PREPARING FOR THE BAR

The following discussions focus on three important areas you need to center on as you
prepare for the bar exams:

a. How to study for the bar exams;

b. How to prepare for the bar exams; and
c. How to answer bar exam questions.

The discussions are mere suggestions, and not meant to impose any kind of norm or
standard in preparing for the bar exams. It is hoped that the discussions herein will aid the law student
in how best to approach/manage his/her preparations for the bar exams.

1. STUDYING FOR THE BAR EXAMS

A professor of mine once told us that we need three (3) “L’s” in order to hurdle the bar exams:
LOGIC, LANGUAGE and LAW.

For me, LOGIC does not just mean common-sense logic, although common-sense logic
does, to a certain extent, help in analyzing problems and issues. I believe that by “logic”, we mean
informed logic.

Applying common-sense logic alone in the bar exams is a dangerous thing. A + B, for
example, does not always lead to C. Neither is C always composed of A + B. When tackling legal
issues, therefore, the logic you apply must be an “informed logic.” This simply means that you must
be abreast of current and prevailing legal concepts and principles.

Take, for example, the concept of due process in administrative proceedings. As a general
rule, one who has not been notified of the administrative proceeding against him/her is deprived of
due process. But where, after a resolution against him/her has been issued, he/she files a Motion for
Reconsideration, the defect is now deemed cured and he cannot, later on, complain of not having
been accorded due process. Now, common-sense logic will force you to think that there was a
violation of due process. True enough, the respondent was never given an opportunity to defend
himself/herself, at least, during the proceeding proper. But informed logic will tell you that, despite
the absence of notice which, thus deprived the respondent of the opportunity to defend
himself/herself during the proceedings, his/her subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration
cures the above procedural defect.

With the above example, we see that “informed logic” and “law” are closely intertwined so
much so that, in the bar exams, you cannot apply one without the other. Common-sense logic is still
there, only that it has been modified by legal concepts and principles. How you, therefore, apply logic
in a given legal problem will largely depend on your knowledge of the law. Equally important, how
you apply the law will largely depend on how you have developed your “logic”. I also want to refer to
this as “critical thinking skill.”

Studying the law for purposes of the bar exam does not mean that you have to learn all there
is to learn about the law. This cannot be done simply because the study of the law is a lifetime
endeavor. More importantly, the bar exam does not cover the entirety of the law - every provision,
article or section one can find. As you may have already observed, the bar exam mainly touches on
more substantial, albeit basic, provisions of the law. It is up to you to assess which are substantial,
and which are not.
 More importantly, you have to comprehend the law that you study. Thus, mere memorization
is simply not enough. In the bar exam, the bar examiner is able to gauge an examinee’s
comprehension of the law through essay-type of questions. What the examiner wants to know is
whether the examinee can apply the law to a particular set of facts and issues. The examinee’s
answer to these types of questions will reveal to the examiner the depth of comprehension of the
examinee. Failing in this regard will probably make the examiner wonder whether the examinee is
ready to take on actual cases where the right, liberty or property of the litigant is at stake. It is thus
important to not only know what the law says, but also what the law means. This is so because a
particular law is never made in a vacuum. It is always made in order to address particular societal
issues and controversies. How you, then, address a particular problem will reveal the depth of your
understanding, not just the letter of the law, but its spirit. Thus, in your study of the law, do not just
memorize. COMPREHEND.

Language is also crucial. Since the official language of our courts is English, you must be
proficient in this as well. Many examinees fail the bar exam simply because of their lack of sufficient
proficiency in English. To the point of stating the obvious, the law has no capacity to speak on its
own. The law can only be animated by one who has sufficient proficiency to communicate it. In order
to give life to the law, someone has to articulate its meaning. The speaker must, therefore, be adept
enough in the language of the law in order to convey what the law means. Your knowledge and
comprehension of the law will be for naught if you do not have the adequate facility to communicate
it.

You have four (4) long years to prepare for the bar exams, not to mention the six months
that you will allot for your bar review. During this period, you must be able develop these three L’s.

Down to specifics, you must be able to master the basics of law – that is, the basic concepts
and principles you need to learn and understand in order to pass the bar exams.

Why the basics? We say “the basics” because the bar exam is merely an entry-level exam.
This means that what will be asked of you are, most certainly, questions based on basic concepts
and principles.

