2020/2021 BAR EXAMINATIONS

2.
The last day of a losing party to file a notice of appeal from the Regional Trial Court to
the Court of Appeals fell on June 12, a legal holiday. The day after, or on June 13, the
counsel for the losing party moved that the period within which to file a notice of appeal
be extended for 10 days, citing the counsel's "humongous" case load, among others.

On June 23 that same year, without the motion for extension being acted upon, the
counsel for the losing party filed a notice of appeal. Should this appeal be dismissed?
Explain briefly.

FACTS:
● Parties Involved: losing party and counsel for the losing party
● Remedy Filed: Filed a notice of appeal from the RTC to the CA
● Date Filed: June 12, a legal holday
● Legal Action: Counsel for the losing party moved to extend for 10 days; Still filed
a notice to appeal without said motion being acted upon
● Basis of Counsel: Humungous case load

LAWS INVOLVED:
 RULES OF COURT, Sec. 3, Rule 41 - Section 3, Rule 41of the Rules of Court,
Period of ordinary appeal. The appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of
the judgment or final order appealed from. A motion for extension to file a notice
of appeal is not allowed. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states
that the filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed 15-day period is
mandatory, and no extension of time to file such notice is permitted.

PRIMARY ISSUE:
 WON the appeal should be dismissed.

ANALYSIS:
 Deadline of the losing party to file a notice of appeal: Here, the last day of the
losing party to file a notice of appeal fell is on June 12 which is a legal holiday,
however, considering that it is a holiday, it is deemed that the deadline for filing
will fall on June 13. The losing party filed his notice of appeal on June 23
notwithstanding that the last period to appeal is June 13.

CONCLUSION:
 The appeal should be dismissed for the failure of the losing party to file the notice
of appeal within the 15-day period or until June 13.

STRUCTURED ANSWER:
 The notice of appeal should be dismissed. Under the Rules, the appeal shall be
taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. A
motion for extension to file a notice of appeal is not allowed. Section 3, Rule 41 of
the Rules of Court explicitly states that the filing of a notice of appeal within the
prescribed 15-day period is mandatory, and no extension of time to file such notice
is permitted. In this case the losing party filed his notice of appeal on June 23 or
beyond the 15-day period, notwithstanding that the last period to appeal is June
13. Thus, the appeal should be dismissed.

ANSWER (A)
 Yes, the notice of appeal should be dismissed.

RULE (R)
 Under the Rules, the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the
judgment or final order appealed from. A motion for extension to file a notice of
 appeal is not allowed. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states
that the filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed 15-day period is
mandatory, and no extension of time to file such notice is permitted.

APPLICATION (A)
 In this case the losing party filed his notice of appeal on June 23 or beyond the 15-
day period, notwithstanding that the last period to appeal is June 13.

CONCLUSION (C)
 Hence, the notice of appeal should be dismissed.

FINAL ANSWER:
 The notice of appeal should be dismissed.

Under the Rules, the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the
judgment or final order appealed from. A motion for extension to file a notice of
appeal is not allowed. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states
that the filing of a notice of appeal within the prescribed 15-day period is
mandatory, and no extension of time to file such notice is permitted.

In this case the losing party filed his notice of appeal on June 23 or beyond the 15-
day period, notwithstanding that the last period to appeal is June 13.

Thus, the appeal should be dismissed.

 6.
Will a petition for mandamus lie to compel the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to convene
representatives of neighboring countries similarly situated with the Philippines in order
for them to find diplomatic solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West
Philippine Sea? Explain briefly.

FACTS:
 Parties: Secretary of Foreign Affairs
 Subject matter: Whether petition for mandamus lie to compel the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs to convene representatives of neighboring countries similarly
situated with the Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic solutions to
enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West Philippine Sea.

LAWS INVOLVED:
 Rules of Court: A petition for mandamus is available to compel the performance
of a ministerial duty, which is one that is clearly defined by law and leaves no
room for discretion. It cannot be used to compel the performance of a
discretionary or policy-making act, even if the act is considered important or
necessary. Mandamus will lie to compel discharge of the discretionary duty itself
but not to control the discretion to be exercised. In other words, a mandamus can
be issued to require action, but not specific action.

ISSUE:
 WON the Secretary of Foreign Appears may be compelled to convene
representatives of neighboring countries similarly situated with the Philippines in
order for them to find diplomatic solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating
to the West Philippine Sea through a mandamus.

