CIVIL PROCEDURE 2017 BAR EXAM QUESTIONS:

JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Chairman
2017 Bar Examinations

I.

What trial court outside Metro Manila has exclusive original jurisdiction over the following cases? Explain briefly your
answers.

(a) An action filed on November 13, 2017 to recover the possession of an apartment unit being occupied by the
defendant by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, after the former ignored the last demand to vacate that was duly served
upon and received by him on July 6, 2016. (2.5%)

(b) A complaint in which the principal relief sought is the enforcement of a seller's contractual right to repurchase a
lot with an assessed value of ₱15,000.00. (2.5%)

II.

Santa filed against Era in the RTC of Quezon City an action for specific performance praying for the delivery of a
parcel of land subject of their contract of sale. Unknown to the parties, the case was inadvertently raffled to an RTC
designated as a special commercial court. Later, the RTC rendered judgment adverse to Era, who, upon realizing
that the trial court was not a regular RTC, approaches you and wants you to file a petition to have the judgment
annulled for lack of jurisdiction.

What advice would you give to Era? Explain your answer. (4%)

III.

Give brief answers to the following:

(a) What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts? (2%)

(b) What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals? (2%)

(c) When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead of a preliminary investigation? (2%)

V.

After working for 25 years in the Middle East, Evan returned to the Philippines to retire in Manila, the place of his
birth and childhood. Ten years before his retirement, he bought for cash in his name a house and lot in Malate,
Manila. Six months after his return, he learned that his house and lot were the subject of foreclosure proceedings
commenced by ABC Bank on the basis of a promissory note and a deed of real estate mortgage he had allegedly
executed in favor of ABC Bank five years earlier.

Knowing that he was not in the country at the time the promissory note and deed of mortgage were supposedly
executed, Evan forthwith initiated a complaint in the RTC of Manila praying that the subject documents be declared
null and void.

ABC Bank filed a motion to dismiss Evan's complaint on the ground of improper venue on the basis of a stipulation
in both documents designating Quezon City as the exclusive venue in the event of litigation between the parties
arising out of the loan and mortgage.

Should the motion to dismiss of ABC Bank be granted? Explain your answer. (5%)
 VI.

Hanna, a resident of Manila, filed a complaint for the partition of a large tract of land located in Oriental Mindoro.
She impleaded her two brothers John and Adrian as defendants but did not implead Leica and Agatha, her two
sisters who were permanent residents of Australia.

Arguing that there could be no final determination of the case without impleading all indispensable parties, John and
Adrian moved to dismiss the complaint.

Does the trial court have a reason to deny the motion? Explain your answer. (4%)

VII.

Elise obtained a loan of ₱3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from executing a promissory note in favor of
Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot as security for her obligation.
The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real
estate mortgage. A month after, and while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an action to
recover the principal sum of ₱3 Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously executed by the
latter.

In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of a single cause of action,
Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid of any legal basis considering that the two
actions were based on separate contracts, namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the
deed of real estate mortgage.

Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer. (4%)

VIII.

A.

Laura was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by Louie. When the lease expired, Laura refused to vacate the
property. Her refusal prompted Louie to file an action for unlawful detainer against Laura who failed to answer the
complaint within the reglementary period.

Louie then filed a motion to declare Laura in default. Should the motion be granted? Explain your answer. (3%)

B.

Agatha filed a complaint against Yana in the RTC in Makati City to collect ₱350,000.00, an amount representing the
unpaid balance on the price of the car Yana had bought from Agatha. Realizing a jurisdictional error in filing the
complaint in the RTC, Agatha filed a notice of dismissal before she was served with the answer of Yana. The RTC
issued an order confirming the dismissal.

Three months later, Agatha filed another complaint against Yana based on the same cause of action this time in the
MeTC of Makati City. However, for reasons personal to her, Agatha decided to have the complaint dismissed
without prejudice by filing a notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer of Yana. Hence, the case was
dismissed by the MeTC.

A month later, Agatha refiled the complaint against Yana in the same MeTC.

May Yana successfully invoke the Two-Dismissal Rule to bar Agatha's third complaint? Explain your answer. (3%)

XVIII.
Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical injuries allegedly committed against Darvin. During the
pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for damages based on the injuries he had
sustained.

Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out that when the
criminal action was filed against him, the civil action to recover the civil liability from the offense charged was also
deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of the separate civil action was the very same act that gave rise to the
criminal action.

Rule on Tomas' motion to dismiss, with brief reasons. (5%)

 LABOR LAW 1: 2017 BAR EXAM QUESTIONS

JUSTICE LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Chairman
2017 Bar Examinations

A.

What are the accepted tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship? (5%)

B.

