I
Noel is the son of spouses Marie and Benedict. Benedict has passed away. For Noel’s 7th birthday, his paternal grandparents offered to organize and pay for this birthday party. In coordination with Marie, the grandparents booked the party venue, signed the contracts with the caterer and the entertainers, finalized the guest list, and paid all amounts due. Marie promised them to bring Noel to the party.
A week before the scheduled birthday party, Marie decided that she would not bring Noel to the party, and that she would instead take him out on an out-of-town trip on the day of the party. Marie could not forget that her parents-in-law initially opposed Benedict’s marriage to her because she was a farmer burlesque dancer.
Marie did not notify the grandparents of her plan to skip the birthday party. During the party, the grandparents kept trying to get in touch with her but she ignored all their calls. The grandparents and the guests who went to the party were very dismayed that Noel was not present. When the grandparents asked Marie why she did not bring Noel to the party, she simply replied, “I am his mother, and I decide where he goes!” To which, Noel’s grandmother reported, “Anak mo lang s’ya! Hindi mo s’ya pag-aari!”
The grandparents seek your advice on whether there is legal basis to Marie liable for the damages that they have suffered as a result of her acts.
What is your advice? Explain briefly.
II
Razna and Junsi got married in 2015 and were blessed with two children, Zarah and Mica. In 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire family had to spend 24 hours together everyday in their small house. Razna observed that although Junsi continued to work from home to support the family, he began to exhibit paranoia, and constantly kept making sure that they always washed their hands and rubbed them with alcohol ten times before eating. Junsi also always wore face mask, faceshield and hazmat in the house, except when he was alone in the room Junsi began sleeping separately from Razna and their children. he believed that other people who wanted to meet him in person were actively trying to harm him by exposing him to virus.
In early 2022, Razna filed a petition for declaration of nulity of her marriage with Junsi on the ground of psychicological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code citing his atypical behavior. She presented her testimony of a doctor, who proven that Junsi was suffering from psychotic paranoia due to intense stress, which accounted for his belief in things that are not real.
Should Razna’s petition be granted? Explain briefly.
III
Before they married in 2000, Nonoy and Daday signed a marriage settlement wherein they agreed that they agreed that their property relations as husband and wife would be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. While the marriage was subsisting, they acquired a parcel of land using conjugal funds. The Register of Deeds issued a transfer certificate of title over the said land in the name of “Nonoy, married to Daday”
Nonoy sold the parcel of land to Barby without Daday’s consent. Daday was not aware of the sale and did not sign the contract of sale. A year after Nonoy and Barby signed the contract of sale to Barby, Daday died. When the children of Nonoy and daday learned about the sale to barby the questioned its validity since Daday had not consented to the sale. Nonoy’s position is that Daday consent was not required because the property was registered in his name.
Is the sale to Barby valid? Explain briefly.
IV
[This item has two questions.] In 2013, Agaton, then 70 years old, executed a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to his acknowledged illegitimate son Karl. Agaton entrused the original copy of the 2013 will to Karl. In 2014, Karl joined a group of mercenaries to fight in Crimea alongside the Russians. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Karl did not return to the Philippines and was never heard of. Five years later, in 2019, agaton executed a codicil which [rovided the following: “Because of the death of Karl, I revoke my 2013 will. I hereby recognize Gian as my otther illegitimae son, and hereby bequeath to him my entire estate,” Agaton died in 2020.
During the probate of Agaton’s 2019 codicil, Karl appeared in court, presented the 2013 will, cintested the vailidity of its revocation, oposed the propbae of the 2019 codicil and sought the probate of the 2013 will. Both the 2013 will and the 2019 codicil were immaculate as form.
(a) did the 2019 codicil revoke the 2013 will? Explain briefly.
(b) Distribute he estate of Agaton. Explain briefly.
V
Joey was the legitimate son of Ron and May. Joey died intestate and was survived by his wife Kathy and their two legitimate children, Luis and Clarisse. Several months after Joey died, Ron also died intestate. Ron was survived by his wife May, daughter Mercy (full-sibling of joey), and the children of Joey (Luis adn Clarisse).
Distribute the estate of Ron. Explain briefly.
VI
[This item has two questions.] Jungkook, who owns a building, leases the same to Gel with the following term: (i) the leases is for a period of ten years; (ii) the yearly rental is Php1,200,000.00 payable within the first ten-days of the current year; and (iii) in case of breach of any of the provisions of the lease, Gel is liable to pay Jungkook five monhs of rentals and attorney’s fees. Five years in to the lease, Gel sends a notice to terminate the lease and offer to pay five monthly rentals. Despite Jungkook’s objections, Gel vacates the premises. Jungkook sues Gel for the rentals due for the remaining five years of the lease. Gel takes the position that her liability should only be limited to five monthly rentals and attorney’s fees.
(a) Is there a penalty clause in the lease agreement? Explain briefly.
(b) As between Jungkook and Gel, who is correct? Explain briefly.
VII
Brenda saw the online advertisementof Evelyn, who sells limited edition sneakers, Through an exchange of text messages, evelyn and Brenda agreed that: (i) Evelyn will sell to Brenda a pair of a brand new sneakers for Php 25,000.00; (ii) Brenda will deposit the purchase price in Evelyn’s bank account; and (iii) Evelyn will deliver the sneakers within ten days from deposit. Brenda deposited the purchase price and Evelyn acknowledged receipt thereof.
Before the delivery of the sneakers, Evelyn received an offer from Rosela to buy the same sneakers for Php 35,000.00. evelyn candidly tells Brenda that she is selling the sneakers at a higher price to another buyer, and sends this text message to Brenda: “Sizt, may iba na pala akongg buyer na mas malaki yung offer, sorry! Balik ko nalang bayad mo, Keri?” Evelyn claims that since the sneakers have not yet been delivered to Brenda, she can still withdraw the offer.
Is Evelyn’s contention tenable? Explain briefly.
VIII
In 2017, Alma orally sold a parcel of unregistered land to the spouse of Ray and shane for Php 500.000.00. Upon receipt of the initial payment of Php 350,000.00, Alma delivered possession of the land to the spuse. Shortly thereafter, Alma died. In order to formalize the sale, Ray and Shane convinced Josie, one of Alma’s children, to sign a notarized deed of confirmation of sale. In consideration thereof, josie received Php 150,000.00 representing the balance of the purchase price. On the strength of the notarized confirmation of sale, the spouses were able to transfer the tax declaration of the property in their names. Later, Josie died.
In 2020, the surviving children of alma discovered the oral sale of the land to Ray and Shane. They demanded the return of the propertyon the following grounds: (i) the oral contract of sale is void because it does not appear in a public instrument; and (ii) assuming the sale is not void, it is unforceable under the statute of Frauds. Ray and Shane insisted that the sale of the land to them was both valid and enforceable.
Are the contentions of the heirs of Alma tenable? Explain briefly.
IX
Aida, for the consideration of Php. 5,000,000.00 sold her parcel of land to Lorna, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of sale. Lorna, however, failed to deliver the amount in full, paying only Php 500,000.00 as down payment. because of the non-paayment of the balance, Aida simply sold the same parcel of land to Fe with the intention of returning to Lorna the Php 500,000.00 down payment.
Who among Aida, Lorna and Fe owns the property? Explain briefly.
X
Laica and Jessica, who are best friends, are both engaged in money lending at predatory interest rates. Running out of funds, laica borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Jessica for two months at a monthly interest rate of 10% Jessica releases the borrowed amount after Laica signs a promissory note. Laica then relends to Monica the borrowed amount of Php 2,000,000.00 from jessica for two months at an interest rate of 30%. After two months, Laica fails to pay Jessica, prompting Jessicca to file a collection suit against the former, for the Php 2,000,000.00 principal and 10% interest per month pursuant to their agreement. Laica counters that the monthly interest rate of 10% is exorbitant and should be reduced to the legal rate of interest at 6% per annum.
Which between the position of Laica and Jessica is tenable? Explain briefly.
XI
Leon is the owner of a condominium unit located directly above the condominium unit located directly above the condominium unit owned by Anj. In 2014, Leon undertook renovation in his unit’s bathroom, which caused water to leak from bathroom down to Anj’s unit, and caused extensive damage to Anj’s belongings. As Anj had obtained property insurance on her unit and its contents from Proverbial Insurance Co. (PIC), Anj was able to recover the value of the damage in September 2016.
