#HernanDoIt
Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar DAY 1
Political and Public International Law
(01) Pedro and Petra were lovers. Pedro was
already of age while Petra was a high-school
sophomore, ineligible to vote in national
elections.
Petra would borrow the cellphone of her mother,
Pura, to log on to Facebook and chat with her
boyfriend. One day, Petra forgot to log out her
account on Pura's phone. Pura was unaware of the
relationship until one day, she discovered the
lude conversation between Pedro and Petra on
her phone. Worried that she might be caught,
Petra ran towards an internet cafe to delete the
messages. With a broomstick on her left hand
while looking at her phone on the other one, Pura
ran after her daughter, then forced her to open
the account of Pedro to get a copy of the
conversation.
With the chat thread obtained by Pura, Pedro was
indicted for violation of RA 9775, or the
Anti-Child Pornography Act. Pedro prayed for the
exclusion of the chat thread as evidence against
him bemoaning blatant violation of his privacy
rights.
If you were the judge, would you exclude
the chat thread as evidence? Explain
briefly.
As judge, I will not exclude the chat thread as
evidence as it was obtained not by the
government but by a private individual.
The Court has ruled in a case that the right to
privacy and its consequent effects on the rules on
admissibility of evidence cannot be invoked
against private individuals.
Here, the Facebook Messenger chat thread was
not obtained through the efforts of police officers
or any State agent, but by Petra, a private
individual who had access to the photos and
conversations in the chat thread. Neither can
Petra be said to have violated Pedro's privacy
since by giving Petra the password to his
Facebook Messenger account, Pedro lost a
reasonable expectation of privacy over the
contents of his account.
Thus, the chat thread is admissible in evidence
having been obtained by a private individual.
(Cadajas v. People 2021 En Banc)
(02) Chief Inspector Bordado received
information that Kaiser, whom he knew as a
kagawad and security aide of Mayor Garcia, was
carrying a gun outside the Municipal Tourism
Office during an election gun ban. With a few
other police officers, he went there and spotted
Kaiser right in front of the building with a
suspicious-looking bulge protruding under his
shirt, around his waist.
Bordado did not waver from his testimony that
Kaiser had a gun tucked in his waistband. His
testimony was corroborated by PO2 Carillo. The
tip on Kaiser, coupled with the police officers'
visual confirmation that Kaiser had a gun-shaped
object tucked in his waistband, led to a
reasonable suspicion that he was carrying a gun
during an election gun ban. Thus, the search
conducted on Kaiser fell under the established
exception of a warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest.
Do you agree? If not, would the warrantless
search still be valid?
No, I don't agree. The warrantless search is valid
not due to it being incidental to a lawful arrest
but due to it being a valid stop and frisk search.
The Court has ruled that a reasonable suspicion is
not synonymous with the personal knowledge
required to effect a valid warrantless arrest. For a
"stop and frisk" search to be valid, the totality of
suspicious circumstances, as personally observed
1
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
by the arresting officer, must lead to a genuine
reason to suspect that a person is committing an
illicit act.
Here, the combination of the police asset's tip
and the arresting officers' observation of a
gun-shaped object under Kaiser's shirt already
suffices as a genuine reason for the arresting
officers to conduct a stop and frisk search on
Kaiser. Hence, the warrantless search on Kaiser
was a valid stop and frisk search. (Manibog v.
People 2019)
(03) Atty. Matulungin, a beloved law professor
and community organizer in the slums of Tondo,
decided to run as Senator in the 2022 National
and Local Elections. In his certificate of
candidacy, he proudly stated "Lawyer Teacher" as
his profession.
The Comelec Law Department was not impressed.
It motu proprio denied due course Atty.
Matulungin's CoC, declaring him as a nuisance
candidate for he has no bona fide intention to run
for Senator. It went on to state that while being a
lawyer teacher is a noble way to earn a living,
absent clear proof of Atty. Matulungin's financial
capability, he will not be able to sustain the
financial rigors of waging a nationwide campaign.
Should the Comelec sitting in Division
reject its Law Department's conclusion?
Why or why not?
Yes, the Law Department's conclusion should be
rejected for violating Atty. Matulungin's right to
due process.
The Court has ruled that procedural due process
must be observed before the Comelec may refuse
to give due course to the CoC of a nuisance
candidate. In a long line of cases, it has already
been ruled that the candidate's bona fide
intention to run for public office is not subject to
any property qualifications.
Here, it is incumbent upon the Comelec Law
Department to identify the "acts" or
"circumstances" that would clearly show Atty.
Matulungin's lack of bona fide intention to run for
senator. However, the Comelec Law Department
did not adduce supporting substantial evidence
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
and heavily relied on a general allegation. It just
concluded that Atty. Matulungin would not be
able to sustain the financial rigors of waging a
nationwide campaign.
Thus, the conclusion that Atty. Matulungin's CoC
be denied due course for being a nuisance
candidate must be rejected. (De Alban v.
COMELEC 22 Mar 2022 En Banc)
(04) The State of Kordovia had a standing
warrant of arrest against Marco, a Filipino citizen
currently hiding somewhere in Mindanao, for
three counts of accepting an advantage as an
agent. Kordovia then applied to have Marco
extradited for him to face his charges. The charge
of accepting an advantage as an agent is simply
defined as private sector bribery.
Kordovia and the Philippines have an extradition
treaty in force.
As counsel of Marco, how would you oppose
the extradition request of Kordovia?
As Marco's counsel, I would argue that the
extradition request is improper for failing to
ascribe to the double criminality rule.
Under the double criminality rule, the
extraditable offense must be criminal under the
laws of both the requesting and the requested
states. The requested state comes under no
obligation to surrender the person if its laws do
not regard the conduct covered by the request
for extradition as criminal.
Here, the crime of accepting an advantage as an
agent that deals with private sector bribery is not
punishable under our jurisdiction.The conditions
for the application of the double criminality rule
are thus not met.
For failing to meet the conditions of the double
criminality rule, the extradition request must be
rejected. (Government of Hong Kong SAR v.
Muñoz 2016 En Banc)
(05) Joselito is a devout Catholic who hails from
the secluded town of Mormonville, Aklan. He
works as a radio commentator in Manila.
His ultra-conservative views which he bellows
2 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
daily over his radio show tend to put him under
water as he frequently lambasts other Christian
denominations, especially the religion of 95% of
his townmates who are Mormons. It was found
out that Joselito left his hometown as he felt out
of place.
After accusing the Mormons as a cult on-air, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Mormonville, in a
unanimous Resolution, declared Joselito persona
non grata, treating him as a pariah and
unwelcome to step foot on his own hometown.
Citing that the vast majority of the town are
Mormons who were deeply offended by Joselito's
rants, the Sanggunian reasoned that it would be
prudent to not allow him to enter the town lest
violence erupts.
When his father was on his deathbed, Joselito
decided to go back to Mormonville to see his
father for the last time. However, upon arriving at
the bus station, Joselito was apprehended by the
local policemen and was not allowed to leave the
bus station. Wanting to make a scene, he decided
to go back to Manila. Upon arriving, he learned of
his father's death.
Was the action of the policemen in
preventing Joselito from entering and
traveling his hometown of Mormonville
justifiable by virtue of the persona non
grata declaration of the Sangguniang
Bayan?
No, the persona non grata declaration of the
Sangguniang Bayan did not justify preventing
Joselito from entering and traveling Mormonville.
Section 6 Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides that the right to travel shall not be
impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
Here, none of the exceptions laid out by the
Constitution to restrict the right to travel is
present. The reason provided by the Sangguniang
Bayan of offending religious feelings is not in the
interest of national security, public safety, or
public health. Further, the impairment was not
done by law, but merely through a Resolution of
the Sanggunian.
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
Thus, preventing Joselito from entering and
traveling Mormonville due to the persona non
grata declaration is not justified.
(06) Mario was charged with dishonesty for
allegedly conspiring with and allowing another
person to take, on his behalf, the Police Officer I
Examination. The Civil Service Commission held
that Mario's declaration in his Personal Data
Sheet that he passed the Police Officer I
Examination made him liable for falsification of a
document by making an untruthful statement in a
narration of facts as defined under Article 171,
paragraph 4 of the RPC.
