2018 Bar Examinations
Civil Law
November 11, 2018/ 8:00 A.M to 12 N.N.
I
Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parent’s wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church.
II
After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy as four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born.
Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale., with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchased price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payment in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchased jewelry. When things didn’t work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple.
III
Silverio was a woman trapped in a man’s body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Ston, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (“CAH”) which is a condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging for all inherits and appearances , as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship
IV
Severino died intestate, survived by his wife Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio, Segundo and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the time of his death, the twins were only 11 years of age, while all the older children were of age. He left only one property: a 5,000 sq. m. parcel of land. After his death, the olde3r siblings Soler, Sulpicio, and Segundo sold the land to Dr. Santos for Php 500,000 with a righto repurchase, at the same price, within five (5) years from the date of the sale. The deed of sale was signed only by the three (3) older siblings, and covered the entire properly. Before the five (5) years expired, Soler and Sulpicio tendered their respective shares of Php 166.666 each to redeem the property. Since Segundo did not have the means because he was still unemployed, Saturnina paid the remaining Php166,666 to redeem the property. After the property was redeemed from Dr. Santos, the three (3) older children and Saturnina, for herself and on behalf of the twins who were still minors, sold the property to Dr. Sazon, in an absolute sale, for Php 1 million. In representing the twins, Saturnina relied on the fact that she was the natural guardian of her minor children.
V
Sol Soldivino, wido, passed away, leaving two (2) legitimate children: a 25-year old son, Santino (whom she had not spoken for five [5] years prior to her death since he attempted to kill her at that time), and a 20 year-old daughter, Sara. She left an estate worth Php8 million and a will containing only one provision: that Php1 million should be given to “the priest who officiate at my wedding to my children’s late father.” Sara, together with two (2) of her friends, acted as an attesting witness to the will.
On the assumption that the will is admitted for probate and that there are no debts, divide the estate and indicate the heirs/legatees entitled to inherit, the amount that each of them will inherit, and where (i.e., legitime/free portion.intestate share) their shares should be charged. (5%)
VI
Sammy and Santi are cousins who separately inherited two (2) adjoining lots from their grandfather. Sammy is based overseas but wants to earn income from his inherited land, so he asked a local contractor to build a row of apartments on his property which he could rent out. The contractor sent him the plans and Sammy noticed that the construction encroached on a part of Santi’s land but he said nothing and gave approval to construct based on the plans submitted by the local contractor. Santi, based locally, and who loved his cousin dearly, did not object even if knew of the encroachment since he was privy to the plans and visited the property regularly. Later, the cousins had a falling out and Santi demanded that the portion of the apartments that encroached on hos land be demolished.
Can Santi successfully file legal action to require the demolition? (5%)
VII
Sydney, during her lifetime, was a successful lawyer, By her own choices, she remained unmarried and devoted all her time to taking care of her nephew and two (2) nieces: Socrates, Saffinia, and Sophia. She wrote a will giving all her properties remaining upon her death to the three (3) of them. The will was admitted to probate during her lifetime. Later, she decided to make a new will giving all her remaining properties only to the two (2) girls, Saffinia and Sophia. She then tore up the previously probated will. The second will was presented for probate only after her death. However, the probate court found the second will to be void for failure to comply with formal requirements.
VIII
Sofronio was a married father of two when he had a brief fling with Sabrina resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of their son Sinforoso. Though his wife knew nothing of the affair, Sofronio regretted it, but secretly provided child support for Sinforoso. Unfortunately, when Sinforoso was 10 years old, Sofronio died. Only Sofronio’s father, Salumbides, knew of Sabrina and Sinforoso. For the purpose of providing support to Sinforoso, Salumbides gave Sabrina usufructruary right over one of his properties- house and lot – to last until Sinforoso reaches the age of majority. Sabrina was given possession of the property on the basis of causcion juratoria. Two (2) years after the creation of the usufruct, the house accidentally burned down, and three (3) years thereafter, Sinforoso died before he could reach the age of 18.
Will the usufruct continue after the house has burned down? If yes, will it continue after Sinforoso’s deathe? (2.5%)
IX
Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things, that there was an unreasonable delay in the service of the dinner and that certain items promised were unavailable. The hotel claims that, while there was a delay in the service of the meals, the same was occasioned by the sudden increase of guests to 450 from the guaranteed expected number of 350, as stated in the Banquest and Meeting Service Contract. In the action for damages for breach of contract instituted by the couple, they claimed that the Banquest and Meeting Services Contract was a contract of adhesion since they only provided the number of guests and chose the menu. On the other hand, the hotels defense was that the proximate cause of the complainant’s injury was the unexpected increase in their guests, and this was what set the chain of events that resulted in the alleged inconvenience.
X
Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina’s youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair’s wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair’s late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years.
After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for her school fees since he was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.
