BAR EXAMINATION 2013

LABOR LAW
October 6, 2013 2:00-6:00 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This Questionnaire contains SEVENTEEN (17) pages including these
Instructions pages. Check the number of pages and the page numbers at the upper
right band corner of each page of this Questionnaire and make sure it has the
correct number of pages and their proper numbers.

There are TEN (10) Essay Questions numbered I to X (with subquestions), and
EIGHTEEN (18) Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) numbered to XVIII (with
subquestions), to be answered within four (4) hours.

The essay portion contains questions that are worth 80% of the whole examination,
while the MCQ portion contains questions worth20%.

2. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar
Examination Notebook in the same order the questions are posed. Write your
answers only on the front, not the back, page of every sheet in your Examination
Notebook. Note well the allocated percentage points for each number, question, or
sub-question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

If the sheets provided in your Examination Notebook are not sufficient for your
answers, use the back pages of every sheet of your Examination Notebook, starting
at the back page of the first sheet and the back of the succeeding sheets thereafter.

3. Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number
on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be
written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until
completed.

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by the
question, to select the material from the immaterial facts, and to discern the points
upon which the question turns. It should show your knowledge and understanding
of the pertinent principles and theories of law involved and their qualifications and
limitations. It should demonstrate your ability to apply the law to the given facts,
and to reason logically in a lawyer-like manner to a sound conclusion from the
given premises.

A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or
discussion will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your
answers although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. At the
same time, remember that a complete explanation does not require that you
volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent
to the solution to the problem. You do not need to re-write or repeat the question in
your Examination Notebook.

4. MCQs are to be answered by writing in your Examination Notebook the capital
letter (A, B, C, D, or E) corresponding to your chosen answer. The MCQ answers
should begin in the page following the last page of your essay answers.

There is only one correct answer to every MCQ; choose the BEST answer from
among the offered choices. Note that some MCQs may need careful analysis both
of the questions and the choices offered.

5. Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive
marking/s on your Examination Notebook that can serve as identifying mark/s
(such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the
Examiner).

Writing, leaving or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the
Examination Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you for the Bar
examinations.

You can use the questionnaire for notes you may wish/need to write during the
examination.

HAND INYOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THISQUESTIONNAIRE

J. ARTURO D. BRION
Chairman
2013 Bar Examinations







ESSAY QUESTIONS

I.

Jose and Erica, former sweethearts, both worked as sales representatives for
Magna, a multinational firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of
pharmaceutical products. Although the couple had already broken off their
relationship, Jose continued to have special feelings for Erica.

One afternoon, Jose chanced upon Erica riding in the car of Paolo, a co-employee
and Erica's ardent suitor; the two were on their way back to the office from a sales
call on Silver Drug, a major drug retailer. In a fit of extreme jealousy, Jose rammed
Paolo's car, causing severe injuries to Paolo and Erica. Jose's flare up also caused
heavy damage to the two company-owned cars they were driving.

(A) As lawyer for Magna, advise the company on whether just and valid grounds
exist to dismiss Jose. (4%)

(B) Assuming this time that Magna dismissed Jose from employment for cause and
you are the lawyer of Jose, how would you argue the position that Jose's dismissal
was illegal? (4%)

II.

Gamma Company pays its regular employees P350.00 a day, and houses them in a
dormitory inside its factory compound in Manila. Gamma Company also provides
them with three full meals a day.

In the course of a routine inspection, a Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Inspector noted that the workers' pay is below the prescribed minimum
wage of P426.00 plus P30.00 allowance, and thus required Gamma Company to
pay wage differentials.

Gamma Company denies any liability, explaining that after the market value of the
company-provided board and lodging are added to the employees' P350 cash daily
wage, the employees' effective daily rate would be way above the minimum pay
required by law. The company counsel further points out that the employees are
aware that their food and lodging form part of their salary, and have long accepted
the arrangement.

Is the company's position legally correct?(8%)

III.

Inter-Garments Co. manufactures garments for export and requires its employees
to render overtime work ranging from two to three hours a day to meet its clients'
deadlines. Since 2009, it has been paying its employees on overtime an additional
35% of their hourly rate for work rendered in excess of their regular eight working
hours.

Due to the slowdown of its export business in 2012, Inter-Garments had to reduce
its overtime work; at the same time, it adjusted the overtime rates so that those who
worked overtime were only paid an additional 25%instead of the previous 35%. To
replace the workers' overtime rate loss, the company granted a one-time 5% across-
the-board wage increase.

Vigilant Union, the rank-and-file bargaining agent, charged the company with
Unfair Labor Practice on the ground that (1) no consultations had been made on
who would render overtime work; and (2) the unilateral overtime pay rate
reduction is a violation of Article 100 (entitled Prohibition Against Elimination or
Diminution of Benefits) of the Labor Code.

Is the union position meritorious? (8%)

IV.

Bobby, who was assigned as company branch accountant in Tarlac where his
family also lives, was dismissed by Theta Company after anomalies in the
company's accounts were discovered in the branch Bobby filed a complaint and
was ordered reinstated with full backwages after the Labor Arbiter found that he
had been denied due process because no investigation actually took place.

Theta Company appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
and at the same time wrote Bobby, advising him to report to the main company
office in Makati where he would be reinstated pending appeal Bobby refused to
comply with his new assignment because Makati is very far from Tarlac and he
cannot bring his family to live with him due to the higher cost of living in Makati.

(A) Is Bobby's reinstatement pending appeal legally correct? (4%)

(B) Advise Bobby on the best course of action to take under the circumstances.
(4%)

V.

Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor
Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded Cris financial assistance. Only the
company appealed from the Labor Arbiter's ruling. It confined its appeal solely to
the question of whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead
of ruling solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision; it
found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of
separation pay and full backwages.

Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker
Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued that the NLRC
acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue,
when the only issue brought on appeal was the legal propriety of the financial
assistance award.

Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the
authority to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in
substance or in form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Decide the case. (8%)

VI.

Because of the stress in caring for her four (4) growing children, Tammy suffered a
miscarriage late in her pregnancy and had to undergo an operation. In the course of
the operation, her obstetrician further discovered a suspicious-looking mass that
required the subsequent removal of her uterus (hysterectomy). After surgery, her
physician advised Tammy to be on full bed rest for six (6) weeks. Meanwhile, the
biopsy of the sample tissue taken from the mass in Tammy's uterus showed a
beginning malignancy that required an immediate series of chemotherapy once a
week for four (4) weeks.

(A) What benefits can Tammy claim under existing social legislation? (4%)

(B) What can Roger-Tammy's 2nd husband and the father of her two (2) younger
children -claim as benefits under the circumstances? (4%)

VII.