In October 2022, PIC, as subrigee of Anj, sued Leon to recover the insurance proceeds it paid to Anj. Leon interposed a prescription to dismiss the suit of PIC. PIC counters that the payment of the insurance proceeds in 2016 created, by way of legal subrogation, a 10-years period within which to file the suit against Leon.
Is PIC correct? Explain briefly.
XII
Gio, single, joined a marathon organized by Takbo Co. For lack of alternative routes, the marathon course included a public road which was not blocked-off from vehicles. Takbo Co. Solicited the sponsorship of Kotse Corp. for added financial support. Gio was hit by a jeepney driven by JD on the public road and died. The parents of GIO sued Takbo Co. for damages. The court ruled that Kotse Corp. is solidarily liable for damages with Takbo Co. for being one of the principal movers of the event due to itws sponsorship.
Is the court correct? Explain briefly.
XIII
Eka, a Filipina, and Du-gil, a Korean married in the Philippines. hereafter, they moved to Seoul, South korea. While there Du-guil began to ignore Eka. He was always out with his friends and usually came hone drunk. When Eka could not take their marital situation anymore, she aked for a divorce. Du-guil agreed on the condition that Eka would be the one to file for divorce, and that the ground should be “no fault”, meaning, neither of them is at fault or neither would be accused of any wrongdoing. After the divorce, Eka went back to the Philippines and filed a case to have the judgement of divorce recognized. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Eka’s petition because she alone filed for divorce, in violation of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. According to the RTC, Article 26 requires that either the foreign spouse alone initiates the filing of the divorce or, at the very least, Eka and Du-guil should have filed for divorce jointly.
Is the RTC correct? Explain briefly.
XIV
During Remy’s pregnancy, her father gavin executed a will bequeathing his rest house in Calatagan, Batangas to Remy’s unborn child. While Gavin and Remy, who was then seven months pregnant, were on their way to Calatagan, they figured in a car accident on December 1, 2021 which resulted in the instantaneaous death of Gavin and the premature delivery of Remy on the same day. At 8:30 a.m. on December 3, 2021, the newborn baby died.
Is the devise in favor of the baby valid? Explain briefly.
XV
[This item has two questions] Miguel, who died single and childless, was survived by his two legitimate brothers Romy and Rolly, and his nephews Armo and Pabs, the legitimate brother Edgar. Before his death, Miguel executed a one-page notarial will, inclusive of an attestation clause and a notarial acknowledgement, with only one testamentary disposition bequeathing his entire estate to Romy and Rolly. The will was not paginated and was attested by four witnesses: Uno, Dos, Tres, and quatro. It was the eve of Quatro’s 17th birthdaywhen the will was executed. The will was written in the Ilocano dialect which Miguel knew aqnd udnerstood, but the witnesses did not. Miguel and the witnesses signed at the end of the testamentary disposition. The atestation was also written in the Ilocano dialect which, when translated to English language, reads as follows:
“This will of Miguel was written in One page. we, the attesting witnesses, signed at the end of the will and at the bottom of this attestation in the presence of Miguel and of each of us.”
Each of the four witnesses signed below the attestation clause. Because none of the witnesses knew and understood the Ilocano dialect, the attestation was interpreted to them by Miguel’s lawyer who was present to notarize the will.
(a) Does the fact that the will was written in a dialect known only to Miguel invalidate the will? What about the absence of the marginal signature of the testator and the witnesses? Explain briefly.
(b) May the will nonetheless be admitted to probate? Explain briefly.
Lebron, a Makati resident, obtained a Php 350,000.00 loan from a bank secured by a real estate mortgage (REM) over his lot located in Quezon City with an assessment value of Php 500,000.00. Lebron failed to pay despite written demands. The bank intends to file an action for judicial foreclosure of the REM,
Where should the action for judicial foreclosure of the REM be filed in which court? Explain briefly.
Asya, Inc. sued Kobe a resident of Bukidnon. To serve summons, the sheriff waited in the lobby of Makati Hotel (MH), where Kobe stays whenever he is in Manila. The sheriff failed to serve the summons Kobe left the hotel for an emergency. Hours later, the sheriff asked the front desk about Kobe’s whereabouts and his room number. The hotel refused to disclose on grounds of confidentiality. The sheriff tried again the next day, but Kobe was in a conference until midnight. So, the following, day the sheriff left the summons and a copy of the complaint with MH’s chief security officer (CSO), even as the CSO refused because Kobe had already checked you by then. The sheriff thereafter filed his return, stating the dates, times and places of his attempts, the name of the CSO, and the fact that the complaint was served with the summons. When Kobe did not file an Answer, Asya, Inc. moved to declare him in default.
Was there a valid substituted service of summons? Explain briefly.
Ten days after service if summons, defendant Kay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for collection of sum of money against her on the ground of improper service of summons, on the basis of which the court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person.
If you were the judge, how would you rule? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Attorney Woo, the new-hired lawyer of a law firm, booked Samurai Express, a duly accredited courier within the National Capital Judicial Region, to serve a copy of a motion for reconsideration to Attorney Han, counsel of the adverse party, whose office is in the City of Manila Attorney Hann moved to deny the motion for failure to contain a written explanation as to why the motion was not served personally.
(a) Was the motion for reconsideration properly served? Explain briefly.
(b) What shall be considered as proof of service of the motion? Explain briefly.
Jimuel filed against his wife Jewel a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, alleging as ground therefor Jewel’s psychological incapacity under article 36 of the Family Code. The court denied the petition for insufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial. Much later, Jimuel filed again a petition against Jewel for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. This time, the basis of Jimuel’s petition was the absence of a marriage license at the time their marriage was celebrated. Upon Jewel’s motion, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata by virtue of the judgment in the first suit.
Was the denial of the petition on the ground of res judicata proper? Explain briefly.
Isol, Inc. supplies rotisserie chicken products to the grocery section of shopping malls. It conducts kitchen operations in refurbished house located in Palanan, a residential neighborhood. Rona, a resident of Palanan, filed an action against Isol, Inc to enjoin the operation of its kitchen on the ground that it emits intolerable odors and violates laws on waste disposal. In the same action, Rona also seeks to have Isol, Inc.’s business permit revoked because an industrial facility is not allowed by the law to be located in a residential neighborhood and Isol, Inc. failed to comply with sanitary inspection and other procedural and health requirements. In the complaint Rona filed, she likewise prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to stop the kitchen operations during the pendency of the case. Isol, Inc in its verified answer, strongly opposed the prayer for WPI considering the huge financial disaster that it will suffer if the writ were to be issued, especially in light of the possibility that the suit could continue to be pending for more than a year.
Based on the foregoing may the WPI prayed for already be issued? Explain briefly.
Is a prior determination of the status as a legal heir in a separate special proceeding a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action seeking the protection and enforcement of ownership right heir vested by the law of succession? Explain briefly.
Namjoon, a Korean national, and Regine, a Filipina were married in Makati City on February 14, 2012. Unfortunately, their relationship shortly turned sour and ended with a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea. The local court in Korea granted the divorce. Wanting to marry her new boyfriend Taehyung, Regine filed a petition of the foreign decree of divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu where she resides.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition contending that the proper remedy is a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which can only be filed in the RTC of Makati where the marriage was celebrated and recorded in the Civil Registry of Makati.
Is the OSG’s contention tenable? Explain briefly.
Notting Hill Corp. filed an action for forcible entry against the ten occupants of a parcel of land it owns. After the summary proceedings the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment against the ten defendants filed a notice of appeal, but failed to file a supersedeas bond to stay the judgment to vacate. Upon Notting Hill Corp.’s motion, the MTC issued a writ of execution. When Hugh, the sheriff, was implementing writ of execution, he discovered that the land was occupied by a number of families who all claimed that they were legitimate lessees of the ten defendants. Julia, one of the lessees, pleaded with Hugh, beseeching: “I’m just a lessee, standing in front of a sheriff, asking him to me stay in my home.”
May Hugh implement the writ of execution against the lessees? Explain briefly.
An Information for Murder was filed against the accused Demo and Onyok. It reads:
“That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above, named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and adding each other; without justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Angel Rosario, by then and there repeatedly hitting and beating his head with a baseball bat, thereby inflictive upon the later mortal injury which caused his death.