XI
Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of Php1 million. Under the sale agreement, Samantha was supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility bills incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the Contract to Sell was executed, Samantha still had not paid the Php50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to the sale. Since Sergio could not operate the business without electricity and the utility company refused to restore electricity services unless the unpaid bills were settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid electricity bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio only tendered Php950,000 representing the full purchase price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid utility bills. Samantha refused to accept the tender on the ground that she was the one supposed to pay the bill and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her behalf.
XII
Saachi opened a savings bank account with Shanghainese bank. He made an initial deposit of Php100,00. Part of the bank opening forms that he was required to sign when he opened the account was a Holdout Agreement which provided that, should be incur any liability or obligation to the bank, the bank shall have the right to immediately and automatically take over his savings account deposit. After he opened his deposit account, the Shanghainese Bank discovered a scam wherein the funds in the account of another depositor in the bank was withdrawn by an impostor. Shanghainese Bank suspected Saachi to be the impostor, and filed a criminal case of estafa against him. While the case was still pending with the Prosecutor’s office, the bank took over Saachi’s savings deposit on the basis of the Holdout Agreement.
XIII
Sonny, Inc. (SI) purchased several heavy machineries from Single Equipment Philippines, Inc. (SEP) for Php10 million, payable in 36 monthly installments. A chattel mortgage was constituted on the same machineries as security for the amount. As additional security, the President of SI, Stan Smith, mortgaged his house and lot. SI failed to pay the 16th and succeeding monthly installments. SEP then commenced a collection suit against SI, and in the course of the proceedings, a writ of attachment was issued against SI’s properties including the mortgaged machineries. The attached properties were subsequently sold at public action, but the proceeds thereof were insufficient to satisfy the judgment credit.
XIV
Socorro is the registered owner of Lot A while Segunda is the registered owner of the adjoining Lot B. Lot A is located at an elevated plateau of about 15 feet above the level of Lot B. Since Socorro was allegedly removing portions of the land and cement that supported the adjoining property, Segunda cuased the annonation of an adverse claim against 50 sq. m. on Lot A’s Transfer Certificate of Title, asserting the existence of a legal assessment.
XV
Simon owned a townhouse that he rented out to a shannon, a flight attendant with Soleil Philippine Airlines (SPA). They had no written contract but merely agreed on a three (3) year lease. Shannon had been using the townhouse as her base in Manila and had been paying rentals for more than a year when she accepted a better job offer from Sing Airlines. This meant that Singapore was going to be her new base and so she decided, without informing Simon, to sublease the townhouse to Sylvia, an office clerk in SPA.
XVI
Selena was as a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. Shen then left to work as a caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam’s parents are if Filipino ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam’s parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met.
Are Sam’s parents correct? (2.5%)
XVII
Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition of the common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth Php2 million, and some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to Php1 million. All these properties were acquired using Semuel’s salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action on behalf of their minor children, for support.
XVIII
Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok-Hanoi-Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract to air transportation was between Shasha and SAL, with the latter endorsing to SMA the Hanoi-Manila segment of the journey. All her flights were confirmed by SAL before she left Manila. Shasha took the flight from Manila to Bangkok on board SAL using the ticket. When she arrive in Bangkok, she went to the SAL ticket counter and confirmed her return trip from Hanoi to Manila on board SMA Flight No. SA 888. On the date of her return trip, she checked in for SMA Flight No. SA 888, boarded the plane, and before she could even settle in on her assigned seat, she was off-loaded and treated rudely by the crew. She lost her luggage and missed an important business meeting. She thereafter filed a complaint solely against SAL and argued that it was solidarily liable with SMA for the damages she suffered since the latter was only an agent of the former.
XIX
Sebastian, who has a pending assessment from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), was required to post a bond. He entered into an agreement with the Solid Surety Company (SSC) for SSC to issue a bond in favor of the BIR to secure payment of his taxes, if found to be due. In consideration of the issuance of the bond, he executed an Indemnity Agreement with SSC whereby he agreed to indemnify the latter in the event that he was found liable to pay the tax. The BIR eventually decided against Sebastian, and judicially commenced action against both Sebastian and SSC to recover Sebastian’s unpaid taxes. Simultaneously. BIR also initiated action to foreclose on the bond. Even before paying the BIR , SSC sought indemnity from Sebastian on the basis of the Indemnity Agreement. Sebastian refused to pay since SSC had not paid the BIR anything yet, and alleged that the provision in the Indemnity Agreement which allowed SSC to recover from him, by mere demand, even if it (SSC) had not yet paid the creditor, was void for being contrary to law and public policy.
Can Sebastian legally refuse to pay SSC? (2.5%)
XX
Simeon was returning to Manila after spending a weekend with his parents in Sariaya, Queszon. He boarded a bus operated by the Sabbit Bus Line (SBL) on August 30, 2013. In the middle of the journey, the bus collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction, which was overtaking the vehicle in front of the truck. Though the driver of the SBL was tried to avoid the truck, a mishap occurred as the truck hit the left side of the bus. As a result of the accident, Simeon suffered a fractured leg and was unable to report for work for one week. He sued SBL for actual and moral damages. SBL raised the defense that it was the driver of the truck who was at fault, and that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its driver.