Philippine Electric Company is engaged in electric power generation and
distribution. It is a unionized company with Kilusang Makatao as the union
representing its rank-and-file employees. During the negotiations for their expired
collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the parties duly served their proposals and
counter-proposals on one another. The parties, however, failed to discuss the
merits of their proposals and counter-proposals in any formal negotiation meeting
because their talks already bogged down on the negotiation ground rules, i.e., on
the question of how they would conduct their negotiations, particularly on whether
to consider retirement as a negotiable issue.

Because of the continued impasse, the union went on strike. The Secretary of
Labor and Employment immediately assumed jurisdiction over the dispute to avert
widespread electric power interruption in the country. After extensive discussions
and the filing of position papers (before the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board and before the Secretary himself) on the validity of the union's strike and on
the wage and other economic issues (including the retirement issue), the DOLE
Secretary ruled on the validity of the strike and on the disputed CBA issues, and
ordered the parties to execute a CBA based on his rulings.

Did the Secretary of Labor exceed his jurisdiction when he proceeded to rule on
the parties' CBA positions even though the parties did not fully negotiate on their
own? (8%)

VIII.

After thirty (30) years of service, Beta Company compulsorily retired Albert at age
65 pursuant to the company's Retirement Plan. Albert was duly paid his full
retirement benefits of one (1) month pay for every year of service under the Plan.
Thereafter, out of compassion, the company allowed Albert to continue working
and paid him his old monthly salary rate, but without the allowances that he used
to enjoy.

After five (5) years under this arrangement, the company finally severed all
employment relations with Albert; he was declared fully retired in a fitting
ceremony but the company did not give him any further retirement benefits. Albert
thought this treatment unfair as he had rendered full service at his usual hours in
the past five (5) years. Thus, he filed a complaint for the allowances that were not
paid to him, and for retirement benefits for his additional five (5) working years,
based either on the company's Retirement Plan or the Retirement Pay Law,
whichever is applicable.

(A) After Albert's retirement at age 65, should he be considered a regular employee
entitled to all his previous salaries and benefits when the company allowed him to
continue working? (4%)

(B) Is he entitled to additional retirement benefits for the additional service he
rendered after age 65? (4%)

IX.

Pablo works as a driver at the National Tire Company (NTC). He is a member of
the Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa NTC, the exclusive rank-and-file
collective bargaining representative in the company. The union has a CBA with
NTC which contains a union security and a check-off clause. The union security
clause contains a maintenance of membership provision that requires all members
of the bargaining unit to maintain their membership in good standing with the
union during the term of the CBA under pain of dismissal. The check-off clause on
the other hand authorizes the company to deduct from union members' salaries
defined amounts of union dues and other fees. Pablo refused to issue an
authorization to the company for the check-off of his dues, maintaining that he will
personally remit his dues to the union.

(A) Would the NTC management commit unfair labor practice if it desists from
checking off Pablo's union dues for lack of individual authorization from Pablo?
(4%)

(B) Can the union charge Pablo with disloyalty for refusing to allow the check off
of his union dues and, on this basis, ask the company to dismiss him from
employment? (4%)

X.

For ten (10) separate but consecutive yearly contracts, Cesar has been deployed as
an able-bodied seaman by Meritt Shipping, through its local agent, Ace Maritime
Services (agency), in accordance with the 2000Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Standard Employment Contract (2000 POEA-SEC). Cesar's
employment was also covered by a CBA between the union, AMOSl.JP, and
Meritt Shipping. Both the 2000 POEA-SEC and the CBA commonly provide the
same mode and procedures for claiming disability benefits. Cesar's last contract
(for nine months) expired on July 15, 2013.

Cesar disembarked from the vessel M/V Seven Seas on July 16, 2013as a seaman
on "finished contract". He immediately reported to the agency and complained that
he had been experiencing spells of dizziness, nausea, general weakness, and
difficulty in breathing. The agency referred him to Dr. Sales, a cardio-pulmonary
specialist, who examined and treated him; advised him to take a complete rest for a
while; gave him medications; and declared him fit to resume work as a seaman.

After a month, Cesar went back to the agency to ask for re-deployment. The
agency rejected his application. Cesar responded by demanding total disability
benefits based on the ailments that he developed and suffered while on board
Meritt Shipping vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his physician
(internist Dr. Reyes) that he could no longer undertake sea duties because of the
hypertension and diabetes that afflicted him while serving on Meritt Shipping
vessels in the last 10 years. Rejected once again, Cesar filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and the payment of total permanent disability benefits against the agency
and its principal.

Assume that you are the Labor Arbiter deciding the case. Identify the facts and
issues you would consider material in resolving the illegal dismissal and disability
complaint. Explain your choices and their materiality, and resolve the case. (8%)

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

I. The parties to a labor dispute can validly submit to voluntary arbitration
_________. (1%)

(A) any disputed issue they may agree to voluntarily arbitrate

(B) only matters that do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter

(C) any disputed issue but only after conciliation at the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board fails

(D) any disputed issue provided that the Labor Arbiter has not assumed jurisdiction
over the case on compulsory arbitration

(E) only matters relating to the interpretation or implementation of a collective
bargaining agreement

II. When there is no recognized collective bargaining agent, can a legitimate labor
organization validly declare a strike against the employer? (1%)

(A) Yes, because the right to strike is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be
denied to any group of employees.

(B) No, because only an exclusive bargaining agent may declare a strike against
the employer.

(C) Yes, because the right to strike is a basic human right that the country's
international agreements and the International Labor Organization recognize.

(D) Yes, but only in case of unfair labor practice.

(E) No, in the absence of a recognized bargaining agent, the workers' recourse is to
file a case before the Department of Labor and Employment.

III.

Mr. Del Carmen, unsure if his foray into business (messengerial service catering
purely to law firms) would succeed but intending to go long-term if he hurdles the
first year, opted to open his operations with one-year contracts with two law firms
although he also accepts messengerial service requests from other firms as their
orders come. He started with one permanent secretary and six (6) messengers on a
one-year, fixed-term, contract.

Is the arrangement legal from the perspective of labor standards? (1%)

(A) No, because the arrangement will circumvent worker's right to security of
tenure.

(B) No. If allowed, the arrangement will serve as starting point in weakening the
security of tenure guarantee.

(C) Yes, if the messengers are hired through a contractor.

(D) Yes, because the business is temporary and the contracted undertaking is
specific and time-bound.

(E) No, because the fixed term provided is invalid.