Mario questioned the jurisdiction of the CSC. He
argues that although the CSC was formerly
vested with authority to administer the qualifying
entrance examinations for police officers, the
same was withdrawn with the enactment of R.A.
No. 8551 and mandated the National Police
Commission to administer both the entrance and
promotional examinations for police officers.
Is Mario correct? Explain briefly.
No, Mario is not correct. The Civil Service
Commission has the authority and jurisdiction to
investigate anomalies and irregularities in the
civil service examinations and to impose the
necessary and appropriate sanctions.
The Constitution grants to the CSC
administration over the entire civil service.
Despite the fact that the CSC had no authority to
administer entrance and promotional
examinations for police officers, this did not
divest the CSC of its jurisdiction to investigate on
the veracity of the facts stated by a civil servant
in his or her PDS. As the central personnel
agency, the CSC has the original disciplinary
jurisdiction over the act of petitioner in order to
protect the integrity of the civil service system.
Here, Mario is a member of the police force and
is therefore a civil servant. His act of allowing
another person to take the qualifying exams on
his behalf constitutes dishonesty in which the
CSC has original jurisdiction to investigate and
impose disciplinary sanctions.
3 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
Thus, the contention of Mario that the CSC has no
jurisdiction over his case is without merit. (San
Felix v. CSC 14 Oct 2019 Hernando, J.)
(07) Juan, the only child and sole heir of Judge
Manda Rambong, sought for the release of the
retirement benefits of his deceased father.
However, Judge Rambong was involved in an
administrative case wherein he was adjudged
liable for extortion and corrupt practices. One of
the penalties meted on him was forfeiture of all
his retirement benefits. He was able to appeal his
case. Unfortunately, while his appeal was
pending, he died.
Juan now asks you if he can still seek for the
release of his father's pension and accrued
benefits.
What would you advise Juan?
I'll advise Juan that since his father died pending
the resolution of his case, he can avail of the
death benefits and survivorship pension benefits
of his father.
The Court has ruled that the death of a
respondent in an administrative case before its
final resolution is a cause for its dismissal.
Consequently, respondent's heirs should be
granted the death benefits and survivorship
pension benefits due to respondent's death while
in actual service.
Here, Judge Rambong died pending the resolution
of the administrative case against him. The case
against him is therefore dismissed due to his
death. By virtue of the Court's pronouncement,
Juan, as heir of Judge Rambong, should be
granted death and survivorship pension benefits
due his father. (Re Alleged Extortion
Activities of Judge Abul 08 Sep 2020
Hernando, J.)
(08) Jenny was working as an OJT in the
cooperative of the employees of the city
government of Venezuela. She lodged a complaint
against her boss, Roland, who’s the Chairman of
the Board of the cooperative. Roland also works
as an employee of the sangguniang panlungsod of
the city.
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
Mayor Garchitorena constituted a Committee on
Decorum and Investigation to investigate Jenny’s
complaint. Finding merit, Mayor Garchitorena
filed a formal charge against Roland and issued
an order of preventive suspension against him.
Roland assailed the authority of Mayor
Garchitorena to discipline him, arguing that as an
employee of the sanggunian, it is the vice-mayor
who has the power to discipline him, invoking the
doctrine of implication in relation to Section 456
(a) (2) of the LGC.
Is Roland correct? Explain briefly.
No, Roland is not correct. Mayor Garchitorena as
the local chief executive has the authority to
discipline erring city government officials in
accordance with the LGC.
Section 455(b)(1)(x) of the LGC provides that the
city mayor has the duty to ensure that the city's
executive officials and employees faithfully
discharge their duties and functions, and cause to
be instituted administrative or judicial
proceedings against any city official or employee
who may have committed an offense in the
performance of his official duties. Section 87
empowers the local chief executive to impose the
appropriate penalty on erring subordinate
officials and employees under his or her
jurisdiction.
Here, Roland is not only an employee of the
sanggunian, but an official of the cooperative of
the city government’s employees. The charge
lodged against him by Jenny was done in the
performance of his duty. Mayor Garchitorena
therefore has the authority to discipline him.
In all, Roland erred in questioning the authority
of Mayor Garchitorena to discipline him.
(Gatchalian v. Urrutia 16 Mar 2022
Hernando, J.)
(09) In the 1960's, the Perezes sold their lots to
Wang Bu. In turn, Wang Bu rented out said lots to
Spouses Tian. The Spouses Tian were Chinese
nationals with several children, including Luis,
Janice, Bert and Conchita.
Wang Bu later sold the same lots to Luis which
4 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
the latter sold to his sister, Janice. Janice then
donated one lot, as well as sold the remaining
two lots to her brother, Bert.
Spouses Tian died in 2000 as Chinese nationals.
One of the lots was unregistered which prompted
Bert to file an application for the registration and
confirmation of land titles in his name. Conchita
opposed, asserting her undivided share in the real
property. She alleged that their parents had
actually purchased the lots from Wang Bu with
the understanding that the buyer or transferee
shall only hold legal and beneficial ownership in
trust for the legal heirs.
Was there an implied trust established in
this case?
No, in view of the Constitutional prohibition of
foreign ownership of land, the implied trust was
ineffective.
The fundamental law dictates that non-Filipinos
cannot acquire or hold title to private lands or to
lands of the public domain, except only by way of
legal succession. Moreover, there is no implied
trust if the enforcement of the trust would be
against law or public policy.
Here, Spouses Tian, being Chinese nationals, are
constitutionally prohibited from owning land.
Thus, the implied trust being insisted on by
Conchita cannot have any legal effect as Spouses
Tian, due to their alienage, were incapacitated to
own real property. (Gaw v. Chua 14 Feb 2022
Hernando, J.)
(10) In a court Order granting a Writ of Kalikasan
petition, Mang Gubat, who was a respondent
therein, was ordered to permanently cease and
desist from performing acts to develop or
enhance the property he is claiming located at
the Santo Tomas Forest Reserve, which acts
include bulldozing, leveling or any earth-moving
activity, improving the old building standing on
the land, building any structure thereon,
continuing with road opening activities and
concreting any part of the road.
Gubat argues that such a directive violates his
right to equal protection of the laws. It unduly
discriminates against him as the assailed
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
decision does not require other similarly situated
persons residing within the reserve to refrain
from enhancing, or making improvement on their
respective claims.
Did the Order violate Gubat's right to equal
protection under the laws?
No, the Order did not violate Gubat's equal
protection rights.
In an analogous case, the Court held that the act
of a prosecutor in filing a criminal charge against
only one of two suspects does not, by itself,
constitute a violation of the right to the equal
protection of the laws of the person against
whom a charge was filed. To consider such an act
to be violative of the said right, the element of
"intentional or purposeful discrimination" must be
clearly shown.
Here, the element of clear and intentional
discrimination is lacking. On the other hand, the
established circumstances reveal that the
directive was conceived, not to purposely single
out Gubat, but merely to provide a specific relief
to an anthropogenic activity unique only to him.
Unlike the other residents, Gubat was impleaded
as a respondent of the Kalikasan petition.Thus,
the reason why the Order was exclusively
directed against him.
In all, the Order did not violate the right of Gubat
to equal protection of the laws as there was no
clear and intentional discrimination against him.
(Aliping, Jr. v. CA 21 Jun 2022 En Banc)
(11) Cebu Water is a private firm which the
Province of Cebu granted a concessionaire to
distribute water to the entire province.
By virtue of the Clean Water Act, Cebu Water is
mandated to establish and manage a water
treatment facility that will ensure that
wastewater is treated first before it be dumped
to the bodies of water. Cebu Water is only given
five years to build the facility. However, five years
have gone and yet no plan has been conceived as
to where to build the facility.
Alarmed at the inaction, the DENR Secretary
wrote a letter to Cebu Water, reminding it of its
statutory obligation. Cebu Water replied, stating
5 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
that it has a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Provincial Government of Cebu wherein the two
entities agreed to collaborate in building the
facility which they aim to finish in twenty years.
