Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 62


1. This Questionnaire contains ten (10) pages including this page. Check the number of pages and their proper sequencing. You
may write notes on this Questionnaire.

Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination Notebook in the same order as the
questions. Write your answers only on the front page of every sheet. Note well the allocated percentage points for each question
or sub-question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

2. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question
under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

3. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a
sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.


4. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/s on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying
mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or
making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.



2018 Bar Examinations


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)


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 was a surenderee, and was not abducted or harmed 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%)


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?


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%)

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.


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%)


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
Immigration (Bl) showing that Anacleto used the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or

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%)


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

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%)


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

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
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the citizenship requirement? (2.5%)

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

(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.


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%)


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 rules however shall not diminish, increase, or
modify 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%)

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%)


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%)


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%)


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

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%)


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%)


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.

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%)


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%)


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 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%)

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

November 4, 2018 2:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.


1. This Questionnaire contains ten (10) pages including this page. Check the number of pages and
their proper sequencing. You may write notes on this Questionnaire.

Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination Notebook in the
same order as the questions. Write your answers only on the front page of every sheet. Note well
the allocated percentage points for each question or sub-question. In your answers, use the
numbering system in the questionnaire.

2. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a separate page. An
answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on the same page
and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

3. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the
pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.



4. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/son your Notebook that
can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or
private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in
the Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.



2018 Bar Examinations


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?


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

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%)


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%)


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%)

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%)


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%)


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%)


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;

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?

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?

(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%)

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%)

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%)


Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Nordic Corporation. One day, Nesting
called 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%)


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%)


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?

(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy Corporation's argument? (2.5%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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

(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%)


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%)


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%)


2:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.


1. This questionnaire contains ten (10) pages including this page. Check the number of pages
and their proper sequencing. You may write notes on this questionnaire.

Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination Notebook
in the same order as the questions. Write your answers only on the front page of every sheet.
Note well the allocated percentage points for each question or sub-question. In your answers,
use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

2. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a separate
page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on
the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

3. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws
and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer
with the pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.



4. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/son your Notebook
that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions,
prayers, or private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or making any distinguishing or
identifying mark in the Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.



2018 Bar Examinations

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%)


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 project is expected to be completed in April

(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


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%)


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%)

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%)


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%)


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 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%)


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

Advise the siblings which donation would expose them to the least tax liability. (5%)


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%)

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%)


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?


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%)


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%)


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%)


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?


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%)


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%)


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.

(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%)

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 paid? (2.5%)


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%)




2018 Bar Examinations

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%)


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

(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 parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)

(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%)


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%)


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%)

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%)


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%)


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 will was found to be valid but both Saffinia
and Sophia renounce their inheritance? (2.5%)


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%)

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

(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%)

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%)


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

(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%)


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 automatically take over his savings
account deposit. 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?

(b) In this case, did the bank have the right to take over Saachi's bank deposit? (2.5%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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?

(b) Assuming that one is an agent of the other, is the agency coupled with interest? (2.5%)


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%)


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%)





2018 Bar Examinations

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%)


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%)

(b) Would your answer be the same if the 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%)


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


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.


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%)

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%)


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%)

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?

(c) Must the option granted to Yelp Pictures be registered under the SRC? (2.5%)


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%)

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%)

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%)


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

(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?


Yashtag Holdings, lnc.'s (Yashtag Holdings) AOI states that its primary purpose is "to invest in real
and personal properties of every kind or otherwise acquire 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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


Yvan was a slot machine operator supervisor in a casino operated by the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). On the basis of an intelligence report, he was found, in connivance
with some slot machine customers, to have padded the 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%)


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 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?

(b) Does AMLC have the power to order a banking institution to reveal matters relating to
bank accounts? (2.5%)





2018 Bar Examinations

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%)

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%)

(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious? (2.5%)


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%)


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

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%)

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%)


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%)


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 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie 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%)


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%)


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%)

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

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%)


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%)


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 money and valuables in order to pay his debts.

(a) What crime, if any, did Rocky commit? (2.5%)

(b) Does he incur criminal and/or civil liability? (2.5%)


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?

(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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)

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%)




2018 Bar Examinations

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%)


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%)


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?
What ground/s can Dodong's counsel invoke? (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%)


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%)

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%)


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

(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%)


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%)


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%)


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%)

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%)

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 indicated that he was a
Chinese citizen and his bar 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%)


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

How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)


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
Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible? (2.5%)


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%)


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?

(b) Can the legal concept of "venue is jurisdictional" be validly raised in applications for
search warrants? (2.5%)


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?

(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo upon his return? (2.5%)

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%)


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%)


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

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%)

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%)


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 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%)


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%)





2018 Bar Examinations

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%)


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

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%)


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 for the value of her stock
option plans which would 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

(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?

(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%)


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%)

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)


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%)


Atty. Celso Casis' relationship with Miss Cory Cerrada 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%)

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%)


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%)

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%)


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%)


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%)


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 (Cancio). Unfortunately, after a couple of years, the 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%)


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

(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)


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)


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

Prepare the following documents in legally acceptable and enforceable forms, based on the above

(a) The promissory note (5% );

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

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