ANALYSIS:
 Mandamus – Engaging in a diplomatic relations with foreign country is not a
purely ministerial duty but requires the exercise of discretion.

CONCLUSION:
 Hence, a petition for mandamus will not lie against the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs since the act of convening representatives of neighboring countries
similarly situated with the Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic
solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West Philippine Sea is a
discretionary duty.

STRUCTURED ANSWER:
 A petition for mandamus will not lie to compel the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to
convene representatives of neighboring countries for diplomatic solutions
regarding the enforcement of the Arbitral Award. Jurisprudence provides that a
petition for mandamus is available to compel the performance of a ministerial
duty, which is one that is clearly defined by law and leaves no room for discretion.
It cannot be used to compel the performance of a discretionary or policy-making
act, even if the act is considered important or necessary. Here, the act of engaging
in a diplomatic relation with foreign country is not a purely ministerial duty but
requires the exercise of discretion. Hence, a petition for mandamus will not lie
against the Secretary of Foreign Affairs since the act of convening representatives
of neighboring countries similarly situated with the Philippines in order for them
to find diplomatic solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West
Philippine Sea is a discretionary duty.

ANSWER (A)
  A petition for mandamus will not lie to compel the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to
convene representatives of neighboring countries for diplomatic solutions
regarding the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

RULE (R)
 Jurisprudence provides that a petition for mandamus is available to compel the
performance of a ministerial duty, which is one that is clearly defined by law and
leaves no room for discretion. It cannot be used to compel the performance of a
discretionary or policy-making act, even if the act is considered important or
necessary.

APPLICATION (A)
 Here, the act of engaging in a diplomatic relation with foreign country is not a
purely ministerial duty but requires the exercise of discretion.

CONCLUSION (C)
 Hence, a petition for mandamus will not lie against the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs since the act of convening representatives of neighboring countries
similarly situated with the Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic
solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West Philippine Sea is a
discretionary duty.

FINAL ANSWER
 A petition for mandamus will not lie to compel the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to
convene representatives of neighboring countries for diplomatic solutions
regarding the enforcement of the Arbitral Award.

Jurisprudence provides that a petition for mandamus is available to compel the

performance of a ministerial duty, which is one that is clearly defined by law and
leaves no room for discretion. It cannot be used to compel the performance of a
discretionary or policy-making act, even if the act is considered important or
necessary.

Here, the act of engaging in a diplomatic relation with foreign country is not a
purely ministerial duty but requires the exercise of discretion.

Hence, a petition for mandamus will not lie against the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs since the act of convening representatives of neighboring countries
similarly situated with the Philippines in order for them to find diplomatic
solutions to enforce the Arbitral Award relating to the West Philippine Sea is a
discretionary duty.
 7.
Can dolphins be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation that will affect a
biodiverse coral reef? Explain briefly.

FACTS:
 Parties: Dolphins
 Subject matter: Suit to enjoin a land reclamation that will affect a biodiverse
coral reef

LAWS INVOLVED:
 Rules of Court: Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law
may be parties in a civil action.

PRIMARY ISSUE:
 WON dolphins be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation that will affect a
biodiverse coral reef.

ANALYSIS:
 Rules of Court – Dolphins are not natural or juridical person.

CONCLUSION:
 Dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project since
they are not natural or juridical person who may be parties in a civil action.

STRUCTURED ANSWER:
 No, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project.
Under the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized
by law may be parties in a civil action. Dolphins are not natural or juridical person.
Hence, Dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project.

ANSWER (A)
 No, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project.

RULE (R)
 Under the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized
by law may be parties in a civil action.

APPLICATION (A)
 Dolphins are not natural or juridical person.

CONCLUSION (C)
 Hence, Dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project.

FINAL ANSWER
 No, dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project.

Under the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized
by law may be parties in a civil action.

Dolphins are not natural or juridical person.

 Hence, Dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation project.

10.
On her deathbed, your grandmother revealed to you that in 1994, she and her family won
a civil action for damages against a former President for human rights atrocities
committed against them during martial law. The judgment was never appealed.

Your grandmother informed you that she never had the judgment executed because she
wanted this to be her parting gift for you when she passed. She said that she also felt the
need to wait for one of her grandchildren to become a lawyer. It so happened that you
have just passed the #BestBarEver2020_21.