Applying the tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, is a jeepney driver operating
under the boundary system an employee of his jeepney operator or a mere lessee of the jeepney? Explain your
answer. (3%)

II.

Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee Raul's watch. Procopio filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Procopio's favor on the ground that Raul's testimony was doubtful, and,
therefore, the doubt should be resolved in favor of Procopio. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling because
Article 4 of the Labor Code - which states that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of
the Labor Code, including the implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor - applied only
when the doubt involved the "implementation and interpretation" of the Labor Code; hence, the doubt, which
involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved in favor of
Procopio. Was the reversal correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

III.

A.

Andrew Manning Agency (AMA) recruited Feliciano for employment by lnvictus Shipping, its foreign principal.
Meantime, AMA and lnvictus Shipping terminated their agency agreement. Upon his repatriation following his
premature termination, Feliciano claimed from AMA and lnvictus Shipping the payment of his salaries and benefits
for the unserved portion of the contract. AMA denied liability on the ground that it no longer had an agency
agreement with lnvictus Shipping. Is AMA correct? Explain your answer. (3%)

B.

As a rule, direct hiring of migrant workers is not allowed. What are the exceptions? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

C.

Phil, a resident alien, sought employment in the Philippines. The employer, noticing that Phil was a foreigner,
demanded that he first secures an employment permit from the DOLE. Is the employer correct? Explain your
answer. (2.5%)

V.

A.

Percival was a mechanic of Pacific Airlines. He enjoyed a meal break of one hour. However, during meal breaks, he
was required to be on stand-by for emergency work. During emergencies, he was made to forego his meals or to
hurry up eating. He demanded payment of overtime for work done during his meal periods. Is Percival correct?
Explain your answer. (3%)

B.

Distinguish a learner from an apprentice. (4%)

C.

Are there differences between a househelper and a homeworker? Explain your answer. (4%)

VII.

Dr. Crisostomo entered into a retainer agreement with AB Hotel and Resort whereby he would provide medical
services to the guests and employees of AB Hoteland Resort, which, in turn, would provide the clinic premises and
medical supplies. He received a monthly retainer fee of ₱60,000.00, plus a 70% share in the service charges from
AB Hotel and Resort's guests availing themselves of the clinic's services. The clinic employed nurses and allied
staff, whose salaries, SSS contributions and other benefits he undertook to pay. AB Hotel and Resort issued
directives giving instructions to him on the replenishment of emergency kits and forbidding the clinic staff from
receiving cash payments from the guests.

In time, the nurses and the clinic staff claimed entitlement to rights as regular employees of AB Hoteland Resort, but
the latter refused on the ground that Dr. Crisostomo, who was their employer, was an independent contractor. Rule,
with reasons. (4%)

VIII.

Marciano was hired as Chief Engineer on board the vessel MN Australia. His contract of employment was for nine
months. After nine months, he was re-hired. He was hired a third time after another nine months. He now claims
entitlement to the benefits of a regular employee based on his having performed tasks usually necessary and
desirable to the employer's business for a continuous period of more than one year. Is Marciano's claim tenable?
Explain your answer. (3%)

XII.

A.

Juanito initiated a case for illegal dismissal against Mandarin Company. The Labor Arbiter decided in his favor, and
ordered his immediate reinstatement with full backwages and without loss of seniority and other benefits. Mandarin
Company did not like to allow him back in its premises to prevent him from influencing his co-workers to move
against the interest of the company; hence, it directed his payroll reinstatement and paid his full backwages and
other benefits even as it appealed to the NLRC.

A few months later, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and declared that Juanito's dismissal was
valid. The reversal ultimately became final.

May Mandarin Company recover the backwages and other benefits paid to Juanito pursuant to the decision of the
Labor Arbiter in view of the reversal by the NLRC? Rule, with reasons. (2.5%)
 CONSIDATED CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY BAR EXAM QUESTIONS (2015-2019)

VI

Pedro bought a parcel of land described as Cadastral Lot No. 123 and the title was issued to his name. Juan also
bought a lot in the same place, which is described as Cadastral Lot No. 124. Pedro hired a geodetic engineer to
determine the actual location of Lot No. 123 but for some reason, the engineer pointed to Lot No. 124 by mistake.
Pedro hired a contractor to construct his house and the latter put up a sign stating the name of the owner of the
project and the construction permit number. It took more than a year before the house was constructed. When
Pedro was already residing in his house, Juan told him to remove his house because it was built on his (Juan's) lot.

Juan filed a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and prayed that the house be removed because Pedro is a
builder in bad faith. Pedro filed his Answer with Counterclaim that he is entitled to the payment of the value of the
house plus damages because he is a builder in good faith and that Juan is guilty of estoppel and laches.