IV. Chito was illegally dismissed by DEF Corp. effective at the close of business
hours of December 29, 2009.

IV(1). He can file a complaint for illegal dismissal without any legal bar within
_________. (1%)

(A) three (3) years

(B) four (4) years

(C) five (5) years

(D) six (6) years

(E) ten (10) years

IV(2). If he has money claims against DEF Corp., he can make the claim without
any legal bar within _________. (1%)

(A) three (3) years

(B) four (4) years

(C) five (5) years

(D) six (6) years

(E) ten (10) years

V. After vainly struggling to stay financially afloat for a year, LMN Corp. finally
gave up and closed down its operations after its major creditors filed a petition for
LMN's insolvency and liquidation.

In this situation, LMN's employees are entitled to _________ as separation pay.
(1%)

(A) one-half month pay for every year of service

(B) one month pay for every year of service

(C) one-half month pay

(D) one month pay

(E) no separation pay at all

VI. At age 65 and after 20 years of sewing work at home on a piece rate basis for
PQR Garments, a manufacturer-exporter to Hongkong, Aling Nena decided it was
time to retire and to just take it easy.

Is she entitled to retirement pay from PQR? (1%)

(A) Yes, but only to one month pay.

(B) No, because she was not a regular employee.

(C) Yes, at the same rate as regular employees.

(D) No, because retirement pay is deemed included in her contracted per piece pay.

(E) No, because homeworkers are not entitled to retirement pay.

VII. The minimum wage prescribed by law for persons with disability is
__________. (1%)

(A) 50% of the applicable minimum wage

(B) 75% of the applicable minimum wage

(C) 100% of the applicable minimum wage

(D) the wage that the parties agree upon, depending on the capability of the
disabled.

(E) the wage that the parties agree upon, depending on the capability of the
disabled, but not less than 50% of the applicable minimum wage

VIII. What is the financial incentive, if any, granted by law to SPQ Garments
whose cutters and sewers in its garments-for-export operations are80% staffed by
deaf and deaf-mute workers? (1%)

(A) Additional deduction from its gross income equivalent to 25% of amount paid
as salaries to persons with disability.

(B) Additional deduction from its gross income equivalent to 50% of the direct
costs of the construction of facilities for the use of persons with disability.

(C) Additional deduction from its net taxable income equivalent to 5% of its total
payroll

(D) Exemption from real property tax for one (1) year of the property where
facilities for persons with disability have been constructed.

(E) The annual deduction under (A), plus a one-time deduction under (B).

IX. Mr. Ortanez has been in the building construction business for several years.
He asks you, as his new labor counsel, for the rules he must observe in considering
regular employment in the construction industry.

You clarify that an employee, project or non-project, will acquire regular status if
__________. (1%)

(A) he has been continuously employed for more than one year

(B) his contract of employment has been repeatedly renewed, from project to
project, for several years

(C) he performs work necessary and desirable to the business, without a fixed
period and without reference to any specific project or undertaking

(D) he has lived up to the company's regularization standards

(E) All of the above.

X. Samahang Tunay, a union of rank-and-file employees lost in a certification
election at Solam Company and has become a minority union. The majority union
now has a signed CBA with the company and the agreement contains a
maintenance of membership clause.

What can Samahang Tunay still do within the company as a union considering that
it still has members who continue to profess continued loyalty to it? (1%)

(A) It can still represent these members in grievance committee meetings.

(B) It can collect agency fees from its members within the bargaining unit.

(C) It can still demand meetings with the company on company time.

(D) As a legitimate labor organization, it can continue to represent its members on
non-CBA-related matters.

(E) None of the above.

(F) All of the above.

XI. The members of the administrative staff of Zeta, a construction company,
enjoy ten (10) days of vacation leave with pay and ten (10) days of sick leave with
pay, annually. The workers' union, Bukluran, demands that Zeta grant its workers
service incentive leave of five (5) days in compliance with the Labor Code.

Is the union demand meritorious? (1%)

(A) Yes, because non-compliance with the law will result in the diminution of
employee benefits.

(B) Yes, because service incentive leave is a benefit expresslyprovided under and
required by the Labor Code.

(C) No, because Zeta already complies with the law.

(D) No, because service incentive leave is a Labor Code benefit that does not apply
in the construction industry.

(E) Yes, because Labor Code benefits are separate from those voluntarily granted
by the company.

XII. Upon the expiration of the first three (3) years of their CBA, the union and the
company commenced negotiations. The union demanded that the company
continue to honor their 30-day union leave benefit under the CBA. The company
refused on the ground that the CBA had already expired, and the union had already
consumed their union leave under the CBA.

Who is correct? (1%)

(A) The company is correct because the CBA has expired; hence it is no longer
bound to provide union leave.

(B) The company is correct because the union has already consumed the allotted
union leave under the expired CBA.

(C) The union is correct because it is still the bargaining representative for the next
two (2) years.

(D) The union is correct because union leaves are part of the economic terms that
continue to govern until new terms are agreed upon.

(E) They are both wrong.

XIII. Hector, a topnotch Human Resource Specialist who had worked in
multinational firms both in the Philippines and overseas, was recruited by ABC
Corp., because of his impressive credentials. In the course of Hector's employment,
the company management frequently did not follow his recommendations and he
felt offended by this constant rebuff.

Thus, he toyed with the idea of resigning and of asking for the same separation pay
that ABC earlier granted to two (2) department heads when they left the company.

To obtain a legal opinion regarding his options, Hector sent an email to ABC's
retained counsel, requesting for advice on whether the grant by the company of
separation pay to his resigned colleagues has already ripened into a company
practice, and whether he can similarly avail of this benefit if he resigns from his
job.

As the company's retained legal counsel, how will you respond to Hector? (1%)

(A) I would advise him to write management directly and inquire about the
benefits he can expect if he resigns.

(B) I would advise him that the previous grant of separation pay to his colleagues
cannot be considered a company practice because several other employees had
resigned and were not given separation pay.

(C) I would advise him to ask for separation pay, not on account of company
practice, but on the basis of discrimination as he is similarly situated as the two
resigned department heads who were paid their separation pay.

(D) I would not give him any legal advice because he is not my client.

(E) I would maintain that his question involves a policy matter beyond the
competence of a legal counsel to give.

XIV. Aleta Quiros was a faculty member at BM Institute, a private educational
institution. She was hired on a year-to-year basis under the probationary
employment period provision of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
The terms and conditions of her engagement were defined under her renewable
yearly contract.

For reasons of its own, BM Institute no longer wanted to continue with Aleta's
teaching services. Thus, after the contract for her second year expired, BM Institute
advised Aleta that her contract would no longer be renewed. This advice prompted
Aleta to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against BM Institute.

Will the complaint prosper? (1%)

(A) Yes, because no just or authorized cause existed for the termination of her
probationary employment.

(B) Yes, because under the Labor Code, Aleta became a regular employee after 6
months and she may now only be dismissed for cause.

