CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The City of Manila passed an ordinance banning the use of vapes in public areas. Mr. Smokey,
owner of a vape shop, gradually lost customers because of the same. One month later, he had to
shut down his business. Aggrieved, he sued the City of Manila and seeks just compensation for
the loss of his income. You are the lawyer for the City of Manila. How will you argue?

I will argue that Mr. Smokey is not entitled to just compensation as the ordinance was not
enacted pursuant to the power of Eminent Domain.

The Supreme Court held that for an individual to be entitled to just compensation
pursuant to the state’s exercise of its power of Eminent Domain, the expropriator must
enter a private property.

Here, there was no entry made by the City of Manila, only the banning of products which
were sold by Mr. Smokey.

Hence, Mr. Smokey is not entitled to just compensation.

II

Mr. Unproven Rapist (UR) is suspected of having raped and murdered Ms. XYZ. A valid search
warrant was obtained to search Mr. UR’s house. One of the officers conducting the search in the
second-floor bedroom, one of the searchable areas in the warrant, noticed a panty stained with
blood. Said item was in the garden, which was not listed as a searchable area. The officer thus
walked to the garden, seized the item and, upon laboratory analysis, confirmed that the panty
contained Mr. UR’s blood and semen and blood of Ms. XYZ. The prosecution thus sought to
have the same admitted in evidence. Mr. UR, through counsel, sought to have the evidence
declared inadmissible for being the fruit of the poisonous tree. You are the prosecutor. How will
you arue?

=
I will argue that the evidence is admissible pursuant to the Plain View doctrine.

Under the Plain View doctrine, evidence is admissible when first, the law enforcement
officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position
from which he can view a particular area, second, the discovery of evidence in plain view is
inadvertent, and third, it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure

Here, when the law enforcement officer saw the panty stained with blood, he was in a
searchable area under a search warrant, he discovered the same inadvertently, and it is
immediately apparent that underwear with blood may bear some relation to a rape and
murder case.

Hence, the evidence is admissible.

III

Senator A sponsored a bill completely banning any criticism of the government under penalty of
prision mayor. The bill became law and it became known as the “Anti-Totoo Law”. Mr. B wants
to speak out on Facebook against it, but he fears he may be sued for doing so. The lawyer of Mr.
B filed a suit assailing the constitutionality of “Anti-Totoo Law” on the ground that the same
infringes on the Freedom of Speech of Philippine citizens, which suit is filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1. Mr. Pera-pera, the lawyer of Senator A, filed an Answer with
the Affirmative Defense that the action is premature as the same is not ripe for Judicial Review,
there being no actual case or controversy. You are the Judge. Decide on the Affirmative Defense
with reasons.

As the Judge, I will deny the Affirmative Defense of prematurity as the action is allowed as
a facial challenge.

The Supreme Court held that a facial challenge, or an action instituted without an actual
case or controversy, is allowed when the same assails the constitutionality of a law for
violating the right of Freedom of Expression as the same may produce a chilling effect.

Here, the Anti-Totoo Law is being assailed for being unconstitutional as the same deters
the exercise of Freedom of Expression in persons who wish to criticize the Government.

Hence, I will deny the Affirmative Defense of prematurity.

IV

Mr. A was elected as Vice President of the Philippines. The President stepped down and Mr. A
thus succeeded him and served as President of the Philippines for exactly four years. Can he run
for President again? Why or why not?
Yes, he can run for President again. Under the 1987 Constitution, a person succeeding as
President is not qualified for election as President, at any time, only if he or she has served
for more than four years. In this case, Mr. A has served for exactly four years, not more
than four. Hence, he can run for President again.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Waters have become scarce. The UN passed a Resolution stating that all Member-States, which
includes the Philippines, must limit the use of water to 5 liters per day per person. Mr. Know-It-
All, who always listens to the news, sued his brother, Mr. A, since he took a shower, used the
flush whenever he visited the bathroom, drank water and used, in aggregate, 10 liters in one day.
If you were Mr. A’s lawyer, how would you argue?

If I were Mr. A’s lawyer, I will argue that, under the Transformation Doctrine, Mr. A may
not be held liable for his act without a Philippine law punishing the same.

Under the Transformation Doctrine, international issuances are binding on the citizens of
Member-States only when the Member-State creates a law incorporating the same.

Here, there is no showing that the Philippines has passed a law incorporating the UN
Resolution.

Hence, Mr. A is not liable.

TAXATION LAW

VI

Mr. A is a car salesman. He bought a car for Php 1.5 million in 2014. In 2022, however, due to
his shouting match with Mr. B, which went viral and caused him to lose clients. As a result, he
sold the same car, which at the time had a fair market value of Php 700,000.00, for only Php
500,000.00. Later, the BIR assessed him for Donor’s Tax for the Php 200,000.00, which is the
difference between the fair market value of the car and the consideration paid to Mr. A. Is the
BIR correct in doing so?

No, the BIR is not correct in doing so.

Under the Tax Code, a person is exempt from paying Donor’s Tax if the transaction on
which the same is based is one done in the ordinary course of trade or business.

Here, Mr. A bought and sold the car in the course of his business as a car salesman.

Hence, he is not liable to pay Donor’s Tax and the BIR is incorrect in assessing him to pay
the same.

VII

With total sales amounting to Php 4 million, and deducting all overhead costs, Mr. A earned Php
2.7 million in the year 2021 and didn’t pay for VAT. The BIR sent him an assessment to pay
VAT but Mr. A opposed on the ground that the totality of his transactions is considered VAT
exempt under the Tax Code. Is Mr. A’s opposition meritorious?

No, Mr. A’s opposition is not meritorious.

Under the Tax Code, exemption from VAT based on annual sales requires that the gross
sales not exceed Php 3 million.

Here, Mr. A’s gross sales amounts to Php 4 million.

Hence, Mr. A’s opposition is not meritorious.

LABOR LAW

VIII

Mr. Recruiter applied for but was not yet granted an Authority by the DOLE to engage in
recruitment or placement activities. Nevertheless, as he was excited to make money, he placed
advertisements online saying: “Work now as a Domestic Helper in the United States. Minimum
salary, USD 3000 per month.” Ms. G, his girlfriend, thinks he is cheating on her. As a way of
retaliation, she filed a complaint for illegal recruitment against Mr. Recruiter. Does Ms. G’s
complaint have merit?

Yes, Ms. G’s complaint has merit.

Under Labor Law, a mere promise or advertisement of an offer of overseas employment

consummates the crime of Illegal Recruitment.
Here, Mr. Recruiter placed online advertisements offering the job of being a domestic
helper overseas.

Hence, Ms. G’s complaint has merit.

IX

In March 2019, Ms. A borrowed money from her employer, Mr. B. Within the same month, she
also obtained several cash advances from him but resigned one day after receiving all the money.
In June 2022, Mr. B filed an action for collection of a sum of money with the Regional Trial
Court for all the sums received by Ms. A. Assuming Mr. B can prove Ms. A’s loans and cash
advances, will the case prosper?

Yes, the action for the collection of a sum of money will prosper.

Under Labor Law, only claims arising from employer-employee relations are barred if not
instituted within three years from the date the cause of action accrued.

Here, while the money Ms. A owes arose from her employment, Mr. B’s claim for recovery
is based on a simple loan.

Hence, the action for the collection of a sum of money will prosper.