REMEDIAL LAW, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS, WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES BAR QUESTIONS 2026

 

 

 

1.              Anit filed a case for carnapping and estafa against Momo. After the prosecution presented its evidence, Momo filed a demurrer to evidence which the trial court granted, leading to the dismissal of the case. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Anit filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA) without first filing a Motion for Reconsideration and without obtaining the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Momo then filed a Comment/Opposition to the Petition, citing lack of authority or imprimatur from the OSG.  

 

Subsequently, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition on the ground that Anit failed to serve a copy of the petition to Momo at her address, resulting in the court’s failure to acquire jurisdiction over Momo’s person under Rule 46, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. Did the CA acquire jurisdiction over the person of Momo? Explain.

 

2.              To raise capital for his real estate business, Alfie borrowed money from Deng in the total amount of PHP 6 million, for which he issued six (6) postdated checks worth PHP 1 million each as payment. Upon presentment for payment, the checks were dishonored. Alfie issued another six (6) postdated checks each for the same amounts as replacement, which unfortunately likewise bounced, and were never paid.  

 

Deng sued Alfie before the Regional Trial Court for collection of sum of money, which was ruled in her favor in a Decision that eventually became final and executory. Subsequently, Deng filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), which acquitted Alfie and declared that the “facts from which civil liability may arise did not exist.”  

 

Alfie opposed all attempts by the sheriff to execute the money judgment, citing the MTC’s ruling that he was not civilly liable for the six (6) postdated checks. Is Alfie correct? Explain.  

 

3.              Babes and Nitoy were charged with robbery with homicide, and destructive arson. When arraigned, Nitoy pleaded not guilty. The prosecution sought to discharge Nitoy to become a state witness. His intended testimony shows that he and Babes were househelpers of the Kim family. While the Kim family was on vacation, the house was left with their relative, Mr. Park. One evening, Nitoy went to the dining room and saw Babes holding a bloodstained knife, while Mr. Park was lying on the floor, bloodied and lifeless. He exclaimed to Babes, “You killed him!” Upon Babes’s order, Nitoy left before the former could set the house on fire to hide the crime. May Nitoy qualify as a state witness? Explain.

 

4.              Police Officer 1 Jun Dragon (PO1 Dragon) saw Don violating a traffic rule by driving in the opposite direction on a one-way street. When PO1 Dragon attempted to stop Don, the latter hurriedly drove away but later fell from his motorcycle. As Don stood up, he reached for his waist, which prompted PO1 Dragon to grab him while the other police officers pointed their guns at Don. The police officers restrained and frisked Don, and in the course thereof, PO1 Dragon found an unlicensed firearm. Don was then arrested and charged with illegal possession of firearm. The prosecution contended that the firearm is admissible in court because it was found during a search incidental to a lawful arrest. May the firearm be admitted in evidence against Don? Explain.

 

5.              Senator Voaya was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of plunder for allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least PHP 150 million. In the course of the trial, the prosecution moved for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, which was granted by the Sandiganbayan. Aggrieved, Senator Voaya challenged the Resolution arguing that a preliminary attachment is a civil remedy that cannot be applied in criminal cases. He further alleged that the attachment effectively amounted to the penalty of forfeiture even before conviction. Is Senator Voaya correct? Explain.

 

6.              In March 2023, Dr. Charm obtained a PHP 5 million loan from Money Bank to finance the expansion of her dental clinic. As evidence of the loan, she executed a promissory note in favor of Money Bank. As additional security, she also executed a real estate mortgage over her commercial property where the clinic operates.  The loan matured in June 2024, but Dr. Charm failed to pay. On August 1, 2024, Money Bank filed a complaint for extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage. While the foreclosure proceedings were ongoing and before the consolidation of title, Money Bank, on October 15, 2024, filed a separate civil action for collection of sum of money against Dr. Charm based on the same promissory note. May Money Bank file a separate civil action for collection of sum of money? Explain.

