was a surenderee, and was not abducted or harmed
2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
POLITICAL LAW
November 4, 2018 8:00 A.M. - 12:00 N.N.
I.
Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially
the poor and the marginalized, access and
information to a full range of modern family planning
methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine
devices, injectibles, non- abortifacient hormonal
contraceptives, and family planning products and
supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion. To ensure
its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health
providers to provide information on the full range of
modern family planning methods, supplies and
services, for schools to provide reproductive health
education, for non-governmental medical
practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono
reproductive health services as a condition to
Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to
marry to attend a family planning seminar prior to the
issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain
acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses
Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to
declare the law as unconstitutional based on, among
others, the following grounds:
(a) It violates the right to life, since it
practically sanctions abortion. Despite express
terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim
that the family planning products and supplies
oppose the initiation of life, which is a
fundamental human right, and the sanction of
contraceptive use contravenes natural law
and is an affront to the dignity of man.
(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition
against involuntary servitude because it
requires medical practitioners to render 48
hours of pro bono reproductive health
services which may be against their will.
(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since
petitioners' religious beliefs prevent them
from using contraceptives, and that any State-
sponsored procurement of contraceptives,
funded by taxes, violates the guarantee of
religious freedom.
Rule on each of the above objections. (2.5% each)
II
Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military
men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was brought to
several military camps where she was interrogated,
beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death
if she would not confess her membership in the New
People's Army (NPA) and point to the location of NPA
camps. She suffered for several days until she was
released after she signed a document saying that she
by the military. After she was released, and alleging
that her rights to life, liberty and security had been
violated and continued to be threatened by violation
of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the
Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas
Data with prayers for Temporary Protection Orders,
Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents
and Personal Properties. The case was filed against
President Amoyo (who was the President of the
Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling and
life threats were committed), General Altamirano, and
several military men whom Agnes was able to
recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after finding
the petition to be in order, issued the writ
of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed
the respondents to file a verified return on the writs,
and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the
petition. The respondents duly filed their return on
the writs and produced the documents in their
possession. After hearing, the CA ruled that there was
no more need to issue the temporary protection
orders since the writ of amparo had already been
issued, and dismissed the petition against President
Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit
during his incumbency as President. Agnes appealed
the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged
after President Amoyo's term had ended.
(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ
of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance
of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)
(b) Will the President's immunity from suit
continue even after his term has ended,
considering that the events covered by the
Petition took place during his term? (2.5%)
III
What and whose vote is required for the following
acts: (2% each)
(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law;
(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of
war;
(c) the amendment of a constitutional
provision through a constituent assembly;
(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential
election; and
(e) the extension of the period for the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus?
IV
The Province of Amaya is one of the smallest
provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative
district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos,
Tres, and Cuatro.
Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro
municipality, ran and was elected as member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010
and 2013 local elections.
While Andres was serving his second term as ·sp
member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the four
towns of Amaya into two legislative districts: Uno and
Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro
comprising the Second District.
In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was elected
as member of the SP of Amaya representing the
Second District.
Andres seeks your legal advice regarding his intention
to run as a member of the SP of Amaya for the Second
District in the next local elections in 2019. What will
you advise Andres? (2.5%)
V Immigration (Bl) showing that Anacleto used the
State whether or not the following acts are
constitutional: (2% each)
(a) A law prescribing as qualifications for
appointment to any court lower than the
Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship,
whether natural-born or naturalized, 35 years
of age on the date of appointment, and at
least eight years as a member of the Philippine
Bar;
(b) A law requiring all candidates for national
or local elective offices to be college degree
holders;
(c) The designation by the President of an
acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil
Service Commission;
(d) The appointment by the President as
Deputy Ombudsman of a lawyer who has
been engaged in the practice of law for five
years; and
(e) The nomination by a national party-list of a
person who is not one of its bona fide
members.
VI
Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly
registered as such with the Commission on Elections
(Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning
party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first
nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list
representative.
About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the
Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled
Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced
him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro
questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and
replacement by Andoy.
The Comelec considered Alejandro's petition as an
intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an
incident of its power to register political parties; it
proceeded to uphold the expulsion.
Is the Comelec's ruling correct? (5%)
VII
The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ardania
included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders.
Arnaldo filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel
Anacleto's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for
misrepresenting himself as a Filipino citizen. Arnaldo
presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto's Spanish
passport and a certification from the Bureau of
same passport several times to travel to and from
Manila and Madrid or Barcelona.
In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year prior to
filing his CoC, he had complied with all the
requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention
and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his
Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance
and executing a sworn renunciation of his Spanish
citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish
passport subsequent to taking his oath of allegiance
to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had
yet to obtain his Philippine passport despite
reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he
secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to wait
for the issuance of a Schengen visa to allow him to
travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.
(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is
there sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto's
CoC? (2.5%)
(b) In case Anacleto's CoC is properly
cancelled, who should serve as mayor of
Ardania City: Arnaldo, who obtained the
second highest number votes, or Andrea, the
duly-elected Vice Mayor of the City? (2.5%)
VIII
Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of
Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with
the Comelec against two candidates running as
municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago,
Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of
rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer
the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which
carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the
President commuted his sentence and he was
discharged from prison.
The second petition was against Ambrosio.
Ambrosio's residency was questioned because he was
allegedly a "green card holder," i.e., a permanent
resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to
this effect from the US Embassy.
Acting on the recommendations of its Law
Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued
two resolutions granting the petitions against
Anselmo and Ambrosio.
Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions
with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions
cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the
Comelec en bane acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because
the petitions should have first been heard and
resolved by one of the Comelec's Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (5%)
IX
In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired
Canadian citizenship.
In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the
Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of
Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the
Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and
executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian
citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.
In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of candidacy for
Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina's political
rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various
actions to question her candidacy. They questioned
her eligibility to run as member of Congress. Since
Agripina had to take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it
meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect
her Philippine citizenship.
Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be
considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the
defense that, having complied with the requirements
of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed
never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship.
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing
to meet the citizenship requirement? (2.5%)
X rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts:
(2.5% each)
(a) An investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the
Commission on Audit for serious misconduct.
(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the
Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of
injunction against an investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman.
(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the
decision or final order of the Ombudsman in
an administrative proceeding, except through
a petition for review on certiorari filed before
the Supreme Court.
XI
Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction)
of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody
of a United States (US) personnel who becomes
subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine
court shall be with the US military authorities, if the
latter so requests. The custody shall begin from the
commission of the offense until the completion of all
judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the
US military authorities shall make the US personnel
available to Philippine authorities for any investigative
or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with
which the person has been charged. In the event that
the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed
within one year, the US shall be relieved of any
obligation under Section 6.
The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA
is challenged on two grounds: (1) it nullifies the
exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules
of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it
violates the equal protection clause to the extent that
it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a
foreign power as providing a different rule of
procedure for that accused.
Rule on the challenge. (5%)
XII
Section 9 of P.O. No. 1606, as amended, provides that
the Sandiganbayan may adopt internal rules
governing the allotment of cases among its divisions,
the rotation of justices among them, and other
matters relating to the internal operations of the
court.
Section 6 of Article IX-A of the Constitution allows
each of the Constitutional Commissions "en bane [to]
promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and
practice before it or before any of its offices. Such
substantive rights."
Section 16(3) of Article VI of the Constitution states
that "Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings." Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution
further provides that "The Senate or the House of
Representatives or any of its respective committees
may conduct inquiries... in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure."
Finally, Section 3(8) of Article XI of the Constitution
declares that "The Congress shall promulgate its rules
on impeachment to effectively carry out the purposes
of this section."
Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these
provisions subject to review and disapproval by the
Supreme Court? (5%)
XIII
PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from
apprehended motorists who have violated traffic
rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted
an entrapment operation where P01 Adrian was
caught red-handed demanding and taking PhP500.00
from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light.
After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required
to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed
that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1
Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the
urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims
that the mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a
violation of the accused's right to privacy and right
against self-incrimination.
Are PO1 Adrian's contentions correct? (2.5%)
XIV
Amoroso was· charged with treason before a military
court martial. He was acquitted.
He was later charged with the same offense before a
Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be
quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.
The prosecution objects, contending that for
purposes of double jeopardy, the military court
martial cannot be considered as a "competent court."
Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso's
motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy?
(2.5%)
XV
Annika sued the Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant
Industry, and asked for the revocation of a deed of
donation executed by her in favor of said Bureau. She
alleged that, contrary to the terms of the donation,
the donee failed to install lighting facilities and a
water system on the property donated, and to build
an office building and parking lot thereon, which
should have been constructed and made ready for
occupancy on or before the date fixed in the deed of
donation.
The Republic invoked state immunity and moved for
the dismissal of the case on the ground that it had not
consented to be sued. Should the Republic's motion
be granted? (2.5%)
XVI
Five foreign nationals arrived at the NAIA from Hong
Kong. After retrieving their checked-in luggage, they
placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to
Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their
luggage on the examiner's table for inspection.
The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in
size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes
inside the foreigners' bags. The examiner discovered
white crystalline substances inside the boxes that he
inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by
putting masking tape around them. He thereafter
handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents.
The agents called out the names of the foreigners one
by one and ordered them to sign their names on the
masking tape placed on the boxes recovered from
their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were
thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that
the substance was shabu.
Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in
evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of
illegal possession of drugs in violation of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002? (2.5%)
XVII
The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who
was suspected of raping and killing a female high
school student. While on the way to the police
station, one of the police officers who served the
warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really
raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded and
said, "Opo." Upon arriving at the police station,
Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and
asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led
Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation
with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted
that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor
thereafter opened the door of the room to let the
public and media representatives witness Ariston's
confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police
and the media, and in response to questions asked by
some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully
confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his
actions.
Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would
you consider as admissible in evidence against
Ariston? (5%)
 XVIII
Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom
in a kidnapping case.
The bag containing the ransom money was placed
inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was parked at
the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.
The first police team, stationed in an area near where
the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the
kidnappers of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The
kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and
proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in
Makati City where the second police team was
waiting.
communication from the Department of Foreign
Affairs stating that, pursuant to the Agreement
between the Philippine Government and the ADS, the
bank's officers and staff are immune from legal
processes with respect to acts performed by them in
their official capacity.
(a) Can the President's act of deporting an
undesirable alien be subject to judicial review?
(2.5%)
(b) Is Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity
proper? (2.5%)
-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

Upon confirmation by radio report from the first

police team that the kidnappers were heading
towards their direction, the second police team
proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the
kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial
Center in Makati City, and the police team finally
blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the
second police team approached the vehicle and
proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.

Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the

second police team lawful? (5%)

XIX

President Alfredo died during his third year in office.

In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President
Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then
nominated the late President Alfredo's Executive
Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice
President. The nomination was confirmed by a
majority of all the Members of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, voting separately.

(a) Is Anna Maria's assumption as Vice

President valid? (2.5%)

(b) Can Anastasia run as President in the next

election? (2.5%)

XX

Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals working

with the Asian Development Bank (ADS) in its
headquarters in Manila. Both were charged with
criminal acts before the local trial courts.

Andreas was caught importing illegal drugs into the

country as part of his "personal effects" and was thus
charged with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. Before the criminal proceedings
could commence, the President had him deported as
an undesirable alien. Aristotle was charged with grave
oral defamation for uttering defamatory words
against a colleague at work. In his defense, Aristotle
claimed diplomatic immunity. He presented as proof a