But why do many bar examinees not make it in the bar exams? There are a lot of reasons.
Some of those reasons will be discussed here. For example, the difficulty of the bar exam lies in the
sheer volume of basic concepts and principles you need to understand. This makes your preparation
for the bar exams a very daunting undertaking. Be that as it may, the task of familiarizing yourself
with these concepts and principles is not impossible. There are a lot of techniques you can use in
order to master these concepts and principles.

a. Self-Assessment

Throughout your law school life, you must always conduct a self-assessment. While it helps
when your professors give feedback on your academic performance, in the end, you, and only you,
will actually know if you’re already equipped to hurdle the bar exams.

In assessing yourself, you have first to ask yourself (and to answer honestly) “How is my
critical thinking skill?” Why critical thinking? The following are some of the reasons:

i. The bar exam is argument-based. Note that the bar exam centers on essay type
of questions. Most, if not all, of the questions given in the bar exam require an
essay type of answer. This is so because the bar exam is argument-based, and not
conclusion based.
There is a reason why the bar exam is argument-based rather than conclusion-
based. You have to remember that the bar exam is given to gauge your readiness
to become lawyers. As lawyers, your job will, for the most part, be about defending
rights and enforcing obligations through mandated procedures. In effect, practically
speaking, as lawyers, you will always be confronted with legal problems and issues
to which you must find a solution – again, in order to protect a right or enforce an
obligation.

To do this, you must be able to provide a sound argument – an argument that will
squarely address the issue you are confronted with.

Given this nature, the bar exam provides you with questions in the form of problems
to which you must find a solution. Whatever that solution is, what is paramount is
that the solution is sound. Simply put, the solution that you provide must have a
legal basis, and that legal basis must be one which squarely applies to the particular
issue.

From this context, regardless of what your conclusion is, for as long as you are able
to provide a sound solution to the problem given, the examiner will recognize you
as being ready to become a lawyer.

Consider this example:

During our exam in taxation, we were asked this question (I paraphrased it): F and
W are husband and wife. They have two children C1 and C2. Upon F’s demise, W
renounced her inheritance in favor of her children. In said deed, W gave her share
in the inheritance to C1 and C2. The BIR assessed her for Donor’s Tax. Was the
BIR correct?

This was not how the question was exactly phrased. But the above problem more
or less captures the gist of the question. I didn’t know the answer to the question. I
was thinking of a particular concept regarding successive inheritance but couldn’t
quite remember the proper term. SO I went with another answer. I answered as
follows:

No, the BIR was not correct.

It is a basic substantive rule that an heir who renounces her share in the
inheritance of the decedent does not become the owner of that which she has
renounced. Not being the owner, the heir could not effect a donation as to render
her liable for donor’s tax.

Here, since W renounced her share in the inheritance of her spouse, she is
deemed not to have become the owner of that which she has renounced. Not being
the owner, she could not have effected a donation as to render her liable for donor’s
tax. Hence, the BIR was not correct.

I discovered later that the answer was actually wrong. Lately, I also
discovered that my answer was incomplete. I discovered that the question not only
talked about W’s share in the inheritance, but also her share in the conjugal
property. My answer focused only on her share in the inheritance. Be that as it may,
taking into consideration the problem given above, the question now is: Was I able
to give a sound solution to the problem? I like to believe that I was able to do so.
 Was the legal basis I provided able to address the issue? I would like to believe that
it did.

The point is, since the bar exam is argument-based, even if your conclusion
is wrong, but where the examiner sees that you were able to provide a plausible,
sound solution to the problem, (su arani lamang sa katotohanan, kung baga), you
will get credit for that.

Now, given that you are required to argue (that is why it is argument-based), and
given that you are required to provide a sound solution to the problem given, your
critical thinking skills must be of such level that you are able to reason out in a sharp
and clear manner.

At this point, stress must be made on your task to provide a solution to the problem.
Providing a solution to a particular legal problem requires you to have a deeper
understanding of the basic concepts and principles of law. Simply put, your critical
thinking skill must, first and foremost, involve a deeper understanding of what the
law is. Having a deeper understanding of what the law is will be crucial in your task
of providing a sound solution to a legal problem. Thus, a superficial understanding
of what the law is will most certainly prevent you from applying the law to a particular
legal problem. And trouble will snow-ball from there. Since your understanding of
the basic concept and principles of law is superficial, not only will you not be able to
apply the law to a particular situation, worse, you will now cite a legal basis which
does not actually provide a solution to the problem.

Take, for example, the RPC provision that every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable. A deeper understanding of this very simple penal principle
should mean that you understand that this civil liability being referred to here is one
which arises simply from delict. From here, you must already be able to realize that
under the Civil Code, there are five sources of obligations, one of which is delict.
The other four are as follows: law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts.
From this, you must already be familiar with the distinctions of each source of
obligation. Again, from this, you must be able to grapple with the legal implications
of each of these sources.