–Nothing Follows—
2018 BAR EXAMINATION
TAXATION LAW
November 11, 2018/2:00P.M. to 6:00 P.M.
KM Corporation, doing business in the City of Kalookan, has been a distributor and retailer of clothing and household materials. It has been paying the City of Kalookan local taxes based on Sections 15 (Tax on Wholesalers, Distributors or Dealers) and 17 ( Tax on Retailers) of the Revenue Code of Kalookan City (Code). Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panglusod enacted an ordinance amending the Code by inserting section 21 which imposes a tax on “Businesses Subject to Excise, Value-Added and Percentage Taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC),” at the rate 50% of 1% per annum on the gross sales and receipts on persons “ who sell goods and services in the course of trade and business,” KM Corporation paid the taxes due under Section 21 under protest, claiming that (a) local government units could not impose a tax on businesses already taxes under the NIRC and (b) this would amount to double taxation, since its business was already under Sections 15 and 17 of the Code.
Kronge Konsult, Inc. (KKI) is a Philippine corporation engaged on architectural design, engineering, and construction work. Its principal office is located in Makati City, but it has various infrastructure projects in the country and abroad. Thus , KKI employs both local and foreign workers. The company adopted a policy that the employees’ salaries are paid in the currency of the country where they are assigned or detailed.
Below are some of the employees of KKI. Determine whether the compensation they receive from KKI in 2017 is taxable under Philippine laws and whether they are required to file tax returns with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). (2% each)
Kim, a Filipino national, worked with K-Square, Inc. (KSI), and was seconded to various KSI-affiliated corporation:
All the corporations mentioned are majority-owned in common by the Koh family and covered by a BIR-qualified multiemployer-employee retirement plan (MEERP), under which the employees may be moved around within the controlled group (i.e., form one KSI subsidiary or affiliate to another) without loss of seniority rights or break in the tenure. Kim was well-loved by his employer and colleagues, so upon retirement, and on his last day in office, KSI gave him a Mercedez Benz car worth Php 5 million as a surprise, with a streamer that reads: “ You’ll be missed. Good Luck, Sir Kim.”
Years ago, Krisanto brought a parcel of land in Muntinlupa for only Php 65,000. He donated the land to his son, Kornelio, in 1980 when the property had a fair market value of Php 75,000, and paid the corresponding donor’s tax.
Kornelio, in turn, sold the property in 2000 to Katrina for Php 6.5 million and paid the capital gain tax, documentary stamp tax, local transfer tax, and other fees charges. Katrina, in turn, donated the land to Klaret School last August 30, 2017 to be used as the site for additional classrooms. No donor’s tax was paid because Katrina claimed that the donation was exempt from taxation. At the time of the donation to Klaret School, the land had a fair market value of Php 65 million.
Spouses Konstantino and Korina are Filipino citizen and are principal shareholders of a restaurant chain, Korina’s Inc. The restaurant’s principal office is in Makati City, Philippines.
Korina’s became so popular as a Filipino restaurant that the owners decided to expand its operations overseas. During the period 2010-2015 alone, it opened ten (10) stores throughout North America and five (5) stores in various parts of Europe where there were large Filipino communities. Each store abroad was in the name of a corporation organized under the laws of the state or country in which the store was located. All stores had identical capital structures: 60% of the outstanding capital stock was owned by Korina’s Inc., while the remaining 40% was owned directly by the spouses Konstantino and Korina.
Beginning 2017, in light immigration policy enunciated by US President Donald Trump, many Filipinos have since returned to the Philippines and the number of Filipino immigrants in the US dropped significantly. On account of these developments, Konstantino and Korina decided to sell their shares of stock in the (5) US Corporations that were doing poorly in gross sales. The spouses’ lawyer-friend advised them that they will be taxed 5% on the first Php 100,000 net capital gain, and 10% on the net capital gain in excess of Php 100,000
Is the lawyer corrct? If not, how should the spouses Konstantino and Korina be taxed on the sale of their shares? (5%)
Kria, Inc., a Korean corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing electric vehicles, established a branch office in the Philippines in 2010. The Philippine branch constructed a manufacturing plant in Kabuyao, Laguna, and the construction lasted three (3) years. Commercial operations in the Laguna plant began in 2014.
In just two (2) years of operation, the Philippine Branch had remittable profits in an amount exceeding 175% of its capital. However, the head office in Korea instructed the branch not to remit the profits to the Korean head office until instructed otherwise. The branch chief finance officer is concerned that the BIR might hold the Philippine branch liable for the 10% improperly accumulated earnings tax (IAET) for permitting its profits to accumulate beyond reasonable business needs.
Karissa is the registered owner of a beachfront property in Kawayan, Quezon which she acquired in 2015. Unknown to many, Karissa was only holding the property in trust for a rich politician who happened to be her lover. It was the politician who paid for the full purchase price of the Kawayan property. No deed of trust or any other document showing that Karissa was only holding the property in trust for the politician was executed him and Karissa.