 

7.              Ares leased a warehouse from Athena for a fixed term under a written rental agreement. After Athena’s death, Ares filed an action against Minerva, Athena’s daughter and successor-in-interest, to enforce an alleged extension of the lease. Ares attached the purported written extension as Annex “A” to the Complaint and quoted its contents therein. The document bore the alleged signature of Athena signifying her consent to the lease extension.  Minerva filed an Answer but did not specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of Annex “A.” During trial, Minerva sought to present a forensic handwriting expert to prove that Athena’s signature on Annex “A” was forged. May Minerva present a handwriting expert? Explain.

 

8.              Eliana, a resident of Quezon City, filed a Complaint for the collection of PHP 1.8 million against Ryan, a resident of Makati City, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, arising from an unpaid loan. Before Ryan filed an Answer or any motion for summary judgment, Eliana filed a notice of dismissal, without stating any reason. 

 

Several months later, Eliana refiled a complaint against Ryan before the RTC of Makati City, this time seeking PHP 2.3 million, representing the same unpaid loan plus accrued interest and attorney’s fees. Again, before Ryan filed any responsive pleading, Eliana filed another notice of dismissal, stating that she wanted to give Ryan another chance to amicably settle the obligation. 

 

When no payment was made, Eliana filed a third complaint against Ryan, based on the same loan. Ryan moved to dismiss the third complaint, invoking the two-dismissal rule. Rule on Ryan’s motion.

 

9.              A final judgment for recovery of possession of land was rendered in favor of Cristiano against Ronaldo. After the judgment became final, the court issued a writ of demolition directing the sheriff to remove all structures erected on the property and to place Cristiano in peaceful possession. Before the demolition could be carried out, Lionel, who was not a party to the case, filed an independent action for injunction before a court of co-equal rank to enjoin the execution against his property.  Cristiano claimed that this was improper as the correct remedy would be for Lionel to file a terceria with the sheriff, to suspend the demolition. Is terceria the proper remedy? Explain.

 

10.          Kosmos Travel Services, Inc. (Kosmos) purchased several airline tickets from Universe Tours, Inc. (Universe) for a group of passengers. For convenience, the passengers authorized Kosmos to transact with Universe on their behalf. The tickets were issued in the names of the individual passengers, who also paid for the tickets with their own funds. A dispute later arose regarding unused tickets, and the passengers likewise authorized Kosmos to handle the filing and prosecution of the case. Thus, Kosmos filed a Complaint against Universe for refund.

 

In its Answer, Universe raised the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action, arguing that Kosmos is not the real party-in-interest. Kosmos countered that it may sue as a representative party under Rule 3, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Is Universe correct? Explain.

 

11.          The Ombudsman filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Digos City, Davao del Sur, an Information for malversation of PHP 100 million against Juan Mentoya (Mentoya), a district engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) with Salary Grade 24, and Freddy Godoy (Godoy), a private contractor alleged to be a co-conspirator.

 

A Supreme Court circular mandates that corruption-related cases arising from infrastructure projects must be heard and tried by designated courts. Thus, the case was transferred to the RTC of Cebu City, being the nearest designated court, and considering that there is no such designated court in the judicial region where the RTC of Digos City is located.

 

Godoy filed a bail application, which was denied by the RTC of Cebu City after due proceedings. After the denial of Godoy’s Motion for Reconsideration, her lawyers are contemplating filing a Petition for Certiorari to challenge the denial of the bail application. One lawyer opined that said Petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) Visayas, which covers the RTC of Cebu City, while another advised that it should be filed with the CA Mindanao, which covers the RTC of Digos City. Where should the Petition be filed? Explain.

 

12.          In an ejectment suit, Nikka secured a writ of execution against Christian, a tenant in one of Nikka’s apartments. The writ is directed to the sheriff ordering him to place Nikka in possession of the apartment. The sheriff tried to eject Christian but the latter refused to comply and leave the premises. Nikka filed a motion in the same ejectment case to have Christian declared in contempt. After hearing, the court held Christian guilty of indirect contempt. If you were Christian’s lawyer, what would be your next legal step/s?