(C) No, because there was no dismissal to speak of. Her employment was
automatically terminated upon the expiration of her year-to-year fixed term
employment.

(D) No, because BM Institute may dismiss its faculty members at will in the
exercise of its academic freedom.

(E) No, because Aleta was still on probationary employment.

XV. Robert, an employee of ABC Company, is married to Wanda. One day,
Wanda visited the company office with her three (3) emaciated minor children, and
narrated to the Manager that Robert had been squandering his earnings on his
mistress, leaving only a paltry sum for the support of their children. Wanda
tearfully pleaded with the Manager to let her have one half of Robert's pay every
payday to ensure that her children would at least have food on the table. To support
her plea, Wanda presented a Kasulatan signed by Robert giving her one half of his
salary, on the condition that she would not complain if he stayed with his mistress
on weekends.

If you were the Manager, would you release one half of Robert's salary to Wanda?
(1%)

(A) No, because an employer is prohibited from interfering with the freedom of its
employees to dispose of heir wages.

(B) Yes, because of Robert's signed authorization to give Wanda one half of his
salary.

(C) No, because there is no written authorization for ABC Company to release
Robert's salary to Wanda.

(D) Yes, because it is Robert's duty to financially support his minor children.

(E) No, because Robert's Kasulatan is based on an illegal consideration and is of
doubtful legal validity.

XVI. Ricardo operated a successful Makati seafood restaurant patronized by a
large clientele base for its superb cuisine and impeccable service. Ricardo charged
its clients a 10% service charge and distributed 85% of the collection equally
among its rank-and-file employees, 10% among managerial employees, and 5% as
reserve for losses and break ages. Because of the huge volume of sales, the
employees received sizeable shares in the collected service charges.

As part of his business development efforts, Ricardo opened a branch in Cebu
where he maintained the same practice in the collection and distribution of service
charges. The Cebu branch, however, did not attract the forecasted clientele; hence,
the Cebu employees received lesser service charge benefits than those enjoyed by
the Makati-based employees. As a result, the Cebu branch employees demanded
equalization of benefits and filed a case with the NLRC for discrimination when
Ricardo refused their demand.


XVI(l) Will the case prosper? (1%)

(A) Yes, because the employees are not receiving equal treatment in the
distribution of service charge benefits.

(B) Yes, because the law provides that the 85% employees' share in the service
charge collection should be equally divided among all the employees, in this case,
among the Cebu and Makati employees alike.

(C) No, because the employees in Makati are not similarly situated as the Cebu
employees with respect to cost of living and conditions of work.

(D) No, because the service charge benefit attaches to the outlet where service
charges are earned and should be distributed exclusively among the employees
providing service in the outlet.

(E) No, because the market and the clientele the two branches are serving, are
different.

XVI(2). In order to improve the Cebu service and sales, Ricardo decided to assign
some of its Makati-based employees to Cebu to train Cebu employees and expose
them to the Makati standard of service. A chef and three waiters were assigned to
Cebu for the task. While in Cebu, the assigned personnel shared in the Cebu
service charge collection and thus received service charge benefits lesser than what
they were receiving in Makati.

If you were the lawyer for the assigned personnel, what would you advice them to
do? (1%)

(A) I would advise them to file a complaint for unlawful diminution of service
charge benefits and for payment of differentials.

(B) I would advise them to file a complaint for illegal transfer because work in
Cebu is highly prejudicial to them in terms of convenience and service charge
benefits.

(C) I would advise them to file a complaint for discrimination in the grant of
service charge benefits.

(D) I would advise them to accept their Cebu training assignment as an exercise of
the company's management prerogative.

(E) I would advise them to demand the continuation of their Makati-based benefits
and to file a complaint under (B)above if the demand is not heeded.

XVII. Constant Builders, an independent contractor, was charged with illegal
dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits of ten dismissed employees. The
complainants impleaded as co-respondent Able Company, Constant Builder's
principal in the construction of Able's office building. The complaint demanded
that Constant and Able be held solidarily liable for the payment of their
backwages, separation pay, and all their unpaid wages and benefits.

If the Labor Arbiter rules in favor of the complainants, choose the statement that
best describes the extent of the liabilities of Constant and Able. (1%)

(A) Constant and Able should be held solidarily liable for the unpaid wages and
benefits, as well as backwages and separation pay, based on Article 109 of the
Labor Code which provides that "every employer or indirect employer shall be
held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any
provision of this Code."

(B) Constant and Able should be held solidarily liable for the unpaid wages and
benefits, and should order Constant, as the workers' direct employer, to be solely
liable for the backwages and separation pay.

(C) Constant and Able should be held solidarily liable for the unpaid wages and
benefits and the backwages since these pertain to labor standard benefits for which
the employer and contractor are liable under the law, while Constant alone as the
actual employer - should be ordered to pay the separation pay.

(D) Constant and Able should be held solidarily liable for the unpaid wages and
benefits, and Constant should be held liable for their backwages and separation pay
unless Able is shown to have participated with malice or bad faith in the workers'
dismissal, in which case both should be held solidarily liable.

(E) The above statements are all inaccurate.

XVIII. The Pinagbuklod union filed a Petition for Certification Election, alleging
that it was a legitimate labor organization of the rank-and-file employees of Delta
Company. On Delta's motion, the Med Arbiter dismissed the Petition, based on the
finding that Pinagbuklod was not a legitimate labor union and had no legal
personality to file a Petition for Certification Election because its membership was
a mixture of rank-and-file and supervisory employees.

Is the dismissal of the Petition for Certification Election by the Med-Arbiter
proper? (1%)

(A) Yes, because Article 245 of the Labor Code prohibits supervisory employees
from joining the union of he rank and file employees and provides that a union
representing both rank and file and supervisory employees as members is not a
legitimate labor organization.

(B) No, because the grounds for the dismissal of a petition for certification election
do not include mixed membership in one umon.

(C) No, because a final order of cancellation of union registration is required
before a petition for certification election may be dismissed on the ground of lack
of legal personality of the umon.

(D) No, because Delta Company did not have the legal personality to participate in
the certification election proceedings and to file a motion to dismiss based on the
legitimacy status of the petitioning union.

















BAR EXAMINATION 2013
CIVIL LAW
October 13, 2013 8:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M.

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This Questionnaire contains SIXTEEN (16) pages including these Instructions
pages. Check the number of pages and the page numbers at the upper right hand
corner of each page of this Questionnaire and make sure it has the correct number
of pages and their proper numbers.

There are TEN (10) Essay Questions numbered I to X (with subquestions), and
TEN (10) Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) numbered I to X (with
subquestions), to be answered within four (4) hours.

