SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
RGCT – BAR OPERATIONS CENTER

MOCK BAR QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED ANSWERS – REMEDIAL LAW

1. X secured a loan from Y in the amount of P100,000.00 payable on December 5, 2020.

After the maturity of the loan, and despite repeated demand, X failed to pay Y. Y sued
X but in his Answer, the latter raised the affirmative defense of having already paid
the debt. Upon the denial of his affirmative defense, X filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but the same was also denied.

Is the denial of X’s Motion for Reconsideration proper?

Suggested Answer: YES.

Under Rule 8, Sec 12 (e) of the Rules of Court, affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be
the subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus. X’s proper remedy would be to proceed to trial and raise the matter of his
affirmative defense on appeal after a judgment on the merits.

2. The Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) entered into various contracts with GenZ
Global Corporation (GenZ) in relation to the construction of the former’s
infrastructure projects. Subsequently, GenZ filed a request for arbitration against the
PTA, which filed a refusal of arbitration arguing that the CIAC has no jurisdiction over
the case as the complaint does not allege an agreement to arbitrate and the
contracts entered into do not contain an arbitration agreement.

Is the PTA correct in saying that the CIAC has no jurisdiction over the case?

Suggested Answer: NO, the PTA is incorrect.

In a long line of jurisprudence, the Court has consistently held that CIAC’s jurisdiction is
conferred by law. E.O. No. 1008 expressly vests upon the CIAC original and exclusive
jurisdiction over disputes arising from, or connected with, contracts entered into by the
parties involved in construction disputes in the Philippines. It cannot be subjected to any

FB: @sanbedabarops . baroperations@sanbeda.edu.ph . 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila, Philippines
condition or waived or diminished by the parties’ stipulation, as long as the parties agreed
to submit their construction contract dispute to arbitration.

Here, the existence of the arbitration clause in their contracts is deemed as agreement by
the parties to submit existing or future controversies to the jurisdiction of the CIAC.
Hence, the PTA was incorrect in saying that the CIAC has no jurisdiction over the case.

3. A Municipal Police Station in Cavite received a radio message about a silver gray
Isuzu pickup that was transporting marijuana from City A to City B. A checkpoint was
then set up by the police along the solitary route between the cities on the basis of
the tip alone. When the tipped vehicle reached the checkpoint, it was stopped by a
team of police officers and later found marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. Is the
search of the moving vehicle valid?

Suggested Answer: NO, the search of the moving vehicle is invalid.

In the case of People vs. Sison, the Supreme Court ruled that in warrantless searches, law
enforcers must not rely on a single suspicious circumstance, and the existence of probable
cause is still imperative. What is required is the presence of more than one seemingly
innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal
activity. In the case at bar, the police enforcers relied exclusively on the solitary radio
message claiming the transport of marijuana in setting up a checkpoint and conducting a
search on the tipped vehicle. No other suspicious circumstance was considered. Thus, the
search of the moving vehicle is not valid (People vs. Sison, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019).

4. X was walking home while holding his phone and texting. Suddenly, Y at gunpoint
declared hold-up and ordered X to give his phone. However, X resisted, this
prompted Y to shoot X in the chest resulting in his instantaneous death. X was
charged with robbery with homicide. The prosecution offers in evidence Z, a
barangay tanod who will testify that he saw the CCTV footage of Y robbing and killing
X. Is the offer of testimony objectionable?

Suggested Answer: YES, the offer of testimony is objectionable for being in violation of the
original document rule.

Under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible
other than the original document itself.

Here, the prosecution presented not the contents of the original video or CCTV footage of Y
robbing and killing X but secondary evidence thereof in the form of the witness’ testimony.

FB: @sanbedabarops . baroperations@sanbeda.edu.ph . 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila, Philippines
A video recording is considered as a document under the original document rule. Thus, the
testimony is inadmissible. Hence, the offer of Z’s testimony is objectionable.

5. Patrick was charged with the murder of Brian. During trial, Patrick offered in evidence
a facebook message of Rion sent to Patrick’s mother. In the said facebook message,
Rion said he was the one who murdered Brian because the latter was having an affair
with his common-law wife. Rion was killed by Brian’s brother before trial. If you were
the prosecutor, how would you object to the offer of the said evidence?

Suggested Answer:

I would object to the offer of the said evidence on the grounds that it is inadmissible as
hearsay.

Under Sec. 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, a declaration against interest tending to
expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not
admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the
statement.

Here, the written assertion of Rion made through a facebook message exposes him to
criminal liability for murder or homicide and it was offered to exculpate accused Patrick.
However, there was no showing of corroborating circumstances that Rion’s statement was
trustworthy. Hence, Rion’s statement is inadmissible for being hearsay.

FB: @sanbedabarops . baroperations@sanbeda.edu.ph . 638 Mendiola St., San Miguel, Manila, Philippines