Your grandmother spent her last moments narrating how she had been arrested by the
military during martial law and was then tortured and raped while under detention. She
emphasized that her case was not unique, and that until now, she was yet to receive an
apology from any member of the former President's family.

With her last breath, she instructed you not to let her experience happen again. Her
parting words to you were: "Never again!"

Is an action for revival of judgment the proper remedy to enable the judgment's
execution? Explain briefly.

FACTS:
 Parties: grandmother, former President
 Original Action: Civil Action for Damages
 Date of Finality of Judgment: 1994
 Legal Action: Action for Revival of Judgment

LAWS INVOLVED: Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court

 Rules of Court: An action for revival of judgment must be brought within 10
years from the time the judgment became final. Otherwise, it is barred by
prescription.

PRIMARY ISSUE:
 WON an action for revival of judgment is the proper remedy to enable the
judgment’s execution.

ANALYSIS:
 Rules of Court: Here the judgment on the civil action for damages became final
in 1994 but it was never executed and the action for revival of judgment was filed
only after 10 years from the time the judgment became final.

CONCLUSION:
 Hence, an action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy since the same
is filed beyond the 10 year prescriptive period.

STRUCTURED ANSWER:
 No, an action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy to enable the
judgment's execution. Under the Rules of Court, an action for revival of judgment
must be filed within ten years from the entry of judgment; otherwise, it is barred
by prescription. Here the judgment on the civil action for damages became final in
1994 but it was never executed and the action for revival of judgment was filed
only after 10 years from the time the judgment became final in 1994. Hence, the
 action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy because it has already
prescribed.

ANSWER (A)
 No, an action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy to enable the
judgment's execution.

RULE (R)
 Under the Rules of Court, an action for revival of judgment must be filed within
ten years from the entry of judgment; otherwise, it is barred by prescription.

APPLICATION (A)
 Here the judgment on the civil action for damages became final in 1994 but it was
never executed and the action for revival of judgment was filed only after 10 years
from the time the judgment became final in 1994.

CONCLUSION (C)
 Hence, the action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy because it has
already prescribed.

FINAL ANSWER
 No, an action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy to enable the
judgment's execution.

Under the Rules of Court, an action for revival of judgment must be filed within
ten years from the entry of judgment; otherwise, it is barred by prescription.

Here the judgment on the civil action for damages became final in 1994 but it was
never executed and the action for revival of judgment was filed only after 10 years
from the time the judgment became final in 1994.

Hence, the action for revival of judgment is not the proper remedy because it has
already prescribed.
 11.
A party, through counsel, filed a complaint to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage done by a creditor bank. The bank had already filed its answer. However, the
counsel for the plaintiff felt that the judge was partial to the defendant's counsel.

Wanting to bolster the chances of winning for their client, the counsel for the plaintiff
filed a second case against the same bank seeking to nullify the same extrajudicial
foreclosure, but this time adding a prayer for the award of damages. The second case was
raffled to another judge.

The defendant bank's counsel then moved to dismiss the second case. Will the motion
prosper? Explain briefly.

FACTS:
 Parties: party through counsel, creditor bank
 Legal Actions:
 A party, through counsel, filed a complaint to nullify the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage done by a creditor bank.
 The counsel for the plaintiff filed a second case against the same bank seeking
to nullify the same extrajudicial foreclosure.
 Defendant bank's counsel then moved to dismiss the second case.

LAWS INVOLVED:
 Rules of Court: One of the grounds of a motion to dismiss is litis pendentia. The
requisites of litis pendentia are the following: Identity of Parties: 1) Identity of
parties or that the parties in both actions must be the same, or at least represent the
same interests; 2) Identity of Rights Asserted and Relief Prayed For: The rights
asserted and the relief sought in both actions must be founded on the same facts; 3)
Identity of the Two Cases: The judgment in one case, regardless of which party
prevails, would amount to res judicata in the other.

PRIMARY ISSUE:
 Whether or not the motion to dismiss in the second case filed by the defendant
bank’s counsel will prosper.

ANALYSIS:
 Litis pendentia: In this case, the requisites of litis pendentia are present. The two
cases involve the same parties; the relief prayer for are the same, that is the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage; and 3. The identity of the two cases.

CONCLUSION:
 The motion to dismiss in the second case will prosper on the ground of litis
pendentia.

