PROCEDURAL BAR 2023 REMEDIAL LAW - SUGGESTED ANSWERS - Dean Joe-Santos Balagtas Bisquera

Dedicated to Dr. EMILY DODSOPN - de LEON, President, Chairman-Board of Trustees, Academic Vice-President, UM ICON, Heart and Pillar of Strength, the University of Manila.
HIGHLIGHTS
* CRIMINAL Procedure - BAIL upon Conviction & on Appeal - ARREST, Day & NIght, "Alias" Warrant - INFORMATION - minor Amendment & Chief Prosecutor's Signature to Prosecute *. CIVIL Procedure - JURISDICTION, Katarungang Pambarangay, Forum Shopping - CAUSE of Action, Misjoinder - SUMMONS by Publication * EVIDENCE - TESTIMONY, Veloso's Deposition, CORPUS DELICTI missing body - HEARSAY Evidence, DYING DECLARATION, PEDIGREE * SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION, Unlawful Detainer * SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, Change of Name * LEGAL ETHICS, Acquiring Interest in Litigation, Conflict of Interest and OMBUDSMAN Authority to Dismiss Justices.

[@LawPHnow]

KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY 53:38

[@christophervicgamuyao6124]

Correction on 1:08:34 - Section 41, Rule 130.

[@LawPHnow]

for number 34:27 no.12

[@LawPHnow]

50:20 SUMMONS

[@LawPHnow]

MISJOINDER; JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION SEC5 RULE 2 of THE REVISED ROC 45:20 ( CAUSE OF ACTION =existence of a right)

[@LawPHnow]

1:28:10 ETHICS- Supreme court’s authority bar26

[@LawPHnow]

1:06:54 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) DECLARATIONS ON RELATIONSHIP

[@LawPHnow]

1:25:48 Ethics-CONFLICT OF INTEREST bar25

[@LawPHnow]

1:05:17 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) DYI DECLARATION

[@LawPHnow]

58:50 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) Evidence for conviction

[@dr.arsenialucy5100]

Thank you po for dedicating this module to The University of Manila President, DR. EMILY DODSON DE LEON.

[@LawPHnow]

Thank u Dean, hope ung mga prior bar po ay gawan mo din po ng vodeo answer specially po etong REMEDIAL kasi napakahirap

[@LawPHnow]

1:18:53 UNLAWFUL DETAINER- Ejectment

[@LawPHnow]

hope po lagay kau ng mic po na malakas po. para po manamnam namin lalo ang magaganda mong lecture. mahina po aDean, at maybtimes na nakalatulog po.

[@LawPHnow]

Thank unDean on your way of answering bar, itbis as if, nagkkwentuhan lang po kaya madali matandaan ang concept and procedures

[@reycfd7753]

Sorry, Dean, the sound is quite inaudible. Tnx

[@LawPHnow]

56:50 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) TESTIMONY

[@LawPHnow]

1:21:09 ( SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS) CHANGE OF NAME

[@LawPHnow]

1:23:36 (Ethics) - CONFLICT OF INTEREST

[@LawPHnow]

1:12:29 ( Evidence- ) LEGAL FORM

[@LawPHnow]

1:09:32 Evidence-DEPOSTIONS

[@labagalasamanthatherez9037]

Thank you so much Dean, it helps a lot.

[@raulitopigar1275]

Thank you sir! Watching from Toronto Canada.

[@dr.arsenialucy5100]

You are very unique, grateful person, as you are very intelligent lawyer. Thank you for taking care of us in the College of Law, Dean Bisguera. Your uploads are simple and loaded with knowleegde

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Wow, thank you

[@LawPHnow]

SHOPPING FORUM 40:02

[@marialilibethdellonardo8887]

Thank you, Dean Bisquera for sharing your knowledge in law- the 2023 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers.🥰❤..God bless you always in good health!🙏❤🙏

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Glad it was helpful!

[@LawPHnow]

19:11 number 10

[@gaiavyx5805]

Very informative po, Dean. Thank u po..Sna meron na rin suggested answers for Political and Labor law

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Political Law coming up.

[@LawPHnow]

Ang ganda atty ng ppt mo.

[@checheelopes5690]

To God be the Glory!!

[@edricraycruz7196]

Thank you Dean for the lecture, Happy Birthday and God Bless

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Thank you Edric.

[@NajerahPagadilan-sh7qk]

Hello po Dean. Sa question po sa number 12 regarding po sa absence of the signature of the city prosecutor, di po ba ma apply duon ang ruling sa GOMEZ VS PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 216824? Sana po ma sagot. Thank you po.

[@joesantosbbisquera]

Yes, ur cites Gomez vs People will support d cited Section 4, Rule 112. When d LAW is so clear, any SC Court decision only emphasises d Codal provision itself. The decision in Gomez did not allow d Trial Court to Dismiss d Case. in d same light, d Supreme Court did not declare as void Section 4, Rule 112. Had d Supreme Court intended to allow d Prosecution to proceed without d DOJ's superior Officer's IMPRIMATUR, the Court could have readily declared said Court Rule as henceforth void and with no effect. Let d Gomez decision partake of one being a Decision PRO HAC VICE..

[@joesantosbbisquera]

cited

[@NajerahPagadilan-sh7qk]

Thank you po Dean.

[@ahmedpapandayan9379]

Hello, Dean! I would like to inquire on no. 2 re: failure to comply with prior barangay conciliation. In Lansangan v. Caisip GR 212987 sabi po kasi ng SC the court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio on the ground of failure to comply with a condition precedent. How do you reconcile this with the suggested answer po? Thank you and more power to you, Dean.

[@joesantosbbisquera]

The failure to state a Cause of Action (no RIGHT) is legally d correct Answer. The Supreme Court simply tolerated d Judge not to Dismiss d Case pending d Barangay's Certificate to file Action This practice cannot be d jurisprudence because the Court will not allow d Law on BARANGAY JUSTICE System to be permanently set aside.

[@ahmedpapandayan9379]

@@joesantosbbisquera Understood, Dean. Thank you for clarifying po.

[@joesantosbbisquera]

The Barangay Justice System (BJS), which ends with the Certificate to File action, is imperative for the Court to proceeds. Its absence does not provide the Complainant a CAUSE of Action for failure to Exhaust the Administrative Remedy which the BJS provides. The Court can grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Action for absence of the BJS Certificate, provided the Defendant raises the issue in his Motion to Dismiss (Ngo vs Gabelo, GR 207707 [2020]). When the Defendant failed to file his Motion to Dismiss the Case for the Absence of th BJS, then the Trial Court can proceed despite said BJS absence in the absence of a Dismissal Motion upon which the Court has no basis to resolve the dismissal (Lansangan vs Caisip, GR 212987 [2018]. The Court can still proceed by ordering the BJS to be completed, when the BJS was started but not completed for failure of the Barangay to undertake conciliation (Bonifacio vs Bellosillo, 442 Phil 257 [2002]. In the 3 cited Cases, the Trial Court acquired jurisdiction despite absence of BJS, to enable it to grant or deny dismissal or complete the BJS. In Lansangan, the Supreme Court did not say "the court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio on the ground of failure to comply with a condition precedent." The TRUTH is that the Court cannot dismiss a non-existent Motion to Dismiss, which the Defendant failed to file. Please do not complicate the Supreme Court decision but simply quote it correctly.

[@corinalalaguna956]

Thank you po Dean❤

[@joesantosbbisquera]

You're welcome 😊