The Provincial Government will donate the parcel
of land where the facility will be built. Thus, Cebu
Water posits that its obligation has not yet
ripened as it is dependent on the Provincial
Government fulfilling its own obligation.
Is Cebu Water correct?
No, Cebu Water is not correct as the
memorandum of agreement it entered with the
Provincial Government can not excuse its failure
to fulfill its obligation under the Clean Water Act
under the doctrine of public trust.
The Public Trust Doctrine aims to put an
additional strain upon the duty of the water
industry to comply with the laws and regulations
of the land. The doctrine speaks of an imposed
duty upon the State and its representative of
continuing supervision over the taking and use of
appropriated water. The Court has ruled that a
private contract cannot promote business
convenience to the unwarranted disadvantage of
public welfare and trust.
Here, the MOA between Cebu Water and the
Province of Cebu cannot excuse Cebu Water from
its liability under the Clean Water Act. Cebu
Water is therefore incorrect. (Maynilad v. SENR
2019 En Banc Hernando, J.)
(12) Senator Buhangin is a rambunctious
neophyte legislator who frequently clashes with
his colleagues during sessions. In a committee
hearing where he had a heated debate with the
Chairman, Senator Hinto, he suddenly spat at the
latter and then walked out.
Furious at the actuations of Senator Buhangin,
the allies of Senator Hinto resolved to expel him
from the Senate. In a plenary session attended by
21 senators, 14 or 2/3 of those present in the
session concurred with the Resolution to expel
Senator Buhangin.
Will the Resolution be carried and result in
the expulsion of Senator Buhangin?
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
No, the Resolution will not be carried to expel
Senator Buhangin.
Paragraph 3 Section 16 Art VI of the 1987
Constitution requires the concurrence of
two-thirds of all the members of a house of
congress to expel one of its members. In the
Senate with 24 members, the concurrence of at
least 16 members is required.
Here, only 14 senators concurred with the
Resolution to expel Senator Buhangin. The
constitutional requirement is not met and will
therefore not result in the expulsion of Senator
Buhangin.
(13) Twister, an up and coming
subscription-based microblogging site, is
aggressively marketing its mobile app to the Gen
Z crowd. To introduce itself to the market, it
offered a free one-month subscription to those
who will register with a verified email account.
Intrigued, Carol registered and used the app
non-stop. Soon after registering however, she
noticed her email inbox had been loaded with
messages from Twister offering various services.
This went on for one full month. In her
frustration, she deleted the app. To her dismay,
the unsolicited messages kept on coming. Carol
later found out there were thousands who are
experiencing the same and a complaint with the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has
already been lodged against Twister.
Finding merit on the complaints, the DTI filed an
injunction case against Twister to cease and
desist from sending unsolicited commercial
communications or spam messages. It posits that
the spams are a nuisance that wastes the storage
and network capacities of internet service
providers, reduces the efficiency of commerce
and technology, and interferes with the owner’s
peaceful enjoyment of his property.
Twister, on the other hand, argues that spam
messages are legitimate forms of expressions and
are therefore constitutionally protected.
Whose argument do you agree with? Why?
I would agree with the argument of Twister that
spam messages are a form of commercial speech
6 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
that is entitled to protection under the freedom
of expression clause of our Constitution.
The Court in an analogous case has ruled that to
prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads
would deny a person the right to read his emails,
even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to
him. Commercial speech is a separate category of
speech which is not accorded the same level of
protection as that given to other constitutionally
guaranteed forms of expression but is
nonetheless entitled to protection. The State
cannot rob a person of this right without violating
the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
expression. Unsolicited advertisements are
legitimate forms of expression.
Here, the spam messages transmitted by Twister
are legitimate forms of expression. To prohibit
Twister from sending these messages would
violate its right to freedom of expression as well
as those recipients who might be interested in
the messages it sends.
Thus, I agree with the argument of Twister that
spam messages are legitimate forms of
expression that deserve protection. (Disini v.
SOJ 2014 En Banc)
(14) Mayor Greta Peña is the widely popular local
chief executive of Manila. Buoyed by her
popularity, she ran for President in the 2022
National and Local Elections.
As soon as she announced her candidacy, issues
regarding her parentage emerged. To quell the
controversy, she called for a press conference
and there, revealed that her known parents are
not her real ones. In fact, she has no idea who her
parents are or where she was born. All she knew
was that the parents whom she had known found
her outside their house in Manila as a new born
baby. She also revealed that the birth certificate
she has been using is actually simulated and that
her known parents never legally adopted her.
Encouraged by these revelations, the opponents
of Mayor Peña held a press conference of their
own, calling for the motu proprio cancellation of
her certificate of candidacy for failing to meet
the citizenship requirement.
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
Should the candidacy of Mayor Peña be
denied due course for being unqualified to
run as President? Explain.
No, the candidacy of Mayor Peña should not be
denied due course as she is a natural-born
Filipino citizen.
The Foundling Recognition and Protection Act
provides that a foundling found in the Philippines
is presumed a natural-born Filipino citizen
regardless of the status or circumstances of
birth. The natural-born status of a foundling shall
not be affected by the fact that the birth
certificate was simulated, or that there was
absence of a legal adoption process, or that there
was inaction or delay in reporting, documenting,
or registering a foundling. Under the said law, a
foundling is defined as a deserted or abandoned
child or infant with unknown facts of birth and
parentage.
Here, the facts of the birth and parentage of
Mayor Peña are unknown. All that is known is that
she was found outside the home of her known
parents in Manila. She is therefore a foundling
presumed to be a natural-born Filipino citizen.
The fact that her birth certificate was simulated
and that she was not legally adopted will not
affect her status as a foundling with natural-born
status. Being a natural-born Filipino citizen, she
is qualified to run as president.
In all, Mayor Peña is qualified to run as president
and her candidacy should be given due course.
(15) The National Grid Corporation of the
Philippines, by virtue of Republic Act No. 9511, is
authorized to exercise the right of eminent
domain. Section 4 of the law provides that the
NGCP may acquire such private property as is
actually necessary for the realization of the
purposes for which its franchise is granted.
The NGCP sought to expropriate a property within
an industrial zone. The property is owned and
managed by PNOC which opposed the
expropriation. PNOC posits that the subject
property is a land of the public domain as it is
devoted to public use or purpose, i.e the
development of the petrochemical industry
7 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
which, it argues, is a matter of national interest.
Should the expropriation petition be
granted? Explain briefly.
Yes, the expropriation petition of the National
Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP)
should be granted as the subject property is
private property.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the
Court held that when the subject property is
classified by the government as an industrial
zone, the subject property therein had been
declared patrimonial. The subject property,
though owned by a State instrumentality, is
considered patrimonial property that assumes
the nature of private property.
Here, the subject property sought to be
expropriated by NGCP is an industrial zone and is
therefore private property. Since NGCP is
authorized by law to expropriate private property,
then the petition should be granted. (PNOC
Alternative Fuels v. NGCP 2019)
(16) The USS Gargantuan is an Avenger-class
mine countermeasures ship of the US Navy. In
October 2020, the US Embassy in the Philippines
requested diplomatic clearance for the said
vessel to enter and exit the territorial waters of
the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic
Bay.
On December 12, 2020, the USS Gargantuan
departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. While
transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on
the northwest side of South Shoal of the
Tubbataha Reefs.
A petition for writ of kalikasan was thereafter
filed against Samuel L. Speed in his capacity as
Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Matthew A.
Wheat in his capacity as Commanding Officer of
the USS Gargantuan and Lt. Gen. Tommy G.
Redding, US Marine Corps Forces.
Do our courts have jurisdiction over the
impleaded US respondents?
No, our courts have no jurisdiction over the
respondents due to state immunity.
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
The Court has ruled that if the judgment against
an official would require the state itself to
perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award,
such as the appropriation of the amount needed
to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit
must be regarded as being against the state
itself, although it has not been formally
impleaded.
