NAME: SCORE:

PART 3

I. Distinguish a counterclaim from a crossclaim. (2%)

II. B and C borrowed P400,000.00 from A. The promissory note was executed by B and C in a Joint and several capacity. B,
who received the money from A, gave C P200,000.00. C, in turn, loaned P100,000.00 out of the P200,000.00 he received
to D.

a) In an action filed by A against B and C with the RTC of Quezon City, can B file a cross-claim against C for the amount
of P200,000.00?

b) Can C file a third-party complaint against D for the amount of P 100,000.00?

III. Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a parcel of land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00 down payment
upon signing and the balance payable in twelve (12) monthly installments of P100,000.00. Aldrin paid the down
payment and had paid three (3) monthly installments when he found out that Neil had sold the same property to Yuri for
P1.5 million paid in cash. Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with damages with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court,
filed an answer-in-intervention as he had already obtained a TCT in his name. After trial, the court rendered judgment
ordering Aldrin to pay all the installments due, the cancellation of Yuri's title, and Neil to execute a deed of sale in favor of
Aldrin. When the judgment became final and executory, Aldrin paid Neil all the installments but the latter refused to
execute the deed of sale in favor of the former. Aldrin filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Execution" with proper notice of hearing. The petition alleged, among others, that the decision had become final and
executory and he is entitled to the issuance of the writ of execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a motion to dismiss
the petition on the ground that it lacked the required certification against forum shopping.

IV. Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against Empire Textile Corporation.
They were terminated on the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed production quota at least four (4) times. The
NLRC, decision was assailed in a special civil action under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification
and certification against forum shopping, only Toto signed the verification and certification, while Atty. Arman signed for
Nelson. Empire filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of defective verification and certification. Decide with reasons.
(5%)

V. Honey filed with the Regional Trial Court, Taal, Batangas a complaint for specific performance against Bernie. For lack of
certification against forum shopping, the judge dismissed the complaint. Honey's lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration,
attaching thereto an amended complaint with the certification against forum shopping. If you were the judge, how will you
resolve the motion? (5%)

VI. Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc. (Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of Manila for recovery of sum
of money. The complaint alleged that, on October 14, 2017, Debra obtained a loan from Dorton in the amount of Php 10
million with interest of 9% per annum. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note (PN) payable on demand signed by
Daniel and Debbie, the principal stockholders of Debra, who also executed a surety agreement binding themselves as
sureties. Copies of both the PN and the surety agreement were attached to the complaint. Dorton further alleged that it
made a final demand on March 1, 2018 for Debra and the sureties to pay, but the demand was not heeded.

Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and raised the affirmative defense that, while the PN and the surety
agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and Debbie were uncertain whether the signatures on the documents were theirs.
The PN and the surety agreement were pre-marked during pre-trial, identified but not authenticated during trial, and
formally offered.

Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision? (5%)

Yes, the RTC of Manila can consider the PN and the surety agreement in rendering its decision.

When an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or
document shall be set forth in the pleading and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an
exhibit. Moreover, the rules provides that the the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be admitted
unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them and sets forth what he claims to be the facts.

In this case, Debra, Daniel and Debbie are parties to the PN and surety agreement. Since the PN and surety agreement
are attached to the complaint, the defendants are deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution thereof
for their failure to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of these documents and to set forth
what they claim to be the facts. Therefore, the court may consider the PN and surety agreement in rendering its decision.

VII. On the basis of an alleged promissory note executed by Harold in favor of Ramon, the latter filed a complaint for
₱950,000.00 against the former in the RTC of Davao City. In an unverified answer, Harold specifically denied the
genuineness of the promissory note. During the trial, Harold sought to offer the testimonies of the following: (1) the
 testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove the forgery of his signature; and (2) the testimony of a credible witness to
prove that if ever Harold had executed the note in favor of Ramon, the same was not supported by a consideration.

