Sample Bar Exam Legal A: I was shocked and temporarily rendered motionless.

When I realized what happened, I immediately rushed to

Opinion Essay 1 from the
Supreme Court
May 20, 2011 at 2:18pm
PART 2 – LEGAL OPINION:
Below is an exchange between you and a hypothetical
client. Based on the information given, write (1) a brief
legal opinion/advice specifying the relevant facts of the
case, the legal problems raised by your hypothetical client,
your assessment of the issues involved, and the possible
courses of action that may be taken under the law; and (2)
one legal document that may be used in connection with
your recommended course of action.
Judy Ann Sanchez has come to consult you about the
possibility of her bringing a lawsuit against McBee as a
result of the injuries she sustained after she fell from the
food chain’s staircase. Judy Ann brought along her
daughter, Mara Clarita, to the interview. Mara Clarita
witnessed what happened. The following is your interview
with her.
my mother’s side. I told the crew to call an ambulance.
Q: What did your mother do?
A: She was crying. She complained of extreme back
pain and could not stand up.
Q: What happened next?
A: The store manager approached us. She said that it
would be faster if we use her car on the way to the hospital.
Two crew members carried my mother and we brought her
to the nearest hospital for treatment.
When you asked Judy Ann what she has done so far with
the case, she told you that she asked the management of
McBee-Metropark Branch to pay her P100,000 in damages
for what she suffered. Although the management paid for
the hospital bills, she suffered pain and was greatly
inconvenienced by the weekly physical therapy she was
undergoing since the accident. When you asked about the
management’s response to her demand for damages, she
gave you the following letter:
December 15, 2010

Interview with Mara Clarita Sanchez, Judy Ann Sanchez

accompanied by client, Judy Ann Sanchez 911 Bluewhale Street
January 10, 2011 Palanan, Makati City