The point is, your critical thinking faculty must be profoundly intertwined with your
understanding of the basic concepts and principles of law. It is from this that you will
be able to provide a sound argument – an argument which squarely addresses the
problem, an argument which correctly provides a solution to the problem given.

ii. The problems given in the bar exam involve a lot of distractors.

Another area of concern is that problems given in the bar exams are riddled with
distractors. Distractors are simply facts or arguments deliberately inserted into the
question itself for the sole purpose of confusing you, distracting you, and diverting
your attention in order for you to focus on a fact or argument which is irrelevant and
immaterial to the real issue.

At this juncture, remember the midterm question that I gave you regarding the
AMLC’s unilateral issuance of an ex parte bank inquiry order? As you well know by
now, that question was riddled with distractors. True enough, almost all of you were
distracted by the “distractors” so much so that you wholeheartedly tackled these
distractors as if they were the real issue. Simply put, your attention was diverted.
Remember also the question in your final exam regarding the period of redemption
of the mortgaged property? The first problem involved a juridical person as the
HIGHEST BIDDER. The second sub-question, however, tweaked the facts and now
made a NATURAL PERSON as the highest bidder. This phrase – NATURAL
PERSON - was designed to distract you into answering the one-year period of
redemption. I believe only one or two of you was/were able to avoid this distractor.
Remember, for the shortened period of redemption, the following simple requisites
need to be present: a.) The mortgagee is a bank, at least, originally; b.) the
mortgagor is a juridical person. There was no mention of the highest bidder as
essential in the determination of the period of redemption. Thus, in the second sub-
question, although the highest bidder was a natural person, the mortgagee
remained the same, and the mortgagor remained the same.

I did expect that many will be “distracted” by the “natural person” issue. I was,
however, hoping that those who will be “distracted” will still be able to come up with
a plausible and impressive legal argument to justify their answer. No one was able
to do so, though.

When you become lawyers, you will realize that every legal problem that comes
your way will always have a lot of “distractors.” That is why, in court proceedings,
we have what we call “Pretrial Conference.” Part of the Pretrial Conference is the
simplification of issues. In today’s court procedures, the judge is mandated to take
an active part in the simplification of the issues, simply to lessen the quantity of
irrelevant facts and issues, thereby shortening the proceedings.

Believe it or not, even today, there are some lawyers who get “distracted” by the
wrong issues. I know one who vigorously argued in court regarding the issue of
double sale only to discover later on that the double sale concept in civil law did not
actually apply to the case simply because the lots involved therein were
unregistered lands. (NOTE: if the land subject of the sale is an unregistered land,
the rules on double sale will not apply. Rules on double sale apply only to registered
lands. For unregistered lands, the principle of caveat emptor apply. Buyer beware!
Please also remember this.)

I remember, when I was still studying law, we had a subject called Practicum.
Basically, under this class, we were allowed to handle actual cases, and even
allowed to appear and argue in court, although always with the supervision of a
lawyer. At one point, several clients went to us complaining of illegal dismissal. As
we all know, in illegal dismissal cases, the issue of the illegality of the dismissal will
not arise unless and until the client first proves that he is an employee of the
purported employer. Where no employer-employee relationship exists, certainly
there cannot be any dismissal to speak of.

As part of our practicum, we were required to, of course, interview the client/s and
make a written assessment of the case, including the issues that are involved in the
case. This particular case was assigned to one of my classmates. She/he made a
six-page assessment. I had the opportunity of reading the assessment and saw that
for the first five pages, she/he rigorously made a discussion on the clients being
employees of their supposed employer. Only two paragraphs were allotted for a
discussion on whether they were illegally dismissed.
 While it was ok to discuss first the status of the clients as employees of the supposed
employer, the gamut of the discussion should have focused on the existence of the
dismissal, itself, and the reason why the dismissal was illegal, given that, on the one
hand, it is very easy to prove that the client is in fact an employer and, on the other
hand, difficult to prove that the client was illegally dismissed.

I am not saying that the written assessment was wrong. What I am simply pointing
at is the fact that, sometimes, we get distracted by trivial issues that we lose sight
of the real ones.

Going back to our discussion on “distractors”, these distractors are meant to trick
you into focusing on trivial facts and issues, so that you lose sight of the more
important and pressing issues. In the bar exams, once you’re “distracted,” believe
me, you’re already a goner.

Now, what will be the implication if we get distracted? For one, the examiner will see
that you missed the real issue. He will realize that you do not have as of yet a deeper
understanding of the basic concepts and principles of law.