The essay portion contains questions that are worth 80/o of the whole
examination, while the MCQ portion contains questions worth 20%.

2. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar
Examination Notebook in the same order the questions are posed. Write your
answers only at the front, not the back, page of every sheet in your Examination
Notebook. Note well the allocated percentage points for each number, question, or
sub-question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

If the sheets provided in your Examination Notebook are not sufficient for your
answers, use the back pages of every sheet of your Examination Notebook, starting
at the back page of the first sheet and the back of the succeeding sheets thereafter.

3. Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number
on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be
written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until
completed.

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts presented by the
question, to select the material from the immaterial facts, and to discern the points
upon which the question turns. It should show your knowledge and understanding
of the pertinent principles and theories of law involved and their qualifications and
limitations. It should demonstrate your ability to apply the law to the given facts,
and to reason logically in a lawyer-like manner to a sound conclusion from the
given premises.

A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding explanation or
discussion will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your
answers although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. At the
same time, remember that a complete explanation does not require that you
volunteer information or discuss legal doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent
to the solution to the problem. Yon do not need to re-write or repeat the question in
your Examination Notebook.

4. MCQs are to be answered by writing in your Examination Notebook the capital
letter (A, B, C, D, or E) corresponding to your chosen answer. The MCQ answers
should begin in the page following the last page of your essay answers.

There is only one correct answer to every MCQ; choose the BEST answer from
among the offered choices. Note that some MCQs may need careful analysis both
of the questions and the choices offered.

5. Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive
marking/s on your Examination Notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s
(such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the
Examiner).

Writing, leaving or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the
Examination Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you for the Bar
examinations. You can use the questionnaire for notes you may wish/need to write
during the examination.

HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

J. ARTURO D. BRION
Chairman
2013 Bar Examinations

ESSAY QUESTIONS

I.

You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage (under Article 36 of the Family Code)filed by Maria against
Neil. Maria claims that Neil is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a drunkard, a womanizer, a
gambler, and a mama's boy- traits that she never knew or saw when Neil was
courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria's petition and never
appeared in court.

To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses- herself, Dr. Elsie Chan,
and Ambrosia. Dr. Chan testified on the psychological report on Neil that she
prepared. Since Neil never acknowledged n9r responded to her invitation for
interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the spouses'
minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder, an ailment that she found to be already present since Neil's
early adulthood and one that is grave and incurable. Maria testified on the specific
instances when she found Neil drunk, with another woman, or squandering the
family's resources in a casino. Ambrosia, the spouses' current household help,
corroborated Maria's testimony.

On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant the petition? (8%)

II.

A collision occurred at an intersection involving a bicycle and a taxicab. Both the
bicycle rider (a businessman then doing his morning exercise) and the taxi driver
claimed that the other was at fault. Based on the police report, the bicycle crossed
the intersection first but the taxicab, crossing at a fast clip from the bicycle's left,
could not brake in time and hit the bicycle's rear wheel, toppling it and throwing
the bicycle rider into the sidewalk 5 meters away.

The bicycle rider suffered a fractured right knee, sustained when he fell on his right
side on the concrete side walk. He was hospitalized and was subsequently operated
on, rendering him immobile for 3 weeks and requiring physical rehabilitation for
another 3 months. In his complaint for damages, the rider prayed for the award of
P1,000,000 actual damages,P200,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary
damages, P1 00,000 nominal damages and P50,000 attorney's fees.

Assuming the police report to be correct and as the lawyer for the bicycle rider,
what evidence (documentary and testimonial) and legal arguments will you present
in court to justify the damages that your client claims? (8%)

III.

Sergio is the registered owner of a 500-square meter land. His friend, Marcelo,
who has long been interested in the property, succeeded in persuading Sergio to
sell it to him. On June 2, 2012, they agreed on the purchase price of P600,000 and
that Sergio would give Marcelo up to June30, 2012 within which to raise the
amount. Marcelo, in a light tone usual between them, said that they should seal
their agreement through a case of Jack Daniels Black and P5,000 "pulutan" money
which he immediately handed to Sergio and which the latter accepted. The friends
then sat down and drank the first bottle from the case of bourbon.

On June 15, 2013, Sergio learned of another buyer, Roberto, who was offering
P800,000 in ready cash for the land. When Roberto confirmed that he could pay in
cash as soon as Sergio could get the documentation ready, Sergio decided to
withdraw his offer to Marcelo, hoping to just explain matters to his friend.
Marcelo, however, objected when the withdrawal was communicated to him,
taking the position that they have a firm and binding agreement that Sergio cannot
simply walk away from because he has an option to buy that is duly supported by a
duly accepted valuable consideration.

(A) Does Marcelo have a cause of action against Sergio? (5%)

(B) Can Sergio claim that whatever they might have agreed upon cannot be
enforced because any agreement relating to the sale of real property must be
supported by evidence in writing and they never reduced their agreement to
writing? (3%)

IV.

Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his friend Boboy
occupied for a nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy would vacate the
property on demand. With Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations
consisting of an additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and a concrete block
fence, at his own expense.

Subsequently, Anselmo needed the property as his residence and thus asked Boboy
to vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy, despite an extension, failed to vacate the
property, forcing Anselmo to send him a written demand to vacate.

In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was ready to leave but Anselmo
must first reimburse him the value of the improvements he introduced on the
property as he is a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused, insisting that Boboy
cannot ask for reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by
removing the improvements and leaving the building in its original state.

(A) Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in good faith, he should be reimbursed
the value of the improvements he introduced. (4%)

(B) Can Boboy be held liable for damages for removing the improvements over
Anselmo's objection? (4%)

V.

Josefa executed a deed of donation covering a one-hectare rice land in favor of her
daughter, Jennifer. The deed specifically provides that:

"For and in consideration of he love and service Jennifer has shown and given to
me, I hereby freely, voluntarily and irrevocably donate to her my one-hectare rice
land covered by TCT No. 11550, located in San Fernando, Pampanga. This
donation shall take effect upon my death."

The deed also contained Jennifer's signed acceptance, and an attached notarized
declaration by Josefa and Jennifer that the land will remain in Josefa's possession
and cannot be alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed of while Josefa is still alive.

Advise Jennifer on whether the deed is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa and
explain the reasons supporting your advice. (8%)

VI.

Lito obtained a loan of P1,000,000 from Ferdie, payable within one year. To secure
payment, Lito executed a chattel mortgage on a Toyota Avanza and a real estate
mortgage on a 200-square meter piece of property.