Here, the suit was filed against the US officials
without directly impleading the United States. Be
that as it may, the suit was filed to seek damages
that would require the US to perform an
affirmative act of compensating the damages
incurred by USS Gargantuan. Thus, the doctrine
of state immunity applies which precludes our
courts from assuming jurisdiction over the US
respondents. (Arigo v. Swift 2014 En Banc)
(17) In the upcoming Barangay and Sangguniang
Kabataan Elections, Remy aspires to serve the
barangay he has lived in his entire life.
He submitted his certificate of candidacy for
Barangay Kagawad. He was accompanied by Tony,
his childhood friend, to the nearest Comelec
office. Remy handed over his certificate of
candidacy to Tony for him to check. Tony noticed
that Remy declared his profession or occupation
as Secondary School Teacher, when in fact Remy
has been unemployed for the past thirty years.
Remy also put in "Remski" as his nickname or
stage name, when in fact he is known to his
neighbors as "Bebs". Tony got worried that such
errors would disqualify Remy or cause his
candidacy to be denied due course.
Are Tony's apprehensions valid? Why or why
not?
No, Tony's worry over the profession and
nickname stated by Remy on the latter's
certificate of candidacy is unsubstantiated.
The Court has ruled that in case there is a
material misrepresentation in the certificate of
candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due
course to or cancel such certificate upon the
filing of a petition by any person. The material
misrepresentation contemplated by the Omnibus
8 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
Election Code refers to qualifications for elective
office.
Here, the profession and nickname of a candidate
is not one of the qualifications to run for any
elective post. In other words, there may be
misrepresentations on the part of Remy but such
are not material to his qualifications that would
merit the cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy.
Thus, Tony need not worry over the entries made
by Remy on his certificate of candidacy as these
are not material to his qualifications. (Salcedo II
v. Comelec, G.R. No. 135886, August 16,
1999)
(18) After a marathon trial lasting only a month,
Ombudsman Corrales became the first ever
impeached official to be convicted by the Senate.
He was thereafter removed from office with all
his retirement benefits forfeited.
Ombudsman Corrales died the next year, survived
by his three children, with Mario being the eldest
and the only one of age. Mario wrote a letter to
the Supreme Court requesting the grant of
retirement and other benefits to his late father
and to claim survivorship pension as his child
under Republic Act No. 9946.
Should the Supreme Court grant the
request of Mario? Why or why not?
Yes, the Supreme Court should grant the request
of Mario as his father was deemed involuntarily
retired upon conviction by the impeachment
court.
In a similar case, the Supreme Court has ruled
that an impeached public officer whose civil,
criminal, or administrative liability was not
judicially established may be considered
involuntarily retired from service and is entitled
to the retirement benefits provided for by law.
Here, Ombudsman Corrales was convicted by the
impeachment court. However, there was no civil,
criminal or administrative case filed against him
that would determine his liability. He is therefore
entitled to the retirement benefits and Mario's
request should be granted. (In re Former Chief
Justice Corona 2021 En Banc Hernando J.)
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
(19) The Davao City Branch of the newly
established XYZ Bank discovered outstanding
discrepancies in its inter-bank reconciliation
statements in Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
in the amount of P20 million.
It was discovered that upon arrival of the checks
at the BSP Clearing House, Valeriano, BSP's
Bookkeeper, with the assistance of
Janitor-Messenger Estenzo, intercepted and
pilfered the XYZ Davao City Branch checks, and
tampered with the clearing envelope. They
reduced the amounts appearing on the clearing
manifest, the XYZ clearing statement and the
BSP manifest to conceal the fact that the XYZ
Davao City Branch checks showing the original
amounts were deposited with UnionBank BGC
Branch.
Applying Article 2180 of the Civil Code, BSP
maintains that in its performance of
governmental functions, it may be held liable only
for tort committed by its employees when it acts
through a special agent which is not the case
here. Thus, BSP cannot be held liable for the
damages caused by the alleged tortious acts of
its officers and employees.
Is the BSP correct? Why or why not?
Yes, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is
correct that it is not liable for the tortious acts of
Valeriano and Estenzo as they are not its special
agents.
In a decided case, the Court has ruled that the
State in the performance of its governmental
functions is liable only for the tortious acts of its
special agents. A special agent is defined as one
who receives a definite and fixed order or
commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties
of his office.
Here, Valeriano and Estenzo are bookkeeper and
janitor-messenger, respectively, of BSP. They
cannot be considered as special agents of BSP as
they do not receive any definite and fixed orders
that are foreign to their duties. They were also
not acting within the scope of their duties when
they committed the bank fraud.
9 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers ecodalpro.com

similar case, the warrantless arrest and the

Thus, the BSP is correct. (BPI v. Central Bank concomitant search was ruled valid when accused
2020 Hernando, J). therein failed to present his OR/CR, which raised
(20) Members of the Philippine National Police suspicions on the part of the police officers.
(PNP) of Hilongos, Leyte, set up a mobile check Here, the police authorities became suspicious
point at Purok 1, Sitio Manga, Barangay Trinidad, that the motorcycle being driven by Reginald
Hilongos, Leyte pursuant to the implementation might have been stolen considering his failure to
of COMELEC Resolution No. 6446, imposing the produce the OR/CR. This justified the further
COMELEC gun ban. search conducted by the police that yielded
While conducting the routine inspection in the several bundles of marijuana.
checkpoint, the police officers flagged down Thus, the search conducted by the police was
Reginald. They asked him for the Certificate of valid. (Uy v. People 2022 Hernando, J.)
Registration (CR) and Official Receipt (OR) of his
motorcycle. Reginald, however, failed to produce
these documents. The law enforcers then became
suspicious and, thus, asked him to open the tools
compartment of his motor vehicle. From the tools
compartment, the police officers found five
bundles of marijuana placed and wrapped in a
cellophane. The police officers further asked
Reginald to open the compartment under the
driver's seat. He initially refused but he
eventually relented. The search of the
compartment under the driver's seat further
yielded several bundles of marijuana.
Reginald argued that his right to privacy has
been violated, since the case against him does
not fall under any of the circumstances
mentioned under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court. The police officers did not have any
reason to believe that he had a gun to validate his
arrest based on the implementation of the
COMELEC gun ban.
Was the search valid? Explain.

Yes, the search conducted by the police on

Reginald was valid.
This Court has ruled that although as a general
rule, motorists as well as pedestrians passing
through checkpoints may only be subjected to a
routine inspection, vehicles may also be stopped
to allow authorized personnel to conduct an
extensive search when there is probable cause
which justifies a reasonable belief on the part of
the law enforcers that either the motorist is a law
offender, or that the contents of the vehicle are,
or have been, instruments of some offense. In a

eCodal+Pro by RGL 10 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
Commercial Law and Taxation
(01) Government Pension Fund Global of Norway
is the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. It
currently owns 25% of the capital of the
Malampaya Natural Gas Corporation off the coast
of Palawan.
Meanwhile, Norsk Uavhengig Pensjonskasse or
NUP is the independent pension fund of Norway.
NUP is planning to buy 25% of Malampaya
currently owned by a local businessman.
Can NUP buy 25% of the capital of
Malampaya from the local businessman? If
not, what are the alternatives available to
NUP?
No, NUP cannot buy 25% of the capital of
Malampaya from the local businessman as it
would violate the 30% threshold set by the
Public Service Act.
The Public Service Act provides that the
sovereign wealth funds and independent pension
funds of each state may collectively own up to
thirty percent (30%) of the capital of such public
services. (Sec 24 RA 11659 amending CA 146)
Here, if NUP buys the 25% stake from the local
businessman, it would result in a collective
ownership of the sovereign wealth funds and
independent pension funds of Norway of 50% of
Malampaya which is more than the 30% allowed
by law. NUP can instead opt to buy just 5% from
the local businessman.
(02) Electronic Codals Co., Inc. (ECCI) and
Philippine Codals, Inc. (PH Codals) are domestic
corporations established under Philippine Laws.
