If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion to
dismiss? (5%)
REMEDIAL LAW (2018)
I On February 3, 2018, Danny Delucia, Sheriff of the
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%)
II
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.
III
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%)
IV
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%)
V in the amended complaint.
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%)
VI
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
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 unchanged.
(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%)
VII
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%)
VIII
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%)
IX
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%)
X
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%)
XI
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%)
XII
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 rule.
How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)
XIII
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
shooter.
Is the proposed testimony of Danilo admissible?
(2.5%)
XIV
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%)
XV
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? (2.5%)
(b) Can the legal concept of "venue is
jurisdictional" be validly raised in applications for
search warrants? (2.5%)
XVI
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? (2.5%)
(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo
upon his return? (2.5%)
XVII
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%)
XVIII
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%)
XIX
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 father.
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%)
XX
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%)

XXI
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%)

XXII
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%)
 (b) If a crime was committed, what is the degree of
participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel? (2.5%)

II
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
CRIMINAL LAW (2018) woman depositor who was coming out of the bank
was fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rico,
Red, and Rod were charged with the special
I
complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico's
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing
defense was that he never intended to shoot and
dispute regarding conflicting claims over the
kill the woman, only Ramiro. Red and Rod's
ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto
defense was that they were not responsible for the
was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo.
death of the woman as they had no participation
Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a
therein.
gun and drive him to Ricardo's house. Rafael knew
about Roberto's plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to
(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove
Roberto to the street corner nearest the house of
(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
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
III
also asked another friend, Ruel, to stand guard
On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held
outside Ricardo's house, for the purpose of
initiation rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord
warning him in case there was any danger or
Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10)
possible witnesses, and to keep other persons
members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five
away from the vicinity. All three - Roberto, Rafael
(5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald.
and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their respective
Absent were: (i) Rollie, the fraternity's Vice
roles.
Chancellor and who actually planned the initiation;
and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel
initiation was conducted.
to the nearest corner near Ricardo's house.
Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where
Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on
Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto walked
that occasion, he lost consciousness and was
about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at
brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and
Ricardo's bedroom, and peppered it with bullets.
Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on arrival
When he thought that he had accomplished his
at the hospital.
plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and
together they rode in Rafael's car where they
During the investigation of the case, it was found
drove to the next town to spend the night there. It
out that, although Ronald really wanted to join the
turned out that Ricardo was out of town when the
fraternity because his father is also a member of
incident happened, and no one was in his room at
the same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who
the time it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no
ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and,
one was killed or injured during the incident.
as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was
also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually
(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the
participate in the beating of the neophytes
crime/s committed (2.5%); and
(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%)
IV
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 lacking.
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%)
V Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve
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%)
VI
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%)
VII
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
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%)
VIII
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%)
IX
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%)
X
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 homicide.
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%)
XI
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%)
XII
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%)
XIII
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? (2.5%)
(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%)
XIV
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%)
XV
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%)
XVI
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%)
XVII
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.
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%)
XIX
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%)

(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%)

XVIII
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
 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%)

