PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE 2019 BAR EXAM ON CORRECTIVE DUTY A.1. ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. sued Mr. X in the Regional Court of First Instance (RTC) for collecting unpaid dues to the club. Mr. X filed a motion for impeachment solely for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Council had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between landlords and their associations. The RTC rejected Mr X`s request, stating that it had jurisdiction in the case. This led Mr X to lodge an application for certiorari with the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure, alleging a serious misuse of powers on the part of the RTC by rejecting his application for rejection. (a) Is the remedy chosen by Mr. X certiorari and the direct appeal to the Supreme Court correct? Explain. (2.5%) b) Assuming that mr.
X was instead welcomed by the RTC, what is the correct way for ABC Homeowners Association, Inc. to challenge the RTC`s decision? Explain. (2.5%) PROPOSED ANSWER: (a) No, the use of the certiorari and the direct recourse to the Supreme Court chosen by Mr X are inappropriate. According to the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts in certiorari applications, direct recourse to the Supreme Court should be made in Certiorari cases only if there are special and important reasons for doing so. There is no particular and important reason for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the direct submission of the certiorari petition to the Supreme Court is inappropriate. [Montes v. Court of Appeal, 4.
May 2006] (b) Assuming that Mr. X`s application to dismiss lack of jurisdiction was instead granted by the RTC, the ABC Homeowners Association`s reasonable remedy to challenge the RTC`s judgment is to file a notice of appeal. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal arising from a final decision is an appeal against it. In the present case, the decision dismissing the case is a final decision. Therefore, vocation is the right remedy. (Another answer is that the appropriate remedy is certiorari under Rule 65, since dismissal is without prejudice.) A.2. Ms A brought an action for damages against Ms B, arguing that Ms B had negligently caused the demolition of the concrete fence of her house, the upper half of which fell on the front part of Ms A`s car and permanently damaged the engine. In her response, Ms. B denied any personal liability for the damage to Ms. A`s car and claimed that she simply followed the advice of her contractor, XYZ Construction Co., to have the concrete fence demolished.
Therefore, the damages, if any, should be confiscated from him. Subsequently, Ms A filed an application for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Ms B`s statement in her reply was in fact negatively pregnant. Ms B rejected the application and reiterated her defence in her reply, which would have made the judgment on the pleadings inappropriate. Wife. B also requested that the case be dismissed on the grounds that it was not affiliated with XYZ Construction Co., which it believed was an indispensable party to the case. (a) Is Ms A`s request for an assessment of the pleadings correct? Explain. (3%) b) Is XYZ Construction Co. an indispensable or necessary part? Explain. (3%) c) Assuming that XYZ Construction Co. is an indispensable party, is its non-affiliation grounds for rejecting the proceedings? Explain.
(3%) PROPOSED ANSWER: a) Yes, Mrs A`s request to evaluate the entries is appropriate. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment on pleadings is correct if the defendant`s response allows for the essential allegations of the other party`s pleadings. In the present case, the defendant`s response to Ms B that she merely followed the advice of her contractor XYZ Construction Company does not expressly deny whether she acted negligently or not. It is assumed that B has admitted the allegation of negligence on the merits and that a judgment on the pleadings is therefore correct. b) XYZ Construction Company is only a necessary part. The SC decided that an indispensable party is a party that would be directly affected or necessarily disadvantaged by the judgment on the merits. [China Bank v. Oliver, 390 SCRA 263] In the present case, XYZ Construction Company would not be directly affected or necessarily affected by the judgment that would have been rendered. XYZ Construction Company is a necessary part.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a necessary party is a party that must be joined for the establishment or full settlement of the claim that is the subject of the action. Here, XYZ CC must be joined for a full determination or settlement of the claim so that Defendant B can seek compensation from XYZ Construction Company. [Article 8, Rule 3] (c) No, assuming that XYZ Construction Company is an indispensable party, the non-affiliation of XYZ Construction Company is not grounds for dismissing the action. The SC decided that non-membership of an indispensable party is not a ground for rejection of the procedure. [Vesagas v. Court of Appeal, 371 SCRA 508; § 11, rule 3] A.3. Mr C brought an action against Mr D for restitution of property and interest, arguing that, by fraud and falsification, Mr D had been able to obtain ownership of lot No 1234, which had previously been registered in Mr C.`s name.