Why is that? Determining the real issue is not that simple. You may not realize it,
but you can only determine the real issue if you understand the basic concepts and
principles of law. Again, why? Determination of the real issue already requires you
to apply your knowledge of the law to a particular factual milieu.

Example, remember again the first question in the midterm exam? The issue was
as regards the unilateral act of the AMLC in issuing an ex parte bank inquiry order.
If you understood the law, you would have already recognized that the AMLC had
no authority to issue a bank inquiry order. Upon reading this, bells should have
already been ringing in your ears. All the others were merely distractors. There was
actually nothing wrong with them. The only sentence which hinted that something
was off was the sentence saying that the AMLC issued a bank inquiry order. This….
was the issue.

Point is, determining the real issue already requires your knowledge of the basic
concepts and principles of law.

Now, for some bar exam questions, determining the real issue is quite a challenge.
But your knowledge of the basic concepts and principles of law should guide you.

Wrapping up, we go back to your assessment of your critical thinking skill. Since
determining the real issue already requires you to apply your knowledge of the law
to the facts given in the problem, certainly, your critical thinking faculties play a huge
role in this endeavor.

iii. You have to determine the real issue.

As has been discussed above, determining the real issue requires that you apply
your knowledge of the law to the facts. If you know the law, then you will know what
is off in the problem given.

Note also that in order to determine the real issue, we must be able to avoid the
distractors.
 Please see again the discussion above.

Now, the questions that we must ask are:

- How do we hone our argumentation skills?

- How do we avoid distractors?
- Finally, how do we determine the real issue?

The answer is simple. We develop our critical thinking skills.

b. Developing our critical thinking skills

The following are tips on how to develop our critical thinking skills.

i. Do not use reviewers / Do not just memorize

Note that when we use reviewers, our tendency is to memorize. You have to remember,
however, that memorization is the lowest form of learning. Since our minds our focused
more on “remembering”, in the process, we sacrifice understanding. Kapag nag-
memorize, akala natin naintindihan na natin. HINDI PALA! We thus gain a false sense
of comprehension. Sinaulo ko na yan! Therefore, alam ko na yan!

This is DANGEROUS. Because preparing for the bar exams entails more than just
memorizing provisions, elements and definitions.

ii. Read, read and read (textbooks and the whole text of jurisprudence)

In order to develop your critical thinking faculties, you have to read, read and read. And
not just any law material you can get ahold of. Read textbooks and the whole texts of
jurisprudence.

When you read these textbooks and jurisprudence, your mind is forced to comprehend
a lot of data. Soon thereafter, your brain will adapt to what you’re subjecting it to, and
will try to sift through the texts in order to determine the important data that it needs to
retain. In the beginning, this will be hard. But in time, you will find that your ability to
locate what is important is better than the first time you began to read.

I remember a story from a professor of mine. She took her doctorate (doctoral?) degree
in France. During her first semester, particularly in one subject, her professor gave them
a list of 3 books they were required to read, and another 2 books as recommended
reading. Her problem was, she wasn’t used to reading this number of books, let alone
for one subject. Another problem was that, all these seven books were in French.

When finally, she was able to learn the language, she started reading. It was slow and
difficult, at first. She had a hard time understanding the first few books she read. But she
persisted. She read and read and read. Until finally, she realized that the more she read,
the more she understood. It was difficult at first. But eventually, she was able to “train”
her brain into sifting through all the texts she was reading, and pick out those which were
important and crucial in gaining a deeper understanding of the subject she was studying.

She told us that at first, it will really be difficult. But the human mind, complex as it may
be, is a very abled piece of machinery. It will adapt, given time, effort and experience.
 Before you know it, you will be breezing through even the thickest textbooks you can
find. She then gave us seven books to read. Easy peasy, right?

The point is, you have to read, read and read. This is the only way by which you can
train your critical thinking skills especially specifically for your preparations for the bar.

But do not worry. You already have your critical thinking skills. What you need to do is
to further hone them, tailor them specifically for your legal studies.

Another benefit of reading is that you are able to also learn, to a certain extent, grammar,
sentence construction, organization of thought and argument. By reading, you are able
to adopt what you read, the manner by which it was written.

iii. Understand what you read.

This is self-explanatory. Be that as it may, remember to always try to understand what

you read. If you do so, you are actually training your brain to think critically.

When I was in the college of law, I always made sure that I understood what I was
reading. There were instances when I would be stuck for hours on a given subject, topic
or idea simply because I didn’t understand what I was reading.