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
LABOR LAW
November 4, 2018 2:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
I.
Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for
the payment of retirement benefits after having been
a part-time professional lecturer in the same school
since 1974. Narciso taught for two semesters and a
summer term for the school year 1974-1975, took a
leave of absence from 1975 to 1977, and resumed
teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been
renewed at the start of every semester and summer,
until November 2005 when he was told that he could
no longer teach because he was already 75 years old.
Norte University also denied Narciso's claim for
retirement benefits stating that only full-time
permanent faculty, who have served for at least five
years immediately preceding the termination of their
employment, can avail themselves of post-
employment benefits. As part-time faculty member,
Narciso did not acquire permanent employment
status under the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of
his length of service.
(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits?
(2.5%)
(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how
should retirement pay be computed in the
absence of any contract between him and
Norte University providing for such benefits?
(2.5%)
II
Nayon Federation issued a charter certificate creating
a rank-and-file Neuman Employees Union. On the
same day, New Neuman Employees Union filed a
petition for certification election with the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office,
attaching the appropriate charter certificate.
a) The employer, Neuman Corporation, filed a
motion to dismiss the petition for lack of legal
personality on the part of the petitioner
union. Should the motion be granted? (2.5%)
b) The employer likewise filed a petition for
cancellation of union registration against New
Neuman Employees Union, alleging that
Nayon Federation already had a chartered
local rank-and-file union, Neuman Employees
Union, pertaining to the same bargaining unit
within the establishment. Should the petition
for cancellation prosper? (2.5%)
III
Due to his employer's dire financial situation, Nicanor
was prevailed upon by his employer to voluntarily
resign. In exchange, he demanded payment of salary
differentials, 13th month pay, and financial assistance,
as promised by his employer. Management promised
to pay him as soon as it is able to pay off all was
attack. retrenched able His to rank-and-file widow,
pay Nicanor Norie, employees. the filed amount a
money Five promised claim years against to later, him,
and the Nicanor company before died management
before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), including interest on the amount of the
unpaid claim. She also claimed additional damages
arguing that the supposed resignation letter was
obtained from her spouse through undue pressure
and influence. The employer filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have
jurisdiction over money claims, and (8) the action has
prescribed.
(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award
money claims including interest on the
amount unpaid? (2.5%)
(b) Assuming that the NLRC has jurisdiction,
has the action prescribed? (2.5%)
(c) May Nicanor's spouse successfully claim
additional damages as a result of the alleged
undue pressure and influence? (2.5%)
IV
Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational
streamlining program that resulted in the
retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant.
After having been paid their separation benefits, the
retrenched workers demanded payment of
retirement benefits under a CBA between their union
and management. Natasha Shoe Company denied the
workers' demand.
(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful
means to resolve this dispute? (2.5%)
(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay
and retirement benefits? (2.5%)
V
Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland
with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an eight-hour
workday. On Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour
from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her employer paid her
only PhP480.00 for each 8-hour workday, and
PhP70.00 for the work done on Good Friday. She sued
for underpayment of wages and non-payment of
holiday pay and night shift differential pay for working
on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged
underpayment, arguing that based on long-standing
unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were
partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid
for by the employee through salary deduction.
According to the employer, such valid deduction
caused the payment of Nelda's wage to be below the
prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that she
was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift
differential pay because hotel workers have to work
on holidays and may be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to
deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's
basic salary? (2.5%)
(b) Applying labor standards law, how much
should Nelda be paid for work done on Good
Friday? Show the computation in your test
booklet and encircle your final answer. (2.5%)
VI
A certification election was conducted in Nation
Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of eligible
voters in the bargaining unit cast their votes. The
results were as follows:
Union Nana : 45 votes
Union Nada: 40 votes
Union Nara : 30 votes
No Union : 80 votes
Union Nana moved to be declared as the winner of
the certification election.
a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner?
(2.5%)
b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was
challenged during the pre-election
conference. The ballots of the 30 challenged
voters were placed inside an envelope sealed
by the DOLE Election Officer. Considering the
said envelope remains sealed, what should be
the next course of action with respect to the
said challenged votes? (2.5%)
VII
Nico is a medical representative engaged in the
promotion of pharmaceutical products and medical
devices for Northern Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He
regularly visits physicians' clinics to inform them of
the chemical composition and benefits of his
employer's products. At the end of every day, he
receives a basic wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00
"productivity allowance." For purposes of computing
Nico's 13th month pay, should the daily "productivity
allowance" be included? (2.5%)
VIII
Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark
Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two years at the
Manila office of Nutrition City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He
was deployed pursuant to a service agreement
between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient
provisions of which were as follows:
a) the Contractor (Newmark) agrees to
perform and provide the Client (Nutrition
City), on a non-exclusive basis, such tasks or
activities that are considered contractible
under existing laws, as may be needed by the
Client from time to time;
b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary
personnel like helpers, salesmen, and drivers
who are determined by the Contractor to be
efficiently trained;
c) the Client may request replacement of the
Contractor's personnel if quality of the desired
result is not achieved;
d) the Contractor's personnel will comply with
the Client's policies, rules, and regulations;
and
e) the Contractor's two service vehicles and
necessary equipment will be utilized in
carrying out the provisions of this Agreement.
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal
dismissal case against the wealthier company,
Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was a regular
employee of the same. Is Nathaniel correct? (2.5%)
IX
Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned
officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in
Nueva Ecija. He and some other members of his
detachment sought permission from their Company
Commander for an overnight pass to Nueva Vizcaya to
settle some important matters. The Company
Commander orally approved their request and
allowed them to carry their firearms as the place they
were going to was classified as a "critical place." They
arrived at the place past midnight; and as they were
alighting from a tricycle, one of his companions
accidentally dropped his rifle, which fired a single
shot, and in the process hit Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The
shooting was purely accidental. At the time of his
death, he was still legally married to Nelda, but had
been separated de facto from her for 17 years. For the
last 15 years of his life, he was living in with Narda,
with whom he has two minor children. Since Narda
works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with
their grandparents, who provided their daily support.
Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only sent money to them
every year to pay for their school tuition.
Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter,
also on behalf of her minor children, separately filed
claims for compensation as a result of the death of
Sgt. Nemesis. The Line of Duty Board of the AFP
declared Sgt. Nemesis' death to have been "in line of
duty", and recommended that all benefits due to Sgt.
Nemesis be given to his dependents. However, the
claims were denied by GSIS because Sgt. Nemesis was
not in his workplace nor performing his duty as a
soldier of the Philippine Army when he died.
(a) Are the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis
entitled to compensation as a result of his
death? (2.5%)
(b) As between Nelda and Narda, who should
be entitled to the benefits? (2.5%)
(c) Are the minor children entitled to the
benefits considering that they were not fully
dependent on Sgt. Nemesis for support? (2.5%)
X CEO of Nordic Corporation. One day, Nesting called
Nonato had been continuously employed and
deployed as a seaman who performed services that
were necessary and desirable to the business of N-
Train Shipping, through its local agent, Narita
Maritime Services (Agency), in accordance with the
2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC).
Nonato's last contract (for five months) expired on
November 15, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due
to a "finished contract." He immediately reported to
the Agency and complained that he had been
experiencing dizziness, weakness, and difficulty in
breathing. The Agency referred him to Dr. Neri, who
examined, treated, and prescribed him with
medications. After a few months of treatment and
consultations, Nonato was declared fit to resume
work as a seaman. Nonato went back to the Agency
to ask for re-deployment but the Agency rejected his
application. Nonato filed an illegal dismissal case
against the Agency and its principal, with a claim for
total disability benefits based on the ailments that he
developed on board N-Train Shipping vessels. The
claim was based on the certification of his own
physician, Dr. Nunez, that he was unfit for sea duties
because of his hypertension and diabetes.
a) Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train
Shipping? (2.5%)
b) Can Nonato successfully claim disability
benefits against N-Train Shipping and its agent
Narita Maritime Services? (2.5%)
XI
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and
seeks your advice on her treatment of her
kasambahay, Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document
called a "Contract of Engagement" for your review.
Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray shall be
entitled to a rest day every week, provided that she
may be requested to work on a rest day if Tita Nilda
should need her services that day. Tita Nilda also
claims that this Contract of Engagement should
embody all terms and conditions of Noray's work as
the engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter
and should not be regulated by the State.
a) Is Tita Nilda correct in saying that this is a
private matter and should not be regulated by
the State? (2.5%)
b) Is the stipulation that she may be requested
to work on a rest day legal? (2.5%)
c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the
Kasambahay Law? (2.5%)
XII
Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting,
Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures of
women in seductive poses which Nena found
offensive. Nena complained before the General
Manager who, in turn, investigated the matter and
recommended the dismissal of Nesting to the Board
of Directors. Before the Board of Directors, Nesting
argued, that since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law
requires the existence of "sexual favors," he should
not be dismissed from the service since he did not ask
for any sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct?
(2.5%)
XIII
Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer
by Network Corporation, a telecommunications firm.
He has been coming to work in shorts and sneakers, in
violation of the "prescribed uniform policy" based on
company rules and regulations. The company human
resources manager wrote him a letter, giving him 10
days to comply with the company uniform policy.
Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers
made him more productive, and cited his above-
average output. When he came to work still in
violation of the uniform policy, the company sent him
a letter of termination of employment. Nicodemus
filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled
in favor of Nicodemus and ordered his reinstatement
with backwages. Network Corporation, however,
refused to reinstate him. The NLRC 1st Division
sustained the Labor Arbiter's judgment. Network
Corporation still refused to reinstate Nicodemus.
Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal was valid.
Despite the reversal, Nicodemus still filed. a motion
for execution with respect to his accrued backwages.
(a) Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss
Nicodemus from his employment? (2.5%)
(b) Should Nicodemus' motion for execution
be granted? (2.5%)
XIV
Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office
about Needy Corporation's failure to pay his wage
increase amounting to PhPS,000.00 as mandated in a
Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages
and Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson asked
the DOLE to immediately issue an Order sustaining his
money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice
from the DOLE to appear before the Regional Director
for purposes of conciliating the dispute between him
and Needy Corporation. When conciliation before the
Regional Director failed, the latter proceeded to direct
both parties to submit their respective position
papers in relation to the dispute. Needy Corporation
argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for 75%
of his money claim during conciliation proceedings,
only a maximum of 75% of the said money claim may
be awarded to him.
(a) Was DOLE's action to conduct mandatory
conciliation in light of Nelson's complaint
valid? (2.5%)
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain
Needy Corporation's argument? (2.5%)
XV
Nexturn Corporation employed Nini and Nono, whose
tasks involved directing and supervising rank-and-file
employees engaged in company operations. Nini and
Nono are required to ensure that such employees
obey company rules and regulations, and recommend
to the company's Human Resources Department any
required disciplinary action against erring employees.
In Nextum Corporation, there are two independent
unions, representing rank-and-file and supervisory
employees, respectively.
a) May Nini and Nono join a union? (2.5%)
b) May the two unions be affiliated with the
same Union Federation? (2.5%)
XVI
Nagrab Union and Nagrab Corporation have an
existing CSA which contains the following provision:
"New employees within the coverage of the
bargaining unit who may be regularly employed shall
become members of Nagrab Union. Membership in
good standing with the Nagrab Union is a
requirement for continued employment with Nagrab
Corporation." Nagrab Corporation subsequently
acquired all the assets and rights of Nuber
Corporation and absorbed all of the latter's
employees. Nagrab Union immediately demanded
enforcement of the above-stated CSA provision with
respect to the absorbed employees. Nagrab
Corporation refused on the ground that this should
not apply to the absorbed employees who were
former employees of another corporation whose
assets and rights it had acquired.
(a) Was Nagrab Corporation correct in
refusing to enforce the CSA provision with
respect to the absorbed employees? (2.5%)
(b) May a newly-regularized employee of
Nagrab Corporation (who is not part of the
absorbed employees) refuse to join Nagrab
Union? How would you advise the human
resources manager of Nagrab Corporation to
proceed? (2.5%)
XVII
Upon compliance with the legal requirements on the
conduct of a strike, Navarra Union staged a strike
against Newfound Corporation on account of a
collective bargaining deadlock. During the strike,
some members of Navarra Union broke the windows
and punctured the tires of the company-owned buses.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed
jurisdiction over the dispute.
(a) Should all striking employees be admitted
back to work upon the assumption of
jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment? Will these include striking
employees who damaged company
properties? (2.5%)
(b) May the company readmit strikers only by
restoring them to the payroll? (2.5%)
XVIII
Nestor and Nadine have been living in for the last 10
years without the benefit of marriage. Their union has
produced four children. Nadine was three months
pregnant with her 5th child when Nestor left her for
another woman. When Nadine was eight months
pregnant with her 5th child, she applied for maternity
leave benefits. Her employer refused on the ground
that this was already her 5th pregnancy and that she
was only living in with the father of her child, who is
now in a relationship with another woman. When
Nadine gave birth, Nestor applied for paternity leave
benefits. His employer also denied the application on
the same grounds that Nadine's employer denied her
application.
(a) Can Nadine's employer legally deny her
claim for maternity benefits? (2.5%)
(b) Can Nestor's employer legally deny his
claim for paternity benefits? (2.5%)
XIX
Northeast Airlines sent notices of transfer, without
diminution in salary or rank, to 50 ground crew
personnel who were front-liners at Northeast Airlines
counters at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA). The 50 employees were informed that they
would be distributed to various airports in Mindanao
to anticipate robust passenger volume growth in the
area. North Union, representing rank-and-file
employees, filed unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal cases before the NLRC, citing, among
others, the inconvenience of the 50 concerned
employees and union discrimination, as 8 of the 50
concerned ground crew personnel were union
officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast
Airlines could easily hire additional employees from
Mindanao to boost its ground operations in the
Mindanao airports.

a) Will the transfer of the 50 ground crew

personnel amount to illegal dismissal? (2.5%)

b) Will the unfair labor practice case prosper?

(2.5%)

XX

In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad,

Ned, and Nod sought permission from the company
to distribute flyers with respect to a weekend union
activity. The company HR manager granted the
request through a text message sent to another union
member, Norlyn.

While Nad, Ned, and Nod were distributing the flyers

at the company assembly plant, a company supervisor
barged in and demanded that they cease from
distributing the flyers, stating that the assembly line
employees were trying to beat a production deadline
and were thoroughly distracted. Norlyn tried to show
the HR manager's text message authorizing flyer
distribution during work hours, but the supervisor
brushed it aside.

As a result, Nad, Ned, and Nod were suspended for

violating company rules on trespass and highly-limited
union activities during work hours. The Union filed an
unfair labor practice (ULP) case before the NLRC for
union discrimination.

a) Will the ULP case filed by the Union

prosper? (2.5%)

b) Assume the NLRC ruled in favor of the

Union. The Labor Arbiter's judgment included,
among others, an award for moral and
exemplary damages at PhP50,000.00 each for
Nad, Ned, and Nod. should Northern be Lights
given to Corporation the Union, and argued
not that individually any award to its of
members. Is Northern Lights Corporation
correct? (2.5%)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
CIVIL LAW
November 11, 2018 8:00 A.M. - 12:00 N.N.
I parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter,
Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with
one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the
same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the
families of those who died sued the airlines and went
through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley
and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four
(4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These
two (2) were then brought up in the same household.
Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed
romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually
eloped. On their own and against their parents'
wishes, they procured a marriage license and got
married in church.
(a) Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid,
voidable, or void? (2.5%)
(b) If the marriage is defective, can the
marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of
the parties? (2.5%)
II
After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4)
months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were
single and had never been in any serious relationship
in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a
marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains shall govern their property
relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage,
their daughter, Shalimar, was born.
Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a
parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale,
with the full purchase price payable in equal annual
amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no
down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the
land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the
fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got
married, and Sancho completed the payments in the
subsequent years from his salary as an accountant.
The previous payments were also paid out of his
salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1
million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry.
When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed
an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage
based on the psychological incapacity of both of
them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of
land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to
be the only properties of the couple.
(a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar?
(2.5%)
(b) What system of property relationship will
be liquidated following the declaration of
nullity of their marriage? (2.5%)
(c) In the liquidation, who should get the
(d) Is Shalimar entitled to payment of
presumptive legitime? If yes, how much
should be her share and from where should
this be taken? (2.5%)
Ill
Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He
was born male and his birth certificate indicated his
gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When
he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment
surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a
female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed
an action to have his first name changed to Shelley,
and his gender, to female. While he was following up
his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he
met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to
change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from
female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While
growing up, she developed male characteristics and
was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia
("CAH") which is a condition where a person
possesses both male and female characteristics. At
puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures
had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or
menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents
and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she
had become a male, she prayed that her birth
certificate be corrected such that her gender should
be changed from female to male, and that her first
name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry.
Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in
the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA
where they got married based on the law of the place
of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept
their Philippine citizenship.
(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to
approve Silverio's petition for correction of
entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same in the case
of Sharon's petition? (2.5%)
(c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and
Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid
in the Philippines? (2.5%)
IV
Severino died intestate, survived by his wife
Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio,
Segundo and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the
time of his death, the twins were only 11 years of age,
while all the older children were of age. He left only
one property: a 5,000 sq. m. parcel of land. After his
death, the older siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo
sold the land to Dr. Santos for PhP500,000 with a
right to repurchase, at the same price, within five (5)
years from the date of the sale. The deed of sale was
signed only by the three (3) older siblings, and
covered the entire property. Before the five (5) years
expired, Sole and Sulpicio tendered their respective
shares of PhP166,666 each to redeem the property.
Since Segundo did not have the means because he
was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining
PhP166,666 to redeem the property. After the
property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3)
older children and Saturnina, for herself and on behalf
of the twins who were still minors, sold the property
to Dr. Sazon, in an absolute sale, for PhP1 million. In
representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the fact
that she was the natural guardian of her minor
children.
(a) Was the first sale to Dr. Santos, and the
subsequent repurchase, valid? (2.5%)
(b) Was the second sale to Dr. Sazon valid?
May the twins redeem their share after they
reach the age of majority? (2.5%)
V will was found to be valid but both Saffinia
Sol Soldivino, widow, passed away, leaving two (2)
legitimate children: a 25- year old son, Santino (whom
she had not spoken to for five [5] years prior to her
death since he attempted to kill her at that time), and
a 20-year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth
PhP8 million and a will containing only one provision:
that PhP1 million should be given to "the priest who
officiated at my wedding to my children's late father."
Sara, together with two (2) of her friends, acted as an
attesting witness to the will.
On the assumption that the will is admitted for
probate and that there are no debts, divide the estate
and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the
amount that each of them will inherit, and
where (i.e., legitime/free portion/intestate share) their
shares should be charged. (5%)
VI
Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited
two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy
is based overseas but wants to earn income from his
inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build
a row of apartments on his property which he could
rent out. The contractor sent him the plans and
Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a
part of Santi's land but he said nothing and gave
approval to construct based on the plans submitted
by the local contractor. Santi, based locally, and who
loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if he knew
of the encroachment since he was privy to the plans
and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins
had a falling out and Santi demanded that the portion
of the apartments that encroached on his land be
demolished.
Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the
demolition? (5%)
VII
Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer.
By her own choice, she remained unmarried and
devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and
two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She
wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon
her death to the three (3) of them. The will was
admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she
decided to make a new will giving all her remaining
properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and
Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will.
The second will was presented for probate only after
her death. However, the probate court found the
second will to be void for failure to comply with
formal requirements.
(a) Will the doctrine of dependent relative
revocation apply? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same if the second
and Sophia renounce their inheritance? (2.5%)
VIII
Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a
brief fling with Sabrina, resulting in her pregnancy and
the birth of their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew
nothing of the affair, Sofronio regretted it, but
secretly provided child support for Sinforoso.
Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years old,
Sofronio died. Only Sofronio's father, Salumbides,
knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso. For the purpose of
providing support to Sinforoso, Salumbides gave
Sabrina usufructruary · rights over one of his
properties - a house and lot - to last until Sinforoso
reaches the age of majority. Sabrina was given
possession of the property on the basis of caucion
juratoria. Two (2) years after the creation of the
usufruct, the house accidentally burned down, and
three (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he
could reach the age of 18.
Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned
down? If yes, will it continue after Sinforoso's death?
(2.5%)
IX
Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with
Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple
was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among
other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in
the service of dinner and that certain items promised
were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there
was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was
occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450
from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as
stated in the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract.
In the action for damages for breach of contract
instituted by the couple, they claimed that the
Banquet and Meeting Services Contract was a
contract of adhesion since they only provided the
number of guests and chose the menu. On the other
hand, the hotel's defense was that the proximate
cause of the complainant's injury was the unexpected
increase in their guests, and this was what set the
chain of events that resulted in the alleged
inconveniences.
(a) Does the doctrine of proximate cause
apply in this case? (2.5%)
(b) Was the Banquet and Meeting Services
Contract a contract of adhesion? If yes, is the
contract void? (2.5%)
X automatically take over his savings account deposit.
Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while
Sinclair was married to another. The relationship
produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her
mother. For most parts of Sabina's youth, Steffi spent
for her support and education. When Sabina was 21
years old, Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair
and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their
relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late
wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a
marriage license, claiming that they have been
cohabiting for the last 20 years.
After graduating from college, Sabina decided to
enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not
willing to pay for her school fees since she was no
longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted
to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law
education.
(a) What is Sabina's filiation status? (2.5%)
(b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance
Sabina's law education? (2.5%)
XI
Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole
proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of PhP1
million. Under the sale agreement, Samantha was
supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility bills
incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the
Contract to Sell was executed, Samantha still had not
paid the PhP50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to
the sale. Since Sergio could not operate the business
without electricity and the utility company refused to
restore electricity services unless the unpaid bills were
settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid electricity
bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio only
tendered PhP950,000 representing the full purchase
price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid utility
bills. Samantha refused to accept the tender on the
ground that she was the one supposed to pay the bills
and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her
behalf.
(a) What is the effect of payment made by
Sergio without the knowledge and consent of
Samantha? (2.5%)
(b) Is Samantha guilty of mora
accipiendi? (2.5%)
XII
Saachi opened a savings bank account with
Shanghainese Bank. He made an initial deposit of
PhP100,000. Part of the bank opening forms that he
was required to sign when he opened the account
was a Holdout Agreement which provided that,
should he incur any liability or obligation to the bank,
the bank shall have the right to immediately and
After he opened his deposit account, the
Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the
funds in the account of another depositor in the bank
was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank
suspected Saachi to be. the impostor, and filed a
criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was
still pending with the Prosecutor's office, the bank
took over Saachi's savings deposit on the basis of the
Holdout Agreement.
(a) What kind of contract is created when a
depositor opens a deposit account with a
bank? (2.5%)
(b) In this case, did the bank have the right to
take over Saachi's bank deposit? (2.5%)
XIV
Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while
Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot
B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15
feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was
allegedly removing portions of the land and cement
that supported the adjoining property, Segunda
caused the annotation of an adverse claim against 50
sq. m. on Lot A's Transfer Certificate of Title, asserting
the existence of a legal easement.
(a) Does a legal easement in fact exist? If so,
what kind? (2.5%)
(b) If a legal easement does in fact exist, is an
annotation of an adverse claim on the title of
the servient estate proper? (2.5%)
 XV
Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to
Shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil Philippine
Airlines (SPA). They had no written contract but
merely agreed on a three (3)-year lease. Shannon had
been using the townhouse as her base in Manila and
had been paying rentals for more than a year when
she accepted a better job offer from Sing Airlines. This
meant that Singapore was going to be her new base
and so she decided, without informing Simon, to
sublease the townhouse to Sylvia, an office clerk in
SPA.
(a) Can Simon compel Shannon to reduce the
lease agreement into writing? (2.5%)
(b) Does the sublease without Simon's
knowledge and consent constitute a ground
for terminating the lease? (2.5%)
XVI
Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant
and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a
caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in
the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a
permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam
who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as a
movie star in Canada. Sam's parents are of Filipino
ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before
Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the
advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam
decided to adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed
to the marriage of their son to someone significantly
older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They
argued that Sam was not old enough and that the
requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country
Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as
adoptee was not met.
Are Sam's parents correct? (2.5%)
XVII
Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for
many years in the Philippines and begot three
children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the
children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a
naturalized German citizen. He met someone in
Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel
thereafter came home and filed a petition with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition ofthe common
properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the
Philippines. The properties acquired during the union
consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2
million, and some personal properties, including cash
in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these
properties were acquired using Samuel's salaries and
wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In
retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their
minor children, for support.
(a) How should the properties be partitioned?
(2.5%)
(b) Should Semuel be required to support the
minor children? (2.5%)
XVIII
Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines
(SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok- Hanoi-Manila. The
ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines
(SMA). The contract of air transportation was
between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to
SMA the Hanoi-Manila segment of the journey. All her
flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila.
Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on
board SAL using the ticket. When she arrived in
Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and
confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila on
board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her
return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight No. SA 888,
boarded the plane, and before she could even settle
in on her assigned seat, she was off-loaded and
treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and
missed an important business meeting. She thereafter
filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that it
was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she
suffered since the latter was only an agent of the
former.
(a) Should either, or both, SAL and SMA be
held liable for damages that Shasha suffered?
(2.5%)
(b) Assuming that one is an agent of the
other, is the agency coupled with interest?
(2.5%)
XIX
Sebastian, who has a pending assessment from the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was required to
post a bond. He entered into an agreement with Solid
Surety Company (SSC) for SSC to issue a bond in favor
of the BIR to secure payment of his taxes, if found to
be due. In consideration of the issuance of the bond,
he executed an Indemnity Agreement with SSC
whereby he agreed to indemnify the latter in the
event that he was found liable to pay the tax. The BIR
eventually decided against Sebastian, and judicially
commenced action against both Sebastian and SSC to
recover Sebastian's unpaid taxes. Simultaneously, BIR
also initiated action to foreclose on the bond. Even
before paying the BIR, SSC sought indemnity from
Sebastian on the basis of the Indemnity Agreement.
Sebastian refused to pay since SSC had not paid the
BIR anything yet, and alleged that the provision in the
Indemnity Agreement which allowed SSC to recover
from him, by mere demand, even if it (SSC) had not
yet paid the creditor, was void for being contrary to
law and public policy.
Can Sebastian legally refuse to pay SSC? (2.5%)