Karissa died single on May 1, 2017 due to freak surfing accident. She left behind a number of personal properties as well as a real properties, including the Kawayan property. Karissa’s sister, Karen, took charge of registering Karissa’ estate as a taxpayer and reporting, for income tax and VAT purposes, the rental income received by the estate from real properties. However, it was only on October 1, 2017 when Karen managed to file an estate tax return for her sister’s estate. The following were claimed as deductions in the estate tax return.
Upon the death of their beloved parents in 2009, Karla, Karlo, and Karlie inherited a huge tract of farm land in Kanlan City. The siblings had no plans to use the property. Thus, they decided to donate the land but were not sure to whom the donation should be made. They consult you, as well-known tax law expert, on the tax implications of the possible donations they plan to make, by giving you a list of the possible donees:
Advise the siblings which donation would expose them to the least tax liability. (5%)
Karlito, a Filipino businessman, is engaged in the business metal fabrication and repair of LPG cylinder tanks. He conducts business under the name and style of “Karlito Enterpirses,” a single proprietorship. Started only five (5) years ago, the business has grown so enormously that Karlito decided to incorporate it by transferring all the assets of the business, particularly the inventory of goods on hand, machineries and equipment, supplies, parts, raw materials, office furniture and furnishings, delivery trucks and other vehicles, buildings, and tools to the new corporation, Karlito’s Enterprises, Inc., in exchange for 100% of the capital stock of the new corporation, the stock subscription to which shall be deemed fully paid in the form of the assets transferred to the corporation by Karlito.
As a result, Karlito’s Enterprises, the sole proprietorship, ceased to do business and applied for cancellation of its BIR Certificate of Registration. The BIR, however, assessed Karlito VAT on account of the cessation of business based in the current market price of the assets transferred to Karlito’s Enterprises, Inc.
Klaus, Inc., a domestic, VAT registered corporation engaged in the land transportation business, owns a house and a lot along Katipunan St., Quezon City. This property is being used by Klaus, Inc.’s president and single largest shareholder, Atty. Krimson, as his residence, No business activity transpires there except for the company’s Christmas party which is held there every December. Atty. Krimson recently grew tired of the long commute from Katipunan to his office in Makati City and caused the company to sell the house and lot. The sale as recorded in the book of Klaus, Inc. as investment in real property.
Koko’s primary source of income is his employment with the government. He earns extra from the land he inherited from his parents, and which land he has been leasing to a private, non-stock, non-profit school since 2005.
Last January, the school offered to buy the land from Koko for an amount equivalent to its zonal value plus 15% of such zonal value, Koko agreed but required the schoold to pay, in addition to the purchase price, the 12% VAT. The school refused Koko’s proposal to pass on the VAT contending that it was an entity exempt from such tax. Moreover, it said that Koko was not regularly engaged in the real estate business and, therefore, was not subject to VAT. Consequently, Koko should not charge any VAT to the school.
The BIR Commissioner, in his relentless enforcement of the Run After Tax Evaders (RATE) program, filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) charges against a movie and television celebrity. The Commissioner alleged that the celebrity earned around Php 50 million in fees from product endorsements in 2016 which she failed to report in her income tax and VAT returns for said year. The celebrity questioned the proceeding before the DOJ on the ground that she was denied due process since the BIR never issued any Premilinary Assessment Notice (PAN) or a Final Assessment Notice (FAN), both of which are required under Section 228 of the NIRC whenever the Commissioner finds that the proper taxes should be assessed.
Is the Celebrity’s contention tenable? (2.5%)
The Collector at the Port of Koronadal seized 100 second-hand right-hand drive buses imported from Japan. He issued warrants of distraint and scheduled the vehicles for auction sale. Kamilo, the importer of the second-hand buses, filed a replevin suit with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the replevin upon filing of a bond
Did the RTC err in granting the replevin? (2.5%)
The City if Kabankalan issued a notice if assessment against KKK, Inc. for deficiency real property taxes for the taxable years 2013 to 2017 in the amount of Php 20 million. KKK paid the taxes under protest and instituted a complaint entitled “Recovery of illegally and/or Erroneously-Collected Local Business Tax, Prohibition with Prayer to Issue TRO and Writ Preliminary Injunction” with the RTC of Negros Occidental.
The RTC denied the application for TRO. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied as well, KKK filed petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (COA) assailing the denial of the TRO.
Will the petition prosper? (5%)
In 2015, Kerwin bought a three-story house and lot in Kidapawan, North Cotabato. The property has a floor area of 600 sq.m. and is located inside a gated subdivision. Kerwin initially declared the property as residential for real property tax purposes.
In 2016, Kerwin started using the property in his business of manufacturing garments for export. The entire ground floor is now occupied by state-of-the-art sewing machines and other equipment, while the second floor is used as offices. The third floor is retained by Kerwin as his family’s residence. Kerwin’s neighbors became suspicious of the activities going on inside the house, and they decided to report it to the Kidapawan City Hall. Upon inspection, the local government discovered that the property was being utilized for commercial use. Immediately, the Kidapawan Assessor reclassified the property as commercial with an assessment level of 50% effective January 2017, and assessed Kerwin back taxes and interest. Kerwin claims that only 2/3 of the building was used as for commercial purposes since the third floor remained as family residence. He argues that the property should have been classified as party commercial and partly residential.
