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
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
Thank you po for dedicating this module to The University of Manila President, DR. EMILY DODSON DE LEON.
Thank unDean on your way of answering bar, itbis as if, nagkkwentuhan lang po kaya madali matandaan ang concept and procedures
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
Wow, thank you
Thank you, Dean Bisquera for sharing your knowledge in law- the 2023 Bar Questions & Suggested Answers.🥰❤..God bless you always in good health!🙏❤🙏
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you so much Dean, it helps a lot.
Thank u Dean, hope ung mga prior bar po ay gawan mo din po ng vodeo answer specially po etong REMEDIAL kasi napakahirap
Thank you sir! Watching from Toronto Canada.
Thank you Dean for the lecture, Happy Birthday and God Bless
Thank you Edric.
Very informative po, Dean. Thank u po..Sna meron na rin suggested answers for Political and Labor law
Political Law coming up.
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.
To God be the Glory!!
Thank you po Dean❤
You're welcome 😊
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY 53:38
Ang ganda atty ng ppt mo.
Sorry, Dean, the sound is quite inaudible. Tnx
Correction on 1:08:34 - Section 41, Rule 130.
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.
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..
cited
Thank you po Dean.
1:06:54 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) DECLARATIONS ON RELATIONSHIP
1:23:36 (Ethics) - CONFLICT OF INTEREST
58:50 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) Evidence for conviction
1:28:10 ETHICS- Supreme court’s authority bar26
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.
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.
@@joesantosbbisquera Understood, Dean. Thank you for clarifying po.
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.
1:25:48 Ethics-CONFLICT OF INTEREST bar25
56:50 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) TESTIMONY
1:21:09 ( SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS) CHANGE OF NAME
1:18:53 UNLAWFUL DETAINER- Ejectment
1:09:32 Evidence-DEPOSTIONS
1:12:29 ( Evidence- ) LEGAL FORM
19:11 number 10
MISJOINDER; JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION SEC5 RULE 2 of THE REVISED ROC 45:20 ( CAUSE OF ACTION =existence of a right)
for number 34:27 no.12
50:20 SUMMONS
SHOPPING FORUM 40:02
1:05:17 (Evidence-TESTIMONY) DYI DECLARATION