(A) Would it be legally significant - from the point of view of validity and
enforceability - if the loan and the mortgages were in public or private
instruments? (6%)

(B) Lito's failure to pay led to the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgaged real
property. Within a year from foreclosure, Lito tendered a manager's check to
Ferdie to redeem the property. Ferdie refused to accept payment on the ground that
he wanted payment in cash: the check does not qualify as legal tender and does not
include the interest payment. Is Ferdie's refusal justified? (4%)

VII.

In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose only access to the national
highway was a pathway crossing Brando's property. Andres and others have been
using this pathway (pathway A) since 1980.

In 2006, Brand0 fenced off his property, thereby blocking Andres' access to the
national highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be removed to maintain
his old access route to the highway (pathway A), but Brando refused, claiming that
there was another available pathway (pathway B) for ingress and egress to the
highway. Andres countered that pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and is
extremely inconvenient to use.

To settle their dispute, Andres and Brando hired Damian, a geodetic and civil
engineer, to survey and examine the two pathways and the surrounding areas, and
to determine the shortest and the least prejudicial way through the servient estates.
After the survey, the engineer concluded that pathway B is the longer route and
will need improvements and repairs, but will not significantly affect the use of
Brando's property. On the other hand, pathway A that had long been in place, is the
shorter route but would significantly affect the use of Brando's property.

In light of the engineer's findings and the circumstances of the case, resolve the
parties' right of way dispute. (6%)

VIII.

Ciriaco Realty Corporation (CRC) sold to the spouses Del a Cruz a500-square
meter land (Lot A) in Paranaque. The land now has a fair market value of
Pl,200,000. CRC likewise sold to the spouses Rodriguez, a 700-square meter land
(Lot B) which is adjacent to Lot A. Lot B has a present fair market value of
P1,500,000.

The spouses Dela Cruz constructed a house on Lot B, relying on there presentation
of the CRC sales agent that it is the property they purchased. Only upon the
completion of their house did the spouses Dela Cruz discover that they had built on
Lot B owned by the spouses Rodriguez, not on Lot A that they purchased. They
spent P 1 000,000 for the house.

As their lawyer, advise the spouses Dela Cruz on their rights and obligations under
the given circumstances, and the recourses and options open to them to protect
their interests. (8%)

IX.

Rica petitioned for the annulment of her ten-year old marriage to Richard. Richard
hired Atty. Cruz to represent him in the proceedings. In payment for Atty. Cruz's
acceptance and legal fees, Richard conveyed to Atty. Cruz a parcel of land in
Taguig that he recently purchased with his lotto winnings. The transfer documents
were duly signed and Atty. Cruz immediately took possession by fencing off the
property's entire perimeter.

Desperately needing money to pay for his mounting legal fees and his other needs
and despite the transfer to Atty. Cruz, Richard offered the same parcel of land for
sale to the spouses Garcia. After inspection of the land, the spouses considered it a
good investment and purchased it from Richard. Immediately after the sale, the
spouses Garcia commenced the construction of a three-story building over the
land, but they were prevented from doing this by Atty. Cruz who claimed he has a
better right in light of the prior conveyance in his favor.

Is Atty. Cruz's claim correct? (8%)

X.

Manuel was born on 12 March 1940 in a 1 000-square meter property where he
grew up helping his father, Michael, cultivate the land. Michael has lived on the
property since the land was opened for settlement at about the time of the
Commonwealth government in 193 5, but for some reason never secured any title
to the property other than a tax declaration in his name. He has held the property
through the years in the concept of an owner and his stay was uncontested by
others. He has also conscientiously and continuously paid the realty taxes on the
land.

Michael died in 2000 and Manuel - as Michaels only son and heir -now wants to
secure and register title to the land in his own name. He consults you for legal
advice as he wants to perfect his title to the land and secure its registration in his
name.

(A) What are the laws that you need to consider in advising Manuel on how he can
perfect his title and register the land in his name? Explain the relevance of these
laws to your projected course of action. (4%)

(B) What do you have to prove to secure Manuel's objectives and what
documentation are necessary? (4%)

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

I. Armand died intestate. His full-blood brothers, Bobby and Conrad, and half-
blood brothers, Danny, Edward and Floro, all predeceased him. The following are
the surviving relatives:

1. Benny and Bonnie, legitimate children of Bobby;

2. Cesar, legitimate child of Conrad;

3. Dante, illegitimate child of Danny;

4. Ernie, adopted child of Edward; and

5. Felix, grandson of Floro.

The net value of Armand's estate is Pl,200,000.

I. (1) How much do Benny and Bonnie stand to inherit by right of representation?
(1%)

(A) P200,000

(B) P300,000

(C) P400,000

(D) P150,000

(E) None of the above.

I. (2) How much is Dante's share in the net estate? (1%)

(A) P150,000.

(B) P200,000.

(C) P300,000.

(D) P400,000.

(E) None of the above.

I. (3) How much is Ernie's share in the net estate . (1%)

(A) P 0.

(B) P400,000.

(C) P150,000.

(D) P200,000.

(E) None of the above.

I. (4) How much is Felix's share in the net estate? (1%)

(A) P400,000.

(B) P150,000.

(C) P300,000.

(D) P0.

(E) None of the above.

II. A, B, C and D are the solidary debtors of X for P40,000. X released D from the
payment of his share of PI 0,000. When the obligation became due and
demandable, C turned out to be insolvent.

Should the share of insolvent debtor C be divided only between the two other
remaining debtors, A and B? (1%)

(A) Yes. Remission of D's share carries with it total extinguishment of his
obligation to the benefit of the solidary debtors.

(B) Yes. The Civil Code recognizes remission as a mode of extinguishing an
obligation. This clearly applies to D.

(C) No. The rule is that gratuitous acts should be restrictively construed, allowing
only the least transmission of rights.

(D) No, as the release of the share of one debtor would then increase the burden of
the other debtors without their consent.

III. Amador obtained a loan of P300,000 from Basilio payable on March25, 2012.
As security for the payment of his loan, Amador constituted a mortgage on his
residential house and lot in Basilio's favor. Cacho, a good friend of Amador,
guaranteed and obligated himself to pay Basilio, in case Amador fails to pay his
loan at maturity.

III. (1) If Amador fails to pay Basilio his loan on March 25, 2012, can Basilio
compel Cacho to pay? (1%)

(A) No, Basilio cannot compel Cacho to pay because as guarantor, Cacho can
invoke the principle of excussion, i.e., all the assets of Basilio must first be
exhausted.

(B) No, Basilio cannot compel Cacho to pay because Basilio has not exhausted the
available remedies against Amador.

(C) Yes, Basilio can compel Cacho to pay because the nature of Cacho's
undertaking indicates that he has bound himself solidarily with Amador.

(D) Yes, Basilio can compel Cacho who bound himself to unconditionally pay in
case Amador fails to pay; thus the benefit of excussion will not apply.

