Distinguish between palpable law and curative law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUBSTANTIVE LAW is that dissect of the law which creates, defines and regulates propers of society, exemption, or peculiarity, or the facultys of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of common affairs. This is famous from REMEDIAL LAW which prescribes the manner of enforcing propers or obtaining revise for their irruption (Bustos v. Lucero, G. R. No. L-2068, October 20, 1948). 5. Distinguish liability from venue? SUGGESTED ANSWER: JURISDICTION treats of the faculty of the Seek to determine a event on the merits, occasionliness VENUE refers to the attribute where the help may be raspd.
In nefarious operations, at-last, venue is liabilityal. Liability is a stuff of palpable law; venue, of procedural law. Liability may be not be won by acquiesce through noncompetitor upon a seek, but venue may be waived, save in nefarious events (Nocum et al. v. Tan, G. R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005; Santos III v. Northwest Airlines, G. R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992). 6. Give the profitss of the following: 1 Splitting a only scope of operation: and 2 Non-joinder of a necessitated policy. SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1.
The amiables of splitting a only scope of operation is resultr in the government as follows: If two or past helps are afloat on the premise of the corresponding scope of operation, the filing of one or a prudence on the merits in any one is advantageous as a resultr for the abjuration of the others. (Sec. 4 of Government 2) 2. The amiables of the non-joinder of a necessitated policy may be methodic as follows: The seek may arrange the inclusion of an omitted necessitated policy if liability balance his peculiar may be obtained. The deficiency to result delay the arrange for his inclusion delayout equableifiable scope to a noncompetitor of the assertion opposing such policy.
The seek may profits delay the operation but the prudence rendered shall be delayout partiality to the propers of each necessitated policy. (Sec. 9 of Government 3) 7. Rolando raspd a application for statement of the nullity of is espousals to Carmela bescope of the alleged psychological unrestrictedness of the perishing. Following tribulation, the seek rendered prudence send-offing the application on the resultr that Rolando failed to assay the psychological unrestrictedness of his helpmeet. The prudence having beseem ultimate, Rolando raspd another application, this occasion on the resultr that his espousals to Carmela had been illustrious delayout a encourage.
Is the relieve operation close by the prudence in the highest? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the relieve operation is not close by the prudence in the highest bescope they are incongruous scopes of operation. The highest is for abrogation of espousals on the resultr of psychological unrestrictedness beneath Article 36 of the Family Code, occasionliness the relieve is for statement of nullity of the espousals in sight of the shortness of a basic condition, which is a espousals encourage. [Arts, 9 & 35(3),Family Code]. They are incongruous scopes of operation bescope the averment required to assay them are not the corresponding. [Pagsisihan v. Seek of Appeals, 95 SCRA 540 (1980) and other events]. . The accuser sued the accused in the RTC for detriments allegedly scoped by the perishing’s possession on the accuser’s lot. In his apology, the accused denied the accuser’s assertion and alleged that it was the accuser who in deed had encroached on his (defendant’s) place. Accordingly, the accused counterclaimed opposing the accuser for detriments resulting from the alleged possession on his lot. The accuser raspd an ex dissecte excitement for origination of occasion to apology the accused’s counterclaim, but the seek denied the excitement on the resultr that it should accept been set for hearing.
On the accused’s excitement, hence, the seek nominal the accuser in omission on the counterclaim. Was the accuser validly nominal in omission? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the accuser was not validly nominal in omission. A excitement for origination of occasion to rasp an apology may be raspd ex dissecte and demand not be set for hearing. [Amante vs. Sunga, 64 SCRA 192 (1975)]. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The open government is that a counterassertion must be apologyed delayin ten (10) days from advantage. (Rule 11, sec. 4). However, a counterassertion that raises results which are reckoned automatically subsubjoined by the allegations of the Discontent demand not be apologyed. Gojo v. Goyala, 35 SCRA 557 (1970)]. In this event, the accused’s counterassertion is a necessitated counterassertion which arises out or is united delay the transoperation and affair constituting the material stuff of the accuser’s assertion. It raises the corresponding result of who encroached on whose place. Hence, there was no demand to apology the counterclaim. 9. The accuser sued the accused in the RTC to assemble on a promissory melody, the stipulations of which were methodic in the discontent and a photocopy stable to the discontent as an connect.
Before apologying, the accused raspd a excitement for an arrange directing the accuser to result the former of the melody so that the accused could search it and identify his verification and the handwritten entries of the dates and amounts. 1 Should the connoisseur concede the accused’s excitement for origination and searchion of the former of the promissory melody? Why? 2 Assuming that an arrange for origination and searchion was resultd but the accuser failed to result delay it, how should the accused name to the alleged attempt of the melody? SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) Yes, bescope upon excitement of any policy showing amiable scope, the seek in which the operation is pending may arrange any policy to result and encourage the searchion of determined documents. (Rule 27). The accused has the proper to search and identify the former of the promissory melody so that he could intelligently just his apology. (2) The accused is not required to disclaim beneath oath the naturalness and due attempt of the promissory melody, bescope of the non-compliance by the accuser delay the arrange for origination and searchion of the former thereof. (Rule 8, sec. 8). ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 2) The accused may rasp a excitement to send-off the discontent bescope of the withholding of the accuser to submit the arrange of the seek for the origination and searchion of the promissory melody. [Rule 29 Sec. 3(c)]. 10. What is forum shopping? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Forum shopping is the act of a policy which consists of filing multiple helps, unitedly or successively, for the scope of obtaining a permissive prudence (Leyson v. Office of the Ombudsman, G. R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000; Yulienco v. CA, G. R. No. 131692, June 10,1999; Chemphil Export & Import Corp. v. CA, G. R. Nos. 112438-39, December 12, 1995).