In an action for ejectment filed by Kurt, the lessor-owner, against Kaka, the lessee, the trial court ruled in favor of Kurt. However, the trial court first required Kurt to pay the realty taxes due on the property for 2016 before he may recover possession thereof.
Kurt objected ,arguing that the delinquent realty taxes were never raised as an issue in the ejectment case. At any rate, Kurt claimed that is should be Kaka who should be made liable for the realty taxes since it was Kaka who possessed the property throughout 2016.
Is Kurt correct in resisting the trial court’s requirement to pay the taxes first? (2.5%)
Kilusang Krus, Inc. (KKI) is a non-stock, non-profit religious organization which owns a vast tract of land in Kalinga.
KKI has devoted ½ of the land for various uses: a church with a cemetery exclusive for deceased priests and nun, a school providing K to 12 education, and a hospital which admits both paying and charity patients. The remaining ½ portion has remained idle.
The KKI Board of Trustees decided to lease the remaining ½ portion to a real estate developer which constructed a community mall over the property.
Since the rental income from the lease of the property was substantial, the KKI decided to use the amount to finance (1) the medical expenses of the charity patients in the KKI Hospital and (2) the purchase of books and other educational materials for the students of KKI School.
Kathang Isip, Inc. (KII) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, exporting, and distributing toys both locally and abroad. Its principal office is located in Kalookan City, Philippines. It has 50 branches in different cities and municipalities in the country. When KII applied for renewal of its mayor’s permit and licenses in its principal office in January this year, Kalookan City demanded payment of the local business tax on the basis of the gross sales reported by the corporation on its audited financial statements for the preceding year. KII protested, contending that Kalookan City may tax only the sales consummated by its principal office but not the sales consummated by its branch offices located outside the Kalookan City.
When Kalookan City denied the protest, KII engaged the services of Atty. Kristeta Kabuyao to file the necessary judicial proceedings to appeal the decision of Kalookan City. Atty. Kabuyao is a legal expert, but resides in Kalibo, Aklan where her husband operates a resort. She, however, practices in Metro Manila, including Kalookan City. The counsel representing the city, in the case filed in Kalookan City by KII, questioned the use of Atty. Kabuyao’s Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) issued in Aklan for a case filed in Kalookan City.
The BIR assessed Kosco, Inc., an importer of food products, deficiency income and value-added taxes, plus 50% surcharge after determining that Kosco, Inc. had under-declared its sales by an amount exceeding 30% of that declared in its income tax and VAT returns. Kosco, Inc. denied the alleged under-declaration, protested the deficiency assessment for income and value-added taxes and challenged the imposition of the 50% surcharge on the ground that the surcharge may only be imposed if Kosoc, Inc. fails to pay the deficiency taxes within the time prescribed for their payment in the notice of assessment.
Krisp Kleen, Inc. (KKI) is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and processing of steel and its by-products. It is both registered with the Board of Investments with a pioneer status, and with the BIR as as VAT entity. On October 10, 2010, if filed a claim for refund/credit of Input VAT for the period January 1 to March 31, 2009 before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR). On February 1, 2011, as the CIR had not yet made any ruling on its claim for refund/credit, KKI, fearful that its period to appeal to the courts might prescribed, filed an appeal with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
-NOTHING FOLLOWS-
2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
LABOR LAW
November 4, 2018/2:00 P.M. – 6:00 P.M.
Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement benefits after having been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school since 1974. Narciso taught for two semesters and a summer term for the school year 1974-1975, took a leave of absence from 1975 to 1977, and resumed teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been renewed at the start of every semester and summer, until November 2005 when he was told that he can no longer teach because he was already 75 years old. Norte University also denied Narciso’s claim for retirement benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty, who have served for at least five years immediately preceding the termination of their employment, can avail themselves of post-employment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Narciso did not acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length of service.
Nayon Federation issued a charter certificate creating a rank-and-file Neuman Employees Union. On the same day, New Neuman Employees Union filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office, attaching the appropriate charter certificate.
Due to his employer’s dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to voluntarily resign. In exchange, he demanded payment of salary differentials, 13th month pay, and financial assistance as promised by his employer. Management promised to pay him as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched ran-and-file employees. Five years later, and before management was able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died of a heart attack. His widow, Norie, filed a money claim against the company before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), including interest on the amount of the unpaid claim. She also claimed additional damages arguing that the supposed resignation letter was obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and influence. The employer filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have jurisdiction over money claims, and (B) the action has prescribed.
Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant. After having been paid their separation benefits, the retrenched workers demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA between their union and management. Natasha Shoe Company denied the workers’ demand.