XX

Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a

weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Quezon. He
boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL)
on August 30, 2013. In the middle of the journey, the
bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite
direction, which was overtaking the vehicle in front of
the truck. Though the driver of the SBL bus tried to
avoid the truck, a mishap occurred as the truck hit the
left side of the bus. As a result of the accident, Simeon
suffered a fractured leg and was unable to report for
work for one week. He sued SBL for actual and moral
damages. SBL raised the defense that it was the driver
of the truck who was at fault, and that it exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection
and supervision of its driver.

(a) Is SBL liable for actual damages? Moral

damages? (2.5%)

(b) Will SBL be liable to pay interest if it is

required to pay damages, and delays in the
payment of the judgment award? What is the
rate of interest, and from when should the
interest start running? (2.5%)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
TAXATION LAW
November 11, 2018 2:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
I project is expected to be completed in April
KM Corporation, doing business in the City of
Kalookan, has been a distributor and retailer of
clothing and household materials. It has been paying
the City of Kalookan local taxes based on Sections
15 (Tax on Wholesalers, Distributors or Dealers) and
17 (Tax on Retailers) of the Revenue Code of Kalookan
City (Code). Subsequently, the Sangguniang
Panlungsod enacted an ordinance amending the Code
by inserting Section 21 which imposes a tax on
"Businesses Subject to Excise, Value-Added and
Percentage Taxes under the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC)," at the rate of 50% of 1 % per
annum on the gross sales and receipts on persons
"who sell goods and services in the course of trade or
business." KM Corporation paid the taxes due under
Section 21 under protest, claiming that (a) local
government units could not impose a tax on
businesses already taxed under the NIRC and (b) this
would amount to double taxation, since its business
was already taxed under Sections 15 and 17 of the
Code.
(a) May local government units impose a tax
on businesses already subjected to tax under
the NIRC? (2.5%)
(b) Does this amount to double taxation?
(2.5%)
II
Kronge Konsult, Inc. (KKI) is a Philippine corporation
engaged in architectural design, engineering, and
construction work. Its principal office is located in
Makati City, but it has various infrastructure projects
in the country and abroad. Thus, KKI employs both
local and foreign workers. The company has adopted
a policy that the employees' salaries are paid in the
currency of the country where they are assigned or
detailed.
Below are some of the employees of KKI. Determine
whether the compensation they received from KKI in
2017 is taxable under Philippine laws and whether
they are required to file tax returns with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR). (2% each)
(a) Kris Konejero, a Filipino accountant in KKl's
Tax Department in the Makati office, and
married to a Filipino engineer also working in
KKI;
(b) Klaus Kloner, a German national who
heads KKl's Design Department in its Makati
office;
(c) Krisanto Konde, a Filipino engineer in KKl's
Design Department who was hired to work at
the principal office last January 2017. In April
2017, he was assigned and detailed in the
company's project in Jakarta, Indonesia, which
2019;
(d) Kamilo Konde, Krisanto's brother, also an
engineer assigned to KKl's project in Taipei,
Taiwan. Since KKI provides for housing and
other basic needs, Kamila requested that all
his salaries, paid in Taiwanese dollars, be paid
to his wife in Manila in its Philippine Peso
equivalent; and
(e) Karen Karenina, a Filipino architect in KKl's
Design Department who reported back to
KKl's Makati office in June 2017 after KKl's
project in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was
completed.
III
Kim, a Filipino national, worked with K-Square, Inc.
(KSI), and was seconded to various KSl-affiliated
corporations:
1. from 1999 to 2004 as Vice President of K-
Gold Inc.,
2. from 2004 to 2007 as Vice President of KPB
Bank;
3. from 2007 to 2011 as CEO of K-Com Inc.;
4. from 2011 to 2017 as CEO of K-Water
Corporation, where Kim served as CEO for
seven years until his retirement last December
12, 2017 upon reaching the compulsory
retirement age of 60 years.
All the corporations mentioned are majority-owned in
common by the Koh family and covered by a BIR-
qualified multiemployer-employee retirement plan
(MEE RP), under which the employees may be moved
around within the controlled group (i.e., from one KSI
subsidiary or affiliate to another) without loss of
seniority rights or break in the tenure. Kim was well-
loved by his employer and colleagues, so upon
retirement, and on his last day in office, KSI gave him
a Mercedes Benz car worth PhP 5 million as a surprise,
with a streamer that reads: "You'll be missed. Good
luck, Sir Kim."
(a) Are the retirement benefits paid to Kim
pursuant to the MEERP taxable? (2.5%)
(b) Which internal revenue tax, if any, will
apply to the grant of the car to Kim by the
company? (2.5%)
 IV
Years ago, Krisanto bought a parcel of land in
Muntinlupa for only PhP65,000. He donated the land
to his son, Kornelio, in 1980 when the property had a
fair market value of PhP75,000, and paid the
corresponding donor's tax.
Kornelio, in turn, sold the property in 2000 to Katrina
for PhP 6.5 million and paid the capital gains tax,
documentary stamp tax, local transfer tax, and other
fees and charges. Katrina, in turn, donated the land to
Klaret School last August 30, 2017 to be used as the
site for additional classrooms. No donor's tax was
paid, because Katrina claimed that the donation was
exempt from taxation. At the time of the donation to
Klaret School, the land had a fair market value of PhP
65 million.
(a) Is Katrina liable for donor's tax? (2.5%)
(b) How much in deduction from gross income
may Katrina claim on account of the said
donation? (2.5%)
V
Spouses Konstantino and Karina are Filipino citizens
and are principal shareholders of a restaurant chain,
Karina's, Inc. The restaurant's principal office is in
Makati City, Philippines.
Korina's became so popular as a Filipino restaurant
that the owners decided to expand its operations
overseas. During the period 2010-2015 alone, it
opened ten (10) stores throughout North America and
five (5) stores in various parts of Europe where there
were large Filipino communities. Each store abroad
was in the name of a corporation organized under the
laws of the state or country in which the store was
located. All stores had identical capital structures: 60%
of the outstanding capital stock was owned by
Karina's, Inc., while the remaining 40% was owned
directly by the spouses Konstantino and Korina.
Beginning 2017, in light of the immigration policy
enunciated by US President Donald Trump, many
Filipinos have since returned to the Philippines and
the number of Filipino immigrants in the US dropped
significantly. On account of these developments,
Konstantino and Karina decided to sell their shares of
stock in the five (5) US corporations that were doing
poorly in gross sales. The spouses' lawyer-friend
advised them that they will be taxed 5% on the first
PhP100,000 net capital gain, and 10% on the net capital
gain in excess of PhP100,000.
Is the lawyer correct? If not, how should the spouses
Konstantino and Karina be taxed on the sale of their
shares? (5%)
VI
Kria, Inc., a Korean corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing electric vehicles,
established a branch office in the Philippines in 2010.
The Philippine branch constructed a manufacturing
plant in Kabuyao, Laguna, and the construction lasted
three (3) years. Commercial operations in the Laguna
plant began in 2014.
In just two (2) years of operation, the Philippine
branch had remittable profits in an amount exceeding
175% of its capital. However, the head office in Korea
instructed the branch not to remit the profits to the
Korean head office until instructed otherwise. The
branch chief finance officer is concerned that the BIR
might hold the Philippine branch liable for the 10%
improperly accumulated earnings tax (IAET) for
permitting its profits to accumulate beyond
reasonable business needs.
(a) Is the Philippine branch of Kria subject to
the 10% IAET under the circumstances stated
above? (2.5%)
(b) Is it subject to 15% branch profit remittance
tax (BPRT)? (2.5%)
VII
Karissa is the registered owner of a beachfront
property in Kawayan, Quezon which she acquired in
2015. Unknown to many, Karissa was only holding the
property in trust for a rich politician who happened to
be her lover. It was the politician who paid for the full
purchase price of the Kawayan property. No deed of
trust or any other document showing that Karissa was
only holding the property in trust for the politician
was executed between him and Karissa.
Karissa died single on May 1, 2017 due to a freak
surfing accident. She left behind a number of personal
properties as well as real properties, including the
Kawayan property. Karissa's sister, Karen, took charge
of registering Karissa's estate as a taxpayer and
reporting, for income tax and VAT purposes, the
rental income received by the estate from real
properties. However, it was only on October 1, 2017
when Karen managed to file an estate tax return for
her sister's estate. The following were claimed as
deductions in the estate tax return:
1. Funeral expenses amounting to
PhP250,000;
2. Medical expenses amounting to
PhP100,000, incurred when Karissa
was hospitalized for pneumonia a
month before her death; and
3. Loss valued at PhP6 million arising
from the destruction of Karissa's
condominium unit due to fire which
occurred on September 15, 2017.
 (a) Should the beachfront property be
included in Karissa's gross estate? (2.5%)
(b) Are the claimed deductions proper? (2.5%)
VIII
Upon the death of their beloved parents in 2009,
Karla, Karla, and Karlie inherited a huge tract of farm
land in Kanlaon City. The siblings had no plans to use
the property. Thus, they decided to donate the land,
but were not sure to whom the donation should be
made. They consult you, a well-known tax law expert,
on the tax implications of the possible donations they
plan to make, by giving you a list of the possible
donees:
1. The Kanlaon City High School Alumni
Association (KCHS AA), since the siblings are
all alumni of the same school and are active
members of the organization. KCHS AA is an
organization intended to promote and
strengthen ties between the school and its
alumni;
2. The Kanlaon City Water District which
intends to use the land for its offices; or
3. Their second cousin on the maternal side,
Kikay, who serves as the caretaker of the
property.
Advise the siblings which donation would expose
them to the least tax liability. (5%)
IX
Karlito, a Filipino businessman, is engaged in the
business of metal fabrication and repair of LPG
cylinder tanks. He conducts business under the name
and style of "Karlito's Enterprises," a single
proprietorship. Started only five (5) years ago, the
business has grown so enormously that Karlito
decided to incorporate it by transferring all the assets
of the business, particularly the inventory of goods on
hand, machineries and equipment, supplies, parts,
raw materials, office furniture and furnishings,
delivery trucks and other vehicles, buildings, and tools
to the new corporation, Karlito's Enterprises, Inc., in
exchange for 100% of the capital stock of the new
corporation, the stock subscription to which shall be
deemed fully paid in the form of the assets
transferred to the corporation by Karlito.
As a result, Karlito's Enterprises, the sole
proprietorship, ceased to do business and applied for
cancellation of its BIR Certificate of Registration. The
BIR, however, assessed Karlito VAT on account of the
cessation of business based on the current market
price of the assets transferred to Karlito's Enterprises,
Inc.
(a) Is the transfer subject to VAT? (2.5%)
(b) Is the transfer subject to income tax?
(2.5%)
X
Klaus, Inc., a domestic, VAT-registered corporation
engaged in the land transportation business, owns a
house and lot along Katipunan St., Quezon City. This
property is being used by Klaus, lnc.'s president and
single largest shareholder, Atty. Krimson, as his
residence. No business activity transpires there
except for the company's Christmas party which is
held there every December. Atty. Krimson recently
grew tired of the long commute from Katipunan to his
office in Makati City and caused the company to sell
the house and lot. The sale was recorded in the books
of Klaus, Inc. as investment in real property.
(a) Is the sale of the said property subject to
VAT? (2.5%)
(b) Is the sale subject to 6% capital gains tax or
regular corporate income tax of 30%? (2.5%)
XI
Koko's primary source of income is his employment
with the government. He earns extra from the land he
inherited from his parents, and which land he has
been leasing to a private, non-stock, non-profit school
since 2005.
Last January, the school offered to buy the land from
Koko for an amount equivalent to its zonal value plus
15% of such zonal value. Koko agreed but required the
school to pay, in addition to the purchase price, the
12% VAT. The school refused Koko's proposal to pass
on the VAT contending that it was an entity exempt
from such tax. Moreover, it said that Koko was not
regularly engaged in the real estate business and,
therefore, was not subject to VAT. Consequently,
Koko should not charge any VAT to the school.
(a) Is the contention of the school correct?
(2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same if Koko
signed up as a VAT-registered person only in
2017? (2.5%)
XII
The BIR Commissioner, in his relentless enforcement
of the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) program, filed
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) charges against
a movie and television celebrity. The Commissioner
alleged that the celebrity earned around PhP 50
million in fees from product endorsements in 2016
which she failed to report in her income tax and VAT
returns for said year. The celebrity questioned the
proceeding before the DOJ on the ground that she
was denied due process since the BIR never issued
any Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) or a Final
Assessment Notice (FAN), both of which are required
under Section 228 of the NIRC whenever the
Commissioner finds that proper taxes should be
assessed.
Is the celebrity's contention tenable? (2.5%)
XIII
The Collector at the Port of Koronadal seized 100
second-hand right-hand drive buses imported from
Japan. He issued warrants of distraint and scheduled
the vehicles for auction sale. Kamila, the importer of
the second-hand buses, filed a replevin suit with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the
replevin upon filing of a bond.
Did the RTC err in granting the replevin? (2.5%)
XIV
The City of Kabankalan issued a notice of assessment
against KKK, Inc. for deficiency real property taxes for
the taxable years 2013 to 2017 in the amount of PhP 20
million. KKK paid the taxes under protest and
instituted a complaint entitled "Recovery of Illegally
and/or Erroneously-Collected Local Business Tax,
Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction" with the RTC of Negros
Occidental.
The RTC denied the application for TRO. Its motion for
reconsideration having been denied as well, KKK filed
a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA)
assailing the denial of the TRO.
Will the petition prosper? (5%)
XV
In 2015, Kerwin bought a three-story house and lot in
Kidapawan, North Cotabato. The property has a floor
area of 600 sq.m. and is located inside a gated
subdivision. Kerwin initially declared the property as
residential for real property tax purposes.
In 2016, Kerwin started using the property in his
business of manufacturing garments for export. The
entire ground floor is now occupied by state-of-the-art
sewing machines and other equipment, while the
second floor is used as offices. The third floor is
retained by Kerwin as his family's residence. Kerwin's
neighbors became suspicious of the activities going
on inside the house, and they decided to report it to
the Kidapawan City Hall. Upon inspection, the local
government discovered that the property was being
utilized for commercial use. Immediately, the
Kidapawan Assessor reclassified the property as
commercial with an assessment level of 50% effective
January 2017, and assessed Kerwin back taxes and
interest. Kerwin claims that only 2/3 of the building
was used for commercial purposes since the third
floor remained as family residence. He argues that the
property should have been classified as partly
commercial and partly residential.
(a) Is the Kidapawan assessor correct in
assessing back taxes and interest? (2.5%)
(b) Is Kerwin correct that only 2/3 of the
property should be considered commercial?
(2.5%)
(c) If Kerwin wants to file an administrative
protest against the assessment, is he required
to pay the assessment taxes first? With whom
shall the protest be filed and within what
period? (2.5%)
XVI
In an action for ejectment filed by Kurt, the lessor-
owner, against Kaka, the lessee, the trial court ruled in
favor of Kurt. However, the trial court first required
Kurt to pay the realty taxes due on the property for
2016 before he may recover possession thereof.
Kurt objected, arguing that the delinquent realty
taxes were never raised as an issue in the ejectment
case. At any rate, Kurt claimed that it should be Kaka
who should be made liable for the realty taxes since it
was Kaka who possessed the property throughout
2016.
Is Kurt correct in resisting the trial court's
requirement to pay the taxes first? (2.5%)
XVII
Kilusang Krus, Inc. (KKI) is a non-stock, non-profit
religious organization which owns a vast tract of land
in Kalinga.
KKI has devoted 1 /2 of the land for various uses: a
church with a cemetery exclusive for deceased priests
and nuns, a school providing K to 12 education, and a
hospital which admits both paying and charity
patients. The remaining 1/2 portion has remained idle.
The KKI Board of Trustees decided to lease the
remaining 1 /2 portion to a real estate developer which
constructed a community mall over the property.
Since the rental income from the lease of the property
was substantial, the KKI decided to use the amount to
finance (1) the medical expenses of the charity
patients in the KKI Hospital and (2) the purchase of
books and other educational materials for the
students of KKI School.
(a) Is KKI liable for real property taxes on the
land? (2.5%)
(b) Is KKl's income from the rental fees
 subject to income tax? (2.5%) paid? (2.5%)

XVIII XX

Kathang Isip, Inc. (Kii) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing,
exporting, and distributing toys both locally and
abroad. Its principal office is located in Kalookan City,
Philippines. It has 50 branches in different cities and
municipalities in the country. When Kii applied for
renewal of its mayor's permit and licenses in its
principal office in January this year, Kalookan City
demanded payment of the local business tax on the
basis of the gross sales reported by the corporation in
its audited financial statements for the preceding
year. Kil protested, contending that Kalookan City
may tax only the sales consummated by its principal
office but not the sales consummated by its branch
offices located outside Kalookan City.
When Kalookan City denied the protest, Kil engaged
the services of Atty. Kristeta Kabuyao to file the
necessary judicial proceedings to appeal the decision
of Kalookan City. Atty. Kabuyao is a legal expert, but
resides in Kalibo, Aklan where her husband operates a
resort. She, however, practices in Metro Manila,
including Kalookan City. The counsel representing the
city, in the case filed in Kalookan City by KII,
questioned the use of Atty. Kabuyao's Professional
Tax Receipt (PTR) issued in Aklan for a case filed in
Kalookan City.
Krisp Kleen, Inc. (KKI) is a corporation engaged in the
manufacturing and processing of steel and its by-
products. It is both registered with the Board of
Investments with a pioneer status, and with the BIR
as a VAT entity. On October 10, 2010, it filed a claim for
refund/credit of input VAT for the period January 1 to
March 31, 2009 before the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (CIR). On February 1, 2011, as the CIR had not
yet made any ruling on its claim for refund/credit, KKI,
fearful that its period to appeal to the courts might
prescribe, filed an appeal with the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA).
(a) Can the CTA act on KKl's appeal? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same if KKI filed its
appeal on March 20, 2011 and CIR had not yet
acted on its claim? (2.5%)
-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

(a) Is Kll's contention that Kalookan City can

only collect local business taxes based on
sales consummated in the principal office
meritorious? (2.5%)'

(b) Is the Kalookan City counsel correct in

saying that Atty. Kabuyao's PTR issued in
Aklan cannot be used in Kalookan? (2.5%)

XIX

The BIR assessed Kosco, Inc., an importer of food

products, deficiency income and value-added taxes,
plus 50% surcharge after determining that Kosco, Inc.
had under-declared its sales by an amount exceeding
30% of that declared in its income tax and VAT returns.
Kosco, Inc. denied the alleged under-declaration,
protested the deficiency assessment for income and
value-added taxes and challenged the imposition of
the 50% surcharge on the ground that the surcharge
may only be imposed if Kosco, Inc. fails to pay the
deficiency taxes within the time prescribed for their
payment in the notice of assessment.

(a) Is the imposition of the 50% surcharge

proper? (2.5%)

(b) If your answer to {a) is yes, may Kosco, Inc.

enter into a compromise with the BIR for
reduction of the amount of surcharge to be