Here are the things that I usually do when I don’t understand a topic:

1. I read it again and again and again. Sometimes, I read the text aloud. Sometimes, I
read it slowly.
2. I research. Nowadays, research on the net is a breeze. Just fire up your laptop or
phone, connect to the net, go to any Philippine website providing access to
Philippine jurisprudence, and search for whatever it is that you do not understand.
But why research in jurisprudence? Jurisprudence is always the authority on any
given legal subject (aside form law, of course). If you want a correct explanation,
read jurisprudence.

Also, I look at other law books on the subject. Each author will have his/her own
style of writing and presenting a particular topic or idea. It helps if you have other
textbooks for reference.

Why do we need to understand what we read? Of course, the obvious answer is:
We need to understand what we read in order to understand it. Circuitous argument,
right? More importantly, in my experience, if I understand something, I will almost
always remember it. (Not all the time, of course. But when it counts the most, I
remember what needs remembering). Remember what Mike Ross said in the very
first episode of Suits? I like to read. When I read something, I understand it. And
when I understand it, I never forget it.

Always try to understand what it is that you are reading. Believe me, you won’t regret
it.

iv. Correlate

By correlation, we simply mean “creating a chain of concepts, principles and provisions

which are, in one way or the other, related with each other.
When I was studying for the bar, I made sure that I correlate one provision to another
relevant provision. This way, I am able to create a chain of concepts associated with
each other. The purpose of this is two-fold:

1. It helps us remember the things that we studied. Correlation takes the place of
memorization;
2. It helps us have a deeper understanding of a particular subject or topic. As such,
we don’t need to waste several hours memorizing provisions and concepts which
we will probably just forget later on.

Correlation is a very good tool for remembering and understanding.

Consider this example:

General principle: Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide a case, and
to execute its judgment. (Remember the phrase “and to execute its judgment” as this is
a very important component of jurisdiction.)

First Correlated principle: Jurisdiction in criminal cases. In criminal cases, there are three
facets of jurisdiction that are imperative since the absence of any of the three means
that the case will not proceed. These are

a. Jurisdiction over the subject matter;

b. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused; and
c. Jurisdiction over the territory.

Second correlated principle: Jurisdiction over the territory. This means that the court
who has jurisdiction over a particular criminal case is the court of the place where the
crime was committed, or any of its essential elements occurred. Breaking this principle
down, you get the following:

a. The court of the place where the crime was committed has jurisdiction;
b. The court of the place where any of the essential elements of the crime occurred
has jurisdiction.

The second principle on territorial jurisdiction refers to “continuing crimes”.

Third correlated principle: Continuing crimes.

I’m sure that in your study of criminal law, you have come across the concept of
continuing crimes. What you may not have noticed is that there are at least three kinds
of continuing crimes (sometimes called continued crimes):

a. Continuing crimes in relation to criminal jurisdiction;

b. Continuing crimes in relation to warrantless arrests; and
c. Continuing crimes in relation to criminal liability.

As to continuing crimes in relation to criminal jurisdiction, this refers to what we have

just defined above – that is, that the court which has jurisdiction is the court of the place
where any of the essential elements of the crime was committed.

As to continuing crimes in relation to warrantless arrests, this refers to crimes with

political color/ideology such as rebellion. In rebellion, if a “rebel”, for example, is seen
 inside Gaisano, eating inasal at Mang Inasal (and unlimited rice, of course), he can be
arrested without a warrant although at that precise moment, what he was actually doing,
which was merely eating, was not a criminal act. This is so because the crime of rebellion
is said to persist – it continues.

As to continuing crimes in relation to criminal liability, we refer to the commission of a

series of criminal acts but with only one criminal resolution or intent. Since there is only
one criminal resolution, the actor is charged with only one felony. The penalty would
naturally be the penalty for the offense charged in its medium period, in the absence of
any aggravating or mitigating circumstance.

Fourth correlated principle: Complex crime. Under article 48, one of the two complex
crimes referred therein is this – when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies. Here, there is only one act which causes several grave or less grave
felonies. Here, the penalty id for the most serious crime, to be applied in its maximum
period. Remember, a complex crime is different from the third kind of continuing crime.