EECI filed a trademark application for registration
of the "ECODAL" mark in relation to the
goods/services covered by Class 35, without
opposition, and was registered on November
2020. A year prior, or on November 2019, EECI
applied for trademark registration of its domain
name "www.ecodal.ph." This time, PH Codals
opposed contending that the registration of
"www.ecodal.ph" in favor of EECI should not be
allowed due to the fact that the same is identical
with the mark "ECODAL" in relation to the
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
goods/services covered by Classes 11 and 21
belonging to PH Codals, which have earlier filing
or priority dates.
Does EECI have the right to register and use
the mark "www.ecodal.ph" consistent with
its exclusive right to use the "ECODAL"
mark in relation to the goods/services
covered by Class 35?
Yes, EECI has the right to register and use the
mark "www.ecodal.ph".
The Court has ruled that the owner of a
registered trademark, absent any legal obstacle
or compelling reason to the contrary, should be
allowed to register, in its favor, a domain name
containing its registered trademark as a
dominant feature.
Here, EECI's application to register and use the
mark "www.ecodal.ph", as its domain name and
platform to sell its products in the internet, is
merely in exercise of and consistent with its
exclusive right to use "ECODAL."
Thus, the application of EECI to register
"www.ecodal.ph" as its domain name should be
granted. (Kolin Electronics v. Taiwan Kolin
Corporation 01 Dec 2021 Hernando, J.)
(03) Azcuna bought two vessel engines from
Silver Bull Engineering (SBE). Barely six months
after having been delivered to Azcuna, the engine
on the right side suffered a major dysfunction.
Azcuna immediately reported the incident to SBE
which sent Engr. Tomas to repair the engine. Engr.
Tomas confirmed that the "defect was inherent
being attributable to factory defect."
Azcuna wrote SBE a Demand Letter asking for
either replacement of the engine and reimbursing
him for the loss suffered due to the dysfunction,
or retrieve the two engines and refund the cost
with interest plus payment for losses. But SBE
refused. SBE and its owner, Benjie Taulava,
claimed that the cause of the damage to the
engine was improper maintenance on the part of
Azcuna. Despite repeated demands, SBE and
Taulava gave Azcuna a run around and failed to
seasonably replace the starboard engine.
Azcuna filed a complaint against SBE and Taulava.
11 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
The RTC sided with Azcuna and found SBE liable
and Taulava solidarily liable. The CA however
exculpated Taulava from solidary liability with
SBE as the latter is a separate juridical
personality.
Was the CA correct in absolving Taulava
from liability based on the doctrine of
separate juridical personality?
No, The Court of Appeals incorrectly absolved
Taulava from solidary liability as he was in bad
faith.
The Court has ruled ruled that personal liability of
a corporate director, trustee or officer along with
the corporation may so validly attach, as a rule,
only when he or she assents to a patently
unlawful act of the corporation, or for bad faith or
gross negligence in directing its affairs, or for
conflict of interest, resulting in damages to the
corporation, its stockholders or other persons.
Here, Azcuna established sufficient and specific
evidence to show that Taulava had acted in bad
faith or gross negligence in the sale of the
defective vessel engine. The bad faith of Taulava
in refusing to repair and subsequently replace a
defective engine which already underperformed
and began malfunctioning six (6) months after its
commissioning has been established. Taulava's
uncaring attitude towards fixing the engine
amounts to bad faith.
Therefore, Taulava should be held solidarily liable
with SBE as he was in bad faith. (Atienza v.
Golden Ram Engineering Supplies and
Equipment 28 Jun 2021 Hernando, J.)
(04) Spouses Soon owned a commercial building
in Ormoc City. They and Primo Bank executed a
10-year Contract of Lease over the building for
the latter's use as its branch office. They agreed
to a fixed monthly rental of P60,000, with an
advance payment of the rentals for the first 100
months in the amount of P6,000,000. As agreed,
the advance payment was to be applied
immediately.
Three years later, however, the Bangko Sentral
(BSP) placed respondent under the receivership
of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
(PDIC). Primo Bank vacated the leased premises
and surrendered them to Spouses Soon.
Subsequently, the PDIC issued the Spouses Soon
a demand letter asking for the return of the
unused advance rental amounting to P3,480,000
on the ground that paragraph 24 of the lease
agreement had become inoperative, because
Primo Bank's closure constituted force majeure.
Do you agree with the ground cited by the
PDIC? Why or why not?
No, I do not agree with the PDIC since the closure
of Primo Bank does not amount to force majeure.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the period
during which the bank cannot do business due to
insolvency is not a fortuitous event, unless it is
shown that the government's action to place a
bank under receivership or liquidation
proceedings is tainted with arbitrariness, or that
the regulatory body has acted without
jurisdiction.
Here, there was no allegation that the placement
of Primo Bank by the PDIC under receivership
was tainted with arbitrariness or that it has acted
without jurisdiction. The closure of Primo Bank
can not therefore be considered as a fortuitous
event. (Sps Poon v. Prime Savings Bank
2016)
(05) Multiverse Manufacturing took out a Fire
Policy Insurance from Eastern Guaranty in the
amount of P200M. The properties insured were
the pieces of machinery and equipment, tools,
spare parts and accessories stored at Buildings 1
and 2, PTA Compound.
Multiverse secured another fire insurance policy,
this time from Cerberus Insurance for P50M
covering the pieces of machinery and equipment,
among others, in Building 1. It also obtained from
Perpetual Guarantee a Fire Insurance Policy
covering the same machinery and equipment
located at Building 1.
A fire broke out in the PTA Compound. Multiverse
filed insurance claims with Cerberus Insurance
and Eastern Guaranty, but were denied on the
ground of Multiverse's violation of Policy
Condition No. 3, on non-disclosure of
12 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
co-insurance.
Was the denial of the insurance claims of
Multiverse proper? Explain briefly.
Yes, the denial of the insurance claim of
Multiverse was proper for violating the other
insurance clause.
Jurisprudence teaches that where the insurance
policy specifies as a condition the disclosure of
existing co­ insurers, non-disclosure thereof is a
violation that entitles the insurer to avoid the
policy.
Here, it is apparent that Policy Condition No. 3, or
the "other insurance clause", was violated since
Multiverse failed to notify the insurers of the fire
insurance policies it procured from the different
insurers covering the same subject and interest.
The denial of its insurance claim was therefore
proper. (Multi-Ware Manufacturing v. Cibeles
Insurance 01 Feb 2021 Hernando, J.)
(06) Tsinofil entered into a Share Swap
Agreement (Swap Agreement) with ABC and XYZ.
Under the Swap Agreement, ABC and XYZ would
transfer 30% of their shareholdings in another
company for a combined 40% stake in Tsinofil.
Later, the shareholders of Tsinofil voted to reduce
the corporation’s authorized capital stock, twice.
In both instances, the operating departments of
the SEC approved the company’s amendments to
its articles of incorporation.
ABC and XYZ filed a Petition for Review Ad
Cautelam Ex Abundanti before the SEC assailing
the approvals of its departments. The SEC, in
denying the petition, found that the decrease
complied with the requirements imposed by
Corporation Code. ABC and XYZ argued that the
SEC has the jurisdiction to review the actions of
its operating departments in approving the
reduction of the authorized capital stock of
Tsinofil through the selective reduction of the
latter's issued capital.
Does the SEC have discretion to approve or
disapprove the decrease of a corporation’s
authorized capital stock?
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
No, the SEC does not have such discretion. It only
has the ministerial duty to approve the reduction
of authorized capital stock.
Ong Yang v. Tiu teaches that decreasing a
corporation's authorized capital stock, which is an
amendment of the corporation's AOI, is a decision
that only the stockholders and the directors can
make. The SEC is not vested by law with any
power to interpret contracts and interfere in the
determination of the rights between and among a
corporation's stockholders. Neither can the SEC
adjudicate on the contractual relations among
these same stockholders. After a corporation
faithfully complies with the requirements laid
down in Section 38 (now Sec. 37 of the RCC), the
SEC has nothing more to do other than approve
the same.
Here, Tsinofil complied with the statutory
requirements laid out by the RCC. The SEC
therefore has no other recourse than to approve
the corporation’s reduction of its ACS.
(Metroplex Berhad and Paxell Investment
Ltd v. Sinophil Corp 28 Jun 2021 Hernando,
J.)
