Practice question
A party knew an ordinary waivable defect when attacking an order but deliberately omitted it. New counsel later repeats the same existing defect and calls it newly available solely because counsel has changed. No Rule 9 qualification applies. Which is correct?
- A change of counsel alone does not make the previously available objection new.
- Every new lawyer restarts all omnibus obligations.
- An old known ground becomes future-arising whenever renamed.
- The earlier deliberate omission is categorically irrelevant.
- Only the identity of counsel determines availability.
Legal references
- 2019 Amendments to Civil Procedure, Rules 8, 11, 14 Section 23 and 15, as relevant to each stated issue: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html
- Rules of Court, Rules 6, 9 Section 1, 15 Sections 1 and 3 and 33, retained provisions read with the current amendments: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.