You are on page 1of 5

BORJA, CATHERINE B.

REMEDIAL LAW, LLB4401


ATTY. CHRISTIAN VILLASIS

REACTION PAPER
CIVIL CASES
Ordinary Civil Action
For ordinary civil action, an action for damages was observed
At the beginning, the judge made a ruling in this case as regards their previous issue on
whether there is a need for a board resolution of the corporation before one of its officers may
testify in court. The judge ruled that the board resolution is not necessary. It is sufficient that the
witness is competent within its meaning in the Rules of Court in order that he may be allowed to
testify.
The parties in this case made use of the judicial affidavit. This is due to the Judicial
Affidavit Rule (A.M. No 12-8-8-SC) which mandates the use of judicial affidavit in civil cases in
lieu of the direct testimony of witness in open court.
In this case however before the identification and presentation of the judicial affidavit in
open court, several objections were made by the adverse counsel on the ground of compound
questions and answers in lengthy narration. Several portions of the judicial affidavit were also
objected on the ground that these were expert opinion to which the witness could not testify
because he was offered as an ordinary witness only.
Most of the objections were sustained by the judge. Hence, in effect, most of the
questions in the judicial affidavit were stricken out.
Provisional Remedies
For provisional remedies, a case for injunction was observed.
This case was commenced in 2012 and upto this time it is still pending. The witness for
PNB was still absent on this day of observation that is why his presentation was deemed waived.
Since this case was commenced in 2012, they were not using judicial affidavits because
that time the Judicial Affidavit Rule was not yet effective. The judge told the parties that if they

want to avail of the judicial affidavit, the parties must manifest this in court and they must submit
it within five day prior to the day of hearing.
Special Civil Action
For special civil actions, three cases were observed Quieting of Title, Declaratory
Relief and Indirect Contempt.
The case for quieting of title was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to submit pre-trial
brief.
The case for declaratory relief was also dismissed due to non-appearance of the plaintiff
during the pre-trial conference despite notice. The dismissal was without prejudice.
For indirect contempt case, a motion for postponement was filed by the counsel for the
respondent but the counsel for the petitioner manifested an objection on the ground that it was
the second time that the counsel moved for postponement for the same reason that he had a
conflicting schedule of hearing in another court. The counsel contended that for the second time,
he did not attach any proof that indeed he had a simultaneous hearing in another court.
The judge in this case made an order in favor of the objecting party. The crossexamination scheduled that day that was supposed to be conducted by the counsel who moved
for postponement was deemed waived.
General Conclusion
What happens in actual court is not exactly how we study it in school. There are slight
variations. Judges can be more lenient sometimes. Perhaps, it is because the Rules of Court shall
be construed liberally as provided under Section 6 Rule 1. It says there that these Rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding.
The following are the few discrepancies that were observed.
In the case of injunction, the court gave the parties the option to use or not to use the
judicial affidavit since the action was commenced in 2012 when the JA Rule was not yet
effective that time. The court however could unilaterally impose this to the parties instead of
giving them the option.
The purpose of the judicial affidavit is to abbreviate the proceedings in court. This
particular case is already pending for four years. Hence, the more reasons for this case to take
advantage of the benefit of the judicial affidavit so that it can finally be disposed.
It is a recognized rule that procedural laws may be applied retroactively in the sense that
it may be applied to the cases pending at the time of its effectivity. Being a pending case when

the JA Rule took effect, there is no reason not to compel the parties to resort to the use of judicial
affidavit.
Another thing is in the particular case of indirect contempt where there is an on-the-spot
motion for postponement. It seems that the counsels are confident that this would always be
granted. That is why they are not observing the three-day notice rule.
In the case observed, it is the second time that the counsel moved for the postponement of
the case without prior notice to the adverse counsel and without attaching any proof to warrant
the postponement of the hearing.
In the case of Spouses Santos vs Alcazar, the court said that the party moving for
postponement should be in court on the day set for trial if the motion is not acted upon favorably
before that day. The counsel should not assume that his motion would be granted.
It appears therefore that in actual setting, the liberal construction of the Rules of Court is
yielding towards the interest of justice ground rather than speedy disposition of the case.
This personal conclusion is derived from the observation that leniency of the judge results to the
delay of the proceedings because some counsels take advantage of this leniency.

BARANGAY CONCILIATION
The barangay conciliation which was observed involved a dispute over the rental of a
piece of lot within the territorial jurisdiction of the barangay.
The lot is being rented by four families. A member of one of the families was the one
collecting the rent from all of them and she was the one remitting the rent to the owner of the lot,
which the parties referred to as Hacienda.
One day however, the counsel of Hacienda sent a demand letter to the three families,
demanding payment of their rent in arrears. It appears that this person who was collecting and
remitting the rent was not doing it properly. Because of this, these four families decided to bring
the matter to the barangay in order that their issues, accounting and agreement would be
formalized and recorded by the barangay.
During the mediation, the parties could freely speak and the barangay chairman allowed
them to say whatever they want even if not connected to the issues presented. The chairman
merely asked clarificatory questions and then she was instructing the secretary to jot down
everything that transpired that night.
The chairman made no advances to ask the parties to reconcile. She just let them talk to
each other and agree on what they want.

The secretary took down notes of the minutes and then subsequently asked the parties to
sign the same.
General Conclusion
The barangay conciliation proceeding is much different from court proceedings. There
are no technicalities involved. It is more of a fact-finding proceeding. What is important is that
all the sides of the stories would come out in whatever means.
The reason maybe is that reconciliation would be more possible if the parties would be
allowed to bring up all their issues even though some of these issues are not connected with the
issue initially presented in the barangay.
Even if it sounds as easy as that, it is still necessary that the barangay chairman
understands the very essence of barangay conciliation and the procedure prescribed by the law to
be followed.
Based on the observation, it looks as easy as that but based on the interview with the
barangay chairman as regards how she does the entire process, it is not that easy.
There are still technical procedures to be followed.
According to the barangay chairman, some of her constituents merely ask for a
Certificate to File Action but because she is very familiar with the Katarungang Pambarangay
Law, she knows that they should undergo the mediation and conciliation process first. The
chairman is aware that in some barangays, the chairman merely issues Certificate to File Action
without going through the proper procedure.
This is the problem because not all the elected barangay chairmen are willing to learn and
follow strictly the Katarungang Pambarangay Law and the reality that not all barangay chairmen
are well-educated to understand its very essence.

You might also like