[a] If Pedro is a builder in good faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain. (2.5%)

[b] If Pedro is a builder in bad faith, what are the rights given to Juan under the law? Explain. (2.5%)

VII

Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of
two (2) hectares was added to the registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion formed by accretion and
claims that he has been in open, continuous and undisturbed possession of said portion since 1923 as shown by a
tax declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the alluvium belongs to
him as the riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the registered property, the same
may be considered as registered property. Decide the case and explain. (5%)

A.7.

Believing that he owned a certain parcel of land and completely unaware of any defect in his title thereto, Mr. A
started to build a house thereon. When Mr. P, the real owner of the land learned of Mr. A's actions, Mr. P
immediately demanded Mr. A to leave the premises. However, Mr. A refused to leave, and instead, asserted that as
a builder in good faith, Mr. P is obliged to sell the land to him.

(a) Is the claim of Mr. A correct? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming that Mr. P all the while, knew but did not object to Mr. A's construction of the house on
his property, may Mr. A compel Mr. P to purchase the said improvement due to Mr. P's bad faith?
Explain. (3%)

A.8.

Mr. E leased a piece of land from Mr. F to be used for his sawmill business for a period of ten (10) years.
Consequently, Mr. E placed heavy machineries thereon to be used for his aforementioned business, with the
intention of removing them after the expiration of the lease period.

Are Mr. E's heavy machineries considered real properties under the Civil Code? Explain. (3%)
 A.10.

Village Hand Village L are adjoining residential villages in a mountainous portion of Antipolo City, Rizal, with Village
L being lower in elevation than Village H. In an effort to beautify Village H, its developer, X, Inc., constructed a
clubhouse which included an Olympic-sized swimming pool and an artificial lagoon on a portion of land overlooking
Village L.

During the monsoon season, the continuous heavy rains caused Village H's swimming pool and artificial lagoon to
overflow, resulting into a massive spillover that damaged various properties in Village L. Aggrieved, the
homeowners of Village L filed a complaint for damages against X, Inc. In defense, X, Inc. contended that pursuant to
the Civil Code, Village L, as the lower estate, was obliged to receive the waters descending from Village H, the
higher estate. Hence, it cannot be held liable for damages.

Is X, Inc.'s position tenable? Explain. (3%)

VIII.

X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a IO-storey building from their parents. They agreed in writing to maintain it as a
co-owned property for leasing out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally for a period of 20 years.
On the 8th year, X wanted to get out of the co-ownership so he could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z
refused, saying X is bound by their agreement to keep the co-ownership for 20 years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain.
(3%)

XXI.

A delayed accession is: (1%)

(A) formation of an island

(B) avulsion

(C) alluvium

(D) change in the course of the riverbed

 CONSOLIDATED POLITICAL; HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, BAR EXAM QUESTIONS (in accordance to our syllabus)

A.4.

Mrs. W supplies the Philippine National Police (PNP) with uniforms every year. Last month, he and two (2) other
officers of the PNP conspired to execute a "ghost purchase", covered by five (5) checks amounting to ₱200,000.00
each, or a total of ₱1,000,000.00. An investigating committee within the PNP, which was constituted to look into it,
invited Mrs. W, among others, for an inquiry regarding the anomalous transaction. Mrs. W accepted the invitation
but during the committee hearing, she stated that she will not answer any question unless she be provided with the
assistance of a counsel. The PNP officials denied her request; hence, she no longer participated in the investigation.

(a) What is a custodial investigation? Under the 1987 Constitution, what are the rights of a person
during custodial investigation? (3%)

(b) Was the PNP’s denial of Mrs. W’s request violative of her right to counsel in the proceedings
conducted before the PNP? Explain.(2%)

A.9.

The unabated rise of criminality and the reported identification of delinquent children loitering in the wee hours of the
night prompted City Z to implement a curfew ordinance. Minors unaccompanied or unsupervised on the streets by
their parents or guardians between 10:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M. may be apprehended by law enforcers subject to certain
exclusive exceptions. These exceptions are: 1. minors running lawful errands, such as buying of medicines, using of
telecommunications facilities for emergency purposes and the like; 2. night school students; and 3. Minors working
at night.

Minors apprehended for violation of the curfew ordinance shall be required to undergo counseling, accompanied by
their parents/guardians.

(a) Does the curfew ordinance violative the primary right and duty of parents to rear their children?
Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Does the curfew ordinance infringe any of the minors’ fundamental rights? Explain. (2.5%)

A.10.