May Ramon validly object to the proposed testimonies? Give a brief explanation of your answer. (5%)

1. Yes, Ramon may validly object to the proposed testimony of an NBI handwriting expert to prove forgery.

Under the Rules of Court the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be admitted unless otherwise the
adverse party under oath specifically denier them or sets forth what he claims to be the facts.

Here, the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note, which is an actionable document, was impliedly
admitted by Harold when he failed to deny the same under oath hence, precluded from setting up the defense of forgery.
Thus, Ramon may object to the proposed testimony seeking to prove forgery.

2. No, Ramon may not validly object to the proposed testimony showing that the note was not supported by a consideration.

The rules of court do not preclude the defendant from introducing evidence that the actionable document lack
consideration. Under the same rule, a party may set forth two or more statements of defense alternatively or
hypothetically.

Here, the fact that the defense of lack of consideration by Harold is inconsistent with his defense of forgery is not
precluded by the rules, hence, not objectionable.

3. Jojie filed with the Regional Trial Court of Laguna a complaint for damages against Joe. During the pre-trial, Jojie and her
counsel failed to appear despite notice to both of them. Upon oral motion of Jojie, Joe was declared as in default and Jojie
was allowed to present her evidence ex palte. Thereafter, the court rendered its Decision in favor of Jojie.

Joe hired Jose as his counsel. What are the remedies available to him? Explain. 5%

4. Mario was declared in default but before judgment was rendered, he decided to file a motion to set aside the order of
default. a) What should Mario state in his motion in order to justify the setting aside of the order of default? (3%) b) In what
form should such motion be? (2%)

5. 1. When may a party be declared in default? (2%)

2. What is the effect of an Order of Default? (2%)

3. For failure to seasonably file his Answer despite due notice, A was declared in default in a case instituted against him
by B. The following day, A's mistress who is working as a clerk in the sala of the Judge before whom his case is pending,
informed him of the declaration of default. On the same day, A presented a motion under oath to set aside the order of
default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud and he has a meritorious defense. Thereafter, he went
abroad. After his return a week later, with the case still undecided, he received the order declaring him in default. The
motion to set aside default was opposed by B on the ground that it was filed before A received notice of his having been
declared in default, citing the rule that the motion to set aside may be made at anytime after notice but before judgment.
Resolve the Motion. (2%)

6. Arturo lent P1 Million to his friend Robert on the condition that Robert execute a promissory note for the loan and a real
estate mortgage over his property located in Tagaytay City. Robert complied. In his promissory note dated September 20,
2006, Robert undertook to pay the loan within a year from its date at 12% per annum interest. In June 2007, Arturo
requested Robert to pay ahead of time but the latter refused and insisted on the agreement. Arturo issued a demand letter
and when Robert did not comply, Arturo filed an action to foreclose the mortgage. Robert moved to dismiss the complaint
for lack of cause of action as the debt was not yet due. The resolution of the motion to dismiss was delayed because of
the retirement of the judge.

On October 1, 2007, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss, Arturo filed an amended complaint alleging that Robert's
debt had in the meantime become due but that Robert still refused to pay. Should the amended complaint be allowed
considering that no answer has been filed? (3%)

Would your answer be different had Arturo filed instead a supplemental complaint stating that the debt became due after
the filing of the original complaint? (2%)

7. On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the RTC of Quezon City for the collection of P250,000.00. The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the action since the
claimed amount of P250,000.00 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, of Quezon City. Before
the court could resolve the motion, the plaintiff, without leave of court, amended his complaint to allege a new cause of
action consisting in the inclusion of an additional amount of P200,000.00, thereby increasing his total claim to
P450,000.000. The plaintiff thereafter filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the RTC had jurisdiction,
over his action. Rule on the motion of the defendant with reasons. (4%)

8. After an answer has been filed, can the plaintiff amend his complaint, with leave of court, by changing entirely the nature
of the action? 4%
PART 4

Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping