1.

Directly ground your major premise/s

a. Cite case authority (1 bar question)
To address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is considering the
following options: (1) prohibit all forms of gambling; (2) allow gambling only
on Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in government-owned casinos; and (4)
remove all prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax equivalent to 30%
on all winnings.
If Congress chooses the first option and passes the corresponding law
absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling, can the law be validly attacked
on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police power? Explain your
answer.

ANSWER:
The inherent police power of the State may be validly exercised to
regulate the use of liberty and property. For example, in the case of JMM
Promotions and Management, Inc vs. CA, G.R. No. 120095, the government,
through the Secretary of Labor and Employment, issued Department Order
No. 3 establishing various procedures and requirements for screening
performing artists under a new system of training, testing, certification, and
deployment. Such department order is a valid exercise of police power for
being regulative in nature by merely controlling the deployment of filipino
entertainers abroad by putting up stricter deployment procedures.
Unlike in JMM Promotions and Management vs CA where the Department
Order No.3 merely regulation the deployment of Filipino workers, the absolute
ban or prohibition of gambling is contrary to the concept of police power.
Therefore, the law may be validly assailed for being an invalid exercise of
police power.
b. Quote statutes or cite their interpretations (1 bar question)
1. X, a dressmaker, accepted clothing materials from Karla to make two dresses
for her. On the day X was supposed to deliver Karla's dresses, X called up
Karla to say that she had an urgent matter to attend to and will deliver them
the next day. That night, however, a robber broke into her shop and took
everything including Karla's two dresses. X claims she is not liable to deliver
Karla's dresses or to pay for the clothing materials considering she herself
was a victim of the robbery which was a fortuitous event and over which she
had no control. Do you agree? Why? (3%)
ANSWER:
Art 1174 of the Civil Code provides three exemptions to the general
rule that no person shall be responsible for fortuitous events. One is held

liable even during the occurrence of fortuitous events: (1) when expressly
specified by the law (2) when it is otherwise declared by stipulation or (3)
when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. As
expressly specified in Art 1165, par.3 of the Civil Code, if the obligor delays,
he shall be responsible for fortuitous event until he has effected delivery.
In the case at bar, X was in delay because he failed to deliver the two dresses
that Karla ordered on their agreed date.
Therefore, X cannot invoke fortuitous event as a defense because she had
already incurred in delay at the time of the occurrence of the loss. X is liable
for the loss of the two dresses.
c. Use multiple source of authority (1 bar question)
If you were the judge in a bigamy case where the defense was able to prove
that the first marriage was null and void or a nullity, would you render a
judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer.
ANSWER:
Article 349, RPC clearly states: Any person who contracts a second
marriage without first having a judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her
first marriage, albeit on its face void and inexistent, is guilty of bigamy. It
was held by the Supreme Court in Lasanas vs People, G.R. No. 159031,
parties to the marriage are not permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
for the same must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts. Only
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared by the court can it be held as
void. As long as the previous marriage was not lawfully dissolved or judicially
declared void, contracting a new marriage constitutes bigamy. The
requirement of securing a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage prior to
contracting a subsequent marriage is found in Article 40 of the Family Code
which provides that: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void.
In the case at bar, the defendant contracted a subsequent marriage without
first securing a judicial declaration of nullity of his previous marriage. The
defense was only able to prove that the marriage is void, but without judicial
declaration.
Therefore, if I were the judge, I would render a judgment of conviction. Proof
that the first marriage is null and void or a nullity is not a defense in bigamy.
2.

Indirectly ground your major premise/s [if direct grounding is not possible] (1
bar question)
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students,
cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she

confiscated his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing
Mariano extreme embarrassment.
In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without
any warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave
injuries on Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano
then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him
injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit?
TX filed a suit for ejectment against BD for non-payment of condominium rentals
amounting to P150,000. During the pendency of the case, BD offered and TX
accepted the full amount due as rentals from BD, who then filed a motion to dismiss
the ejectment suit on the ground that the action is already extinguished. Is BDs
contention correct? Why or why not? Reason. (5%)

Ungrounded major premise: Acceptance of payment even during the pendency of

an ejectment case does not constitute a waiver or abandonment of the ejectment
case.
a. The acceptance by the lessor of the payment by the lessee of the rentals in
arrears during the pendency of the case does not constitute an abandonment
of the ejectment case in cases. Spouses Clutario v. CA, 216 SCRA 341 (1992).
b. Without entering into amicable settlement with lessee nor notifying the court
to have the ejectment case dismissed,

c. Therefore, acceptance of payment even during the pendency of an ejectment

case does not constitute a waiver or abandonment of the ejectment case.
BD's contention is not correct. TX can still maintain the suit for ejectment. The
acceptance by the lessor of the payment by the lessee of the rentals in arrears even
during the pendency of the ejectment case does not constitute a waiver or
abandonment of the ejectment case.