II
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,
MERCANTILE LAW (2018) which was the amount actually lent by him to
Yolanda, but excluding the agreed interest. Yohann
later endorsed and delivered the check to Yvette,
I
under circumstances that would constitute the
Yeti Export Corporation (YEC), thru its President,
latter to be a holder in due course.
negotiated for Yahoo Bank of Manila {YBM) to
issue a letter of credit to course the importation of
(a) May Yvette hold Yolanda liable on the note?
electronic parts from China to be sold and
(2.5%)
distributed to various electronic manufacturing
companies in Manila. YBM issued the letter of
(b) Would your answer be the same if the
credit and forwarded it to its correspondent bank,
promissory note was actually completed by
Yunan Bank (YB) of Beijing, to notify the Chinese
Yolanda (including the amount of PhP 10 million),
exporters to submit the bill of lading in the name
but stolen from her desk by Yohann? Can Yvette
of YBM covering the goods to be exported to
enforce the note against Yolanda? (2.5%)
Manila and to pay the Chinese exporters the
purchase price upon verification of the
authenticity of the shipping documents.
III
On November 23, 2017, Yas Ysmael (Ysmael)
The electronic parts arrived in the Port of Manila,
loaned the amount of PhP 5 million to Yarn &
and YBM released them to the custody of YEC as
Thread Corporation (YTC), through its President,
an entrustee under a trust receipt. When YEC
Ylmas Yektas (Yektas), which loan was evidenced
unpacked the imported parts in its warehouse, it
by a Promissory Note (PN), which reads as follows:
found that they were not only of inferior quality
but also did not fit the descriptions contained in Date: _______
the bill of lading. YEC refused to pay YBM the
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
By:
(Sgd.)
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.
IV
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%)
V designation as beneficiary in Vin's life insurance
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%)
VI
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
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%)
VII
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? (2.5%)
(c) Must the option granted to Yelp Pictures be
registered under the SRC? (2.5%)
VIII
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%)
IX
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%)
X
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%)
XI
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 stockholders?
(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?
XII
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%)
XIII
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%)
XIV
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%)
XV
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%)
XVI
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%)
XVII
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 (b) Does AMLC have the power to order a banking
in the casino where he was employed. After being institution to reveal matters relating to bank
served with notice and opportunity to contest the accounts? (2.5%)
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%)

XVIII
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? (2.5%)
 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%)

II
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
CIVIL LAW (2018) by Sandy were found to be the only properties of
the couple.

(a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

I
Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, (b) What system of property relationship will be
Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple liquidated following the declaration of nullity of
with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both their marriage? (2.5%)
perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and
Sonia met when the families of those who died (c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of
sued the airlines and went through grief- land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia
got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4)
(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%)
Ill
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%)
IV
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%)
V
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%)
VI
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%)
VII
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%)
VIII
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%)
IX
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 inconveniences.
(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%)
X
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%)
XI
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 behalf.
(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%)
XII
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?
(2.5%)
(b) In this case, did the bank have the right to take
over Saachi's bank deposit? (2.5%)
XIV
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%)
XV
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%)
XVI
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%)
XVII
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%)
XVIII
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? (2.5%)
(b) Assuming that one is an agent of the other, is
the agency coupled with interest? (2.5%)
XIX
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%)
XX
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%)
I
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%)
II
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;
TAXATION LAW (2018)
(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 2019;
(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 completed.
III
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%)
IV
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%)
V
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%)
VI
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%)
VII
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.
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%)
VIII
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 property.
Advise the siblings which donation would expose
them to the least tax liability. (5%)
IX
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%)
X proceeding before the DOJ on the ground that she
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%)
XI
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? (2.5%)
XII
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
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%)
XIII
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%)
XIV
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%)
XV
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? (2.5%)
XVI
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%)
XVII
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%)
XVIII
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%)
XIX
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%)
XX
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%)
LABOR LAW (2018)
I.
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? (2.5%)
II
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
certificate.
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%)
III
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%)
IV
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%)
V
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%)
VI
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%)
VII
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%)
VIII
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; and
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? (2.5%)
IX
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? (2.5%)
(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%)
X
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%)
XI
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%)
XII
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%)
XIII
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%)
XIV
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?
(2.5%)
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy
Corporation's argument? (2.5%)
XV
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%)
XVI
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%)
XVII
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%)
XVIII
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
application.
(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%)
XIX
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.
POLITICAL LAW (2018)
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%)
XX
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%)
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)
II
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%)
III
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?
IV
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%)
V
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.
VI
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%)
VII
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
Barcelona.
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%)
VIII
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 prison.
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%)
IX
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
citizenship.
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 citizenship.
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for
failing to meet the citizenship requirement? (2.5%)
X
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 misconduct.
(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.
XI
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%)
XII
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%)
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%)
XV
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%)
XVI
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 inspection.
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%)
XVII
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%)
XVIII
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%)
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%)

XIX
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%)

XX
Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals
working with the Asian Development Bank (ADS) in