Contrary to law”
The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
Is the accused correct? Explain briefly.
Cain was indicated under an Information charging him with the crime of Murder. He was caught by the police in flagrante delicto as the incident happened in a public place with many witnesses present. Videos of the incident were also posted online which the judge was able to watch.
During his arraignment, Cain pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) accepted the plea because it was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. The RTC directed the Prosecution to present evidence to prove Cain’s guilt. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence during the scheduled hearing. The RTC then ruled and found Cain guilty beyond reasonable doubt based solely on his plea of guilt.
Was Cain’s conviction proper? Explain briefly.
Enumerate and describe three warrants that may be issued by the courts pursuant to the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants.
Ricky, while driving his Maerati, smashes into the Toyota Vios of Dante. Immediately after the incident, Ricky offers to pay the value of the Toyota Vios. Dante still sued Ricky criminally for Reckless Imprudence because Ricky’s wayward and speedy driving. During trial, Dante was called as a witness to testify Ricky’s offer to compromise as an admission of guilt. Ricky’s counsel objected.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain briefly.
Klaus was drinking in front of his rented apartment when he suddenly heard a gunshot which came from inside the apartment owned by Luther. Klaus then saw Igor, a neighbor, going down the stairs and leaving the scene holding a gun. Klaus also witnessed Luther fall from the stairs with blood oozing from his chest. Vanya, Luther’s daughter, also rushed to Luther when he fell.
During Igor’s trial for Murder, Vanya testified and presented a flash drive containing the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of the scene. Said footage showed a man appearing to be Igor, armed with a gun, proceeding up the stairs and entering Luther’s apartment. In the video, the same man was seen hastily leaving the premises. Vanya further testified that she was the one who transferred to the flash drive video footage from the barangay-owned CCTV that was located outside their apartment.
When the footages were played in court and an enlarged screenshot was presented, Vanya identified the shooter as Igor. The defense objected on the ground that Vanya was not the recorder of the video footages.
Are the (CCTV) footage admissible as electronic evidence? Explain briefly.
In a case for Estafa, the presecution offered the photocopy of the acknowledge receipt signed by the accused showing personal receipt of the sum of money from the private complainant to prove the amount of damage. Accused objected to the offer of the photocopy on the sole ground that it is a mere reproduction of the original in violation of the original document rule. The court overruled the accused’s objection and admitted in evidence the photocopy of the acknowledgement receipt.
Did the court err in admitting the photocopy? Explain briefly.
[This item has five questions.] Assume that you received an adverse decision and filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.
Give the reglementary periods for filing the following:
(a) Notice to appeal to the Court of Appeals(b) Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65(c) Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42(d) Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45(e) Petition for Cetiorari under Rule 64
[This item has two questions.] Fides filed a case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the authority of the local government unit (LGU) to assess real property taxes (RPT) on a certain property she owns. She also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) to restrain the LGU from collecting the RPT. The LGU moved to dismiss Fide’s case arguing that since the matter involves RPT, her remedy was to file an appeal to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals.
(a) Is the LGU correct? Explain briefly.(b) IF the RTC issued an order denying the application for WPI, and thereafter denies Fide’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, what is her remedy? Explain briefly.
Gail Giled a forcible entry complaint against Marianina before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC ruled in favor of Marianina. Gail appealed the MeTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied Gail’s appeal and sustained the MeTC. Gail then filed a notice of appeal with the RTC indicating that it is appealing the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). In her Notice of appeal, Gail also requested the RTC to transmit the records of the case to the CA.
Did Gail take the correct of mode of appeal? Explain briefly.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision against Kat. She received a copy of the decision on December 26, 2021. Kat’s counsel filed with the Supreme court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 by registered main on January 10, 2022. The petition was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period, Kat’s counsel challenged the dismissal arguing that (i) the intention was to pay the docket fees after same is assessed upon the court’s receipt of the petition by registered mail; and (ii) the dismissal of the petition effectively rendered nugatory a party’s statutory right to appeal by registered mail under the rules. Kat’s counsel also added that she did not want to include cash money in the mail.
Is Kat’s counsel correct? Explain briefly.
In December of 2021, Matibag Realty Corp. Kasanga Construction Co. submitted their construction dispute to arbitration before the Construction Industry Commission (CIAC). In March 2022, the CIAC arbitral tribunal rendered an award in favor of Kasangga Construction Co.
What is Matibag Realty Corp. remedy? Explain briefly.
Naysa was defrauded by Jackie resulting in damages to the former. Naysa filed a civil suit before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed her complaint. Within four years from Naysa’s discovery of the complaint, she filed, through her counsel, a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the Court of appeals (CA) on the ground of fraud.
Should the CA give due course to Naysa’s petition? Explain briefly.
Alex, Bobbie, and Gabbie were charged with the crime of Murder. Finding them to have acted in conspiracy, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of Homicide. Only Bobbie appealed the conviction with the Court of Appeals (CA) Consequently, an entry of judgment was issued as against Alex and Gabbie.
Subsequently, the CA modified Bobbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder in the same judgment, the CA likewise modified Alex and Gabbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder.
Upon learning of the CA’s decision, Alex and Gabbie confronted Bobbie, saying “Bakit ka pa ba nag appeal? Tumaas tuloy and sentensya namin, Madadamay pa kami!” Bobbie snapped back: “Bakit parang galit kayo? Pero bakit kasalanan ko? Parang kasalanan ko?”
Was the CA correct in modifying the judgment as to Alex and Gabbie? Explain briefly.
Mayor Dalupan, who was notorious for being involved in rigged public biddings, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Seeking to overturn his conviction, Mayor Dalupan filed a Rule 65 petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court on the 59th dat from notice of the assailed Sandiganbayan ruling.
Is the remedy availed of by Mayor Dalupan correct? Explain briefly.
Police officers Miggy and Laida were involved in an alleged buy-bust operation against Mr. Magtalas, a suspected drug dealer. Mr. Magtalas maintained his innocence, asserting that the drugs were merely planted. He further claimed that he was unjustifiably beaten up by the police officers. Mr. Magtalas filed before the Officer of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Officer (OMB-MOLEO) a criminal complaint for planting evidence which is punishable under Section 29 of the Dangerous Drug Act (R.A. No. 9165). Mr. Magtalas also filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Miggy and Laida in light of the unwarranted physical assault against him.
The Officer of the Ombudsman (OMB) rendered a decision holding Miggy and Laida administratively liable for grave misconduct and accordingly imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. A few weeks later, the OMB issued a separate resolution finding probable cause against them for violation of Section 29 of R.A. No. 9165.
Aggrieved, Miggy and Laida filed before the Supreme Court the following: (i) a Rule 65 petition for Certiorari assailing the OMB’s decision finding them administratively liable for grave misconduct; and (ii)a Rule 45 petition for review for Certiorari assailing the OMB’s resolution finding probable cause against them.
Were the remedies availed of by Miggy and Laida proper? Explain briefly.
After due Proceedings, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a Final Notice and Assessment with Final Letter of Demand assessing Kotse Corp. for deficiency income taxes covering calendar year 2021, which Kotse Corp. duly protested. A month after receipt of the protest, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a notice of garnishment against Kotse Corp’s deposit accounts in GENZ Bank.
If you were counsel for Boni and Klyde, who are accused as a co-conspirators in a Murder case. During arraignment, they both pleaded not guilty. In the course of the trial, Klyde confessed to you that it was actually Boni who committed the Murder and that he merely helped Boni dispose of the body. Klyde tells you that he wants to plead guilty and directs you to inform the prosecutor and the judge that he wants to testify against Boni as a state witness.
Can you continue to represent Boni, or both? Explain briefly.
Identify five duties of lawyer as stated in the Lawyer’s Oath.
Police officer John ran after Randy who had just killed Willy in John’s presence. John fired at Randy in an attempt to stop him in his tracks. In response, Randy fired back at John, hitting him. John was seriously wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance. Randy was then charged with Frustrated Homicide. During the trial, Randy claimed self-defense.
Is Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable? Explain briefly.
Moe, Curly, and Larry were drinking and singing inside a karaoke bar when suddenly, Buboy entered the bar and without warning, immediately shot all three of them using a caliber .45 pistol. Thereafter, Buboy ran out of the bar to escape. Moe, Curly, and Larry died instantly due to gunshot wounds in their heads and bodies. With the help of eyewitnesses, Buboy was arrested. After the inquest, the prosecutor charged Buboy with three counts of Homicide.