The list of correlated principles can go on and on and on. The point is, if you correlate
provisions of law and principles, you will most likely remember them as compared to
when you just memorize them. Believe it or not, I made the above correlations in 2009,
when I was in my first year of awl study. Hanggang ngayon, hindi ko pa rin makalimutan.
This proves that correlation is a far better tool for remembering things than
memorization. More than this, by correlating provisions, you are actually able to gain a
deeper understanding of the law.

v. Things to consider when reviewing for the bar exam

1. Handwriting – for small handwriting, make it BIGGER

2. Ballpen – Use blue pen, yung mejo makapal ang sulat. Masakit basahin ang black.
3. Study Schedule
4. Eating at the proper time
5. Rest
6. Attend lectures
7. Find time to relax
8. Do not worry if you cannot remember everything. The things you studied will come
back to you when you need them the most
9. Practice answering bar exam questions. Daily, for at least an hour. Follow the Three
Paragraph Rule
10. Bring a jacket at the review center
11. Grammar

vi. Grammar

One thing you have to remember about examiners is that they are grammarians. Many,
if not all of them, are very particular when it comes to grammar. As part of your self-
assessment, evaluate your grammar proficiency. Have someone check your answers
and solicit feedback. Read grammar books. Study the basics of grammar – subject-verb
agreement; tenses; diction.

By diction, we mean choice of words and phrases. Don’t just use any word you can think
of, no matter how fancy the word may sound. As much as possibile, use the language
of the law. Choose the right words.
 THE THREE PARAGRAPH RULE

I. Initial considerations in answering bar exam questions (The “ABC” of answering bar
exam questions). Your answers must be

a. = Accurate – that is, that your answer must accurately provide a solution to the
problem. Your answer must squarely address the issue.

Note that the examiner is more concerned with:

a. How you appreciate the facts;

b. How you determine the issue;
c. How you argue – that is, how you martial and organize your argument to support
your conclusion.

Thus, where your answer is well conceived and you have the proper format, the
examiner will appreciate this.

b. = Brief – Your answers must be short. Long answers will probably annoy the
examiner. Remember, your examiner has to check about 5,000 to 6,000
booklets in a span of four months. This means that he/she has to check around
41 to 50 booklets a day, including weekends. The examiner doesn’t have time
to read your long answer, let alone decipher what you’re saying. Make your
answers short. The examiner will appreciate this… a lot.

FURTHER, making your answers short will probably impress the examiner
because your answers will tell him that you can synthesize your thoughts into
short answers and you can summarize long provisions, despite the pressure
you are in.

But how do you make your answers short? PRACTICE!!!

c. = Consistent – This means that that there must be fluidity of thought in your
answer. Your mastery of the English language, including grammar proficiency,
greatly comes into play here.

Don’t write your answers immediately. First, think about how you would present
it, or how you would craft your sentences.

Also, since many of your answers will probably involve two or three paragraphs,
make sure that all your paragraphs are consistent with each other.

d. = Direct to the point – This means that you have to provide the legal basis which
addresses the issue squarely. In other words, do not include in your answer a
legal basis which does not address the issue.

Consider this example:

PROBLEM (The question below was part of the exam given by Atty. Andes
to students in AQ College of Law. Our topic was Katarungang Pmabarangay
Law):
 A snatched the cellphone of B. While trying to get away, he was apprehended
by a police officer and was subsequently detained. While B was under
detention, an information was filed against him for theft under the Rules on
Summary Procedure.

If you are the lawyer for B, what remedy would you recommend?
ANSWER (The answer below was given by one of the students. The
underlined sentences are unnecessary as they do not directly address what
the question is asking for):

I would recommend the filing of a counter-affidavit upon receipt of the Order

of the Court requiring the accused to do so. As a rule, it is provided for under
the law that compliance with barangay conciliation proceedings is a condition
precedent before a complaint may be entertained by the regular court.

However, the Katarungang Pambarangay Law provides that the condition

precedent may be dispensed with as to some circumstances. The complaint
may be filed directly with the regular court without the certification from the
lupon.

Some instances where certification is not needed when the respondent or a

person is arrested without a warrant, under police custody or under detention.
Another when there is provisional remedies like preliminary injunction,
replevin and pendente lite. Also when a petition for habeas corpus is called
for when a person is illegally deprived of liberty or custody of another.

In this case, B is falling under the first exception wherein he is under detention
and arrested without a warrant. This is to serve the immediate justice. Hence,
a motion to quash is not the proper motion on the ground that the case failed
to comply with the KP Law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the lawyer for B, I would recommend the filing of a counter-

affidavit.

Under the Local Government Code, the parties need not comply with
barangay conciliation proceedings and, thus, may go directly to court where
the accused is under detention.

Here, B, the accused is under detention. As there is no more need

to comply with barangay conciliation proceedings, hence, the best
recommendation is to file a counter-affidavit in court.

If you look at criminal procedure, the suggested answer above seems to be

incomplete. Note, however, that our topic back then was simply the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. The specific instruction was to answer the
questions from the perspective of barangay conciliation.

