SUGGESTED ANSWERS ON THE SAMPLE 2013 BAR EXAM

I A NO, Senate cannot compel, by way of a petition for mandamus, President Guzman to transmit the agreement as a treaty for the Senates concurrence. It is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate. Such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by the Court via a writ of mandamus. (Pimentel v . Executive Secretary , 2005) NOTE: The power of the Senate to give its concurrence carries with it

the right to introduce amendments to a treaty . If the President does not agree to any amendments or reservations added to a treaty by the Senate, his only recourse is to drop the treaty entirely. But if he agrees to the changes, he may persuade the other nation to accept and adopt the modifications. B YES, a petition for certiorari to annul the treatys ratification will prosper. Treaties and other international agreements concluded by the President are subject to check by the Supreme Court, which has the power to declare them unconstitutional. (Art. VIII, Section 4, 1987 Constitution). II

A NO, the Labor Arbiter have no jurisdiction over Taras illegal dismissal. Tara is a corporate officer whose dismissal may be the subject of a controversy cognizable by the RTC under R. A. No. 8799 and not by the Labor Arbiter. Had Tara been an ordinary employee, the boards action to dissolve her position as Secretary to the President (with the rank of Assistant Vice President) would not have been required. (Nacpil vs. Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation, [G. R. No. 144767, March 21, 2002]) NOTE: The Supreme Court has held that in most cases, the by-laws may and usually do provide for such other officers, (Union Motors vs. NLRC, 314 SCRA 531, 539 [1999]) and that where

a corporate officer is not specifically indicated in the roster of corporate officers in the by-laws of a corporation, the Board of Directors may also be empowered under the by-laws to create additional officers as may be necessary. (Tabang vs. NLRC, 266 SCRA 462 [1997]) B NO, Taras dismissal is not valid. The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence. Having an immediate access on the confidential documents, Tara held a position of trust and confidence. The second requisite is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust

and confidence. Loss of trust and confidence, to be a valid cause for dismissal, must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally and knowingly without any justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly or inadvertently. (Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Matias, 497 Phil. 476, 486 (2005). Hence, ordinary breach, such as to misplace certain important confidential company documents, will not suffice. This is an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly or inadvertently. III I will grant the spouses application for registration. It is undisputed that spouses,

as vendees of the unregistered parcel of land, were natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution. (Republic vs. CA, GR No. 108998) IV As net gift to C is in the amount of P240,000.00. From the amount of P1,000,000.00 donated, C will have his conjugal share in the amount of

P500,000.00. Said amount is considered to have been donated by both A and B to C as it is with the other P500,000.00 to D. Thus, from said amount of P500,000.00, A donated one-half thereof or the amount of P250,000.00 unto C. Sec. 101, A (1) of the NIRC provides that gifts made on account of marriage and before its celebration or within one year thereafter by parents to each of their legitimate, recognized natural, or adopted children shall be exempt from tax to the extent of the first Ten thousand pesos (P10,000). Hence, As net gift to C is in the amount of P240,000.00. V Macondos defense is not justified. The incontestability clause applies. The policy was issued to the deceased Ursula on

August 30, 1993 and was in force for a period of more than 2 years until her death on April 10, 1997. Hence, Macondos defense is not justified justified in denying the claim for proceeds of the insurance and in returning the premium paid. Macondo cannot prove the policy void ab initio or rescindible by reason of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured. (Sec. 48, Insurance Code) VI PO1 Dipabaya shall be liable for evasion through negligence under Art. 224 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of which are a) The offender is a public officer; b) He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention prisoner or a prisoner by final judgment; and c) Such prisoner escapes

through his negligence. (Rodillas Sandiganbayan, May 1988).

vs.

On the other hand, Dennis, the janitor, shall be held liable under Art. 225, on escape of prisoner under the custody of person not a public officer. It is clear that PO1 Dipabaya entrusted to him the prisoners and through his negligence, Mando escaped. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Dennis, the janitor, shall not be held criminally liable under Art. 225 of the Revised Penal Code. While it was after PO1 Dipabaya entrusted to him the prisoners that Mando escaped, it was a mere laxity on his part when he allowed Mando to go to the bathroom to relieve himself. The laxity in the handling of the prisoner will not give rise to infidelity in the custody of

the prisoner. (People vs. Nava, 36 O.G. 316; contra: Rodillas) VII The amendment of the information to include relationship is allowed by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Before plea, amendment may be made without leave of court as to matter of form or substance. The inclusion of relationship is an amendment as to matter of form. It will not be prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. The defense of the accused under the complaint or information, as it originally stood, would still be available after the amendment is made. Likewise, any evidence defendant might have would be equally applicable to the information in the one form as in the other. [People vs Casey (1981)]

VIII A Juan can appear and legally represent himself in the accion interdictal. Rule 138, Sec. 34, of the Rules of Court provides that In the court of a municipality , a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. X x x. Thus, it is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. An accion interdictal or the actions of forcible entry and unlawful detainer are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the MTC, MeTC and MCTC. (Cruz v. Mijares, et al., G.R. No. 154464, Sept. 11, 2008)

B YES, Juan, as petitioner, can sign the petition before the Supreme Court without the aid of a lawyer. Rule 138, Sec. 34 likewise provides that In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. (Cruz v. Mijares, et al., G.R. No. 154464, Sept. 11, 2008)