(07) Grand Providence hired Amelia Chan to
transport 430 bags of soybeans worth
P230,000.00 from the Port Area of Manila to a
factory in Quezon City.
The shipment never reached the factory. It was
later found out that the missing truck of Chan
had been found, cannibalized, in Batangas but had
no cargo in it. Chan had to spend P100,000 to fix
the truck. Chan filed a complaint against the
driver, Rudy Cagaanan.
Grand Providence filed a complaint for a sum of
money against Chan to demand full payment for
the missing bags of soybeans. Both the RTC and
CA ruled in favor of Grand Providence, finding
that the cargo loss was due to Chan's failure to
exercise the extraordinary level of diligence
required of her as a common carrier, as she did
not provide security for the cargo or take out
insurance on it.
In her Appeal to the Supreme Court, Chan opines
that she is not liable for the value of the lost soya
beans since the truck hijacking was a fortuitous
13 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
event and because "the carrier is not an insurer
against all risks of travel."
Is Chan correct? Why or why not?
No, Chan is incorrect as the truck hijacking was
not a fortuitous event.
The Supreme Court in an analogous case has
ruled that a common carrier is held responsible
— and will not be allowed to divest or to
diminish such responsibility — even for acts of
strangers like thieves or robbers, except where
such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave
or irresistible threat, violence or force."
Here, the loss of the soya beans here was not
attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence,
or force. Instead, it was brought about by Chan's
failure to exercise extraordinary diligence when
she neglected vetting her driver or providing
security for the cargo and failing to take out
insurance on the shipment's value.
Thus, Chan is liable as the hijacking was not a
fortuitous event. (Tan v. Great Harvest
Enterprises 2019)
(08) During the pandemic, setting up home
offices became the norm. With this, demand for
office furniture such as standing desks and
ergonomic chairs skyrocketed. One of the
products in great demand was the patented
ergonomic chair of EKIA, the world-renowned
Danish furniture maker. Due to the increase in
demand, prices tripled, coupled with the inability
of EKIA to increase its supply attributed to lack of
raw materials.
Seizing opportunity, MESA atbp., a local furniture
maker, sought compulsory licensing to
manufacture the same patented ergonomic chair
of EKIA. It claimed to have the capability to mass
produce the chair to increase market supply and
meet demand in order to stabilize the price to
pre-pandemic levels. It cites the unmet demand
of the product as ground for granting the
compulsory license.
Will the application for license by MESA
atbp. to exploit the patented ergonomic
chair of EKIA prosper? Why or why not?
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
No, the application of MESA atbp. to exploit the
patented ergonomic chair of EKIA will not prosper
as it is not one of the grounds for compulsory
licensing under the Intellectual Property Code.
Under our intellectual property law, the Director
General of the Intellectual Property Office may
grant a license to exploit a patented invention,
even without the agreement of the patent owner,
in favor of any person who has shown his
capability to exploit the invention, where the
demand for patented drugs and medicines is not
being met to an adequate extent and on
reasonable terms. (Sec 93)
Here, the unmet demand of the patented
ergonomic chair of EKIA is not a ground for
compulsory licensing as it only covers the unmet
demand of patented drugs and medicine. Thus,
the application of MESA atbp. for compulsory
licensing will not prosper.
(09) Guns of Rose, LLC, is a corporation engaged
in the manufacture of firearms owned by Donato
Rose, a former Filipino citizen who has chosen to
be a naturalized American.
Noting the increasingly stringent gun restriction
laws in the U.S., Donato decided to expand his
business and invest in a local gun manufacturing
company in the Philippines owned by his cousin
Donaldo, aptly named Pusila Co., Inc. which
consistently exports 50% of its output to
countries in Southeast Asia.
Donato planned to buy 30% of Pusila, Co.
Although Donaldo was amenable to selling a
portion of his company to Donato, Donaldo
became apprehensive after reading the Foreign
Investments Act of 1991, as amended. Donaldo
averred that the manufacture of firearms is under
List B of the Foreign Investment Negative List
which absolutely prohibits non-Philippine
nationals such as Donato from investing in an
export enterprise such as Pusila Co., Inc.
Given the circumstances, is Donato
absolutely prohibited from investing in
Pusila Co., Inc.? Discuss the contentions of
Donaldo.
14 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
No, Donato is not absolutely prohibited from
investing in Pusila Co., Inc. as long as he seeks
authorization from the Chief of the Philippine
National Police (PNP).
The Foreign Investments Act, as amended by
RA No 11647 provides that an enterprise is
considered an export enterprise when it exports
60% or more of its output, otherwise it shall be
considered a domestic market enterprise (Sec 3
pars (e) and (f)). The same law provides that
ownership in enterprises whose products and
services are under List B is merely limited and
not prohibited. (Sec 8)
Here, it is wrong for Donaldo to classify Pusila,
Co. as an export enterprise as it only exports
50% of its output. Pusila, Co. is therefore a
domestic market enterprise. Be that as it may,
since the activities of Pusila, Co. is under List B,
Donato may still invest in the company as long as
clearance and authorization is applied with the
Chief of the PNP.
Thus, Donato may still invest in Pusila, Co., Inc.
after due authorization from the Chief of the PNP.
(10) SUMMA Ready Mix Concrete Corporation is
a corporation organized and existing under
Philippine laws. ANILSON Designs, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Texas, U.S.A.
SUMMA ordered from ANILSON the form design
and drawing development for its project on the
development of a precast plant. SUMMA issued a
purchase order and the parties also executed an
Agreement for Professional Services. SUMMA also
asked ANILSON to prepare a preliminary design
for its Ecocentrum Garage Project. Pursuant to
the contract, ANILSON delivered the designs.
SUMMA made partial payments, but left an
unpaid balance in the amount of US$1M.
ANILSON, after repeated unheeded demands, filed
a complaint against SUMMA.
SUMMA moved to dismiss the case alleging that
ANILSON has no legal capacity to sue as it is
doing business in the Philippines without the
necessary license. ANILSON, on the other hand,
alleged that it was neither doing business in the
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
Philippines nor licensed to do business herein; it
is suing on an isolated transaction that it entered
into with SUMMA.
If you were the judge, would you dismiss
the case? Discuss the contentions of both
parties.
No, I will not dismiss the case since Summa is
already estopped from challenging Anilson's legal
capacity to sue.
In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled
that a foreign corporation that conducts business
in the Philippines must first secure a license for
it to be allowed to sue in our jurisdiction. As an
exception, it may sue without a license on the
basis of an isolated transaction described as a
transaction or series of transactions set apart
from the common business of a foreign enterprise
in the sense that there is no intention to engage
in a progressive pursuit of the purpose and object
of the business organization. However, by virtue
of the doctrine of estoppel, the other contracting
party may no longer challenge the foreign
corporation's personality after acknowledging the
same by entering into a contract with it.
Here, Anilson is incorrect in saying that it was
suing on an isolated transaction. It was
performing acts that were in progressive pursuit
of its business purpose, which involved
consultation and design services. In doing
business without a license, Anilson had no legal
capacity to sue in the Philippines. However,
Summa is already estopped from challenging
Anilson's legal capacity to sue when the former
already acknowledged the same by entering into
a contract with the latter and derived benefits
therefrom.
In all, I will not dismiss the case as the doctrine
of estoppel prevents Summa from questioning
the legal capacity of Anilson to sue. (Magna
Ready Mix Concrete Corporation v.
Andersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs, Inc. 20
Jan 2021 Hernando, J.)
(11) May A. Bang is a good friend of the infamous
Pork Barrel Queen—Jeanette Napoli. When the
pork barrel scam broke out, Bang, due to her
close ties with Napoli, was implicated.
15 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
Thus, the Republic, represented by the
Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), filed a
Verified Petition for Civil Forfeiture against Bang
before the RTC. The Republic prayed for the
issuance of a Provisional Asset Preservation
Order (PAPO) against Bang, alleging that there is
strong and convincing evidence concerning the
involvement of his subject account in the pork
barrel scam. It also prayed for the issuance of an
Asset Preservation Order (APO) to prevent funds
from being removed, transferred, concealed, or
disposed of.