Do you agree with the charge of Homicide against Buboy? Explain briefly.
Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a police officer, accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them. Dyords suddenly drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to alight from his car, which the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body against the pavement until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged with Homicide, Dyords interposed the exempting circumstance of accident as a defense.
If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords defense? Explain briefly.
Bernardo, a mayoralty candidate of Osram City, wanted to eliminate Yori, his political opponent. Yori announced his intention to run for mayor of the same city. A month before the filing of candidacy, Bernardo and Benjamin met at a hotel and discussed their plan to kill Yori on the day when he would file his certificate of candidacy. Based on their agreement, Bernardo would provide the guns and the money, while Benjamin would provide the personnel to cordon off all roads leading to the COMELEC’s local office.
On the day of the execution of the plan, however, Benjamin flew to Manila to avoid being involved in the planned killing of Yori. Bernardo, determined to kill Yori, convened his own armed group and laid out a new plan to kill Yori, and in accordance with it, his armed group patrolled all the roads leading to the COMELEC’s local office. Bernardo remained in his house and monitored the execution of the plan from there. As soon as Yori and his supporters passed by the main road at around 2:00 p.m., Bernardo’s armed group opened fire at them. Yori was unharmed as he was inside a bulletproof vehicle, but ten of his supporters were killed. Bernardo, the members of his armed group, and Benjamin were later charged with ten counts of Murder for the death of Yori’s supporters and one count of Attempted Murder of Yori.
Discuss the criminal liability for the crimes charged against each of the following: (i) Bernardo (ii) the members of Bernardo’s armed group, and (iii) Benjamin. Explain briefly.
A police officer responded to a disturbance call at around 1:30 p.m. in an apartment in Quezon City. Upon his arrival, the police officer encountered Sisa stabbing her 1-year old child with a kitchen knife. The police officer grabbed Sisa and the latter threw the knife on the floor. Sisa was immediately taken into custody. Despite suffering multiple stab wounds on her back, the child survived. During the trial, Sisa insisted that she can only be held liable for Attempted Parricide because she voluntarily desisted when she threw down the knife,
Is Sisa’s contention tenable? Explain briefly.
Anna and Barbara, while working inside their sari-sari store, saw Javier and Jorge robbing an elderly woman of her purse and brutally beating her to death. Anna and Barbara immediately ran outside and, when they tried to help the elderly woman, Javier and Jorge stabbed both of them. Thereafter, Javier and Jorge ran away with the elderly woman’s purse. Anna suffered one stab wound which punctured her lung, but she survived due to timely medical assistance. Barbara, however, died as a result of nine stab wounds, one of which pierced through her spleen.
If you were the prosecutor, what crime/s will you file against Javier and Jorge for: (i) the death of the elderly woman, (ii) the death of Barbara, and (iii) the injuries sustained by Anna? Explain briefly.
Jesusa, a mayoralty candidate of the Municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija during the 2019 local election, was ambushed and gunned down by Jhudas, a gun for hire. Jhudas was arrested at a COMELEC checkpoint just after the incident. The firearm he used, a baby armalite, was verified to be without any license. During the interrogation, Judas admitted that Pontio, the rival mayoralty candidate of Jesusa, paid him Php 1,000,000.00 to assassinate Jesusa. Due to Jhudas’ admission, coupled with the sworn statement of an eyewitness, the prosecutor filed two Informations, one for Murder and one for Illegal Possession of Firearm, against both Jhudas and Pontio.
Do you agree with the prosecutor’s charge against Jhudas and Pontio? Explain briefly.
Jenny obtained a fire insurance from YG Insurance Co. (YG). In payment of the policy, she issued a postdated check payable to cash in the amount of Php 15,000.00 which was handed to Lisa, YG’s sale agent. Lisa did not remit the check to YG. Instead, Lisa deposited it in her husband’s bank account, but the check was dishonored for having been drawn from a closed account
What crime, if any, was committed by Lisa and, if there was any, what is its prescribed penalty? Explain briefly.
Madame X, with the promise of money, and without the use of force, intimidation, or threat, enticed Zia, a 15-years-old, to engage in oral sex by allowing Madame X to lick Zia’s vagina. Zia consented because she needed the money.
What crime, if any, was committed by Madame X? Explain briefly.
During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a statement that Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public funds under his custody. Czarina Bern’s friend saw the post and commented online, stating: “Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so corrupt Marami ding binahay yan Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s friend, reacted to Bren’s post by clicking the “like” button. Another person, Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a crusader for good governance, came across the said post. Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared the link to Bern’s post on her Twitter account
Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, If any, are liable for the crime of Cyber Libel? Explain briefly.
On May 15, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m Lucy, Mary and Raphael were on board a passenger jeepney, with Raphael behind the wheel. They were traversing the highway on the southbound lane.
Meanwhile, a Virgen Bus, Driven by Kiko, was Traveling along the northbound lane. Kiko overtook the vehicle in front of him, which caused him to occupy the opposite lane where the jeepney was on. With the Virgen Bus traveling at a high speed, Raphael tried to avoid the collision but failed. The bus hit the jeepney which resulted in Raphael’s death, serious physical injuries to Lucy and Mary, and extended damaged to the jeepney amounting to Php 500,000.00
The public prosecutor filed two Information charging Kiko for two separate offenses : (i) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical Injuries for the injuries suffered by the passenger; and (ii) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for Raphael’s death and the damage to the jeepney
Is the public prosecutor correct? Explain briefly.
Sometime in 2011, while police officers were conducting a foot patrol in connection with the report of rampant illegal activities in the area, police officer Pepe saw Raul inside a small shanty holding a disposable syringe, Being a police officer for almost 15 years and having previously made more than ten arrest involving possession of drug paraphernalia, Pepe entered through the open door of Raul’s shanty and arrested him. Inside the shanty, 23 more pieces of disposable syringes and empty ampules were seized from Raul. Pepe immediately marked the seized items, took photographs thereof, and conducted an inventory in the presence of Raul, a Barangay kagawad, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a media practitioner, The seized items were turn over to the evidence custodian, who kept them in a sealed container in the police station.
During the trial of Raul for the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, police officer Pepe, the sole witness for the prosecution, testified as narrated above. After which, the prosecution rested its case. The defense did not present any evidence
If you were the judge, would you convict or acquit Raul for the crime charges? Explain briefly.
Joben, a school principal, called high school student Paula and Gina, both 15 years old, to the faculty room regarding the sexual text message circulating around campus which made reference to Joben’s daughter. In front of teachers and some students, Joben shouted at Paula and Gina, asking them who sent the said text message. Joben also threatened to sue them and said: “Siguro naingit kayo sa anak ko kasi maganda sya, matalino at mayaman. Sabihin nyo kasi sa mga magulang nyo magsumikap sila para maging mayaman din kayo. Di yung tatamad-tamad.” Joben then raised the middle finger in front of Paula and Gina, saying “Mga burikat (whore)!”
Later that day, Paula and Gina narrated the incident to their parents and said that they were ashamed of going back to school.
Is Joben guilty of violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 for other acts of child abuse? Explain briefly.
IVX
On February 25, 2019, Bob approached Edward to borrow Php 100,000.00 purportedly to settle some obligations, promising that he would pay the loan using a postdated check. Convinced by Bob’s promises of repayment with interest, and because of their closeness as former classmates in high school, Edward agreed to lend the said amount. As payment, Bob made, drew, issued in favor of, and delivered to Edward on the latter’s residence at No. 112 Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila, CBC Saving Bank Check No. 32710 postdated August 25, 2019 in the amount of Php 105,000.00. When the check was presented for payment on its due date in CBC Saving Bank Quezon City Branch, it was dishonored due to: “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF).
On January 22, 2020, Edward sent a demand letter to Bob to pay the face value of the check, but said demand, although received by Bob, was not heeded. Hence, the check remained unpaid, with no arrangement for its payment.