III. (2) If Amador sells his residential house and lot to Diego, can Basilio foreclose
the real estate mortgage? (1%)

(A) Yes, Basilio can foreclose the real estate mortgage because real estate
mortgage creates a real right that attaches to the property.

(B) Yes, Basilio can foreclose the real estate mortgage. It is binding upon Diego as
the mortgage is embodied in a public instrument.

(C) No, Basilio cannot foreclose the real estate mortgage. The sale confers
ownership on the buyer, Diego, who must therefore consent.

(D) No, Basilio cannot foreclose the real estate mortgage. To deprive the new
owner of ownership and possession is unjustand inequitable.

IV. Cruz lent Jose his car until Jose finished his Bar exams. Soon after Cruz
delivered the car, Jose brought it to Mitsubishi Cubao for maintenance check up
and incurred costs of P8,000. Seeing the car's peeling and faded paint, Jose also
had the car repainted for P10,000. Answer the two questions below based on these
common facts.

IV. (1) After the bar exams, Cruz asked for the return of his car. Jose said he would
return it as soon as Cruz has reimbursed him for the car maintenance and
repainting costs of P 18,000.

Is Jose's refusal justified? (1%)

(A) No, Jose's refusal is not justified. In this kind of contract, Jose is obliged to pay
for all the expenses incurred for the preservation of the thing loaned.

(B) Yes, Jose's refusal is justified. He is obliged to pay forall the ordinary and
extraordinary expenses, but subject to reimbursement from Cruz.

(C) Yes, Jose's refusal is justified. The principle of unjust enrichment warrants the
reimbursement of Jose's expenses.

(D) No, Jose's refusal is not justified. The expenses he incurred are useful for the
preservation of the thing loaned. It is Jose's obligation to shoulder these useful
expenses.

IV. (2) During the bar exam month, Jose lent the car to his girlfriend, Jolie, who
parked the car at the Mall of Asia's open parking lot, with the ignition key inside
the car. Car thieves broke into and took the car.

Is Jose liable to Cruz for the loss of the car due to Jolie's negligence? (1%)

(A) No, Jose is not liable to Cruz as the loss was not due to his fault or negligence.

(B) No, Jose is not liable to Cruz. In the absence of any prohibition, Jose could
lend the car to Jolie. Since the loss was due to force majeure, neither Jose nor Jolie
is liable.

(C) Yes, Jose is liable to Cruz. Since Jose lent the car to Jolie without Cruz's
consent, Jose must bear the consequent loss of the car.

(D) Yes, Jose is liable to Cruz. The contract between them is personal in nature.
Jose can neither lend nor lease the car to a third person.

V. In 2005, L, M, N, 0 and P formed a partnership. L, M and N were capitalist
partners who contributed P500,000 each, while 0, a limited partner, contributed P1
,000,000. P joined as an industrial partner, contributing only his services. The
Articles of Partnership, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
designated L and 0 as managing partners; L was liable only to the extent of his
capital contribution; and P was not liable for losses.

In 2006, the partnership earned a net profit of P800,000. In the same year, P
engaged in a different business with the consent of all the partners. However, in
2007, the partnership incurred a net loss of P500,000. In 2008,the partners
dissolved the partnership. The proceeds of the sale of partnership assets were
insufficient to settle its obligation. After liquidation, the partnership had an unpaid
liability ofP300,000.

V. (l) Assuming that the just and equitable share of the industrial partner, P, in the
profit in 2006 amounted to P1 00,000, how much is the share of 0, a limited
partner, in the P800,000 net profit? (1%)

(A) P160,000.

(B) P175,000.

(C) P280,000.

(D) P200,000.

(E) None of the above.

V. (2) In 2007, how much is the share of 0, a limited partner, in the net loss of
P500,000? (1%)

(A) P 0.

(B) P1 00,000.

(C) P125,000.

(D) P200,000.

(E) None of the above.

V. (3) Can the partnership creditors hold L, 0 and Pliable after all the assets of the
partnership are exhausted? (1%)

(A) Yes. The stipulation exempting P from losses is valid only among the partners.
L is liable because the agreement limiting his liability to his capital contribution is
not valid insofar as the creditors are concerned. Having taken part in the
management of the partnership, 0 is liable as capitalist partner.

(B) No. P is not liable because there is a valid stipulation exempting him from
losses. Since the other partners allowed him to engage in an outside business
activity, the stipulation absolving P from liability is valid. For 0, it is basic that a
limited partner is liable only up to the extent of his capital contribution.

(C) Yes. The stipulations exempting P and L from losses are not binding upon the
creditors. 0 is likewise liable because the partnership was not formed in accordance
with the requirements of a limited partnership.

(D) No. The Civil Code allows the partners to stipulate that a partner shall not be
liable for losses. The registration of the Articles of Partnership embodying such
stipulations serves as constructive notice to the partnership creditors.(E) None of
the above is completely accurate.

VI. Gary is a tobacco trader and also a lending investor. He sold tobacco leaves to
Homer for delivery within a month, although the period for delivery was not
guaranteed. Despite Gary's efforts to deliver on time, transportation problems and
government red tape hindered his efforts and he could only deliver after 30 days.
Homer refused to accept the late delivery and to pay on the ground that the agreed
term had not been complied with.

As lending investor, Gary granted a Pl,000,000 loan to Isaac to be paid within two
years from execution of the contract. As security for the loan, Isaac promised to
deliver to Gary his Toyota Innova within seven (7) days, but Isaac failed to do so.
Gary was thus compelled to demand payment for the loan before the end of the
agreed two-year term.

VI. (l) Was Homer justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves? (1%)

(A) Yes. Homer was justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves. The delivery
was to be made within a month. Gary's promise of delivery on a "best effort" basis
made the delivery uncertain. The term, therefore, was ambiguous.

(B) No. Homer was not justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves. He
consented to the terms and conditions of the sale and must abide by it. Obligations
arising from contract have the force of law between the contracting parties.

(C) Yes. Homer was justified in his refusal to accept the delivery. The contract
contemplates an obligation with a term. Since the delivery was made after 30 days,
contrary to the terms agreed upon, Gary could not insist that Homer accept the
tobacco leaves.

(D) No. Homer was not justified in refusing to accept the tobacco leaves. There
was no term in the contract but a mixed condition. The fulfillment of the condition
did not depend purely on Gary's will but on other factors, e.g., the shipping
company and the government. Homer should comply with his obligation.

VI. (2) Can Gary compel Isaac to pay his loan even before the end of the two-year
period? (1%)

(A) Yes, Gary can compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. Non-compliance
with the promised guaranty or security renders the obligation immediately
demandable. Isaac lost his right to make use of the period.