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
MERCANTILE LAW
November 18, 2018 8:00 A.M. - 12:00 N.N.
I (b) Would your answer be the same if the
Yeti Export Corporation (YEC), thru its President,
negotiated for Yahoo Bank of Manila {YBM) to issue a
letter of credit to course the importation of electronic
parts from China to be sold and distributed to various
electronic manufacturing companies in Manila. YBM
issued the letter of credit and forwarded it to its
correspondent bank, Yunan Bank (YB) of Beijing, to
notify the Chinese exporters to submit the bill of
lading in the name of YBM covering the goods to be
exported to Manila and to pay the Chinese exporters
the purchase price upon verification of the
authenticity of the shipping documents.
The electronic parts arrived in the Port of Manila, and
YBM released them to the custody of YEC as an
entrustee under a trust receipt. When YEC unpacked
the imported parts in its warehouse, it found that they
were not only of inferior quality but also did not fit the
descriptions contained in the bill of lading. YEC
refused to pay YBM the amount owed under the trust
receipt. YBM thereafter commenced the following:
(a) Civil suit to hold YB liable for failure to
ensure that the electronic parts loaded for
exportation in China corresponded with those
described in the bill of lading. Is there any
merit in the case against YB? (2.5%)
(b) Criminal suit against YEC and its President
for estafa, and sought the payment of the
amount covered in the trust receipt. The
defense of the YEC President is that he cannot
be held liable for a transaction of the
corporation, of which he only acted as an
officer, and that it is YEC as the principal that
should be held liable under the trust receipt,
which was entered into in the name of YEC
and pursuant to YEC's corporate purposes. He
cited as his legal ground the "Doctrine of
Separate Juridical Personality." Is the
President's contention meritorious? (2.5%)
II
Yolanda executed and signed a promissory note with
all the requisites for negotiability being present,
except for the amount which was left blank. She kept
the promissory note in her desk and decided to place
the amount at a later date. The indicated payee,
Yohann, managed to obtain the promissory note from
Yolanda's desk and filled out the amount for the sum
of PhP 10 million, which was the amount actually lent
by him to Yolanda, but excluding the agreed interest.
Yohann later endorsed and delivered the check to
Yvette, under circumstances that would constitute
the latter to be a holder in due course.
(a) May Yvette hold Yolanda liable on the
note? (2.5%)
promissory note was actually completed by
Yolanda (including the amount of PhP 10
million), but stolen from her desk by Yohann?
Can Yvette enforce the note against
Yolanda? (2.5%)
III
On November 23, 2017, Yas Ysmael (Ysmael) loaned
the amount of PhP 5 million to Yarn & Thread
Corporation (YTC), through its President, Ylmas
Yektas (Yektas), which loan was evidenced by a
Promissory Note (PN), which reads as follows:
Date: _______
Within one year from date hereof, I promise to pay to
the order of YAS YSMAEL, the sum of PhP 5 million
with interest at 120% per annum.
YARN & THREAD Corporation
By:
(Sgd.)
Ylmas Yektas
Yektas was the controlling stockholder of YTC at the
time the PN was issued. As security for the payment
of the PN, Yektas issued and delivered to Ysmael a
postdated personal check covering the face value of
the PN drawn from his account with Yellow Bell Bank
and Trust Company. The proceeds of the loan under
the PN were used by YTC as working capital.
A year later, Ysmael inserted the date of "November
23, 2017" on the date section of the PN, and made a
formal demand upon YTC, through Yektas, to pay the
note, but which was refused on the ground that
Yektas was no longer the President and controlling
shareholder of YTC. By this time, all the shares of YTC
had already been sold to a new group of investors.
Ysmael deposited the personal check issued by Yektas
which was dishonored. He then filed a collection suit
against YTC and Yektas including the accrued interest.
The defendants raised the following defenses in the
collection suit. Rule on the merits of each defense. (2%
each)
(a) A PN issued with a blank date is one that is
not payable on demand or on a fixed or
determinable future time, and therefore the
insertion of the date constituted material
alteration that nullified it, so that no cause of
action arose.
 (b) Yektas cannot be made liable on the PN
since he signed in his capacity as President of
YTC, which fact was known to Ysmael
although not indicated on the PN.
(c) Yektas signed the PN merely as an
accommodation to YTC. As he received no
consideration for the PN, it is void for lack of
consideration.
(d) YTC, now owned by new owners, cannot
be held liable on the PN since it was entered
into by its former owner and President, which
act the new Board of Directors did not ratify.
(e) The PN .is void for being in violation of the
Usury Law seeking interest at an
unconscionable rate of 120% p.a.
IV
Ysidro, a paying passenger, was on board Bus No. 904
owned and operated by Yatco Transportation
Company (Yatco). He boarded the bus at Munoz,
Nueva Ecija with Manila as his final destination. He
was seated on the first row, window seat on the left
side of the bus. As the bus was negotiating the
national highway in front of the public market of
Gerona, Tarlac, the bus came to a full stop because of
the traffic. The driver of the bus took this opportunity
to check on the tires of the bus and to relieve himself.
As he was alighting from the bus to do these, an
unidentified man standing along the highway hurled a
huge rock at the left side of the bus and hit Ysidro
between his eyes. He lost consciousness and
immediately the driver, with the conductor, drove the
bus to bring him to the nearest hospital. He expired
before the bus could reach the hospital.
Ysidro's wife and children brought a civil action to
collect damages from Yatco, alleging that as a
common carrier, it was required to exercise
extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its
passengers. They contended that, in case of injuries
and/or death on the part of any of its passengers, the
common carrier is presumed to be at fault. In its
defense, Yatco alleged that it is not an absolute
insurer of its passengers and that Ysidro's death was
not due to any defect in the means of transport or
method of transporting passengers, or the negligent
acts of its employees. Since the accident was due to
the fault of a stranger over whom the common carrier
had no control, or of which it did not have any prior
knowledge to be able to prevent it, the cause of
Ysidro's death should be considered a fortuitous
event and not the liability of the common carrier.
(a) Is a common carrier presumed to be at
fault whenever there is death or injury to its
passengers, regardless of the cause of death
or injury? (2.5%)
(b) What kind of diligence is required of
common carriers like Yatco for the protection
of its passengers? (2.5%)
(c) Will your answer be the same as your
answer in (b) above, if the assailant was
another paying passenger who boarded the
bus and deliberately stabbed Ysidro to death?
(2.5%)
V
Yellow Fin Tuna Corporation (Yellow Fin), a domestic
corporation, applied for a credit facility in the amount
of PhP 50 million with Yengzi Financial Corporation
(YFC). The application was approved and the Credit
Agreement was signed and took effect. Ysko and
Yuan, Yellow Fin Chairman and President,
respectively, executed a Continuing Suretyship
Agreement in favor of YFC wherein they guaranteed
the due and full payment and performance of Yellow
Fin's guarantee obligations under the credit facility.
YFC soon discovered material inconsistencies in the
financial statements given by Yellow Fin, drawing YFC
to conclude that Yellow Fin committed
misrepresentation. Under the Credit Agreement, any
misrepresentation by Yellow Fin or its sureties will
constitute an event of default. YFC thus called an
event of default and filed a complaint for sum of
money against Yellow Fin, Ysko, and Yuan.
Immediately thereafter, Yellow Fin filed a petition for
rehabilitation. The court suspended the proceedings
in YFC's complaint until the rehabilitation court
disposed of the petition for rehabilitation. YFC posits
that the suspension of the proceedings should only be
with respect to Yellow Fin but not with respect to
Ysko and Yuan.
Is YFC correct? (2.5%)
VI
Shortly after Yin and Yang were wed, they each took
out separate life insurance policies on their lives, and
mutually designated one another as sole beneficiary.
Both life insurance policies provided for a double
indemnity clause, the cost for which was added to the
premium rate. During the last 10 years of their
marriage, the spouses had faithfully paid for the
annual premiums over the life policies from both their
salaries. Unfortunately, Yin fell in love with his
officemate, Vessel, and they carried on an affair. After
two years, their relationship bore them a daughter
named Vinsel. Without the knowledge of Yang, Yin
changed the designation of the beneficiary to an
"irrevocable designation" of Vinsel and Vessel jointly.
When Yang learned of the affair, she was so
despondent that, having chanced upon Yin and Vessel
on a date, she rammed them down with the car she
was driving, resulting in Vin's death and Vessel's
complete loss of mobilization. Yang was sued for
parricide, and while the case was pending, she filed a
claim on the proceeds of the life insurance of Yin as
irrevocable beneficiary, or at least his legal heir, and
opposed the claims on behalf of Vessel and her
daughter Vinsel. Yang claimed that her designation as
beneficiary in Vin's life insurance policy was
irrevocable, in the nature of one "coupled with
interest," since it was made in accordance with their
mutual agreement to designate one another as sole
beneficiary in their respective life policies. She also
claimed that the beneficiary designation of Vessel and
the illegitimate minor child Vinsel was void being the
product of an illicit relationship, and therefore
without "insurable interest."
(a) Is Yang correct in saying that her
designation as beneficiary was irrevocable?
(2.5%)
(b) Do Vessel and Vinsel have "insurable
interest" on the life of Yin? (2.5%)
VII
Yelp Pictures Inc. (Yelp Pictures), a movie production
company based in California, USA, entered into a
contract with Yehey Movies Inc., a Filipino movie
production and distribution company which is
registered in the Philippines under the Securities
Regulation Code (SRC) and listed in the Philippine
Stock Exchange Inc. (PSE), for the exclusive
distribution in the Philippines of movies produced in
the USA by Yelp Pictures. Yehey Movies is currently
owned 85% by Yavic Yamson, and the balance, by the
public in the Philippines. For purposes of entering into
the contract, suing for breach of such contract, and
prosecuting unauthorized showing of movies
produced by Yelp Pictures, it appointed Atty. Yson, a
local lawyer, as its attorney-in-fact.
Simultaneously with the execution of the film
distribution agreement, Yehey Movies also granted
Yelp Pictures an option to acquire up to 40% of the
total outstanding capital stock in Yehey Movies post-
exercise of the option, at the option price of PhP .01
per number of shares covered by the option,
exercisable within a period of one (1) year from the
date of the grant, at the exercise price of PhP 100 per
share. Once exercised, Yelp Pictures was granted the
right to nominate two (2) directors to the Board of
Yehey Movies, and Yavic Yamson agreed to vote all his
shares for the election of directors to be nominated
by Yelp Pictures.
(a) May the acts of entering into the film
distribution contract, the subsequent
execution and performance of the terms of
the contract in the Philippines, and the
appointment of Atty. Yson, be considered as
act of "doing business" in the Philippines that
will require Yelp Pictures to register as a
foreign corporation and obtain a license to do
business in the Philippines? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if Yelp
Pictures exercises the option, becomes a
substantial shareholder, and is able to elect
two (2) directors in the Board of Yehey
Movies? (2.5%)
(c) Must the option granted to Yelp Pictures
be registered under the SRC? (2.5%)
VIII
Yenkell Cement Corporation (YCC) is a public
corporation whose shares are listed at the PSE. It is
60% owned by Yenkell Holdings Corporation (YHC)
and 20% by Yengco Exploration Inc. (YEI). The
remaining 20% is held by the public. YHC is a private
non-listed corporation which, in turn, is 60% owned by
Yatlas Mines Inc. (YMI), and 40% by Yacnotan
Consolidated Inc. (YCI). On August 8, 2008, the Board
of Directors of YEI passed a resolution approving the
acquisition of 50% and 25% of the shares held by YMI
and YCI, respectively, in the authorized capital stock
of YHC.
Yolly, one of the staff members in the office of the
Corporate Secretary of YEI, was immediately asked to
type the resolution and file the disclosure with the
PSE and the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). Before doing that, she secretly called her
brother who works with a stock brokerage company,
to purchase, in the name of Yolly's husband, 5,000
shares in YCC. After the acquisition was disclosed to
the SEC and the PSE, the market price of YCC
increased by 50%.
(a) In acquiring 75% of the total capital stock of
YHC, should YEI be required to do a
mandatory tender offer? (2.5%)
(b) Can Yolly be held liable for insider trading?
(2.5%)
IX
Yangchou lnc.'s (YI) Articles of Incorporation (AOI)
provides for two (2) types of shares of stock: common
and preferred shares. Its AOI further provides that
"the preferred shares shall have a guaranteed annual
dividend of 3% of the par value." Its By-Laws also
specifically provides that "preferred shareholdings
shall be cumulative and participating." No other terms
of preference are provided for preferred shares in
either the AOI or By-Laws of YI.
For the first five years of operations, the company
was operating at a loss. At the end of the sixth year, YI
realized a net profit of PhP 100 million, and
unrestricted retained earnings of PhP 30 million. The
YI Board of Directors declared and paid out dividends
of 1 % on common shares, and 5% on preferred shares,
which amounted to a total of PhP 30 million.
However, the preferred shareholders made a formal
demand that they be given an additional 3% dividend
for each of the five (5) years based on the preferred
shares features of "cumulative and participating," and
an additional 1 % given to the common shareholders,
which could all be accommodated within the
remaining balance of the net profits.
Should Yi's Board heed the demand of its preferred
shareholders? (2.5%)
X personal properties of every kind or otherwise acquire
Ybarra is the registered shareholder of 500 shares in
Yakal Inc., of which only 50% has been paid up, but for
which the corporation had erroneously issued a
covering certificate of stock for the entire 500 shares.
Ybarra sells the entire 500 shares for cash pursuant to
a notarized Deed of Sale in favor of Ynchon, and
which certificate was duly endorsed and delivered.
When Ynchon presented the Deed of Sale and the
endorsed certificate of stock, as well as proof of
payment to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) of
the tax due on the sale of shares, the Corporate
Secretary of Yakal Inc. refused to register the sale on
the ground of lack of written authority from Ybarra to
cancel the certificate and have the shares registered
in the name of Ynchon.
(a) Does Ynchon have a cause of action to file
a petition for mandamus to compel the
corporation to register the 500 shares in his
name in the corporation books? (2.5%)
(b) Who is liable to pay the remaining unpaid
50% balance - Ybarra or Ynchon? (2.5%)
XI
Yenetic Corporation wants to increase its Authorized
Capital Stock (which is currently fully subscribed and
issued) to be able to increase its working capital to
undertake business expansions.
The Board of Directors consults with you as legal
counsel on the proper answers to the following
issues: (2.5% each)
(a) Can Yenetic's AOI be formally amended to
remove the right of appraisal on all dissenting
stockholders in all matters under the law
which requires a ratification vote of the
stockholders?
(b) If the increase in Authorized Capital Stock
is formally submitted to the stockholders in a
meeting duly called for the purpose, what is
the vote necessary for the stockholders'
ratification, and may the dissenting
stockholders exercise their appraisal right?
(c) Once the increase in the Authorized Capital
Stock of Yenetic has been legally effected
with the SEC, can the new shares from the
unissued shares be offered to a new limited
group of investors without having to offer
them to the shareholders of record since no
pre-emptive right is provided for in the AOI
and By-laws of Yenetic?
XII
Yashtag Holdings, lnc.'s (Yashtag Holdings) AOI states
that its primary purpose is "to invest in real and
and deal with stocks, bonds, and other securities or
evidence of indebtedness of any other corporation,
and to hold or to own, use, sell, deal in, and dispose
of, any such stock." It further states that it has an
authorized capital stock of PhP 1 million, all of which
have been fully subscribed and paid up.
Yashtag Holdings' President, Mr. Yokada, convinced
Yeh, Yah, and Yo to lend/invest money with Yashtag,
which money will be invested in a sister company,
Yashtag Realty, Inc. (Yashtag Realty), a corporation
that develops premium real estate projects in the
Philippines. For the amount loaned/invested, Yashtag
Holdings issued two (2) postdated checks to each
lenderflnvestor, one representing the principal
amount, and the other covering the guaranteed
interest that ranged between 18-32% p.a. On the
maturity dates of the checks, the individual
lender/investor can review the loans/investment, and
may either collect only the interest or roll over the
same with the principal amounts. Eventually, the
bursting of the real estate bubble brought about a
serious financial crisis around the world, including the
Philippines. Yashtag Realty collapsed and with it
Yashtag Holdings defaulted in the payment of its
loans/investments, as well as the dishonor of the tens
of thousands of postdated checks issued to its various
lenders/investors.
Yeh, Yah, and Yo filed several charges against Yashtag
Holdings and its President, making them solidarily
liable for the investments they failed to recover. Yeh,
Yah, and Yo proved that Yashtag Holdings, acting
through Mr. Yokada, was able to get a total of PhP
800 million of loans/investments from the public
under the scheme, and from which Mr. Yokada, as the
controlling stockholder, was able to withdraw a total
amount of PhP 300 million for his personal account
and entered into the books of Yashtag Holdings as
"Advances to Stockholders." Mr. Yokada pleads as a
defense that he cannot be made personally liable on
the claim of the group under the doctrines of
"Separate Juridical Personality" and "Limited
Liability."
(a) What are the doctrines of "Separate
Juridical Personality" and "Limited Liability"?
(2.5%)
(b) Decide on the merits of Mr. Yokada's
defense against being made liable for Yashtag
Holdings' obligations. (2.5%)
 XIII
YBC Bank extended a loan of PhP 50 million to Mr.
Yamato secured by a real estate mortgage (REM) on a
large tract of land. The covering Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) of the property mortgaged did not indicate
any encumbrance or lien on it, and the bank was able
to obtain a certified true copy of the TCT from the
Register of Deeds showing that the owner's copy
submitted to the bank was a genuine title. The Loan
Agreement provided an escalation clause which
stated that, at the anniversary date of the loan, YBC
Bank was granted the option to increase the interest
rate whenever there would be an increase in the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas' prevailing rates. Three
years later, Mr. Yamato received a formal notice from
YBC Bank raising the interest rate of the loan based on
the escalation clause provided for in the Loan
Agreement. Mr. Yamato refused to pay based on the
increased interest rate that was effected without his
consent. YBC Bank insists on the binding effect of the
escalation clause appearing on their Loan Agreement.
Mr. Yamato subsequently defaulted on the loan and
vanished. Thus, YBC Bank extrajudicially foreclosed on
the REM, and was the highest bidder at the public
auction sale. It was only then that the bank
determined that there were actually two separate
TCTs issued for the property and one of which was in
the name of Mr. Yamsuan who occupied the property
after having bought it earlier from Mr. Yamato.
(a) Can YBC Bank unilaterally increase the
interest rates on the loan? (2.5%)
(b) Is YBC Bank a mortgagee buyer in good
faith? Is it preferred over Mr. Yamsuan? (2.5%)
XIV
On June 21, 2008, Yate took out a life insurance policy
on her life in the amount of PhP 10 million and named
her husband Vandy and daughter as joint irrevocable
beneficiaries. Before the policy was issued and the
premiums were paid, Yate underwent a medical
checkup with a physician accredited by the insurer,
and the only result found was that she was suffering
from high blood pressure. Yate was previously
diagnosed by a private physician of having breast
cancer which she did not disclose to the insurer in her
application, nor to the insurer's accredited physician
because by then, she was told that she was already
cancer-free after undergoing surgery which removed
both her breasts. She was later diagnosed with
psychotic tendency that graduated into extreme
despondency. She was found dead hanging in her
closet 36 months after the issuance of the policy. The
police authorities declared it to be a case of suicide.
The policy did not include suicide as an excepted risk.
(a) Can the insurer raise the issue of failure to
disclose that she had cancer as a cause for
denying the claim of the beneficiaries? (2.5%)
(b) Are the beneficiaries entitled to receive
the proceeds of the life insurance
notwithstanding the fact that the cause of
death was suicide? (2.5%)
XV
A distinctive-tasting pastillas is well-known
throughout the country as having been developed
within a close-knit women's group in Barangay San
Ysmael which is located along a very busy national
highway. Its popularity has encouraged the setting up
of several shops selling similar delicacies, with the
most famous product being the pastillas of "Barangay
San Ysmael." Eventually, the pastillas of Aling Voling
under the brand name "Ysmaellas" began to attract
national distinction. Aling Voling therefore registered
it as a copyright with the National Library. Her
neighbor, Aling Yasmin, realizing the commercial
value of the brand, started using the term "Ysmaellas"
for her pastillas but used different colors. Aling
Yasmin registered the brand name "Ysmaellas" with
the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
(a) Can Aling Voling successfully obtain court
relief to prohibit Aling Yasmin from using the
brand name "Ysmaellas" in her products on
the basis of her (Aling Yoling's) copyright?
What is the difference between registration as
a copyright and registration as a trade or
brand name? (2.5%)
(b) Can Aling Yasmin seek injunctive relief
against Aling Voling from using the brand
name "Ysmaellas," the latter relying on the
doctrine of "prior use" as evidenced by her
prior copyright registration? (2.5%)
(c) Can Aling Voling seek the cancellation of
Aling Yasmin's trademark registration of the
brand name "Ysmaellas" on the ground of
"Well Known Brand" clearly evidenced by her
(Aling Yoling's) prior copyright registration,
actual use of the brand, and several magazine
articles? (2.5%)
XVI
Yosha was able to put together a mechanical water
pump in his garage consisting of suction systems
capable of drawing water from the earth using less
human effort than what was then required by existing
models. The water pump system provides for a new
system which has the elements of novelty and
inventive steps. Yosha, while preparing to have his
invention registered with the IPO, had several models
of his new system fabricated and sold in his province.
(a) Is Yosha's invention no longer patentable
by virtue of the fact that he had sold several
models to the public before the formal
 application for registration of patent was filed
with the IPO? (2.5%)
(b) If Yosha is able to properly register his
patent with the IPO, can he prevent anyone
who has possession of the earlier models from
using them? (2.5%)
XVII
permission from the depositor is the only instance
allowed for the examination of FCDU accounts. YB
alleges that AMLC on its own cannot order a banking
institution to reveal matters relating to bank
accounts.
(a) Is the legal position of YB, in requiring
written permission from the depositor,
correct? (2.5%)

Yvan was a slot machine operator supervisor in a (b) Does AMLC have the power to order a
casino operated by the Philippine Amusement and banking institution to reveal matters relating
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). On the basis of an to bank accounts? (2.5%)
intelligence report, he was found, in connivance with
some slot machine customers, to have padded the -NOTHING FOLLOWS-
credit meter readings of slot machines in the casino
where he was employed. After being served with
notice and opportunity to contest the findings, he was
found guilty of the charges and ordered dismissed by
PAGCOR. After receiving his copy of the order for
dismissal, he claimed to have sent to the Board of
PAGCOR his motion for reconsideration through
facsimile transmission. After a considerable time,
when his motion for reconsideration was unacted
upon, he filed an action with the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) for illegal dismissal. PAGCOR
claimed that his action has prescribed because it was
filed more than 15 days after his dismissal became
final. Yvan claimed that there was no final decision yet
because the Board of PAGCOR has not yet acted on
his motion for reconsideration. He presented a copy
of his facsimile transmission addressed to the Board
of PAGCOR seeking reconsideration of his dismissal,
and the fact that there has been no action taken. He
claimed that based on the Electronic Commerce Act of
2000, his facsimile transmission should be considered
like any genuine and authentic paper pleading.
PAGCOR denied having received it and was able to
prove that the telephone number of PAGCOR used in
the facsimile transmission was wrong. CSC denied his
complaint on account of prescription. He appealed
CSC's dismissal in court.

(a) Was CSC correct in dismissing the case?

(2.5%)

(b) Can Yvan's bank be ordered by the court

to disclose if there were unreasonable
increases in his bank deposit when the alleged
acts were committed? (2.5%)

XVIII

Through various acts of graft and bribery, Mayor

Ycasiano accumulated a large amount of wealth which
he converted into U.S. dollars and deposited in a
Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) account with
the Yuen Bank (YB). On a tip given by the secretary of
the mayor, the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC) sent an order to YB to confirm the amount of
U.S. dollars that Mayor Ycasiano had in his FCDU
account. YB claims that, under the Foreign Currency
Deposit Act (R.A. No. 6426, as amended), a written

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
CRIMINAL LAW
November 18, 2018 2:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
I (b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious?
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute
regarding conflicting claims over the ownership of a
parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged
that he decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best
friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to
Ricardo's house. Rafael knew about Roberto's plan to
kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a gun
nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the street
corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for
him there, until the task had been accomplished, so
that he could drive Roberto to the next town to evade
arrest. Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to
stand guard outside Ricardo's house, for the purpose
of warning him in case there was any danger or
possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away
from the vicinity. All three - Roberto, Rafael and Ruel -
agreed to the plan and their respective roles.
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to
the nearest corner near Ricardo's house. Roberto and
Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his
post as guard, and Roberto walked about five (5)
meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo's bedroom,
and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that
he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away,
followed by Ruel, and together they rode in Rafael's
car where they drove to the next town to spend the
night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of
town when the incident happened, and no one was in
his room at the time it was peppered with bullets.
Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident.
(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are
the crime/s committed (2.5%); and
(b) If a crime was committed, what is the
degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael,
and Ruel? (2.5%)
II
Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a
nearby building of a bank, to serve as a lookout for
Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as
the three of them had previously planned. Ramiro, a
policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico
saw Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and
Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle,
intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped
and fell down to the ground. Instead, a woman
depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally
shot. After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod
were charged with the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Rico's defense was that he
never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only
Ramiro. Red and Rod's defense was that they were
not responsible for the death of the woman as they
had no participation therein.
(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
(2.5%)
III
On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation
rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord Chancellor
and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one
(1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5) neophytes, one
(1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i) Rollie, the
fraternity's Vice Chancellor and who actually planned
the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house
where the initiation was conducted.
Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that
occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to
the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However,
Ronald was declared dead on arrival at the hospital.
During the investigation of the case, it was found out
that, although Ronald really wanted to join the
fraternity because his father is also a member of the
same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who
ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as
a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was also
shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually
participate in the beating of the neophytes (hazing).
The two (2) either merely watched the hazing or
helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2) days
prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity
may use his house as the venue for the planned
initiation.
Aside from those who actually participated in the
hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie were
criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that
resulted in the latter's death.
(a) Are the four criminally liable? (2.5%)
(b) Can all those criminally charged be
exonerated upon proof that Ronald, knowing
the risks, voluntarily submitted himself to the
initiation? Will the absence of proof that the
accused intended to kill the victim affect their
liability? (2.5%)
IV
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to
a snatcher. A week later, she saw what looked like her
necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon.
Believing that the necklace on display was the same
necklace snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the
knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the
loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was
shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit.
Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the
necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not
be guilty as charged because she was the owner of
the necklace and that the element of intent to gain
was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by
Rica? (2.5%)
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the
necklace from another person who was the
real owner of the necklace? (2.5%)
V stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie
With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to
bring him a young girl that he (Robert) can have
carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-
year old girl and brought her to Robert. After
receiving his reward, Romy left while Robert
proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the girl.
(a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be
charged? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the
victim is a 15-year old lass who was enticed,
through cunning and deceit of Romy, to
voluntarily go to the house of Robert where
the latter subsequently had carnal knowledge
with her? (2.5%)
VI
A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded
and occupied the houses built by the National Housing
Authority (NHA) for certain military personnel. To gain
entry to the houses, the group intimidated the
security guards posted at the entrance gate with the
firearms they were carrying and destroyed the
padlocks of the doors of the houses with the use of
crowbars and hammers. They claimed that they would
occupy the houses and live therein because the
houses were idle and they were entitled to free
housing from the government.
For the reason that the houses were already awarded
to military personnel who have been found to have
fully complied with the requirements for the award
thereof, NHA demanded the group to vacate within
ten (10) days from notice the houses they occupied
and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the
deadline, the group refused to vacate the houses in
question.
What is the criminal liability of the members of the
group, if any, for their actions? (5%)
VII
Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National
Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for
robbery which they committed some years before and
for which they have been sentenced by final
judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money
owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe
Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie
kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the
ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet
to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door to
the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie,
Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed weapon
that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to
the nearest "kubol" where he fell. Robbie ran after
him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground,
Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15
immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden. When
prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised
provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating
circumstances. The prosecution, on the other hand,
claimed that there was treachery in the commission of
the crime.
(a) Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist?
(2.5%)
(b) Can the mitigating circumstances raised by
Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty for the
crime committed? (2.5%)
VIII
Randy was prosecuted for forcible abduction
attended by the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism. After trial, the court held that the
prosecutor was able to prove the charge.
Nonetheless, it appreciated in favor of Randy, on the
basis of the defense's evidence, the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender, uncontrollable
fear, and provocation. Under Art. 342 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), the penalty for forcible abduction
is reclusion temporal.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what
penalty should be imposed on Randy? (5%)
IX
Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, payable in
six (6) months and, as payment for the loan, Rashid
issued a postdated check for the said amount plus the
agreed interest. Rashid assured Rene that the account
would have sufficient funds on maturity date. On that
date, Rene presented the check to the drawee bank
for payment but it was dishonored for the reason that
it was drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF).
Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor of the
check and demanded the latter to make good the
same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse
of the five (5)-day notice, Rene redeposited the check
with the drawee bank but it was again dishonored for
the same reason, i.e., DAIF. Rene thereafter filed two
(2) separate criminal actions against Rashid: (1) Estafa
under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A.
No. 4885, i.e, estafa committed by postdating a check,
or issuing a check in payment of an obligation without
sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of B.P.
22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
(a) Can he be held liable under both actions?
(2.5%)
(b) If the check is presented for payment after
four (4) months, but before it becomes stale,
can the two actions still proceed? (2.5%)
X money and valuables in order to pay his debts.
Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of having
sexual intercourse with Rocco in the maid's room of
their own house. Rafa shot both lovers in the chest,
but they survived. Rafa charged Rachel and Rocco
with adultery, while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa
with frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide.
In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised the
defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior to the incident in
question, executed a notarized document whereby
they agreed to live separately and allowed each of
them to get a new partner and live with anyone of
their choice as husband and wife. This document was
executed after Rachel discovered that Rafa was
cohabiting with another woman. Thus, they also
raised the defense of in pari delicto. In the frustrated
parricide and frustrated homicide cases, Rafa raised
the defense that, having caught them in flagrante
delicto, he has no criminal liability.
Assuming that all defenses have been proven:
(a) Will the action for adultery prosper? (2.5%)
(b) Will the actions for frustrated parricide and
frustrated homicide prosper? (2.5%)
XI
Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held up a
bank. After taking the bank's money, the robbers ran
towards their getaway car, pursued by the bank
security guards. As the security guards were closing in
on the robbers, the two fired their firearms at the
pursuing security guards. As a result, one of the
security guards was hit on the head causing his
immediate death.
For the taking of the bank's money and killing of the
security guard with the use of loose firearms, the
robbers were charged in court in two separate
informations, one for robbery with homicide attended
by the aggravating circumstance of use of loose
firearms, and the other for illegal possession of
firearms.
Are the indictments correct? (5%)
XII
Orphaned when still an infant, Rocky lived under the
care of his grandmother Rosario. Now 18, Rocky
entered Rosario's bedroom who was then outside
doing her daily marketing. He ransacked the bedroom
and took Rosario's money and valuables amounting to
PhP100,000.
When Rosario came home, she found her room in
disarray, and her money and valuables gone. She
confronted Rocky, who confessed to taking the
(a) What crime, if any, did Rocky commit?
(2.5%)
(b) Does he incur criminal and/or civil liability?
(2.5%)
XIII
The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, both
Filipino citizens, led a group of armed men in seizing a
southern island in the Philippines, and declaring war
against the duly constituted government of the
country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban, responded
and a full scale war ensued between the AFP and the
armed men led by the brothers. The armed conflict
raged for months.
When the brothers-led armed men were running out
of supplies, Ricalde, also a Filipino, and a good friend
and supporter of the Ratute brothers, was tasked to
leave for abroad in order to solicit arms and funding
for the cash-strapped brothers. He was able to travel
to Rwanda, and there he met with Riboli, a citizen and
resident of Rwanda, who agreed to help the brothers
by raising funds internationally, and to send them to
the Ratute brothers in order to aid them in their
armed struggle against the Philippine government.
Before Ricalde and Riboli could complete their fund-
raising activities for the brothers, the AFP was able to
reclaim- the island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising.
Ricalde and Riboli were charged with conspiracy to
commit treason. During the hearing of the two cases,
the government only presented as witness, General
Riturban, who testified on the activities of the Ratute
brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli.
(a) Can Ricalde and Riboli be convicted of the
crime of conspiracy to commit treason? (2.5%)
(b) Will the testimony of General Riturban,
assuming he can testify on acts within his
personal knowledge, be sufficient to convict
the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli? (2.5%)
 XIV
Robin and Rowell are best friends and have been
classmates since grade school. When the boys
graduated from high school, their parents gifted them
with a trip to Amsterdam, all expenses paid. At age 16,
this was their first European trip. Thrilled with a sense
of freedom, they decided to try what Amsterdam was
known for. One night, they scampered out of their
hotel room, went to the De Wallen, better known as
the Red-light District of Amsterdam. There, they went
to a "coffee shop" which sells only drinks and various
items made from opium poppy, cannabis, and
marijuana, all of which are legal in Amsterdam. They
represented themselves to be of age, and were
served, and took shots of, cannabis and marijuana
products. They indulged in these products the whole
night, even if it was their first time to try them.
Before returning to Manila, they bought a dozen
lollipops laced with cannabis, as souvenir and
"pasalubong" for their friends. They were accosted at
the Manila International Airport and were charged
with importation of dangerous drugs under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They
were also charged with use of dangerous drugs after
pictures of them in the "coffee shop" in Amsterdam
were posted on Facebook, showing them smoking
and taking shots of a whole menu of cannabis and
marijuana products. Their own captions on their
Facebook posts clearly admitted that they were using
the dangerous products. The pictures were posted by
them through Private Messenger (PM) only for their
close friends, but Roccino, the older brother of one of
their best friends, was able to get hold of his younger
brother's password, and without authority from his
brother, accessed his PM and shared Robin and
Rowell's Amsterdam photos on Facebook.
(a) Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for
use of dangerous drugs for their one-night use
of these products in Amsterdam? (2.5%)
(b) Can they be prosecuted for importation of
dangerous drugs? (2.5%)
(c) If found liable under either (a) or (b)
above, what is the penalty that may be
imposed on them? (2.5%)
(d) Can Roccino be prosecuted for the act of
accessing and sharing on Facebook the private
pictures sent by PM to his brother? If yes, for
what crime? (2.5%)
XV
During the presentation of the prosecution's
evidence, Reichter was called to the witness stand
with the stated purpose that he would testify that his
wife Rima had shot him in the stomach with a .38
caliber pistol, resulting in near fatal injuries. Upon
objection of the defense on the ground of the marital
disqualification rule, the presiding judge (Judge
Rossano) disallowed Reichter from testifying in the
case. Its motion for reconsideration having been
denied, the People of the Philippines went up
on certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning
Judge Rossano's ruling.
After due proceedings, the CA rendered judgment
declaring Judge Rossano's ruling void ab initio for
having been made with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
directing Judge Rossano to allow Reichter to testify in
the criminal case for the stated purpose. This is based
on the fact that the marital privilege rule does not
apply where a spouse committed the crime against
the other.
As the CA decision became final and executory, the
criminal case before the RTC was calendared for trial.
At the scheduled trial, the prosecution called Reichter
to the witness stand in order to testify on the same
matter it earlier announced. The defense objected on
the ground that the CA erred in its disposition of
the certiorari case. Judge Rossano sustained the
objection and again disallowed Reichter from
testifying in the criminal case. Repeated pleas from
the prosecution for Judge Rossano to reconsider his
ruling and to allow Reichter to testify fell on deaf ears.
May Judge Rossano be convicted of a crime? If yes,
what crime did he commit? (5%)
XVI
For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie had been
living together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Initially, they had a happy
relationship which was blessed with a daughter, Rona,
who was born on March 1, 2014. However, the
partners' relationship became sour when Ruben
began indulging in vices, such as women and alcohol,
causing frequent arguments between them. Their
relationship got worse when, even for slight mistakes,
Ruben would lay his hands on Rorie. One day, a tipsy
Ruben barged into their house and, for no reason,
repeatedly punched Rorie in the stomach. To avoid
further harm, Rorie ran out of the house. But Ruben
pursued her and stripped her naked in full view of
their neighbors; and then he vanished.
Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and pleaded
for forgiveness. However, Rorie expressed her wish to
live separately from Ruben and asked him to continue
providing financial support for their daughter Rona.
At that time, Ruben was earning enough to support a
family. He threatened to withdraw the support he was
giving to Rona unless Rorie would agree to live with
him again. But Rorie was steadfast in refusing to live
with Ruben again, and insisted on her demand for
support for Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an
agreement, no further support was given by Ruben.
 What crimes did Ruben commit:
(a) For beating and humiliating Rorie? (2.5%)
(b) For withdrawing support for Rona? (2.5%)
XVII
Robina bought from Ramsey a seaside property
located in Romblon. At that time, she was in the
process of returning to the Philippines as a returning
resident, after retiring from her work in Russia, and
was planning to set up a diving school in the area. In a
non-notarized "Kasunduan ng Pagbibili," Ramsey
represented the property as alienable and disposable,
and that he had a valid title to the property. When the
sale was completed, and as she was applying for
permits and licenses for her school, she found out
that the property was a public non-alienable and non-
disposable land which Ramsey had bought from
someone who only had a foreshore lease over the
same. As she was bent on setting up the diving school
in the area, having made all the preparations and
having already bought all the equipment, she filed a
Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) at the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office in Romblon. In her application, she
stated that she was a Filipino citizen, although she
was still a naturalized Russian citizen at that time. It
was only six months after she filed the MLA that she
filed her petition for dual citizenship under R.A. No.
9225. When DENR discovered that, at the time of filing
the MLA, she was still a Russian citizen, her
application was denied and she was charged with
falsification of a public document for misrepresenting
herself as a Filipino citizen. Infuriated, Robina also
filed charges against Ramsey for falsification of a
private document for stating in their "Kasunduan"
that the property was alienable and disposable.
In the case for falsification of a public document,
Robina's defense was that, at the time she filed the
MLA, she had every intention to reacquire Philippine
citizenship, as in fact she filed for dual citizenship six
months thereafter, and that she had no intent to gain
or to injure the Philippine government since she
expected that her application for dual citizenship
would be approved before the MLA could be
approved. On the other hand, she claimed in the
action against Ramsey that intent to gain was present
since he received the purchase price as a result of his
misrepresentation. Ramsey's defense was that he had
a valid Transfer Certificate of Title in his name, and he
had a right to rely on his title.
(a) Will the case for falsification of public
document filed against Robina prosper? (2.5%)
(b) Will the case for falsification of private
document filed against Ramsey prosper?
(2.5%)
XVIII
Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an elementary school. In
one of her classes, she found, to her consternation,
that an 8-year old Richard was always the cause of
distraction, as he was fond of bullying classmates
smaller in size than him.
One morning, Reymart, a 7-year old pupil, cried loudly
and complained to Mrs. Robinson that Richard had
boxed him on the ear. Confronted by Mrs. Robinson
about Reymart's accusation, Richard sheepishly
admitted the same. Because of this, Mrs. Robinson
ordered Richard to lie face down on a desk during
class. After Richard obliged, Mrs. Robinson hit him ten
(10) times on the legs with a ruler and pinched his
ears. Richard ran home and reported to his mother
what he had suffered at the hands of Mrs. Robinson.
When Richard's parents went to Mrs. Robinson to
complain, she interposed the defense that she merely
performed her duty as a teacher to discipline erring
pupils.
Richard's parents ask your advice on what actions can
be instituted against Mrs. Robinson for acts
committed on their minor child.
(a) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child
abuse OR slight physical injuries? (2.5%)
(b) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child
abuse AND slight physical
injuries? (2.5%)
XIX
Ricky was driving his car when he was flagged down
by a traffic enforcer for overspeeding. Realizing his
undoing, but in a hurry for a meeting, Ricky shoved a
PhP500 bill in the traffic enforcer's pocket and
whispered to the latter to refrain from issuing him a
traffic violation receipt. The traffic enforcer still issued
him a ticket, and returned his money.
What crime, if any, was committed by Ricky? (5%)
-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
REMEDIAL LAW
November 25, 2018 8:00 A.M. - 12:00 N.N.
I What ground/s can Dodong's counsel invoke?
Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of
Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint
for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay
Daliao, Davao City. Danielle's property, which is
located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed
value of PhP 25,000. Appended to the complaint was
Danielle's certification on non-forum shopping
executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane
Danoza, a notary public.
(a) Was there a need to refer the case to
the Lupong Tagapamayapa for
prior barangay conciliation before the court
can take cognizance of the case? (2.5%)
(b) Was the action properly instituted before
the RTC of Davao City? (2.5%)
(c) Should the complaint be verified or is the
certification sufficient? (2.5%)
II
Dendenees Inc. and David, both stockholders owning
collectively 25% of Darwinkle Inc., filed an action
before the RTC of Makati to compel its Board of
Directors (BOD) to hold the annual stockholders'
meeting (ASM) on June 21, 2017, as required by
Darwinkle Inc. 's By-Laws, with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction to use as record date April 30,
2017. The complaint alleged, among others, that the
refusal to call the ASM on June 21, 2017 was rooted in
the plan of the BOD to allow Databank Inc. (which
would have owned 50% of Darwinkle Inc. after July 15,
2017) to participate in the ASM to effectively dilute
the complainants' shareholdings and ease them out of
the BOD. Dendenees Inc. and David paid the amount
of PhP 7 ,565 as filing fees based on the assessment of
the Clerk of Court. The BOD filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They averred
that the filing fees should have been based on the
actual value of the shares of Dendenees Inc. and
David, which were collectively worth PhP 450 million.
If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to
dismiss? (5%)
III
On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the RTC
of Makati, served the Order granting the ex-
parte application for preliminary attachment of
Dinggoy against Dodong. The Order, together with
the writ, was duly received by Dodong. On March 1,
2018, the Sheriff served upon Dodong the complaint
and summons in connection with the same case. The
counsel of Dodong filed a motion to dissolve the writ.
(a) Can the preliminary attachment issued by
the Court in favor of Dinggoy be dissolved?
(2.5%)
(b) If Dodong posts a counter bond, is he
deemed to have waived any of his claims for
damages arising from the issuance of the
Order and writ of attachment? (2.5%)
IV
Dick Dixson had sons with different women - (i)
Dexter with longtime partner Delia and (ii) Dongdong
and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick
fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his property titles and
shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in
turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After
the death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and
Dingdong to sign an agreement and waiver of their
right to Dick's estate in consideration of PhP 45
million. As Dexter reneged on his promise to pay,
Dongdong and Dingdong filed a complaint with the
RTC of Manila for annulment of the agreement and
waiver. The summons and complaint were received by
Dalia, the housemaid of Dexter, on the day it was first
served. Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila
granted the motion to dismiss.
Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new
complaint against Dexter for annulment of the
agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his
answer, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a motion to
withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed
without prejudice. An Order was issued granting the
motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis
that the summons had not yet been served on Dexter.
Dexter filed a motion for reconsideration of the order
of dismissal. He argued that the dismissal should have
been with prejudice under the "two-dismissal rule" of
Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in view of the
previous dismissal of the first case.
Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second
dismissal with prejudice? (5%)
V
Dorton Inc. (Dorton) sued Debra Commodities Inc.
(Debra), Daniel, and Debbie in the RTC of Manila for
recovery of sum of money. The complaint alleged
that, on October 14, 2017, Debra obtained a loan from
Dorton in the amount of PhP 10 million with interest
of 9% per annum. The loan was evidenced by a
promissory note (PN) payable on demand signed by
Daniel and Debbie, the principal stockholders of
Debra, who also executed a surety agreement binding
themselves as sureties. Copies of both the PN and the
surety agreement were attached to the complaint.
Dorton further alleged that it made a final demand on
March 1, 2018 for Debra and the sureties to pay, but
the demand was not heeded.
Debra, Daniel, and Debbie filed their answer, and
raised the affirmative defense that, while the PN and
the surety agreement appeared to exist, Daniel and
Debbie were uncertain whether the signatures on the
documents were theirs. The PN and the surety
agreement were pre-marked during pre-trial,
identified but not authenticated during trial, and
formally offered.
Can the RTC of Manila consider the PN and the surety
agreement in rendering its decision? (5%)
VI
Daribell Inc. (Daribell) filed a complaint for sum of
money and damages against spouses Dake and Donna
Demapilis for unpaid purchases of construction
materials in the sum of PhP 250,000. In their answer,
spouses Demapilis admitted the purchases from
Daribell, but alleged that they could not remember
the exact amount since no copies of the documents
were attached to the complaint. They nevertheless
claimed that they made previous payments in the
amounts of PhP 110,000 and PhP 20,000 and that they
were willing to pay the balance of their indebtedness
after account verification. In a written manifestation,
spouses Demapilis stated that, in order to buy peace,
they were willing to pay the sum of PhP 250,000, but
without interests and costs. Subsequently, Daribell
filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
Thereafter, Daribell filed an amended complaint,
alleging that the total purchases of construction
materials were PhP 280,000 and only PhP 20,000 had
been paid. Daribell also served upon the spouses
Demapilis a request for admission asking them to
admit to the genuineness of the statement of
accounts, delivery receipts and invoices, as well as to
the value of the principal obligation and the amount
paid as stated in the amended complaint.
Daribell thereafter amended the complaint anew. The
amendment modified the period covered and
confirmed the partial payment of PhP 110,000 but
alleged that this payment was applied to the spouses'
other existing obligations. Daribell however reiterated
that the principal amount remained unchanged.
(a) Is the request for admission deemed
abandoned or withdrawn by the filing of the
second amended complaint? (2.5%)
(b) Can the amendment of the complaint be
allowed if it substantially alters the cause of
action? (2.5%)
(c) Can the facts subject of an unanswered
request for admission be the basis of a
summary judgment? (2.5%)
VII
Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased to Digna
Corporation (Digna) a parcel of land located in
Diliman, Quezon City. During the term of the lease,
Digna was informed by DBS Banking Corporation
(DBS) that it had acquired the leased property from
the former owner Dory, and required Digna to pay the
rentals directly to it. Digna promptly informed Dory of
DBS' claim of ownership. In response, Dory insisted on
its right to collect rent on the leased property.
Due to conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the
rental payments, Digna filed a complaint for
interpleader in the RTC of Manila. Digna prayed that it
be allowed to consign in court the succeeding
monthly rentals, and that Dory and DBS be required to
litigate their conflicting claims. It later appeared that
an action for nullification of a dacion en pago was filed
by Dory against DBS in the RTC of Quezon City. In said
case, Dory raised the issue as to which of the two (2)
corporations had a better right to the rental
payments. Dory argued that, to avoid conflicting
decisions, the interpleader case must be dismissed.
Does the action for nullification of the dacion en
pago bar the filing of the interpleader case? (2.5%)
VIII
Spouses Dondon and Donna Dumdum owned a
residential lot in Dapitan City. Doy Dogan bought said
lot and took possession thereof with the promise to
pay the purchase price of PhP 2 million within a period
of six (6) months. After receiving only PhP 500,000,
spouses Dumdum executed the deed of absolute sale
and transferred the title to Doy Dogan. The balance
was not paid at all. Spouses Dumdum, through
counsel, sent a demand letter to Doy Dogan for him to
pay the balance of PhP 1.5 million plus interest of
PhP150,000. Doy Dogan responded in a letter by
saying that "while the remaining balance is admitted,
the interest charged is excessive." There being no
payment, spouses Dumdum filed with the RTC of
Dapitan City a complaint for reconveyance with
damages against Doy Dogan.
In his answer, Doy Dogan raised, by way of affirmative
defense, that the purchase price had been fully paid
and for this reason the complaint should have been
dismissed. Spouses Dumdum then filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the
RTC of Dapitan City. The Court awarded PhP1 .5 million
actual damages representing the balance of the
purchase price, PhP 200,000 as moral damages, PhP
200,000 as exemplary damages, PhP 90,000 as
interest, PhP 50,000 as attorney's fees, and PhP 5,000
as cost of suit.
Was it proper for the RTC of Dapitan City to grant the
motion for judgment on the pleadings? (2.5%)
 IX
In 2015, Dempsey purchased from Daria a parcel of
land located in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental. The
latter executed a deed of absolute sale and handed to
Dempsey the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 777
covering the property. Since he was working in Manila
and still had to raise funds to cover taxes, registration
and transfer costs, Dempsey kept the TCT in his
possession without having transferred it to his name.
A few years thereafter, when he already had the funds
to pay for the transfer costs, Dempsey went to the
Register of Deeds of Dumaguete and discovered that,
after the sale, Daria had filed a petition for
reconstitution of the owner's duplicate copy of TCT
No. 777 which the RTC granted. Thus, unknown to
Dempsey, Daria was able to secure a new TCT in her
name.
What is Dempsey's remedy to have the reconstituted
title in the name of Daria nullified? (5%)
X indicated that he was a Chinese citizen and his bar
In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized
from Dave and Daryll. They were arrested and placed
on inquest before Prosecutor Danilo Doon who
ordered their continued detention. Thereafter, the
information for the sale and distribution of shabu was
filed in court. When arraigned, Dave and Daryll
pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-trial,
counsel for both of the accused raised, for the first
time, the illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded
to trial. After trial, the court scheduled the
promulgation of judgment with notice to both the
accused and their counsel, Atty. Dimayuga. During the
promulgation, only Dave and Atty. Dimayuga were
present. Both the accused were convicted of the
crime charged.
(a) Was the challenge to the validity of the
arrest timely raised? (2.5%)
(b) What is the remedy available to Daryll, if
any, to be able to file an appeal? (2.5%)
XI
In 2007, Court of Appeals Justice (CA Justice) Dread
Dong (J. Dong) was appointed to the Supreme Court
(Court) as Associate Justice. Immediately after the
appointment was announced, several groups
questioned his qualification to the position on the
ground that he was not a natural born Filipino citizen.
In the same year, the Court issued an Order enjoining
him from accepting the appointment or assuming the
position and discharging the functions of his office
until he is able to successfully complete all the
necessary steps to show that he is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines. However, he continued to
exercise his functions as CA Justice.
Since the qualification of a natural born citizen applies
as well to CA Justices, Atty. Dacio, a practicing lawyer,
asked the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
through a verified request, to initiate a quo
warranto proceeding against J. Dong in the latter's
capacity as incumbent CA Justice. The OSG refused to
initiate the action on the ground that the issue of J.
Dong's citizenship was still being litigated in another
case.
When the OSG refused to initiate a quo
warranto proceeding, Atty. Dacio filed a petition
for certiorari against the OSG and certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong. The petition
for certiorari against the OSG alleged that the OSG
committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred
the filing of a quo warranto proceeding against J.
Dong, while the petition for certiorari and prohibition
against J. Dong asked the Court to order him to cease
and desist from further exercising his powers, duties
and responsibilities as CA Justice. In both instances,
Atty. Dacio relied on the fact that, at the lime of J.
Dong's appointment as CA Justice, his birth certificate
records showed that he was a naturalized Filipino
citizen.
(a) May the OSG be compelled, in an action
for certiorari, to initiate a quo
warranto proceeding against J. Dong? (2.5%)
(b) Does Atty. Dacio have the legal personality
to initiate the action for certiorari and
prohibition against J. Dong? (2.5%)
XII
Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with
Dindo. He was rushed to the emergency room of the
Medical City where he was examined and treated by
Dr. Datu. As he was being examined, a plastic sachet
appearing to contain shabu fell from Dodo's jacket
which was on a chair beside him. Dodo was thus
arrested by the same policemen who assisted him to
the hospital. At Dodo's trial, the public prosecutor
called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the public
prosecutor asked Or. Datu as to what he saw in the
emergency room, Dodo's counsel objected, claiming
doctor-patient privilege rule.
How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)
XIII
Denny is on trial for homicide. The prosecution calls
Danilo, a police officer, who interviewed the victim,
Drew, shortly after the shooting. Danila's testimony is
being offered by the prosecution for purposes of
proving that (i) Drew is now dead; (ii) while in the
emergency room, Drew was posting his medical
condition on Facebook and was "liking" the posts of
his Facebook friends; (iii) Drew asked the nurse for
water but was refused because he was bleeding,
which subsequently angered Drew; and (iv) that
before dying, Drew signed a statement in which he
identified Denny as the shooter.
Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible? (2.5%)
XIV
Dave is on trial for sexual assault of Delly, a law
student who sidelines as a call center agent. Dave
offers the testimony of Danny, who says that Dave is
known in the community as a decent and discerning
person. The prosecution presents a rebuttal witness,
Dovie, who testifies that, if Dave was reputed to be a
good person, that reputation was a misperception
because Dave had been previously convicted of
homicide.
Is Dovie's testimony admissible as to the character of
Dave? (2.5%)
XV
Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation, applied for a search warrant before the
Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his
application that a certain alias Django was keeping
about 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet located at
Dillian's Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The
Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty.
Dalmacio and his witnesses and thereafter issued the
search warrant particularly describing the place to be
searched and the items to be seized.
(a) Can the search warrant issued by the
Executive Judge of Manila be enforced in
Laguna? (2.5%)
(b) Can the legal concept of "venue is
jurisdictional" be validly raised in applications
for search warrants? (2.5%)
XVI
Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in
Quezon City, applied for overseas employment in
Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad,
Dino Dy, head of the family, discovered that all his
wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo's
lnstagram account and in one instance saw Danjo
wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a complaint for
qualified theft against Danjo with the Office of the
Prosecutor (OP), Quezon City. The subpoena with the
affidavit-complaint was served on Denden, Danjo's
wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was filed by
Danjo who continued to work in Riyadh. After
conducting a preliminary investigation, the OP found
probable cause against Danjo and subsequently filed
the information for qualified theft before the RTC of
Quezon City. The court likewise found probable cause
and issued in 2016 a warrant for Danjo's arrest.
Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While
Danjo was lurking outside the Dys' house, which was
only about 100 meters away from the police station,
SPO1 Dody recognized Danjo. Realizing that the police
station had a copy of Danjo's warrant of arrest, SPO1
Dody immediately pursued and arrested Danjo.
(a) Was the warrant of arrest issued against
Danjo who was not in the Philippines valid?
(2.5%)
(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on
Danjo upon his return? (2.5%)
XVII
Don Deles, a contractor, was sued together with
Mayor Dante Dungo and Congressman Dal Dilim for
malversation of public funds before the Office of the
Ombudsman. Danny Din, a material witness of the
complainant Diego Domingo, was hired as an engineer
by a construction company in Qatar, and had to
depart in two (2) months. To perpetuate Danny Din's
testimony, Diego Domingo applied for his conditional
examination before the Sandiganbayan.
Should the application for conditional examination of
Danny Din be granted? (2.5%)
XVIII
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a
complaint with the Sandiganbayan in connection with
the sequestered assets and properties of Demo
Companies Inc. (Demo) and impleaded its officers and
directors. Since the complaint did not include Demo as
defendant, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution
where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter,
the Republic filed an amended complaint naming
Demo as additional defendant, which amendment
was later admitted.
Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the
Republic to clarify certain matters in its amended
complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted
the motion. Upon submission of the bill of particulars
by the Republic, Demo filed a motion to dismiss
arguing that the answers in the bill of particulars were
indefinite and deficient responses to the question of
what the alleged illegally acquired funds or properties
of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the
case.
(a) Was the Sandiganbayan correct in
dismissing the case? (2.5%)
(b) What can the defendant, in a civil case, do
in the event that his motion for bill of
particulars is denied? (2.5%)
XIX
Drylvik, a German national, married Dara, a Filipina, in
Dusseldorf, Germany. When the marriage collapsed,
Dara filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage before the RTC of Manila. Drylvik, on the
other hand, was able to obtain a divorce decree from
the German Family Court. The decree, in essence,
states:
The marriage of the Parties contracted on xxx
before the Civil Registrar of Dusseldorf is
hereby dissolved. The parental custody of the
children Diktor and Daus is granted to the
father.
Drylvik filed a motion to dismiss in the RTC of Manila
on the ground that the court no longer had
jurisdiction over the matter as a decree of divorce had
already been promulgated dissolving his marriage to
Dara. Dara objected, saying that while she was not
challenging the divorce decree, the case in the RTC
still had to proceed for the purpose of determining
the issue of the children's custody. Drylvik counters
that the issue had been disposed of in the divorce
decree, thus constituting res judicata.
(a) Should Drylvik's motion to dismiss be
granted? (2.5%)
(b) Is a foreign divorce decree between a
foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse,
uncontested by both parties, sufficient by
itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry
pertaining to the spouses' marriage? (2.5%)
mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu.
(a) Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the
RTC of Cebu? (2.5%)
(b) What is the Precautionary Principle? (2.5%)
XXII
Danica obtained a personal loan of PhP 180,000 from
Dinggoy, payable in 18 equal monthly installments of
PhP 10,000 until fully paid. In order to complete her
payment at an earlier date, Danica instead paid PhP
20,000 monthly, and continued doing so until the 15th
month, which payments Dinggoy all accepted. Later
on, she realized that she had overpaid Dinggoy by
100% as she should have already completed payment
in nine (9) months. She demanded the return of the
excess payment, but Dinggoy completely ignored her.
Thus, Danica availed of the Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases by filing before the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) a statement of claim, together with the
required documents.
Should the MTC proceed with the case under the: (i)
Revised Rules Summary Procedure; (ii) the Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims; or (iii) the regular
procedure for civil cases? (5%)
-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

XX

Dominic was appointed special administrator of the

Estate of Dakota Dragon. Delton, husband of Dakota,
together with their five (5) children, opposed the
appointment of Dominic claiming that he (Dominic)
was just a stepbrother of Dakota. After giving Dominic
the chance to comment, the court issued an Order
affirming the appointment of Dominic.

(a) What is the remedy available to the

oppositors? (2.5%)

(b) If there are no qualified heirs, can the

government initiate escheat proceedings over
the assets of the deceased? To whom, in
particular, shall the estate of the deceased go
and for whose benefit? (2.5%)

XXI

The municipality of Danao, Cebu was a quiet and

peaceful town until a group of miners from Denmark
visited the area and discovered that it was rich in
nickel. In partnership with the municipal mayor, the
Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares of forest land
by cutting all the trees before starting their mining
operations. The local DENR, together with
the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a
petition for writ of kalikasan against the municipal

2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS AND PRACTICAL
EXERCISES
November 25, 2018 2:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
I for the value of her stock option plans which would
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of any lawyer's
obligations and its violation is a ground for the
lawyer's suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary
action.
Without stating your name and other circumstances
that will identify you, substantially write down the
Lawyer's Oath that a person who has passed the bar
examinations is required to take and subscribe to
before the Supreme Court. (5%)
II
In a complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Cirilo Celis, a senior
citizen, it was shown that: a) he failed to pay his IBP
dues for six (6) years; b) he indicated uniformly in his
pleadings for three (3) consecutive years "IBP
Muntinlupa OR No. 12345" as proof of payment of his
IBP fees; and c) he did not indicate any Professional
Tax Receipt number to prove payment of his
professional dues.
In his defense, Atty. Celis alleged that he is only
engaged in a "limited" law practice, and his principal
occupation, as disclosed in his income tax return, is
that of a farmer of a 30-hectare orchard and
pineapple farm in Camarines Sur. He also claimed that
he believed in good faith that, as a senior citizen, he
was exempt from payment of taxes, such as income
tax, under Republic Act No. 7432 which grants senior
citizens "exemption from the payment of individual
income taxes provided that their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty level as
determined by the NEDA for that year."
As a member of the IBP Board of Governors,
decide on the following:
(a) the validity of his claim that, being
engaged in a limited practice of law and being
a senior citizen who is exempt from the
payment of taxes, he is not required to pay his
IBP and professional dues; (2.5%)
(b) the obligations, if any, under the Rules of
Court and the Code of Professional
Responsibility that Atty. Celis may have
violated. (2.5%)
III
Carina was dismissed by her employer for breach of
trust and confidence, and for willful violation of
company rules and policies. She filed an action for
illegal dismissal claiming that her termination was
without legal basis. The Labor Arbiter found that she
was illegally dismissed and awarded her the amount
of PhP 80 million. On appeal to the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), the award was reduced
to PhP 40 million as separation pay, plus PhP 5 million
have vested if she were not illegally dismissed from
her job. Unsatisfied with the NLRC's decision, she
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) the amount of
monetary award granted by the NLRC. She engaged
the services of Casal, Casos and Associates to handle
her appeal. Her retainer agreement with Casal, Casos
and Associates provided for contingent fees
equivalent to 10% of her claim for separation pay and
10% of the value of stock options to be awarded to
her.
The CA decision was not favorable to Carina, so she
appealed the same to the Supreme Court (the Court).
While the case was pending appeal with the Court,
Carina entered into a compromise agreement with her
employer to terminate the case upon payment to her
of the full amount of PhP 40 million, less the PhP 15
million previously paid to her by her employer. Before
the compromise agreement was finalized, Carina
terminated the services of Casal, Casos and Associates
and asked them to withdraw from the case pending
before the Court. The parties negotiated the
compromise agreement without the participation of
their lawyers since the employer imposed the
condition that no lawyers should be involved in the
compromise negotiation. She, together with her
employer, then filed the Compromise Agreement for
approval by the Court, and sought the termination of
the case, with prejudice.
Casal, Casos and Associates filed a motion to
intervene in the case pending with the Court, praying
that Carina be ordered to pay them PhP 4 million,
representing 10% of the amount received by Carina
from her employer in settlement of the case, plus 6%
legal interest from the date of filing of the motion for
intervention, until fully paid. The intervenors claimed
that they were dismissed without justifiable cause
prior to the signing of the compromise agreement for
the reason that Carina, their client, wanted to evade
payment of their legal fees. Carina claimed they were
dismissed because Attys. Casal and Casos, who
personally handled her case, had resigned from the
law firm to join the government, and because of the
negligence and failure of her lawyers to attend to her
case. In reply, the intervenors said that the
engagement was with the law firm and not with
individual lawyers. The law firm also presented letters
signed by their client commending them for work
done well in the case.
(a) May lawyers legally charge their clients
based on contingent fees? (2.5%)
(b) Should Casal, Casos and Associates be
allowed to intervene in the case pending
 before the Court in order to collect their fees
from Carina? (2.5%)
(c) Can Carina refuse to pay attorneys' fees on
the ground that the lawyers who personally
handled her case had already resigned from
the law firm with which she had contracted?
(2.5%)
(d) May Carina's employer, defendant in this
case, be held solidarily liable with Carina for
the payment of the attorneys' fees of Carina's
lawyers? (2.5%)
(e) May the intervenors collect legal interest
in addition to their attorneys' fees? (2.5%)
IV
Atty. Cornelio Carbon, 36 years of age, had always
dreamed of becoming a judge, and eventually, a
justice, but his legal career took a different turn. Upon
graduation, he joined a government-owned financial
institution where he worked in the Loans and Claims
Division. He also taught Negotiable Instruments Law
in a nearby law school at night. He has been active in
his IBP Chapter and other law organizations.
However, in his 12 years of practice, he has never done
trial or litigation work.
(a) Is Atty. Carbon engaged in the "practice of
law"? (2.5%)
(b) Is Atty. Carbon qualified to become a
Regional Trial Court Judge? (2.5%)
V Atty. Celso Casis' relationship with Miss Cory Cerrada
Carlos contracted two marriages: the first was with
Consuelo, whom he left in the province, and the
second was with Corinne in Manila, with whom he had
six (6) children. Both women were unaware of Carlo's
marriage to the other.
When Carlos entered law school, he met Cristina, a
classmate, to whom he confided his marital status.
Not long after, Carlos and Cristina became involved in
an extramarital affair, as a result of which Carlos left
Corinne and their children. During Carlos and Cristina's
senior year in law school, Consuelo passed away.
After their admission to the bar, Atty. Carlos and Atty.
Cristina decided to get married in Hong Kong in a very
private ceremony. When Corinne learned of Carlos
and Cristina's wedding in Hong Kong, she filed a
disbarment case against Atty. Carlos and Atty. Cristina
on the ground of gross immorality. Atty. Carlos and
Atty. Cristina raised the following defenses:
a) the acts complained of took place before
they were admitted to the bar; and
b) Atty. Carlos' marriage to Corinne was
void ab initio due to his subsisting first
marriage with Consuelo, and they were free to
marry after Consuelo died.
Rule on each defense. (2.5% each)
VI
Mrs. Conchita Conchu engaged the services of Atty.
Carlo Colorado to act as private prosecutor to handle
a criminal case against persons suspected of slaying
her husband. Atty. Colorado performed his duties - he
interviewed witnesses to build up his case and
religiously attended hearings. However, he failed to
attend one hearing (allegedly because he did not
receive a notice) in which the court, over Mrs.
Conchu's objections, granted bail to all the accused.
Mrs. Conchu belligerently confronted Atty. Colorado
about his absence. Stung by Mrs. Conchu's words,
Atty. Colorado filed with the court a "Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel". The motion did not bear the
consent of Mrs. Conchu, as in fact, Mrs. Conchu
refused to sign her conformity to Atty. Colorado's
withdrawal. Meanwhile, the hearing in the criminal
case continued, but Atty. Colorado no longer
appeared at the hearings nor did he contact Mrs.
Conchu. Mrs. Conchu then filed a complaint seeking
disciplinary sanctions against Atty. Colorado. Atty.
Colorado cited "loss of confidence" and "serious
differences" with the client as his reasons for
withdrawing his services unilaterally.
Can Atty. Colorado be sanctioned for his actions?
(2.5%)
VII
began when he represented her in several criminal
cases for estafa and violation of B.P. 22. His expertise
and diligence in personally assisting and facilitating
her release on bail and other legal actions saved her
from many legal predicaments. Despite her initial
resistance, Miss Cerrada, convinced by Atty. Casis'
sincerity and representation that he was separated
from his wife and was taking necessary steps for the
annulment of his marriage, began to live with him
openly as husband and wife. One day, Atty. Casis' wife
suddenly entered Miss Cerrada's home and assaulted
her, inflicting injuries. Miss Cerrada then filed a
complaint with the IBP charging Atty. Casis with gross
immorality and gross misconduct. However, shortly
afterwards, upon Atty. Casis' pleas, Miss Cerrada filed
a motion to withdraw complaint. The IBP had required
Atty. Casis to file an answer but he did not do so,
relying on Miss Cerrada's withdrawal of the complaint
against him.
Can the IBP continue to investigate Atty. Casis and
recommend the imposition of sanctions against him,
and for the Court to impose sanctions, if warranted,
notwithstanding Miss Cerrada's filing of the motion to
withdraw the complaint against him? (2.5%)
 VIII
Judge Celso Camarin posted in the bulletin board of
his sala for two weeks, an advertisement which says:
"Wanted attractive waitresses, personable waiters
and cooks who may be interested in applying for
employment in my family's restaurant business.
Interested applicants may submit applications to
Branch XXX, RTC of Camarines Sur." The screening of
some applicants was also conducted in the Judge's
office.
What provisions, if any, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct did Judge Camarin violate? (2.5%)
IX
In a case pending before the Sandiganbayan, the
Sandiganbayan justices themselves actually took part
in the questioning of a defense witness and the
accused. The records show that, while a witness was
asked 16 questions on direct examination by the
defense counsel and six (6) questions by the
prosecutor on cross-examination, one justice
interjected a total of 27 questions. After the defense
opted not to conduct any re-direct examination,
another justice asked 10 more questions. With respect
to one of the accused, both justices asked a total of 67
questions after cross-examination, and with respect
to the other accused, a total of 41 questions after
cross-examination. More importantly, the questions
of the justices were in the nature of cross-
examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing,
and insinuation.
Is this manner of questioning proper? (5%)
X (Cancio). Unfortunately, after a couple of years, the
In a complaint for disbarment, Connie alleged that she
engaged the services of Atty. Cesar Corpuz in the
preparation and execution in her favor of a Deed of
Sale over a parcel of land from her common-law
husband. Subsequently, Atty. Corpuz filed a civil case
on behalf of Constancia, the legal wife of Connie's
common-law husband, for the annulment of the Deed
of Sale, impleading Connie as defendant.
In his defense, Atty. Corpuz asserted that, with the
permission of Constancia, he wrote a letter to Connie
informing the latter of Constancia's adverse claim and
urging her to settle the same, but Connie ignored his
letter. He also said that Connie did not object to his
handling of the case on behalf of Constancia;
therefore, he felt free to file the complaint against
her.
Is Atty. Corpuz guilty of misconduct for representing
conflicting interests? (5%)
XI
Atty. Claire Cortez, a member of the Philippine Bar
who was also admitted to the New York Bar, was
disbarred from the practice of law in New York for
violation of Anti-Money Laundering laws of that State.
She returned to the Philippines in order to resume her
Philippine law practice.
Can she also be disbarred from practicing law in the
Philippines for the same infraction committed in the
foreign jurisdiction? (5%)
XII
From February to November 2004, Atty. Calumpang,
in fraudulent connivance with brokers, convinced
Corinna to deliver to him advance money for the
titling of a beachfront property in Caramoan. Six (6)
months had elapsed and Atty. Calumpang had made
absolutely no progress in the titling of the land. He
also could not return the advance money paid by
Corinna because he had converted the money to his
personal use. After almost a decade, and the property
could still not be titled in Corinna's name, she filed an
action with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) in
2014 for deceit, malpractice, and conduct unbecoming
of a member of the Bar. In his defense, Atty.
Calumpang asserted that, since the acts complained
of took place more than 10 years ago, the case had
already prescribed.
Rule on the defense of Atty. Calumpang. (5%)
XIII
Dr. Cielo is a well-known medical doctor specializing in
cosmetic surgery. Dr. Cielo, together with a team of
doctors, performed a surgical buttocks enhancement
procedure in her clinic on Ms. Cossette Cancio
implant introduced during the enhancement
procedure caused infection and Cancio became
seriously ill.
Concio filed a criminal action for medical malpractice
against Dr. Cielo which was eventually dismissed for
failure to prove that Dr. Cielo was negligent. Cancio
was represented in this action by Atty. Cogie Ciguerra
(Ciguerra). After they lost the medical malpractice
case, Ciguerra started writing a series of posts on his
Facebook (FB) account containing insulting and
verbally abusive language against Dr. Cielo. Among
others, Ciguerra called Dr. Cielo a quack doctor,
"reyna ng kaplastikan at kapalpakan", and accused
her of maintaining a payola or extralegal budget to
pay off prosecutors and judges in order to win her
cases. He also called on patients to boycott the clinic
of Dr. Cielo.
Dr. Cielo filed a disbarment case against Ciguerra for
posting on his FB account sexist, vulgar, and obscene
comments and language disrespectful of women.
Ciguerra's defense is that his FB posts were private
remarks on his private FB account and meant only to
be shared among his FB friends, and Dr. Cielo was not
part of them. He also claimed that the disbarment
case was filed in violation of his constitutionally-
guaranteed right to privacy. The Court, however,
found that Ciguerra did not have privacy settings.
Can Ciguerra be disbarred for the series of posts
against Dr. Cielo in his FB account? (5%)
XIV
Cacai, a law student, filed an administrative complaint
against RTC Judge Casimiro Conde, her professor in
law school, based on the following allegations:
(a) In a school convocation where Judge
Conde was the guest speaker, Judge Conde
openly disagreed and criticized a recently-
decided Supreme Court decision and even
stressed that the decision of the Supreme
Court in that case was a serious violation of
the Constitution.
(b) In his class discussions, Judge Conde
named Cacai's mother, an MTC judge, as one
of the judges involved in a marriage scam. At
that time, the case against her mother was
still pending. Judge Conde also included in his
class discussion Cacai's brother whom he
referred to as a "court-noted drug addict."
Cacai asserted that the acts of Judge Conde were
open displays of insensitivity, impropriety, and lack
of delicadeza bordering on oppressive and abusive
conduct. She also alleged that Judge Conde acted
with absolute disrespect for the Court and violated
the "sub judice rule" when he discussed the marriage
scam involving her mother because, at that time, the
case was still pending.
In his defense, Judge Conde argued that the case he
discussed in the school convocation was already of
public knowledge and had been published after it had
become final. He also said it was part of his academic
freedom to openly discuss and criticize a decision of
the Court since it was already decided with finality,
was patently erroneous, and clearly a violation of the
Constitution. With respect to discussions in class
about Cacai's mother, he said that the marriage scam
where her mother was charged scandalized the
Judiciary and became public knowledge when the
Office of the Court Administrator held a press
conference on the matter and, that as a citizen, he
could comment thereon in the exercise of his rights to
freedom of speech and expression. He also asserted
that his discussions in both fora could not be the
subject of an administrative complaint because they
were not done in the performance of his judicial
duties.
Rule on each of the charges raised by Cacai, and the
corresponding defenses raised by Judge Conde. (2.5%
each)
XV
Charo Conti engaged the services of Atty. Cesar
Compostela for the registration of a property located
in Cebu, and which property she had inherited
together with her siblings. It was agreed in writing
that Charo would pay Atty. Compostela PhP 20,000 as
acceptance fee and PhP 2,000 as appearance fee.
During the last hearing of the case, Atty. Compostela
demanded an additional amount of PhP 20,000 for
the preparation of a memorandum, which he said
would further strengthen Charo's position, plus 20% of
the total area of the property as additional fees for his
services. Charo did not agree to Atty. Compostela's
demands since they were contrary to their
agreement. Besides, the property was co-owned with
her siblings and she could not agree to Atty.
Compostela's demands without the consent of her co-
heirs.
Four (4) years later, the petition for registration was
approved and the Land Registration Authority notified
Charo that the decree of registration and the original
of the owner's duplicate copy of the title had already
been transmitted to the Register of Deeds (RD).
When Charo went to the RD, she was surprised to
discover that the owner's duplicate copy of the title
had already been claimed by, and released to, Atty.
Compostela. Despite demand, Atty. Compostela
refused to deliver the title to Charo until she paid the
additional attorneys' fees that he was demanding.
Charo then instituted a complaint for disbarment
against him. In his defense, Atty. Compostela claimed
that:
(a) he had a right to retain the owner's
duplicate of the title as his retaining lien; and
(b) he was entitled to the payment of
additional professional fees on the basis of the
principle of quantum meruit.
Rule on Atty. Compostela's defenses. (2.5%
each)
XVI
On March 1, 2017, sisters and business partners
Carmina and Celeste Corominas borrowed PhP
500,000 from Carmen Carunungan. It was agreed that
the amount will be paid in full one (1) year after, or on
March 1, 2018, with interest at the rate of 10% per
annum, without necessity of a demand. They also
agreed to be bound jointly and severally. For this
purpose, they executed a promissory note, secured by
a postdated check in the amount of PhP 550,000
drawn from their joint account, which check was
dated March 1, 2018.
When the debt became due, Carmen deposited the
check but it was dishonored for insufficient funds.
Carmen then sued Carmina and Celeste for estafa
through falsification of a commercial document. After
finding probable cause, the prosecutor filed a criminal
case in court, where the sisters were required to file
their joint judicial affidavit. In their affidavit, they
raised the defense that they could not be guilty of
estafa because: (i) the check was issued only as a form
of security; (ii) even if issued as payment, it was for a
pre-existing debt; and (iii) it was only upon Carmen's
insistence that they issued the check.

Before the case could be decided, the sisters offered

to settle their debt through a dacion en pago. They
offered a Honda CRV which they jointly owned in full
settlement of the loan. Carmen agreed.

Prepare the following documents in legally acceptable

and enforceable forms, based on the above facts:

(a) The promissory note (5% );

(b) The judicial affidavit (10%); and

(c) The dacion en pago (10%).

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-