 

13.          Representative Raul Dominguez (Representative Dominguez), a member of the Commission on Appointments, is charged together with Art Tuazon (Tuazon), the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for: a) violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019; and b) committing malversation. In the Information, Representative Dominguez allegedly voted to confirm Tuazon’s ad interim appointment in exchange for DPWH projects, valued at no less than PHP 50 million. In turn, Representative Dominguez will provide the names of preferred contractors whose projects should win in the public bidding.

 

The prosecution intends to present in evidence Representative Dominguez’s “disappearing” message sent to Ching, a discharged state witness and former assistant of Tuazon. The said message was sent through an internet-based messaging mobile application and automatically self-deleted 30 seconds after it was opened and read by Ching. No other record of the message’s existence and contents are available. The message read: “Hindi qualified si Tuazon mag DPWH Sec. Magobject ako unless magcommit siya ng 50M sa akin.” Is the message admissible in evidence? Explain.

 

14.          Differentiate factum probans vs. factum probandum.

 

15.          Shan and Chesky were married in Manila. They have three (3) minor daughters. Because of a serious marital dispute, Shan left the family house, taking with him the three (3) minor children first to Cebu, then to Iloilo, and later, to Bohol. Despite efforts to reconciliate, Chesky was unable to mend her relationship with Shan and could not get custody of the three (3) kids. Chesky, therefore, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus with the Court of Appeals (CA). Shan argued that the CA Petition should be dismissed because it is the Family Court that has jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases concerning the custody of minors. Is Shan correct? Explain.

 

16.          Judge Ser teaches in a business school owned and operated by Dean Susan, a law practitioner with a wide clientele. One of the benefits Dean Susan rolls out to faculty members is an all-expense paid foreign travel. Judge Ser, who had always dreamed of going to Europe, joined the trip. Did Judge Ser commit any ethical infraction? Explain.  

 

17.          In pursuance of its advocacy against government corruption, the Samahan ng mga Manananggol sa Pilipinas (SMP), represented by Atty. Martir, filed a Complaint for plunder against Senator Sobre before the Ombudsman. Atty. Martir encouraged the members of SMP to picket and stage a hunger strike around the Ombudsman premises while shouting and repeatedly chanting, “Senator Sobre, ikulong na yan.” Irked, Senator Sobre filed an administrative case against Atty. Martir for exerting pressure and influence against the court. Atty. Martir countered that picketing, coupled with a hunger strike, is a valid exercise of one’s right to freedom of expression. Is Atty. Martir administratively liable? Explain.

 

18.          Atty. Gandha joined the Bb. Pilipinas competition where she walked the pageant stage in swimwear, confidently flaunting her perfect curves. During the question-and-answer portion, she was asked about her education and occupation. She proudly announced that she is a lawyer with expertise in annulment of marriage cases and that she charges minimal lawyer’s fees. She added that she can be reached at her law office “Atty. Gandha and Associates” located at Room 400, 2nd floor, Sacramento Bldg., Quezon City. Is this a permissible advertisement? Explain.

 

19.          Atty. Panalo and Atty. Galiling were recent Bar passers. They both decided to join the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). Atty. Panalo represents Chas in a civil suit she filed against Dennis for the injuries she sustained as a passenger of the bus driven by Dennis. With no means to hire a private lawyer, Dennis sought the assistance of PAO and Atty. Galiling was assigned to defend him. Dennis knew that the PAO also represents Chas and signed a written informed consent thereto. Chas moved to disqualify Atty. Galiling as Dennis’s counsel for conflict of interest. Is the motion of Chas meritorious? Explain.

 

20.          After a lengthy preliminary investigation of flood control projects in the Province of Timbog contracted by the government with CPS Corporation in 2025, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause against Rumar, a provincial engineer of Bulacan, in connivance with Vic, president of CPS Corporation, for an alleged ghost project of river dike construction, to the damage and prejudice of the government in the amount of PHP 1 billion. Prepare the accusatory portion of the Information for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.