Nelda worked as chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic of PhP560.00 for an eight-hour workday. On Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her employer only paid her PhP480.00 for each 8-hour workday, and PhP70.00 for the work done on Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shift differential pay for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged underpayment, arguing that based on a long-standing unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid for by deduction caused the payment of Nelda’s wage to be below the prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay because hotel workers have to work on holidays and may be assigned to work at night.
A certification election was conducted in Nation Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of eligible voters in the bargaining unit cast their votes. The results were as follows:
Union Nana: 45 votes
Union Nada: 40 votes
Union Nara: 30 votes
No Union: 80 votes
Union nana moved to be declared as the winner of the certification election.
Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion of pharmaceutical products and medical devices for the Nothern Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He regularly visits physicians’ clinics to inform them of the chemical composition and benefits of his employer’s products. At the end of every day, he receives a basic wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00 “productivity allowance”. For purposes of computing Nico’s 13th month pay, should the daily “productivity allowance” be included? (2.5%)
Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two years at the Manila office of Nutrition City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He was deployed pursuant to a service agreement between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient provisions of which were as follows:
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal dismissal cases against the wealthier company, Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was a regular employee of the same. Is Nathaniel correct? (2.5%)
Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Nueva Ecija. He and some other members of his detachment sought permission from their Company Commander for an overnight pass to Nueva Viscaya to settle some important matters. The Company Commander orally approved their request and allowed them to carry their firearms as the place they were going to was classified as a “critical place”. They arrived at the place past midnight; and as they were alighting from a tricyle, one of his companion accidentally dropped his rifle, which fired a single shot, and in the process hit Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The shooting was purely accidental. At the time of his death, he was still legally married to Nelda, but had been separated de facto from her for 17 years. For the last 15 years of his life, he was living in with Narda, with whom he has two minor children. Since Narda works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with their grandparents, who provided their daily support. Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only sent money to them every year to pay for their school tuition.
Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter, also on behalf of her minor children, separately filed claims for compensation as a result of the death of Sgt. Nemesis. The Line of Duty Board of AFP declared Sgt. Nemesis’ death to have been “in line of duty”, and recommended that all benefits due to Sgt. Nemesis be given to the dependents. However, the claims were denied by GSIS because Sgt. Nemesis was not in his workplace nor performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army when he died.
Nonato had been continuously employed and deployed as a seaman who performed services that were necessary and desirable to the business of N-Train Shipping, through its local agent, Narita Maritime Services (Agency), in accordance with the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC). Nonato’s last contract (for five months) expired on November 25, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due to a “finished contract”. He immediately reported to the Agency and complained that he had been experiencing dizziness, weakness, and difficulty in breathing. The Agency referred him to Dr. Neri, who examined, treated, and prescribed him with medications. After a few months of treatment and consultations, Nonato was declared fit to resume work as a seaman, Nonato went back to the Agency to ask for re-deployment but the Agency rejected his application. Nonato filed an illegal dismissal case against the Agency and its principal, with a claim for total disability benefits based on ailments that he developed on board N-Train Shipping vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his own physician, Dr. Nunez, that he was unfit for sea duties because of his hypertension and diabetes.
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilada, approaches you and seeks your advice on her treatment of her kasambahay, Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document called a “Contract of Engagement” for your review. Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray shall be entitled to a rest day every week, provided that she may be requested to work on a rest day if Tita Nilda should need her services that day. Tita Nilda also claims that his Contract of Engagement should embody all terms and conditions of Noray’s work as the engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should not be regulated by the State.
Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Nordic Corporation. One Day, Nesting Called Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures if women in seductive poses which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the General Manager who, in turn, investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of Nesting to the Board of Directors. Before the Board of Directors, Nesting argued, that since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law requires the existence of “sexual favor,” he should not be dismissed from the service since he did not ask for any sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network Corporation, a telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in shorts and sneakers, in violation of the “prescribed uniform policy” based on company rules and regulations. The company human resources manager wrote him a letter, giving him 10 days to comply with the company uniform policy. Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him more productive, and cited his above-average output. When he came to work still in violation of the uniform policy, the company sent him a letter of termination of employment. Nicodemus filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled favor of Nicodemus and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. Network Corporation, however, refused to reinstate him. The NLRC 1st Division sustained the Labor Arbiter’s judgement. Network Corporation still refused to reinstate Nicodemus. Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal was valid. Despite the reversal, Nicodemus still filed a motion for execution with respect to his accrued backwages.
Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about Needy Corporation’s failure to pay his wage increase amounting to Php 5,000.00 as mandated in a Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson asked the DOLE to immediately issue an Order sustaining his money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice from the DOLE to appear before the Regional Director for purposes of conciliating the dispute between him and Needy Corporation. When conciliation before the Regional Director failed, the latter proceeded to direct both parties to submit their respective position papers in relation to the dispute. Needy Corporation argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings, only a maximum of 75% of the said money claim may be awarded to him.
Nexturn Corporation employed Nini and Nono, whose tasks involved directing and supervising rank-and-file employees engaged in company operation. Nini and Nono are required to ensure that such employees obey company rules and regulations, and recommend to the company’s Human Resources Department any required disciplinary action against erring employees. In Nexturn Corporation, there are two independent unions, representing rank-and-file and supervisory employees, respectively.