Draft the appropriate Information, complete with caption and title, charging Bob for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
In 2003, the Province of Davao del Sur purchased two vehicles for the use of the Governor and Vice Governor, respectively. The purchase requests, which were all assigned by Luis as then Governor of the province, requested for the acquisition of one unit Ford Ranger XLT 4×4 and one unit Toyota Hilux 4×4. The procurement of the subject vehicles did not undergo competitive public bidding as it was effected through direct purchase. The mode of procurement was approved by the members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the province. The two vehicles were delivered to the provincial government, and after inspection and acceptance by the concerned officials, payments were issued to the suppliers.
Subsequently, a complaint was filed by a concerned citizen before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB) claiming that the purchase of the provincial government violated the procurement law. The OMB, after due investigation, verified that the provincial government did not comply with the required procedure of the procurement law. Based on his finding, the OMB filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information against Luis and the members of the BAC for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The Sandiganbayan found Luis and the members of the BAC guilty on the sole reason that violation of the procurement law constitutes evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the part of the accused.Is the Sandiganbayan correct? Explain briefly.
Kotse Corp. operates a mobile phone application “Kotse PH” that allows users to book private cars in demand to their destination, and matches them with nearby available “driver-partners.” The destination is only made known to the driver-partners when the users boarded the vehicle. Kotse Corp. has an accreditation process for its driver-partners who are required to submit bio-data, professional driver’s license, and negative drug test result, as well as pass an exam on road safety. After accreditation, the driver-partners are free to choose their own work hours but Kotse Corp. requires them to complete at least a total 40 hours per week or else the driver’s share in the fare will be reduced. The fare is determined by the application software depending on distance, time, and the demand for rides. The fare is paid by the user or passenger through the application and Kotse Corp. remits the driver’s share of 75% of the fare every two weeks. Kotse Corp. keeps 25% as its commission. The drivers-partners are evaluated by the user or passenger through a five-star rating system. Driver-partners who consistently have an average rating of two-star or below may be removed from Kotse Corp‘s roster of driver-partners. The driver-partners use their own vehicles, pay for fuel, and secure their own vehicle insurance.
Is there an employer-employee relationship between Kotse Corp. and its driver-partners? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Krys is a daily paid factory worker who is required to render eighth hours of work per day. Two days ago, he rendered only seven hours of work as he arrived late in the morning. Yesterday, Krys worked for nine hours as he was required to assist in the processing of perishable goods. His supervisor, Rudy, told Krys that he would not get any overtime pay as his work for nine hours yesterday was meant to offset the one hour shortfall in his work the day before.
Cristina, a new-hire of Sterling Corporation (Sterling), was made to join Starling Corporation Employees Union (SCEU) in compliance with the union shop provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between SCUE and Sterling. At the request of SCUE, Sterling started deducting union dues from Cristina’s salary and remitting the same to SCUE pursuant to the CBA provisions. Cristina protested, claiming that she has not authorized the deduction in writing.
Is Cristina’s claim valid? Explain briefly.
Due to Bitoy’s repeated sexual advances toward his co-worker Diego, Diego went to the Personnel Manager to report Bitoy’s behavior. The Personnel Manager started a disciplinary action case against Bitoy. In his written explanation, Bitoy denied the allegation of sexual advances. He also pointed out that sexual harassment only pertains to a superior-subordinate relationship, where the perpetrator is the superior and the victim is the subordinate. Since Diego is not his subordinate, as they are co-workers with the same rank, Bitoy cannot be subject to disciplinary action.
Is Bitoy’s contention correct? Explain briefly.
Marino, a seafarer, was engaged as an oiler on board Searena Corporation’s oil tanker vessel. After ten executive contracts, with each contract having a duration of eight months and the last one ending in December 2021, Marino decided it was time to enjoy his hard-earned money, and disembarked from the vessel upon the expiration of his employment contract. In April 2022, he felt excruciating pain in his groin. He went to a doctor and was diagnosed with acute hernia. The doctor also determined that the hernia was caused by repeated heavy lifting because of his work as an oiler.
As a result, Marino filed a case against Searena Corporation before the Labor Arbiter, claiming total and permanent disability under the POEA Standard Employment Contract.
Searena Corporation raised in its position paper that Marino is barred from filing the case as he did not raise any complaints during the term of his employment, and within three days from his arrival in the country after his last employment.
If you were the Labor Arbiter, rule on Searena Corporation’s defense. Explain briefly.
Sonic Build Corp. employed Leo and Dan in its cement factory and assigned them the tasks of, among others, directing and supervising rank-and-file employees. Leo and Dan are required to ensure that such employees obey company rules and regulations, and recommend to the company’s Human Resource Department any required disciplinary action against erring employees. There is only one union representing rank-and-file employees.
May Leo and Dan join the union? Explain briefly.
Two legitimate labor organizations (Union Jack and Union Jill) are competing to become the first sole and exclusive bargaining agent (SEBA) in Maharlika Company. The unions agree to a consent election without involving the Bureau of Labor Relation (BLR). Union Jack gamers an overwhelming majority of the valid votes cast during the consent election. Negotiation for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) commences, and while this is ongoing, a third union, Union Jumble, files with the BLR a petition for certification election seeking certification as the SEBA in Maharlika Company. Union Jack opposes the petition, arguing that no petition for certification election can be filed within one year from the consent election, and during the CBA negotiation.
Is Union Jack correct? Explain briefly.
Julian was hired by Index Agency, a licensed manpower and recruitment corporation, which had a Service Agreement with Kainan Resto, a fast food restaurant, for the provision of ancillary and support services. Index Agency assigned Julian to work at Kainan Resto as a cashier and counter clerk, whose duties involved taking customer orders, receiving payments, preparing food orders, and serving food to customers.
Julian was accused of short-changing a customer during one transaction. He was immediately dismissed from service by the manager of Kainan Resto. Julian filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Index Agency and Kainan Resto. In its defense, Kainan Resto argued that Julian was not its employee but of Index Agency, given that Index Agency is a licensed manpower corporation.
Is Kainan Resto Correct? Explain briefly.
Sigaw Corp., a media entity, produces television shows. To streamline its processes, it created a database of camera crew and sound engineer whom it usually engages for its television shows. Sigaw Corp. pays them only “talent fees” each time they are engaged for a show. After several years of this set up, the camera crew and sound engineer filed a complaint for regularization against Sigaw Corp. before the Labor Arbiter. On the other hand, Sigaw Corp., claims that they are not regular employees but independent contractors or talents because they are engaged and paid for their specific technical skills.
Rule on the complaint. Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] As Human Resource Manager of a five-star hotel, you were told in confidence by several fearful employees in the housekeeping department that Joy, the head of housekeeping, was a harsh disciplinarian who would pinch the ears of her staff or rap their heads to drill instruction on the proper way to clean and tidy up the hotel rooms. One day, the assistant housekeeper urgently called you to the supply room of the hotel, where you found housekeeping staff Erika and Patricia slumped on the floor with bloody faces. The assistant housekeeping reported that she saw Joy beat up Erika and Patricia with a mop for allegedly stealing complimentary toiletries for guests. Erika and Patricia were hospitalized for a couple of days due to the injuries they sustained.
Trixie is a science/researcher in the academe, specializing in vaccine research particularly messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology. At the start of the pandemic in 2020, Trixie was hired by AZ Corp. to help formulate and produce a vaccine against COVID-19. The employment contract provides:
“You shall not work for whatsoever capacity, either as an employee, agent, or consultant with any person, anywhere in the Philippines, whose business is in direct and indirect competition with the company during the period of this contract, and for a period of ten (10) years from date of resignation or suspension from the company. Violation of this stipulation shall make you liable for liquidated damages in the amount of Php 5,000,000.00“
Trixie was able to successfully produce the vaccine and for which AZ Corp. paid her Php 5,000,000.00. Thereafter, Trixie resigned from AZ Corp. and returned to her work in the academy. AZ Corp. filed a complaint for damages in the amount of Php 5,000,000.00 against Trixie for violation of the above stipulation in her contract.
If you were the judge, rule on the validity of the stipulation. Explain briefly. (5 points )
Discuss and differentiate between the procedural requirements in termination of employment for (i) just and (ii) authorized causes. Explain briefly.