The RTC issued a PAPO ex parte after finding that
there is probable cause that the subject account
of Bang may be related to unlawful activities
under the Plunder Act. After a summary hearing
on the issuance of APO, the RTC ruled that the
Republic failed to give a clear and convincing
explanation that the subject account is related to
the unlawful activities of Napoli.
The Republic filed a certiorari petition before the
CA questioning the Order of the RTC.
Should the CA grant the certiorari petition
of the Republic? Why or why not?
Yes, the CA should grant the certiorari petition of
the Republic as the RTC gravely abused its
discretion in denying the prayer for Asset
Preservation Order.
The Supreme Court has ruled that after the
issuance of the Provisional Asset Preservation
Order (PAPO), the burden is shifted to the
respondent who may for good cause show why
the provisional asset preservation order should be
lifted.
Here, it was erroneous for the RTC to require the
Republic for clear and convincing evidence. As
ruled by the Supreme Court, it is the respondent
who is burdened to prove good cause for lifting
the PAPO and denying the issuance of the APO.
Thus, the petition for certiorari should be
granted. (Republic v. Ng, G.R. No. 239047,
June 16, 2021)
(12) Angela Mandanas maintained a savings
account with Masterbank. While living in Boston,
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
USA, she issued two crossed checks in favor of
her friend Bienvenida Rosario for a parcel of land
she purchased. Since Rosario was also in Boston
at that time, she instructed Mandanas to mail the
checks to Rosario's sister. Mandanas complied,
writing the name BIENVINIDA ROSARIO as payee
of the two checks.
Mandanas later found out that the checks did not
arrive and learned that the checks were paid
when a person named BIENVINIDA ROSARIO used
the checks in opening an account with Royal
Bank. Thereafter, the full amount was withdrawn.
Mandanas later filed a complaint to recover the
withdrawn amount against Royal Bank. The RTC
ruled in favor of Mandanas. In its appeal with the
CA, Royal Bank contended that RA No 1405 or the
law on secrecy of bank deposits was violated
when the RTC ordered the production of records
pertaining to the deposit account of one
BIENVINIDA ROSARIO. The CA held that there was
no violation because that account was the subject
of the instant litigation — the law allows inquiry
on bank accounts that are subject of litigation.
Do you agree with the CA? Why or why not?
No, I do not agree with the Court of Appeals as
the account was not the subject of the instant
case.
The Supreme Court in an analogous case ruled
that the inquiry will be allowed if the money
deposited in the account is itself the subject
matter of litigation. Jurisprudence also teaches
that the subject matter of the action should be
deduced from the indictment and not from the
evidence sought to be admitted.
Here, Mandanas seeks to recover the money that
was deposited and encashed by the impostor in
Royal Bank. Mandanas' action, however, was
directed against the banks, and not against the
impostor who opened an account with Royal
Bank. Thus, it is apparent that Mandanas is
seeking to recover the mere money equivalent of
the checks erroneously paid by the banks, and not
the money itself that is already long gone in the
hands of the impostor.
16 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
In all, the money deposited is not the subject
matter of the litigation making the inquiry
ordered by the RTC improper. (The Real Bank,
Inc. v. Maningas 16 Mar 2022 Hernando, J.)
(13) Atty. Agimat is the managing partner of
Caballes and Agimat Law Firm. Aromaj
Corporation, represented by James Aromaj, is a
client of the firm.
Aromaj has outstanding debts to both Atty.
Agimat and the firm of P100,000 each. Both
debts are due at the end of September 2023.
On September 15, Aromaj issued a check of
P100,000 to fully pay its debt to Atty. Agimat.
The latter then issued an acknowledgment
receipt that Aromaj has fully paid its debt to her.
Atty. Caballes found out about this and inquired
from Atty. Agimat why she did not apply the sum
collected from Aromaj to the two credits in
proportionate amounts. Atty. Caballes averred
that the P100,000 should be applied equally to
both credits—P50,000 to the firm and P50,000
to Atty. Agimat.
If you were Atty. Agimat, how would you
respond to the inquiry of Atty. Caballes?
I would tell Atty. Caballes that the rule on
proportionate application of collected debt will
not apply as the debts are not yet due and
demandable.
Under our laws on partnership, if a partner
authorized to manage collects a demandable sum
which was owed to him in his own name, from a
person who owed the partnership another sum
also demandable, the sum thus collected shall be
applied to the two credits in proportion to their
amounts, even though he may have given a
receipt for his own credit only. (Art 1792, New
Civil Code) For this rule to apply, both debts
must be demandable.
Here, the two debts are due and demandable only
on 30 September 2023. Aromaj issued the check
on 15 September. Thus, Atty. Agimat is not
obligated to apply the amount collected from
Aromaj to the latter's debt to the firm.
(14) Atty. Dominador Dimagiba is
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
accomplished author of bar exam reviewers. He
started making syllabus-based reviewers for the
bar exams way back in 2000 after passing the
bar exams the previous year. His reviewers are
known for their unique formatting style and are
the only known reviewers that are patterned after
the bar syllabi to a tee.
Dennis Dionisio is a recent law graduate about to
take the #HernandoBar2023. Inspired by Atty.
Dimagiba's work, Dennis started making his own
syllabus-based reviewers with eerily similar
formatting as that of Atty. Dimagiba's reviewers.
Both are in landscape format, folio sized, and
three columns.
Atty. Dimagiba received reports that Dennis was
imitating the format of his reviewers and that the
latter may have committed copyright
infringement.
If you were Atty. Dimagiba, would you
confront Dennis on his syllabus-based
reviewers?
If I were Atty. Dimagiba, I will not confront
Dennis. Dennis did not commit copyright
infringement.
In an analogous case, the Supreme Court has
ruled that the format of a show is not
copyrightable. The protection afforded by the law
cannot be extended to cover them.
Here, it can be said that the format of a bar exam
reviewer is also not copyrightable. Atty. Dimagiba
has no copyright over the formatting of his
syllabus-based reviewers. Thus, I would not
confront Dennis as he (Dennis) did not commit
copyright infringement. (Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon,
et. al.)
(15) Cheng was designated by Partial Office
Products (POP)'s owners, spouses Te, to manage
POP as the sole distributor of Exemplary plain
paper copiers in the Philippines. POP included in
its line of business the distribution of various
office equipment and supplies.
While POP grew to a multi-million enterprise,
Spouses Te eventually discovered that Cheng,
while still a POP director and officer, incorporated
an three other corporations—MIDZINC, Golden Exit,
17 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
and Eccentric, to siphon assets, funds, goodwill,
equipment, and resources of POP. Cheng also
obtained opportunities properly belonging to POP
and awarded these to his own corporations, to
POP’s prejudice. Cheng was subsequently ousted
as POP director and officer and a case for
damages was filed by POP against Cheng and his
companies.
Cheng countered that he did not violate the
doctrine of corporate opportunity as the Te
family knew that he organized the three
corporations while also acting as director for POP.
In fact, the three corporations were exhibitors
together with POP in a trade exhibit for
companies distributing office machines.
Spouses Te now comes to you for legal
advice as to how they would prove that a
prohibited corporate opportunity exists in
order to properly claim damages from
Cheng.
As counsel for Spouses Te, I would advise them to
lay down the elements of a prohibited corporate
opportunity.
The Supreme Court laid down the following
elements to determine when a prohibited
corporate opportunity exists, giving rise to a
claim of damages. First, the corporation is
financially able to exploit the opportunity.
Second, the opportunity is within the
corporation’s line of business. Third, the
corporation has an interest or expectancy in the
opportunity. Lastly, by taking the opportunity for
his own, the corporate director, trustee, or officer
will consequently be placed in a position inimical
to his duties to the corporation.
Here, the doctrine of corporate opportunity
applied to Cheng. Cheng owned the three
corporations while simultaneously assuming as
director of POP. The three corporations are in the
same line of business as POP as Cheng himself
admitted to participating in the trade exhibit for
office machine distributors. Along with the other
elements, Spouses Te can validly prove that
Cheng violated the doctrine of corporate
opportunity and is thus obligated to refund the
profits he derived from various business
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
opportunities because of his position in POP.