Nagrab Union and Nagrab Corporation have an existing CBA which contains the following provision: “New employees within the coverage of the bargaining unit who may be regularly employed shall become members of Nagrab Union. Membership in good standing with the Nagrab Union is a requirement for continued employment with Nagrab Union.” Nagrab Corporation subsequently acquired all the assets and rights of Nuber Corporation and absorbed all of the latter’s employees. Nagrab union immediately demanded enforcement of the above-stated CBA provision with respect to the absorbed employees. Nagrab Corporation refused on the ground that this should not apply to the absorbed employees who were former employees of another corporation whose assets and rights it had acquired.
Upon Compliance with the legal requirements on the conduct of a strike, Navarra Union staged a strike against Newfound Corporation on account of a collective bargaining deadlock, During the strike, some members of Navarra Union broke the windows and punctured the tires of the company-owned buses. The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
Nestor and Nadine have been living in for the last 10 years without the benefit of marriage. Their union has produced four children. Nadine was three months pregnant with her 5th child when Nestor left her for another woman. When Nadine was eight months pregnant with her 5th child, she applied for maternity leave benefits. Her employer refused on the ground that this was already her 5th pregnancy and that she was living in with the father of her child, who is now in a relationship with another woman. When Nadine gave birth, Nestor applied for paternity leave benefits. His employer also denied the application on the same ground that Nadine’s employer denied her application.
Northeast Airlines sent notices of transfer, without diminution in salary or rank, to 50 ground crew personnel who were front-liners at Northeast Airlines counters at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA). The 50 employees were informed that they would be distributed to various airports in Mindanao to anticipate robust passenger volume growth in the area. North Union, representing rank-and-file employees, filed unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal cases before the NLRC, citing, among others, the inconvenience of the 50 concerned employees and union discrimination, as 8 of the 50 concerned ground crew personnel were union officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast Airlines could easily hire additional employees from Mindanao to boost its ground operations in the Mindanao airports.
In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad, Ned, and Nod sought permission from the company to distribute flyers with the respect to a weekend union activity. The company HR manager granted the request through a text message sent to another union member, Norlyn.
While Nad, Ned, and Nod were distributing flyers at the company assembly plant, a company supervisor barged in and demanded that they cease from distributing flyers, stating that the assembly line employees were trying to beat a production deadline were thoroughly distracted. Norlyn tried to show the HR manager’s text message authorizing flyer distribution during work hours, but the supervisor brushed it aside.
As a result, Nad, Ned, and Nod were suspended for violating company rules on trespass and highly-limited union activities during work hours. The Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case before the NLRC for union discrimination.
POLITICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
November 4, 2018 / 8:00 A.M. – 12:00 N.N
I.
Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to a full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non-abortifant hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and supplies, but prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend family planning seminar prior to the issuance of marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds:
(a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion. Despite express terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, which is fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man.
(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their will.
(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners’ religious beliefs prevent them from using contraceptives, and that any State-sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates the guarantee of religious freedom.
Rule on each of the above objections. (2.5% each)
II.
Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was brought to several military camps where she was interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death if she would not confess her membership in the New People’s Army (NPA) and point to the location of NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released after she signed a document saying that she was a surrenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, and alleging that her rights to life, liberty and security had been violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data with prayers for Temporary Protection Orders, Inspection of the Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The case was filed against President Amoyo (who was the President of the Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling, and life threats were committed). General Altamirano, and several military men whom Agnes was able to recognize her ordeal. The Court, after finding the petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed the respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to heal the petition. The respondents duly filed their return on the writs and produced the documents in their possession. After heating, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed the petition against the President Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit during his incumbency as President. Agens appealed the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo’s term had ended.
(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)
(b) Will President’s immunity from suit continue even after his term has ended, considering that the events covered by the Petition took place during his term? (2.5%)
III.
What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (2% each)
(a) the repeal of tax exemption law;
(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;
(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly;
(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election; and
(e) the extension of the period of suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
IV.
The province of Amaya is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Cuatro.
Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, and and was elected as member of Sanguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010 and 2013 local elections.
While Andres was serving his second term as SP member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative districts: Uno and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro comprising of the Sec0ond District.
In 2016 local election, Andres ran and was elected as member of the AP of Amaya representing the Second District.
Andres seeks your legal advise regarding his intention to run as a member of SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local elections in 2019. What will you advise Andres? (2.5%)
V.
State whether or not the following acts are constitutional: (2% each)
(a) A law prescribing as qualifications for appointment to any court lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, 35 years of age on the date of appointment, and at least eight years as a member of the Philippine Bar;
(b) A law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be college degree holders;
(c) The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission;
(d) The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman of a lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for five years; and
(e) The nomination by a national party-list of a person who is not one of its bona fide members.
VI.
Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclamed as of the the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative.
About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy.