(B) Yes, Gary can compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. The delivery of the
Toyota Innova is a condition for the loan. Isaac's failure to deliver the car violated
the condition upon which the loan was granted. It is but fair for Gary to demand
immediate payment.

(C) No, Gary cannot compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. The delivery of the
car as security for the loan is an accessory contract; the principal contract is still
the P 1,000,000 loan. Thus, Isaac can still make use of the period.

(D) No, Gary cannot compel Isaac to immediately pay the loan. Equity dictates that
Gary should have granted a reasonable extension of time for Isaac to deliver his
Toyota Innova. It would be unfair and burdensome for Isaac to pay the P1,000,000
simply because the promised security was not delivered.

VII.

Lito was a commercial pilot who flew for Pacific-Micronesian Air. In 1998, he was
the co-pilot of the airline's Flight MA916 that mysteriously disappeared two hours
after take-off from Agana, Guam, presumably over the Pacific Ocean. No trace of
the plane and its 105 passengers and crew was ever found despite diligent search;
Lito himself was never heard of again. Lito left behind his wife, Lita, and their two
children.

In 2008, Lita met and and married Jaime. They now have a child of their own.

While on a tour with her former high school classmates in a remote province of
China in 2010, Lita was surprised to see Lito or somebody who looked exactly like
him, but she was sure it was Lito because of the extreme surprise that registered in
his face when he also saw her. Shocked, she immediately fled to her hotel and post
haste returned to the country the next day. Lita now comes to you for legal advice.
She asks you the following questions:

VII. (l) If Lito is alive, what is the status of his marriage to Lita? (1%)

(A) The marriage subsists because the marital bond has not been terminated by
death.

(B) The marriage was terminated when Lita married Jaime.

(C) The marriage subsists because Lita's marriage to Jaime is void.

(D) The marriage is terminated because Lito is presumed dead after his plane has
been missing for more than 4 years.

(E) The marriage can be formally declared terminated if Lito would not resurface.

VII. (2) If Lito is alive, what is the status of Lita's marriage to Jaime? (1%)

(A) The marriage is valid because Lita's marriage to Lito was terminated upon
Lito's disappearance for more than seven years.

(B) The marriage is valid. After an absence of more than 10 years, Lito is already
presumed dead for all purposes.

(C) The marriage is void. Lito's mere absence, however lengthy, is insufficient to
authorize Lita to contract a subsequent marriage.

(D) The marriage is void. If Lito is indeed alive, his marriage to Lita was never
dissolved and they can resume their marital relations at any time.

VIII.

Which of the following actions or defenses are meritorious: (1%)

(A) An action for recovery of downpayment paid under a rescinded oral sale of
real property.

(B) A defense in an action for ejectment that the lessor verbally promised to extend
or renew the lease.

(C) An action for payment of sum of money filed against one who orally promised
to answer another's debt in case the latter defaults.

(D) A defense in an action for damages that the debtor has sufficient, but
unliquidated assets to satisfy the credit acquired when it becomes due.

(E) None of the above.

IX.

Betty entrusted to her agent, Aida, several pieces of jewelry to be sold on
commission with the express obligation to turn over to Betty the proceeds of the
sale, or to return the jewelries if not sold in a month's time. Instead of selling the
jewelries, Aida pawned them with the Tambunting Pawnshop, and used the money
for herself. Aida failed to redeem the pawned jewelries and after a month, Betty
discovered what Aida had done. Betty brought criminal charges which resulted in
Aida's conviction for estafa.


Betty thereafter filed an action against Tambunting Pawnshop for the recovery of
the jewelries. Tambunting raised the defense of ownership, additionally arguing
that it is duly licensed to engage in the pawnshop and lending business, and that it
accepted the mortgage of the jewelry in good faith and in the regular course of its
business.

If you were the judge, how will you decide the case? (1%)

(A) I will rule in favor of Betty. My ruling is based on the Civil Code provision
that one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may
recover it from the person in possession of the same. Tam bunting's claim of good
faith is inconsequential.

(B) I will rule in favor of Betty. Tambunting's claim of good faith pales into
insignificance in light of the unlawful deprivation of the jewelries. However,
equity dictates that Tambunting must be reimbursed for the pawn value of the
jewelries.

(C) I will rule in favor of Tambunting. Its good faith takes precedence over the
right of Betty to recover the jewelries.

(D) I will rule in favor of Tambunting. Good faith is always presumed.
Tambunting's lawful acquisition in the ordinary course of business coupled with
good faith gives it legal right over the jewelries.

X.

Arlene owns a row of apartment houses in Kamuning, Quezon City. She agreed to
lease Apartment No. 1 to Janet for a period of 18 months at the rate of P10,000 per
month. The lease was not covered by any contract. Janet promptly gave Arlene two
(2) months deposit and 18 checks covering the rental payment for 18 months. This
show of good faith prompted Arlene to promise Janet that should Arlene decide to
sell the property, she would give Janet the right of first refusal.

X. (1) Not long after Janet moved in, she received news that her application for a
Master of Laws scholarship at King's College in London had been approved. Since
her acceptance of the scholarship entailed a transfer of residence, Janet asked
Arlene to return the advance rental payments she made. Arlene refused, prompting
Janet to file an action to recover the payments. Arlene filed a motion to dismiss,
claiming that the lease on which the action is based, is unenforceable.

If you were the judge, would you grant Arlene's motion? (1%)

(A) Yes, I will grant the motion because the lease contract between Arlene and
Janet was not in writing, hence, Janet may not enforce any right arising from the
same contract.

(B) No, I will not grant the motion because to allow Arlene to retain the advance
payments would amount to unjust enrichment.

(C) Yes, I will grant the motion because the action for recovery is premature; Janet
should first secure a judicial rescission of the contract of lease.

(D) No. I will not grant the motion because the cause of action does not seek to
enforce any right under the contract of lease.

X. (2)Assume that Janet decided not to accept the scholarship and continued
leasing Apartment No. 1. Midway through the lease period, Arlene decided to sell
Apartment No. 1 to Jun in breach of her promise to Janet to grant her the right of
first refusal. Thus, Janet filed an action seeking the recognition of her right of first
refusal, the payment of damages for the violation of this right, and the rescission of
the sale between Arlene and Jun.

Is Janet's action meritorious? (1%)

(A) Yes, under the Civil Code, a promise to buy and sell a determinate thing is
reciprocally demandable.

(B) No, the promise to buy and sell a determinate thing was not supported by a
consideration.

(C) Yes, Janet's right of first refusal was clearly violated when the property was not
offered for sale to her before it was sold to Jun.

(D) No, a right of first refusal involves an interest over real property that must be
embodied in a written contract to be enforceable.

(E) None of the above.