A police officer saw Harvey urinating in public. A local ordinance imposes a Php 500.00 fine for urinating in public. The officer shouted at Harvey: “That is against the law!” Harvey sarcastically answered: “NO, this is against the wall!” Then and there, the police officer arrested him and brought him to the police station. At the police station, Harvey was frisked and was found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver loaded with five live ammunition. He was subsequently charged with Qualify Illegal Possession of Firearms. When the prosecution offered in evidence the unlicensed firearms and ammunition, the defense objected on the ground that the pieces of evidence are products of illegal search and seizure. The prosecution contended that the pieces of evidence were lawfully seized after valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
Was the search and seizure valid? Explain briefly.
Pedro was the accused in a rape case. During the trial, the private complainant testified that on the night of the incident, she was walking home when Pedro, who was her neighbor, suddenly grabbed her and brought her to his house. There, Pedro forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. After the prosecution rested its case, Pedro testified that the sexual intercourse between him and the private complainant was consensual. Eventually, the trial court acquitted Pedro on reasonable doubt and found that the element of force was not established.
The People filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the trial court’s decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion because the private complainant’s testimony clearly established that Pedro had carnal knowledge of her through force and without her consent. In this comment, Pedro sought to dismiss the petition on the ground violation of his right against double jeopardy.
As the CA, how would you rule on the petition? Explain briefly
A city ordinance was passed providing for the removal, at the owner’s expense, of: (i) all outdoor advertising material displayed or expose to the public in designated regulated areas such as residential zones, bridges, and alone main city streets; and (ii) billboards of substandard materials, or which obstruct road signs and traffic signals. Failure to comply with said ordinance authorizes the mayor, assisted by the police, to implement removal of the non-compliant material. ABC Ad Agency, owner of the billboards removed by the city, filed a complaint because, considering the nature of its business, the removal of its billboards amounted to taking of private property without just compensation.
Will the complaint prosper? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] As a reaction to China’s occupation of the Spratly Islands, a rally was organized by various civil society aggrupation at a vacant private lot. Before the event could even start, the police ordered the organizer not to proceed with the program because of security and the fact that the group did not have a mayor’s permit. When the organizers still proceeded with the rally, the police dispersed the crowd and arrested the leaders of the group.
The K-12 Law was passed with the objective to enhance the Philippines education system by strengthening its curriculum and adding two years of high school. Parents of students in a science high school sought to have the law declared unconstitutional citing equal protection clause of the Constitution. As well, the parents averred that the law should not apply to their children because the latter belong to a distinct class, being gifted and advanced to their age, with the capability to learn better and faster compared to other high school students.
Is the contention of the parents tenable? Explain briefly.
President Hidalgo, who wanted the Philippines to be part of the International Criminal court once again, signed the Philippines’ ratification of the Rome statute. A copy of the treaty, along with the ratification, was sent to the senate for its concurrence. Senator Dalisay filed a proposed “Resolution” for the senate to concur with the Philippines’ ratification. The proposed “Resolution” was read three times on three separate days. Three days before the third reading, printed copies of the proposed “Resolution” in its final form were distributed to all Senators. The Senators then unanimously approved the “Resolution”, and the Senate expressed its concurrence with the treaty’s ratification. A civil society group filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the senate’s concurrence on the ground that the “Resolution” was void because only a “bill” becomes a law.
Rule on the petition. Explain briefly.
After Martial Law was declared in Mindanao, police officers arrested Jose Maria without any warrant while shopping for groceries at a supermarket in Mindanao. Jose Maria questioned the validity of the arrest as he has no pending case and had not committed any crime at the time of his arrest. The police officers countered that the declaration of Martial Law suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as a result , they could effect warrantless arrests.
Is the contention of the police officers correct? Explain briefly.
A law was passed exempting the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from the payment of filing fees in collection cases on loans granted by LBP to its borrowers. The Office of Court Administration (OCA) of the Supreme Court issued a Memorandum requiring all courts to continue to collect filing fees in collection cases filed by LBP, stating that only the Supreme Court can decide on exemption from payment of filing fees. LBP assails the OCA Memorandum, arguing that the exemption found in the law is within plenary power of congress to enact legislation. Moreover, the law was approved by the President. Thus, LBP argues that the act of the OCA violates the principle of separation of powers.
Is LBP correct? Explain briefly.
During a press conference, President Acosta explained that the executive Department can temporarily take over the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest to address the shortage of hospital beds occasioned by the COVED-19 pandemic. She invokes Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Philippines Constitution, which provides that: “In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the state may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Is President Acosta correct? Explain briefly.
Lemuel was born in 1988 to a Filipino mother and an American father, as shown in his birth certificate. His parents, however, were not married to each other. Subsequently, his father petitioned for him, as a result of which Lemuel received a certificate of American citizenship and an American passport. In 2022, Lemuel filed a certificate of candidacy to run as Representative of the lone district of Batanes. Ayla, a Filipino citizen and resident of Batanes, filed a petition for disqualification with the Commission on Elections alleging that Lemuel is ineligible to run for public office of the Philippines as Lemuel is an American citizen.
Is Ayla correct? Explain briefly.
The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) directed higher education institution to remove materials “that contain pervasive ideologies Communist-Terrorist Group“ from their libraries. According to the CHED, the materials need to be removed because these would radicalize students against the government.
Is the CHED directive a violation of the institution’s academic freedom? Explain briefly.
The Congress passed a law prohibiting the sale and distribution of alcoholic drinks within 100 meters from religious and education institutions. A city enacted an ordinance increasing the coverage of the prohibition to 150 meters from any religious and educational institution.
Is the city ordinance valid? Explain briefly
Pursuant to a law ordering the fixing of “just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices, or services to be furnished, observed and imposed by operation of public utility vehicles,” the Land Transportation Franchise and Regulations Board (LTFRB) promulgated and published a regulation that “no car beyond six years shall be operated as a taxi.” Taxi operators assailed the validity of the regulation contending that procedural due process was violated because position papers were not asked of them and no notice was given to them prior to the issuance of the regulation.
Were the taxi operators denied procedural due process? Explain briefly.
A foreign commercial ship was spotted by the Philippine Coast Guard dumping garbage and toxic waste 20 nautical miles from Nasugbu, Batangas, the nearest coastline of the Philippines. The officers of the ship were arrested and charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas for violation of environmental laws of the Philippines. The officers of the ship filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that Philippines courts do not have territorial jurisdiction over the case since the vessel was sailing outside the territorial sea of the Philippines when arrest was made.
Is the ground to dismiss correct? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Philippine Medical Center (PMC) is a government hospital created by the law to provide healthcare to the general public, especially the less fortunate. To enable PMC to perform its mandate, the national government provided the initial capital, land, building and equipment to PMC. PMC’s charter also authorized it, acting through its Board of Trustees: to acquire property; to enter into contracts; to mortgage, encumber, lease, sell, convey, dispose of its properties; and to do other acts necessary to accomplish its purpose and objectives.
Among the properties of PMC are five lands and buildings located in Quezon City. The Quezon City assessor issued a notice of assessment for real properties taxes (RPT) against PMC’s properties that are being leased to private concessionaires. According to the city assessor, PMC’s properties leased to private entities are subject to RPT because these properties are not being exclusively used for charitable purposes. PMC, on the other hand, claims that, as a government instrumentality imbued with corporate power, it is exempt from RPT.
Samson Manufacturing, Inc. insured its own goods with Delilah Insurance for Php 2,000,000.00. The same goods were insured by Alibaba Shipping Co. with Assured Corp. for the same amount pursuant to its contract of carriage with Samson Manufacturing, Inc. Both policies warranted that no other insurance exists, and in case another insurance does exist, such would not void either policy, but in no case should the claim exceed the total amount of Php 2,000,000.00 at the time of loss.
Is this a case of double insurance? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Muviel obtained a life insurance policy from X Insurance Corp. Muviel underwent a medical examination and was certified as qualified to be insured. Unknown to X Insurance Corp., Muviel had a mild stroke some years earlier. The insurance policy expressly provided that any misrepresentation in the questionnaire filled up by Muviel for the issuance of the policy would render the policy null, void and of no effect.
(a) If Muviel dies within the two-year period from the time of issuance of the policy, will the beneficiaries of Muviel be entitled to claim the proceeds of the life insurance policy? Explain briefly.
(b) Should Muviel die after the two-year period, will your answer be the same? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Kotse Corp. in an entity that provides pre-arranged transportation services for a fee using an online-enabled platform technology that connects passengers with drivers using their own vehicles.
(a) Is Kotse Corp. a common carrier? Explain briefly.