The Comelec considered Alejandro’s petition as an inter-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold expulsion.
Is the Comelec’s ruling correct? (5%)
VII.
The 2016 mayoralty race in the Cityof Ardania included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders.
Arnaldo filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting himself as Filipino citizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto’s Spanish passport and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (BI) showing that Anacleto used the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or Barcelona.
In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his Philippine Citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to taking his oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his Philippine passport despite reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to wait for the issuance of Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.
(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto’s CoC? (2.5%)
(b) In case Anacleto’s CoC is properly cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who obtained the second highest number of votes, or Andrea, the duly elected Vice Mayor of the City? (2.5%).
VIII.
Two petitions for cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prision.
The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio’s residency was questioned because he was allegedly a “green card holder,” i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy.
Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio.
Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec’s Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (5%)
In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired Canadian Citizenship.
In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.
In 2009, Agripina filed here certificate of candidacy for Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina’s political rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to question her candidacy. They questioned her elligibility to run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship.
Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the defense that, having complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship.
Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the citizenship requirement? (2.5%)
Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.%% each)
(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct.
(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.
(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine Court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.
The consititutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two grounds: (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that accused.
Rule on the challenge. (5%)
Section 9 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, provides that the Sandiganbayan may adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among its divisions, the rotation of justices among them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court.
Section 6 of Article IX-A of the Constitution allows each of the Constitutional Commissions “en banc [to] promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.”
Section 16(3) of Article VI of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries…in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.”
Finally, Section 3(8) of Article XI of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall promulgate its rules of impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.”
Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these provision subject to review and disapproval by the Supreme Court? (5%)
PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorist who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where PO1 Adrian was caught red-handed demanding an taking PhP500 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red ligh.
After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibilityb of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A No. 9165 is a violation of the accused’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.
Are PO1 Adrian’s contentions correct? (2.5%)
Amoroso was charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.
He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy,
The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as a “competent court”.
Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso’s motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy? (2.5%)
Annika sued the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and asked for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by her in favor of said Bureau. She alleded that, contrary to the terms of the donation, the donee failed to install lighting facilities and a water system on the property donated, and to build an office building and parking lot thereon, which should have been constructed and made ready for occupancy on or before the date fixed in the deed of donation.
The Republic invoked state immunity and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that it had not consented to be sued. Should the Repulic’s motion be granted? (2.5%)
Five foreign nationals arrived at NAIA from Hongkong. After retrieving their check-in luggage, they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner’s table for inspection.
The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners’ bags. The examiner discovered white crystaline substance inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names of the foreigner one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tapes placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.
Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners from the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002? (2.5%)
The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female high school student. While on the way to the police station, one of the officers who served the warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded and said, “Opo”.
Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness Ariston’s confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media., and in response to questions asked by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.
Which of theses extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in evidence againsts Ariston? (5%)
Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case. The bag containing the ransom money was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.
The first police team, stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the kidnapperes of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the second police team was waiting.
Upon confirmation by the radio report from the first police team that the kidnappers were heading towards their direction, the second police team proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial Center in Makati City, and the police team finally blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the vehicle and proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.
Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the second police team lawful? (5%)
President Alfredo died during his third year in office. In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then nominated the late President Alfredo’s Executive Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice President. The nomination was confirmed by a majority of all the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, voting separately.
(a) Is Anna Maria’s assumption as Vice President valid? (2.5%)
(b) Can Anastasia run as President in the next election? (2.5%)
Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in its headquarters in Manila. Both were charged with criminal acts before the local trial courts.
Andreas was caught importing illegal drugs into the country as part of his “personal effects” and was thus charged with violations of Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. Before the criminal proceedings could commence, the President had him deported as an undesirable alien. Aristotle was charged with grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words against a colleague at work. In his defense, Aristotle claimed diplomatic immunity. He presented as proof a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that, pursuant to the Agreement between the Philippine Government and the ADB, the bank’s officers and staff are immune from legal processes with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity.
(a) Can the President’s act of deporting an undesirable alien be subject to judicial review? (2.5%)
(b) Is Aristotle’s claim of diplomatic immunity proper? (2.5%)
Live Webinar 1 & 2: BIR Tax Compliance for VAT Entity
Live Webinar: Value Added Tax: In and Out
Live Webinar: Returns and Reports Preparation under eBIR Forms and Online Submissions
Onsite Training: PEZA Registered Entities: Taxation and Basic Reports
Live Webinar on Ph Payroll Computations and Taxation
Live Webinar: Withholding Taxes, Subjects & Applications
Onsite Training: Basic Bookkeeping for Non-Accountants
Onsite Seminar: BIR Examination: Their Procedures and Our Defenses
Live Webinar: Winning BIR Tax Assessments Series: Process, Remedies & Writing Effective Protest
Onsite Training: Basic Business Accounting & BIR Compliance VAT Entity
Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 34-2025
Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 32-2025
Republic Act No. 12079
2025 Filing of Annual Financial Statements and General Information Sheet
Revenue Regulations No. 012-2025
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