Q: Mara, where were you on October 18, 2010? Dear Ms. Sanchez:
A: I was at McBee-Metropark Branch with my mother,
Judy Ann. I am writing in reference to your letter dated November 18,
Q: Did you see your mother fall from the staircase? 2010 addressed to Ms. Anna Batungbacal, Manager of the
A: Yes. McBee-Metropark Branch. She endorsed your letter to me
Q: What exactly happened? as Operations Manager in charge of the McBee-Metropark
A: We have just ordered some spaghetti and sundaes. Branch.
Since the ground floor was already filled with people, we
decided to eat at the second floor. But when we reached the We, at McBee-Metropark Branch are very sorry for any
staircase, we found out that there was a birthday party inconvenience your family may have experienced in
upstairs and it was closed to the public. connection with your unfortunate accident last October 18,
Q: So where did you eat? 2010. As Ms. Batungbacal and I told you during our
A: I approached a crew and asked if he could find a hospital visit on October 19, 2010, we truly understand
table for us. how you and your family feel about the incident. We assure
Q: What did he do? you that we will continue to shoulder all expenses related to
A: He said that the birthday party was about to end so your weekly physical therapy until such time that you are
we can go up and eat there. fully restored to your previous health.
Q: Did you go upstairs?
A: Yes. My mother went up first. Our conversation helped us understand each other’s
Q: What happened next? situation. I hope that with this, any past misunderstanding
A: On her way up, she met the McBee mascot (which has been cleared up, and we can now put this unfortunate
was a pink bee) who was hurrying down with another crew incident behind us.
member. Since the mascot was so big, he hit my mother by
the shoulder. Please accept my sincerest apologies in behalf of the
Q: What happened then? McBee-Metropark Branch team. We truly hope to see you
A: My mother lost her balance. She missed four steps and your family in our store again.
and hit her head, shoulders, back and buttocks on each step.
Q: What did you when you saw your mother? Thank you.
Very truly yours,
McBee Foods Corporation
By:
Ted Pallone
Operations Manager – Metro Manila (South) Area
Laws and jurisprudence that may apply
1. Article 2176 of the Civil Code
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter.
2. Article 2179 of the Civil Code
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and
proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's
lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
3. Article 2180 of the Civil Code
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not
only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx The
owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry. xxx xxx xxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.
4. Article 1170 of the Civil Code
Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages.
5. Article 2202 of the Civil Code
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for
all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could
have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
6. Article 2203 of the Civil Code
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the
diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the
damages resulting from the act or omission in question.
7. Article 2214 of the Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff
shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
8. Article 2215 of the Civil Code
In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court
may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances
other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in
the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of
the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of
the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded,
that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has
done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
9. Article 2216 of the Civil Code
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral,
nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages, may
be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except
liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court,
according to the circumstances of each case.
10. Article 2217 of the Civil Code
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result
of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
11. Article 2219 of the Civil Code
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and
analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
xxx xxx xxx
12. Article 2221 of the Civil Code
Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of
the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the
defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered
by him.
13. Article 2229 of the Civil Code
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
14. Article 2231 of the Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the
defendant acted with gross negligence.
15. Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375
An accident pertains to an unforeseen event in which no
fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. It is "a
fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event
happening without any human agency, or if happening
wholly or partly through human agency, an event which
under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the
person to whom it happens."
On the other hand, negligence is the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a
prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is
"the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of
another person, that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby
such other person suffers injury."
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one
cannot exist with the other. Accident occurs when the
person concerned is exercising ordinary care, which is not
caused by fault of any person and which could not have
been prevented by any means suggested by common
prudence.
16. Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No.
150920, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where (1) the
accident was of such character as to warrant an inference
that it would not have happened except for the defendant's
negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management
or control of the person charged with the negligence
complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due
to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured.
17. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA
569
The test for determining whether a person is negligent in
doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person
or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the
position of the person to whom negligence is attributed,
foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable
consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law
imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to
take precautions to guard against its mischievous results,
and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable
foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the
admonition born of this provision, is always necessary
before negligence can be held to exist.
18. Saludaga v. Far Eastern University, G.R. No. 179337,
April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 741
In order for force majeure to be considered, respondents
must show that no negligence or misconduct was
committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of
God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed
to take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences
of such a loss. One's negligence may have concurred with
an act of God in producing damage and injury to another;
nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate
cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would
not exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to
be partly the result of a person's participation - whether by
active intervention, neglect or failure to act - the whole
occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules
applicable to acts of God.
19. Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA
569
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he
has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is
required to conform for his own protection.
20. Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral, G.R. No. 143951,
October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 153
It must be remembered that moral damages, though
incapable of pecuniary estimation, are designed to
compensate and alleviate in some way the physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a
person. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured
party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will
serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone,
by reason of the defendant's culpable action. Its award is
aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual
status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted. Since each case must be governed by its
own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule
in determining the proper amount.
21. B.F. Metal (Corporation) v. Lomotan, G.R. No.
170813, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 618
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of
right; the court will decide whether or not they should be
adjudicated. In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be
granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. While
the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved,
the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral,
temperate or compensatory damages before the court may
consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages
should be awarded.

In the case of moral damages, recovery is more an

exception rather than the rule. Moral damages are not
punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and
alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly
caused to a person. In order that an award of moral
damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to
satisfactorily prove that he has suffered such damages and
that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases
listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Then,
too, the damages must be shown to be the proximate result
of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant must establish
the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the
acts of the defendant. In fine, an award of moral damages
would require, firstly, evidence of besmirched reputation or
physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the
claimant; secondly, a culpable act or omission factually
established; thirdly, proof that the wrongful act or omission
of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages
sustained by the claimant; and fourthly, that the case is
predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned
by Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

22. Philippine Commercial International Bank v.

Alejandro, G.R. No. 175587, September 21, 2007, 533
SCRA 738

[N]ominal damages may be awarded to a plaintiff whose

right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the
purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, and not for
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Its
award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a
loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right.
Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and
not in fact. They are recoverable where some injury has
been done but the pecuniary value of the damage is not
shown by evidence and are thus subject to the discretion of
the court according to the circumstances of the case.

23. B.F. Metal (Corporation) v. Lomotan, G.R. No.

170813, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 618