(b) Are the drivers engaged in common carrier service? Explain briefly.
At around 4:00 p.m. of December 25, 2020, Christmas Day, Queenie and her child, Paeng, boarded a jeepney being operated by Emil and driven by Amor. Queenie was made to sit on an empty beer case at the edge of the rear entrance/exit of the jeepney with her sleeping child on her lap. When they reached an uphill incline on the road, the jeepney slid backwards. Queenie pushed both her feet against the step board to prevent herself and her child from being thrown out of the exit, but because the step board was wet, her left foot slipped and was crushed between the step board and the coconut tree which halted the jeepney’s backward motion. As a result, Queenie’s leg was badly injured and had to be amputated.
Queenie then sued Emil and Amor for breach of contract of carriage. Emil and Amor countered that the injuries Queenie sustained were due to her own fault since Amor had instructed everyone not to panic, but Queenie nevertheless tried to disembark which caused her foot to be crushed.
If you were the judge, would you hold Emil and Amor solidarily liable? Explain briefly.
FLIP Co. is engaged in a nationalized activity requiring at least 60% Filipino ownership. Its outstanding capital stock consists of 1,000,000,00 shares broken down into 400,000 non-voting preferred shares and 600,000 voting common shares out of which 20,000 are treasury shares.
How many shares of the corporation must be owned by Filipinos? Explain briefly.
Yoongi, a director of BTS Corp. PH, bought substantial shares of its major supplier, Hybe, Inc. When Hybe, Inc.’s contracts were taken up by the BTS Corp. PH Board, Yoongi not only voted for their approval but influenced other directors to do so. Later, the Hybe, Inc. contact turned out to be disadvantageous to BTS Corp. PH and caused it substantial losses.
Discuss the action/s that may be pursued against Yoongi under the Revised Corporation Code. Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] LOKO Co., using a fraudulent scheme, was able to sell its shares to investors. The sale proceeds were then secretly diverted by LOKO Co. to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Later, LOKO Co. became insolvent and was placed under receivership. On behalf of the investor-stockholders, the receiver demanded the inspection of the book and records of LOKO Co.’s subsidiaries.
(a) Can LOKO Co. stockholders exercise, through the receiver, their right of inspection of the books and records of LOKO Co.’s subsidiaries? Explain briefly.
(b) Is this a case of intra-corporate dispute? Explain briefly.
EXIT Corp., no longer wanting to continue with its business, transferred to Entra, Inc. under an Asset Purchase Agreement all its properties and assets including goodwill. A creditor of EXIT Corp. demanded from Entra, Inc. the payment of EXIT Corp.’s debt for the reason that the transaction amounted to a merger and, therefore, the surviving corporation, Entra, Inc., must assume the debts of the absorbed corporation, EXIT Corp.
Is the Creditor’s demand tenable? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Zui Cheneris Corp. is a pharmaceutical company operating in the Philippines since 1999. One of its products is a drug called carbamazepine under the brand name “CHENAPS”, which is an anti-convulsant used to control all types of seizure disorders of varied causes like epilepsy.
Nutty pharma, also a pharmaceutical company in the Philippines, sells citicoline under the mark “CHENAPSE”, which is indicated for the treatment of cerebrovascular disease or stroke. “CHENAPSE” was registered as a trademark by Nutty Pharma with the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPO) on September 24, 2017.
On November 29, 2017, Nutty Pharma filed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Complaint against Zui Cheneris for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, alleging that Zui Cheneris’ “ CHENAPS” is confusingly similar to is registered trademark “CHENAPSE” and the resulting likelihood of confusion is dangerous because the marks cover medical drug intended for different types of illnesses.
Zui Cheneris, in its Answer, countered that: (i) it has been selling carbamazepine under the brand name “CHENAPS” since 2004; (ii) it was impossible for Nutty Pharma not to have known the existence of “CHENAPS” before the latter’s registration of “CHENAPSE” because Nutty Pharma had promoted its products in the same publication where Zui Cheneris had advertised “CHENAPS”; (iii) despite its knowledge of prior use by Zui Cheneris of “CHENAPS”, Nutty Pharma had fraudulently appropriated the “CHENAPSE” mark by registering the same with the IPO; and, (iv) as the prior user, Zui Cheneris is the owner of “CHENAPS” and the continued use by Nutty Pharma of “CHENAPSE” will cause it grave and irreparable damage, Thus, Zui Cheneris prayed for the cancellation of the trademark registration of Nutty Pharma’s “CHENAPSE”.
(a) As the RTC judge, will you enjoin Zui Cheneris from further using the mark ”CHENAPS”? Explain briefly.
(b) Is Zui Cheneris’ prayer for cancellation of Nutty Pharma’s trademark registration tenable? Explain briefly.
Bank teller Loris submitted a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) on Marychelle, a politically exposed person (PEP), who, when asked about her deposit of Php 2,000,000.00 in cash, winked and replied “Sikreto teh”. The Anti-Money Laundering Council did not find probable cause which could support the belief that Marychelle had committed an unlawful activity or was otherwise involved in money laundering. Marychelle now wants to sue the bank and Loris for allegedly discriminating against her.
Discuss whether or not Loris and the bank are liable.
Kauff Corp. had suffered tremendous losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic slump. From a calculation of its assets and liabilities, Kauff Corp. was technically insolvent but management believed that it had the chance to survive if its mineral properties could be exploited. Kauff Corp has the rights to several parcels of land containing nickel deposits. Nickel prices had gone up in the world market and nickel was in short supply.
The creditors of Kauff Corp. are set to file suits for collection with application for writs of attachment.
As the counsel for Kauff Corp., what legal action would you take to avert the suits and stave off insolvency and liquidation? Explain briefly.
In a Facebook livestream, an author offered his books online for sale by asking interested viewers to type in “Mine” in the chat box. A set of his books was sold to a social media influencer who later turned out to be a “joy reserver” A “joy reserver” refers to an online buyer who enthusiastically shows interest in an item, but will not actually buy it. The author made a screenshot of the social media influencer’s “Mine” message as proof of the acceptance of the offer.
Does the screenshot of the massage prove the perfection of the sale contract? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Pepe and Pilar are adjoining lot owners. Suppose Pepe’s lot is titled and without his knowledge, it was encroached upon by Pilar whose lot is untitled but who honestly believed that the encroacher portion, where she built a small bungalow house, is still within her property.
(a) Is Pilar a builder in good faith? Discuss Pepe’s right as against Pilar. Explain briefly.
(b) Suppose it is Pilar’s lot that is titled and Pepe’s lot is untitled, would Pilar be a builder in good faith? Discuss Pepe’s right as against Pilar. Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions.] Thea, Vanessa, and Sophia are siblings who are co-workers of a 600-sq. m. parcel of land covered by TCT No. 12345 situated along Bangkal Road, Makati City. Thea decided to sell her share, an undivided 200-sq. m. portion of the property, to Alyssa, a Filipina nurse who has been living in Canada for the last ten years. Alyssa, without the knowledge of Sophia and Vanessa, built a modest house on the 200-sq.m. portion abutting the road leased it to Stell for Php 15,000.00 per month.
(a) Could Thea legally transfer her share of the property to Alyssa without the consent of Vanessa and Sophia? Explain briefly.
(b) Can Vanessa and Sophia respectively legally demand from Alyssa a one-third share in the rentals? Explain briefly.
[This item has two questions] With the intent to develop a subdivision, Oliver bought a parcel of land adjacent to a subdivision owned by Phil. Oliver’s land had no direct access to the highway, as it was blocked by a kamote plantation owned by Josh. Phil’s subdivision, on the other hand, already had a direct access to the highway. To facilitate the release of the license form the Department of Human Settlement and Urban Development, Oliver presented a contract to sell between him and Josh over the kamote plantation, on the representation that he would construct an access road thereon.
Pending approval of the license, Oliver sought the consent of Phil to connect the road that would be built by him with the main road of Phil’s subdivision. Phil allowed him to do this pending their negotiation on the compensation to be paid. With the eventual grant of the license, Oliver began the development of his subdivision. To protect the right of way over Phil’s subdivision, Oliver was able to cause an annotation of adverse claim on Phil’s property.
However, when Oliver’s subdivision was already completed, and with the adverse claim annotated, Oliver believed that he no longer needed to buy the kamote plantation and accordingly rescinded the contract to sell with Josh.