II. Other considerations:

a. Handwriting
b. Indention
c. Margin
d. Spacing between paragraphs
e. Erasures and markings.
III. Rationale behind the Three Paragraph Rule

a. To make answers BRIEF, CONSISTENT and DIRECT TO THE POINT. As to

the accuracy of your answer, this will depend on how deep your understanding
of the law is;
b. It serves as an analytical/legal method of answering bar exam questions;
c. It puts a structure to your answer.

Let us compare:

ONE PARAGRAPH ANSWER

No, B is not correct. Under the Rules of Court, an interlocutory order may not be
the subject of appeal. Here, the denial of the Motion of B is an interlocutory order. As
such, it may not be the subject of appeal. Hence, B is not correct.

THREE PARAGRAPH ANSWER

No, B is not correct.

Under the Rules of Court, an interlocutory order may not be the subject of appeal.

Here, the denial of the Motion of B is an interlocutory order. As such, it may not
be the subject of appeal. Hence, B is not correct.

IV. CONTENTS OF THE THREE PARAGRAPH RULE

a. 1st Paragraph = Conclusion

b. 2nd Paragraph = Legal Basis
c. 3rd Paragraph = Application & conclusion

V. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH - CONCLUSION

a. Your first paragraph is composed of only one short sentence.

b. In crafting the first paragraph, we use the technique we call “ECHO METHOD.”

By ECHO METHOD, we simply “echo” the words used by the examiner in his
question.

Thus, if the examiner asked: “Is B correct?”, then, your first paragraph should
be: “No, B is not correct.” or “Yes, B is correct.”

c. GENERAL FORMAT OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH:

Yes, ____________________.

OR

No, _____________________.

VI. SECOND PARAGRAPH – LEGAL BASIS

Your legal basis may be from law, jurisprudence, doctrines or principles.

a. NOTE: The second part of the structure of your answer should always be your
LEGAL BASIS.

This means:

1. Do not discuss the facts before stating your legal basis.

2. Do not immediately apply your legal basis to the facts before stating the
legal basis.

b. NOTE ALSO: You don’t have to state the entire provision of law as your legal
basis. Reason::

1. By the time you’re taking the bar exams, you may have already forgotten
what you memorized.
2. Also, the provisions of our laws are usually lengthy. To restate these
provisions word for word in your answer would make your answers very
long.

Just get the key words! Then, construct your own sentence.

c. FORMAT: LAW AS BASIS

1. Political Law

Under the 1987 Constitution, (state your legal basis here).

Under the Local Government Code, (state your legal basis here).

2. Labor Law

Under the Labor Code, (state your legal basis here).

Under the Sexual Harassment Law, (state your legal basis here).

3. Civil Law

Under the Family Code, (state your legal basis here).

NOTE: If your legal basis is from the Civil Code, follow this format:

Under the Civil Code provisions on (state the subject/topic), (then, state
your legal basis here.)

4. What about the remaining subjects?

Follow this format:

Under the (state the source of the legal basis), (then, place
the legal basis here.)

EXAMPLE:
 Under the Rules of Court, (state the legal basis here);
Under the Revised Penal Code, (state the legal basis here);
Under the Tax Code, (state the legal basis here);
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, (state the legal basis
here);

NOTE! DO NOT SAY:

Under the law…

Under Commercial Law…
Under Civil Law…
Under Remedial Law…

Your legal basis must be as specific as possible. But do not be too

specific. Don’t cite anymore the specific number of the section/article/rule
from which you take your legal basis. Simply state the name/title of the law
from which you are basing your answer.

d. FORMAT: JURISPRUDENCE AS BASIS

The Supreme Court has held that (state your legal basis here.)

NOTICE the phrase “has held” with emphasis on the word “has.” By using the
word “has”, you are telling the examiner that this is the current / prevailing
jurisprudence. You are telling the examiner that this is still a GOOD SC
DECISION.

DO NOT cite the title and citation of the case from which you base your legal
basis.

DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE FORMAT ABOVE? NO! This is the proper
format to inform the examiner that you are citing jurisprudence. The suggested
format is a STRONGER statement because it uses the active form of the
sentence.

e. FORMAT: DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE AS LEGAL BASIS

Under the doctrine/principle of (place the name of the doctrine/principle

here), (then place the doctrine here.)

EXAMPLE:

Under the Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit, the State cannot be sued
without its consent.

VII. THIRD PARAGRAPH: APPLICATION and RESTATEMENT OF CONCLUSION

a. TECHNIQUE TO BE USED – INTERLOCKING KEY CONCEPT

This means that the key words you used in your second paragraph must be the
same key words you should use in your third paragraph.