An Information for Estafa was filed against the accused, Mr. D. During the course of the trial, Mr. D filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to prosecute the case for a reasonable length of time. Opposing the motion, the prosecution
argued that its failure to present its witnesses was due to circumstances beyond its control. Eventually, the trial court
dismissed the case with finality on the ground that Mr. D’s right to speedy trial was violated.

A month after, the same criminal case for Estafa was refilled against Mr. D, prompting him to file a motion to dismiss
invoking his right against double jeopardy. The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing that the first criminal case
for Estafa was dismissed with the express consent of the accused as it was, in fact, upon his own motion. Moreover,
it was already able to secure the commitments of its witnesses to appear; hence, it would be prejudicial for the State
if the case were to be dismissed without trial.

(a) For double jeopardy to attach, what requisites must exist? (2%)

(b) Rule on Mr. D’s present motion. (3%)

 I.

Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to a
full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non-
abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion.
To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of
modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for
non-governmental medical practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a
condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend a family planning seminar prior to
the issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses
Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law as unconstitutional based on, among others, the
following grounds:

(a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion. Despite express terms prohibiting
abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, which is
a fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront
to the dignity of man.

(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires medical
practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their will.

(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners' religious beliefs prevent them from using
contraceptives, and that any State- sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates the
guarantee of religious freedom.

Rule on each of the above objections. (2.5% each)

XIII

PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have violated traffic rules. The
National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where P01 Adrian was caught red-handed
demanding and taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light.

After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he
was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the
mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a violation of the accused's right to privacy and right against self-
incrimination.

Are PO1 Adrian's contentions correct? (2.5%)

XIV

Amoroso was· charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.

He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed
on the ground of double jeopardy.

The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be
considered as a "competent court."

Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso's motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy? (2.5%)
 -IV-

Several concerned residents of the areas fronting Manila Bay, among them a group of students who are minors,
filed a suit against the Metro Manila Development · Authority (MMDA), the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of
Education (DepEd), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and a number of other executive
agencies, asking the court to order them to perform their duties relating to the cleanup, rehabilitation and protection
of Manila Bay. The complaint alleges that the continued neglect by defendants and their failure to prevent and abate
pollution in Manila Bay constitute a violation of the petitioners' constitutional right to life, health and a balanced
ecology.

[a] If the defendants assert that the students/petitioners who are minors do not have locus standi to file the
action, is the assertion correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

[b] In its decision which attained finality, the Court ordered the defendants to clean up, rehabilitate and
sanitize Manila Bay within eighteen (18) months, and to submit to the Court periodic reports of their
accomplishment, so that the Court can monitor and oversee the activities undertaken by the agencies in
compliance with the Court's directives. Subsequently, a resolution was issued extending the time periods
within which the agencies should comply with the directives covered by the final decision. A view was raised
that the Court's continued intervention after the case has been decided violates the doctrine of separation of
powers considering that the government agencies all belong to the Executive Department and are under the
control of the President. Is this contention correct? Why or why not? (2.5%)

-VI-

Pornographic materials in the form of tabloids, magazines and other printed materials, proliferate and are being sold
openly in the streets of Masaya City. The City Mayor organized a task force which confiscated these materials. He
then ordered that the materials be burned in public. Dominador, publisher of the magazine, "Plaything", filed a suit,
raising the following constitutional issues: (a) the confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and
seizure, because the same was done without a valid search warrant; and (b) the confiscation, as well as the
proposed destruction of the materials, is a denial of the right to disseminate information, and thus, violates the
constitutional right to freedom of expression. Is either or both contentions proper? Explain your answer. (5%)

-VII-

Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor vehicle, was stopped at a mobile checkpoint. Noticing that Ernesto is a
minor, SPOl Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his driver's license but Ernesto failed to produce it. SPOI Jojo requested
Ernesto to alight from the vehicle and the latter acceded. Upon observing a bulge in the pants of Ernesto, the
policeman frisked him and found an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol inside Ernesto's right pocket. Ernesto was
arrested, detained and charged. At the trial, Ernesto, through his lawyer, argued that, policemen at mobile
checkpoints are empowered to conduct nothing more than a ''visual search". They cannot order the persons riding
the vehicle to alight. They cannot frisk, or conduct a body search of the driver or the passengers of the vehicle.

Ernesto's lawyer thus posited that:

[a] The search conducted in violation of the Constitution and established jurisprudence was an illegal
search; thus, the gun which was seized in the course of an illegal search is the "fruit of the poisonous tree"
and is inadmissible in evidence. (2.5%)

[b] The arrest made as a consequence of the invalid search was likewise illegal, because an unlawful act
(the search) cannot be made the basis of a lawful arrest. (2.5%)

Rule on the correctness of the foregoing arguments, with reasons.