When Oliver and Phil failed to arrive at an agreement on the consideration for the easement, Phil built a wall blocking the road constructed by Oliver that connected Oliver’s subdivision with his. Oliver filked a omplaint seeking the establishment of an easement of right of way through Phil’s subdivision which Oliver claimed to be the most adequate and convenient access to the highway. On the other hand, Phil filed a petition to have the adverse claim canceled.
(a) Is Oliver entitled to a right of way through Phil’s subdivision? Explain briefly.
(b) Is there basis to have the adverse claim canceled? Explain briefly.
The spouse Santos are the registered owners of Lot 2 located in umaga Subdivision, Caramoan, Camarines sur, covered by TCT No. 1369. Lot 2, which has been occupied by the spouse Santos for about 11 years, as a one-storey residential which was already erected thereon when Lot 2 was purchased by the, from the spouse Cruz in 2005. At the time of the acquisition of Lot 2, the adjoining lot, Lot 1, which was also owned by the spouses Cruz started the construction of a two-storey residential house. The spouses of Santos bemoaned how, prior to the construction on Lot 1, they received enough bright and natural light from their windows. The construction rendered their house dark such that they are unable to do their normal activities in their house without switching on their lights.
Have the spouse Santos acquired an easement of light and view with respect to Lot 1 owned by the spouses Cruz? Explain briefly.
In 2014, a wealthy young couple, Tan, moved by the spirit of generosity and love for their hometown in Siquijor, decided to donate a one-hectare lot in favor of the province of Siquijor. The Deed of donation Pertinently provides:
“The herein DONORS hereby voluntarily and freely give, transfer and convey, by way of unconditional donation, unto said DONEE, all of the rights, title and interest which the aforesaid DONORS have or which pertain to them and which they owned exclusively in the above-described real property over a one-hectare portion of the same, solely for hospital site only and for no other purpose, where a provincial government hospital shall be constructed.”
The donation was recorded i the Registry of Deeds, and a certificate of title to the property was transferred to the province of Siquijor. In accordance with the Deed of Donation, the construction of a hospital building was started in the following year.
However, for reasons unknown, only the foundation of the hospital building has, to this day, been completed.
Do the spouses Tan have valid grounds to revoke the donation? Explain briefly.
Being an overseas worker, Salvador issued to Ronaldo a duly notarized Special Power of attorney (SPA) authorizing the latter to enter into a contract of lease over Salvador’s property covered by TCT no. 122433 for a period of three years with SISI Corp. Salvador entrusted to Ronaldo the owner’s duplicate of the TCT in case SISI Corp. needed to verify the same.
Hearing rumors that the subject property was sold, Salvador went to the Register of Deeds and was shocked to find out that TCT No. 122433 had been canceled and TCT No. 334388 had been issued in Eduardo’s name. To Vindicate his property rights, Salvador filed a complaint for cancellation of title and reconveyance. Salvador was able to prove that he was out of the country when the purported sale as executed.
On the other hand, Eduardo claims to be an innocent purchase for value, stating that he paid the fair market value to Ronaldo and that he replied on her fact that Ronaldo and that he relied on the fact Ronaldo presented the original owner’s duplicate of Salvador’s TCT. He likewise inspected the property and determined that Salvador was indeed the owner.
If you were the judge, decide. Explain briefly.
Atory is one of the five children of Jawo. Jawo was registered owner of a four-hectare parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Laguna covered by TCT No. 77347. When Jawo died, the owner’s duplicate of the TCT was kept by Jawo’s daughter, Akiko (sister of Atoy), who resided in the said property. wanting to have the said four-hectare property registered under his name, Atoy got in touch with Franz who had special connections with the Register of deeds of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. TCT No. 77347 was then cancelled and TCT No. 84660 was issued in Atoy’s name on January 29, 2013. Atoy immediately mortgaged the property to the Rural Bank of Sta. Cruz (RBSC). Upon default and after being declared the winning bidder in the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, RSBC consolidated ownership with the issuance of TCT No. 94477 in its name.
How will Akiko and the other heirs of Jawo be able to successfully argue that RBSC is not an innocent purchaser for value? Explain briefly.
How does the New Civil Code distinguish between immovable and movable properties? Explain briefly and give two examples for each.
[This item has two questions] This case involves two competing titles: TCT No. 23456 in the name of Flor and TCT No. 65432 in the name of de Luna. Flor’s title was derived from Rodrigo’s title was originally obtained through a judicial confirmation of the title in 1950 based on a survey plan approved in 1931. On the other hand, de Luna derived her TCT No. 65432 from Diaz who obtained an original title through judicial confirmatio of title at a much later date, i 1970, in the basis of a survey plan approved in 1921. It turned out that Flor’s TCT no. 23456, although titled prior in time, was based on a survey plan that was marred with numerous blatant, obvious ad serious defects, to the point that the trial court found it dubious, irregularly approved ad was therefore fake.
(a) Discuss the principle of “qui prior est tempore, potior est jure” in the torrens system of land registration.
(b) As between Flor and de Luna, whose title should be declared valid and whose title should be voided? Explain briefly.
In 20088, a fire razed the Register of Deeds of San Fernando, Pampanga (RD). Several titles on file were burned. Long before the fire, Tito, Vic, and Joey had been living in a 350-sq.m. lot covered by TCT No. 49933, which which they inherited from their parents. The original of TCT no. 49933 on file with the RD was among the titles which were bured. To effect the partition agreed among them, the siblings filed a verified petition for reconstitution of the TCT before your court.
To support the petition, the siblings presented: (i) a notarized affidavit of loss duly recorded and registered with the RD; (ii) a photograph of TCT no. 49933; (iii) real property tax declaration and receipts to evidence payment of real property taxes, together with the sketch and subdivision plan; (iv) a land Registration Authority (LRA) Report which state that the survey and subdivision plans and the techical description of the reconstituted property; (v) a microfilm copy of the plans ad technical description onn file with the LRA; and (vi) the Extrajudicial settlement of Estate executed amon them.
The public prosecutor, duly deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), prays for the denial of the petition, and argues that the foregoing documents are insufficient for reconstitution of TCT No. 49933.
Should the petition for reconstitution be granted? Explain briefly.
Ely borrows Php 2,000,000.00 from Mia and mortgages and a parcel of land to secure the loan. The mortgage provides for a 5% monthly interest, a five-years maturity period, a default provision in case of non-payment of interest of principal, and an extra judicial foreclosure provision. On the fourth year, Ely failed to pay interest for three consicutive months. After sending a demand letter, Mia declares Ely in default and extrajudicially forecloses the mortgage. Mia is the highest bidder in the foreclose sale, and consolidates ownership upon the lapse of the redemption period.
Can Ely have the foreclosure annulled and recover the property? Explain briefly.
Luz is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of 500 square meters located in San Miguel, Bulaccan annd covered by TCT No. R-248016. Luz agrees to sell to Minda the lad for Php 500,000.00, payable in te mothly installments, with the first installment payable upon execution of the contract to sell, to which Minda acceded. They also agreed that the title to the land shall only transfer to Minda full paymennt of the connsideration, and that any and all taxes, fees and expenses incidental to the sale will be paid by Minda.
Draft a notarized cotract to sell between Luz and Minda.
Live Webinar on Ph Payroll Computations and Taxation
Live Webinar: Input VAT Refund
Live Webinar: Winning BIR Tax Assessments Series: Process, Remedies & Writing Effective Protest
Onsite Training: PEZA Registered Entities: Taxation and Basic Reports
Live Webinar: Returns and Reports Preparation under eBIR Forms and Online Submissions
Live Webinar: Basic Bookkeeping Refresher Course
Live Webinar: Withholding Taxes, Subjects & Applications
Live Webinar: Value Added Tax: In and Out
Live Webinar: SEC Dividend Declarations
Onsite Training: Basic Bookkeeping for Non-Accountants
Revenue Regulations No. 014-2025 – VAT on Digital Services
Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 34-2025
Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 32-2025
Revenue Regulations No. 13-2025
Republic Act No. 12079
Δ
Phone : (02) 5310-2239
Mobile : Smart: 0939-916-2952 Globe: 0967-497-4989
Email : info(@)taxacctgcenter.ph
© Tax and Accounting Center 2025. All Rights Reserved