EXAMPLE
 If, in your 2nd paragraph, you used the phrase “written demand”, use this same
phrase in your third paragraph. In your 3rd paragraph, do not say “demand in
writing.”

b. PURPOSE OF INTERLOCKING KEY CONCEPT

1. To give fluidity of thought

2. To link your 3rd paragraph to the 2nd paragraph.

c. FORMAT

Here, (apply your legal basis to th facts of the case.) Hence, (restate
the conclusion here.)

EXAMPLE

Here, A failed to give a written demand as required by law. Hence, A is

not correct.

Use “Here” as your prompt word instead of:

“In the case at bar…”

“In the present case…”

Use “Hence” as your prompt word instead of:

“Therefore…”

VIII. FORMAT SUMMARY

Yes, _____________.

The Supreme Court has held that (briefly state your legal basis here).

Here, (briefly apply your legal basis to th facts of the case). Hence,
(restate your conclusion here).

Yes, _____________.

Under the (e.g. Rules of Court), (briefly state your legal basis here).

Here, (briefly apply your legal basis to th facts of the case). Hence,
(restate your conclusion here).

Yes, _____________.

Under the doctrine/principle of (e.g. State Immunity from Suit(briefly state

your legal basis here).
 Here, (briefly apply your legal basis to th facts of the case). Hence,
(restate your conclusion here).

FORMAT WHERE YOUR ANSWER REQUIRES TWO LEGAL BASES:

Yes, _____________.

Under the doctrine/principle of (e.g. State Immunity from Suit(briefly state

your legal basis here). Further, the Supreme Court has held that (briefly state
your second legal basis here).

Here, (briefly apply your legal basis to th facts of the case). Hence,
(restate your conclusion here).

NOTE, here that although you have two legal bases, each legal bases must support
each other. More specifically, your second legal basis must support your first legal
basis.

In case you forgot the source of your legal basis (e.g. you forgot the name of the
law from which you are taking your legal basis), just follow this format:

Yes, _____________.

The Supreme Court has held that (briefly state your legal basis here).

Here, (briefly apply your legal basis to th facts of the case). Hence,
(restate your conclusion here).

Example for the preceding suggestion:

Yes, A is correct.

The Supreme Court has held that every person criminally liable for a felony
is also civilly liable.

Here, the fact that B, the accused, was found to be criminally liable for
murder renders him civilly liable as well. Hence, A is correct.

(NOTE: Here, the legal basis can actually be found under the Revised Penal Code.
But, assuming you forgot the title “Revised Penal Code,” your fail-safe “prompt
phrase” should be “The Supreme Court has held that…” This is so for, anyway, we
can be sure that the above legal basis has already been mentioned countless times
in jurisprudence.)

MASTER THE THREE PARAGRAPH RULE!

IT PROVIDES A STRUCTURE TO YOUR ANSWER!
PRACTICE ANSWERING BAR QUESTIONS EVERYDAY!
IF YOU FIND IT LENGTHY, YOU CAN ALWAYS MODIFY THE THREE
PARAGRAPH RULE!

IX. MODIFYING THE THREE PARAGRAPH RULE

 Before attempting to modify the TPR, make sure that you have already mastered
the same. Practice.

MODIFYING THE THREE PARAGRAPH RULE: AN EXAMPLE

No, A Insurance is not correct.

While the general rule is that no policy or contract of insurance is valid and
binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, nevertheless, an
acknowledgment by the insurer that premium has been received makes the policy
binding, despite non-payment.

Here, the fact that an acknowledgment that premium has been received
was made by A Insurance makes the policy binding despite the insured’s non-
payment. Hence, A Insurance is not correct.

NOTE, in this example, I included both the general rule and the exception. I also did
not follow the prompt phrase in the second paragraph.

CAUTION: You must stick with the basics of the TPR unless you have sufficiently
developed your English proficiency. Otherwise, you will just be hijacking your own
answer by presenting what we call a “Barok” English.

MODIFYING THE THREE PARAGRAPH RULE: AN EXAMPLE

You can also modify your legal basis by using the following “prompt
phrases”:

“It is a basic procedural rule that (briefly state the procedure/rule here.).”

“It is a basic substantive rule that (briefly state the pertinent substantive
law here).”

FINAL REMINDERS:

1. Modify the TPR only after you’ve mastered the basic formats.
2. Always check your grammar.
3. Be accurate! (Your answer must provide a plausible solution to the problem given.)
4. Your answers must always be direct to the point. (Kung ano ang hinihingi ng tanong, ibigay
nyo na agad. At kung hindi naman hiihingi ng tanong, wag niyong ibigay.)
5. Make your answers as brief as possible. PRACTICE!
6. Always correlate! Do not waste time memorizing.
7. Always aim for the top spot!