STRUCTURED ANSWER:
 The defendant bank’s motion to dismiss will prosper. Jurisprudence provides that
one of the grounds of a motion to dismiss is litis pendentia. The requisites of litis
pendentia are the following: Identity of Parties: 1) Identity of parties or that the
parties in both actions must be the same, or at least represent the same interests; 2)
Identity of Rights Asserted and Relief Prayed For: The rights asserted and the
relief sought in both actions must be founded on the same facts; 3) Identity of the
 Two Cases: The judgment in one case, regardless of which party prevails, would
amount to res judicata in the other. In this case, the requisites of litis pendentia are
present. The two cases involve the same parties; the relief prayer for are the same,
that is the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage; and 3. The identity of the two
cases. Thus, the defendant bank’s motion to dismiss will prosper.

ANSWER (A)
The defendant bank’s motion to dismiss will prosper.

RULE (R)
Forum shopping exists when the cases involve same parties, same causes of action and
same relief sought.
APPLICATION (A)
Here, it is apparent that the same evidence between the first and second case would
support both cause of action as to the nullification of extra judicial foreclosure as well as
the defenses between the two cases and the cause of action. The first case was not yet
decided upon filing of the second case and thus the cause of action still existed on the
first case.

CONCLUSION (C)
Thus, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

FINAL ANSWER
 The defendant bank’s motion to dismiss will prosper.

Jurisprudence provides that one of the grounds of a motion to dismiss is litis

pendentia. The requisites of litis pendentia are the following: Identity of Parties: 1)
Identity of parties or that the parties in both actions must be the same, or at least
represent the same interests; 2) Identity of Rights Asserted and Relief Prayed For:
The rights asserted and the relief sought in both actions must be founded on the
same facts; 3) Identity of the Two Cases: The judgment in one case, regardless of
which party prevails, would amount to res judicata in the other.

In this case, the requisites of litis pendentia are present. The two cases involve the
same parties; the relief prayer for are the same, that is the extrajudicial foreclosure
of the mortgage; and 3. The identity of the two cases.

Thus, the defendant bank’s motion to dismiss will prosper.

 12.
Two years after receiving a copy of a decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court, a
party engaged a counsel and asked them to work on reopening the case. The party
explained that it took two years to find the best legal counsel available, and that counsel
had to await two years to pass the #BestBarEver2020_21.

After perusing the judgment and the case records, the counsel filed before the Court of
Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, asserting that the trial judge improperly assessed the evidence and misapplied
a doctrine long adopted by the Supreme Court.

Will the petition for annulment of judgment prosper? Explain briefly.

FACTS:
 Parties: a party and the counsel
 The trial judge improperly assessed the evidence and misapplied a doctrine long
adopted by the Supreme Court.
 Legal Actions: Petition for annulment of judgment

LAWS INVOLVED:
 Rules of Court: annulment of judgment is a remedy of last resort, strictly limited
to cases of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
 WON the petition for annulment of judgment will prosper.

ANALYSIS:
 Annulment of Judgment: In this case, the ground raised for annulment of
judgment was not extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction but that the trial judge
improperly assessed the evidence and misapplied a doctrine long adopted by the
Supreme Court.

STRUCTURED ANSWER:
 No, the petition for annulment of judgment will not prosper. Under the Rules of
Court, the annulment of judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the ground raised for annulment of
judgment was not extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction but that the trial judge
improperly assessed the evidence and misapplied a doctrine long adopted by the
Supreme Court. Hence, the petition for annulment of judgment will not prosper.

ANSWER (A)
 No, the petition for annulment of judgment will not prosper.

RULE (R)
 Under the Rules of Court, the annulment of judgment may be based only on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

APPLICATION (A)
  In this case, the ground raised for annulment of judgment was not extrinsic fraud
or lack of jurisdiction but that the trial judge improperly assessed the evidence and
misapplied a doctrine long adopted by the Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION (C)
 Hence, the petition for annulment of judgment will not prosper.

FINAL ANSWER

 No, the petition for annulment of judgment will not prosper.

Under the Rules of Court, the annulment of judgment may be based only on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.

In this case, the ground raised for annulment of judgment was not extrinsic fraud
or lack of jurisdiction but that the trial judge improperly assessed the evidence and
misapplied a doctrine long adopted by the Supreme Court.

Hence, the petition for annulment of judgment will not prosper.