(TOPROS, Inc. v. Chang, Jr. 2021 En Banc)
(16) On January 26, 2023, Trigas received from
the BIR Commissioner a Formal Letter of Demand
and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) dated January
14, 2023, finding it liable for deficiency
withholding tax on compensation (WTC) and
deficiency expanded withholding tax (EWT) for
the year ending December 31, 2019.
If you were the legal counsel of Trigas, how
would you protest the FLD/FAN? Explain
briefly.
As legal counsel of Trigas, I will argue that the
assessment of the CIR is void as Trigas did not
receive a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)
from the CIR. Trigas was effectively denied its
right to due process. I would also argue that the
three-year period for assessment has already
prescribed.
The NIRC mandates that tax collection must be
preceded by a valid assessment to allow the
taxpayer to protest the assessment, present their
case and adduce supporting evidence. This
includes the serving of a PAN to the taxpayer. As
to the issue of prescription, Section 203 of the
NIRC mandates the government to assess internal
revenue taxes within 3 years from the last day
prescribed by law for the filing of the tax return
or the actual date of filing of such return,
whichever comes later.
Here, Trigas did not receive a PAN. From the date
of the FLD and the FAN which were
simultaneously issued on January 14, 2023 and
only received by Trigas on January 26, 2023, the
three-year prescriptive period has palpably
prescribed.
In short, I will protest the FAN by arguing denial
of due process and that the period of assessment
has already prescribed. (CIR v. Unioil
Corporation 04 Aug 2021 Hernando, J.)
(17) E-Remit is a domestic corporation listed with
the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) principally
engaged in the business of fund transfer and
remittance services. JAPS, JCKT, and Wellsure are
domestic corporations holding shares of E-Remit.
18 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers
E-Remit offered to the public 100,000,000
shares by way of an initial public offering at the
offer price of P1.00 each share. Of these shares,
70,000,000 shares were offered in primary
offering by E-Remit as the issuing corporation,
and 30,000,000 shares were offered in
secondary offering by JAPS, JCKT, and Wellsure,
as selling shareholders.
In compliance with Section 127(B) of the NIRC
requiring payment of tax, E-Remit paid its tax
liability by using the total amount of shares sold
to the public in both primary and secondary
offerings as dividend. Later on, E-Remit filed for a
tax refund believing that there was an
overpayment. The CTA Division ruled that the
dividend should be the total number of shares
sold during the initial public offering, regardless
of whether they are offered in primary or
secondary offering.
Is the CTA Division correct?
No, the CTA Division erred in ruling that a joint
computation, using the total number of shares
sold during the initial public offering (IPO), should
determine the IPO tax rate to be used.
The Court has already ruled that the tax on sale
of shares of stock in closely held corporations
sold or exchanged through initial public offering
under Sec. 127 (B) is separately computed as to
shares offered in primary and secondary offerings.
Thus, the CTA Division erred. (I-Remit, Inc. v.
CIR 09 Nov 2020 Hernando, J.)
(18) The City of Pasay assessed the Light Rail
Transit Authority (LRTA) of real estate taxes on its
properties consisting of lands, buildings,
machineries, carriageways, and passenger
terminal stations.
The LRTA opposed the assessment claiming that
it is a government instrumentality exempt from
local taxation. It is operating the light rail transit
system for the Republic of the Philippines, which
is the true owner of the subject real properties.
The City of Pasay opposed contending that the
LRTA collects fees and other charges from the
public and therefore, could not be a government
instrumentality exempt from local taxation.
eCodal+Pro by RGL
ecodalpro.com
Whose contention is correct?
The contention of LRTA is correct.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the properties
owned by LRTA, a national government
instrumentality, are exempt from real property
taxation as they are of public dominion. The
charging of fees to the public does not determine
the character of the property whether it is of
public dominion or not.
Here, the mere fact that LRTA collects fees and
other charges from the public does not remove
the character of the railroads and terminals as
properties for public use. The LRTA, as a
government instrumentality, is therefore not a
taxable person as correctly argued by the LRTA.
(Light Rail Transit Authority v. City of Pasay
28 Jun 2022 Hernando, J.)
(19) Philmining Resources and Toledo Copper
Processing and Refining Corporation (TCPRC), a
domestic corporation registered with the BOI,
entered into an Ore Sales and Purchase
Agreement. For the third and fourth quarters of
the fiscal year (FY) ending June 30, 2018,
Philmining Resources' sales were all made to
TCPRC.
On March 30, 2020 and June 29, 2020,
Philmining Resources filed its amended quarterly
VAT returns for the third and fourth quarters,
respectively. On the same dates, it filed
administrative claims for refund or issuance of
TCC of its unutilized input VAT attributable to its
zero-rated sales for the third and fourth quarters.
The CTA Division denied Philmining Resources'
petitions on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence holding that Philmining failed to prove
that its sales to TCPRC during the third and
fourth quarters of FY 2018 qualify as export sales
subject to the zero percent (0%) rate.
Philmining Resources sought reconsideration and
submitted a certified true copy of BOI
Certification dated January 27, 2018 to establish
that TCPRC was a BOI-registered enterprise that
exported its total sales volume from July 1, 2017
to June 30, 2018. The CIR counter-argued that
the BOI Certification failed to prove that all of
19 of 20
POL COM TAX #HernanDoIt Practice Exercises for the 2023 Bar with Suggested Answers ecodalpro.com

TCPRC's products from January 1, 2018 to June No, the RTC should not take cognizance of the
30, 2018 were actually exported. Petition for Declaratory Relief as it violates the
lifeblood doctrine.
Is the CIR correct in requiring proof of
actual exportation by TCPRC? Citing Commonwealth Act No. 55, the Supreme
Court has ruled that petitions for declaratory
Yes, the CIR is correct in requiring proof of actual relief do not apply to cases where a taxpayer
exportation before Philmining Resources can questions his liability for the payment of any tax
claim that its sales to TCPRC qualify as export under any law administered by the BIR. Taxes
sales subject to the zero percent (0%) rate. being the lifeblood of the government should be
The Court in a similar case has ruled that proof of collected promptly, without unnecessary
actual exportation of goods sold by a Value Added hindrance or delay.
Tax (VAT)-registered taxpayer to a Board of Here, Sunshine Insurance sought to prevent the
Investments (BOI)-registered enterprise is vital collection of taxes by filing the declaratory relief
for the transaction to be considered as zero-rated petition instead of questioning the assessment. It
export sales. A revenue regulation of the BIR has only proceeded with its petition after receiving
classified sales to BOI-registered entities as tax assessments from the BIR and after various
zero-rated export sales if the following conditions requests for reconsideration, where it notably
are met: the buyer is a BOI-registered already raised the alleged unconstitutionality of
manufacturer/ producer; the buyer's products are Sections 108 and 184 of the NIRC as a ground to
100% exported; and the BOI certified that the contest the tax assessment.
buyer exported 100% of its products.
Thus, the RTC should summarily dismiss the
Here, Philmining Resources only presented a petition for being an improper remedy. (CIR v.
certified true copy of BOI Certification to Standard Insurance 28 Apr 2021 Hernando,
establish that TCPRC was a BOI-registered J.)
enterprise when the sales occurred. However, this
does not prove that what Philmining sold to
TCPRC was in turn exported by the latter. All the best future 🥑!
In all, the CIR correctly required proof of actual
exportation. (CIR v. Filminera Resources
Corporation 2020)
(20) Sunshine Insurance received from the BIR a
Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) regarding
its liability arising from a deficiency in the
payment of documentary stamp taxes (DST) for
taxable year 2021. It objected to the tax imposed
pursuant to Section 184 of the NIRC as violative
of the constitutional limitations on taxation. It
later commenced a declaratory relief case before
the RTC for the judicial determination of the
constitutionality of Sections 108 and 184 of the
NIRC with respect to the taxes charged against
the non-life insurance companies.
Should the RTC take cognizance of the
declaratory relief case? Why or why not?

eCodal+Pro by RGL 20 of 20