JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER ™ 2017 REMEDIAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION 24 June 2017
8 am to 12 noon INSTRUCTIONS
1. This Questionnaire contains 6 pages. Check the number of pages and make sure it has the correct number of pages and their proper numbers. All the items have to be answered answered within four (4) hours. Since there are twenty (20) questions, you have 12 minutes to answer each question. You may write on the Questionnaire for notes relating to the questions. 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 of every sheet in your Notebook. If not sufficient, then start with the back page of the first sheet and thereafter. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire. 2. Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number on a sub-question under the same number may be written separate page. An answer to a sub-question continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, jurisprudence, and the facts. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer answer without without any corresponding corresponding explanation explanation or discussion will will not be given full credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. Do not re-write or repeat the question in your Notebook. 3. Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous notels or distinctive marking/s on your 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 exam Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you. YOU CAN BRING HOME THE QUESTIONNAIRE
I Petitioners filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City a complaint against Respondent GJH Land Inc. (“GJH Land” for brevity) and Respondent officers of GJH Land seeking to enjoin the sale of GJH Land shares. The Petitioners alleged that they had fully paid for GJH Land shares but the same were still offered for sale by Respondents to GJH Land stockholders. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 11-077 and raffled to Branch 276, which is not a Special Commercial Court. After filing their respective answers to the complaint, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, pointing out that the case involves an intra-corporate dispute and should thus be heard by the designated Special Commercial Court of Muntinlupa City. Branch 276 granted the motion to dismiss filed by Respondents. It found that the case involved an intra-corporate dispute that is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs designated as Special Commercial Courts. It pointed out that the RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, was specifically designated by the Supreme Court as the Special Commercial Court; hence, Jurists Mock Bar Examinations Examinations in Remedial Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 1 of 6
Branch 276 had no jurisdiction over the case and cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction on the matter. Accordingly, it dismissed the case. Did RTC Branch 276 act correctly in dismissing the case? Explain. II Riviera Golf Club Inc. (RGC) and CCA Holdings (CCA) entered into a 5-year Management and Royalty Agreement whereby RGC agreed to pay CCA monthly management and royalty fees for operating and managing the Riviera Golf Club. Just three years into the contract, RGC preterminated the same on the ground of financial difficulties and alleged violations by CCA of the agreement. CCA filed with the RTC of Makati City, a complaint against RGC for collection of the unpaid management and royalty fees for services rendered. The parties entered into a compromise agreement which became the basis of a compromise judgment by the court. The compromise agreement contained a “no n-waiver” clause wherein the compromise agreement shall not be considered as a waiver of and is without prejudice to CCA’s cause of action arising from the pretermination of the Management and Royalty Agreement. Subsequently, CCA filed a second complaint against RGC for the expected business profits it should have derived from the unexpired two-year term of the agreement but did not because of the pretermination of the agreement. RGC filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. CCA opposed the motion on the grounds that: (a) the two cases involve different causes of action, and (b) the parties had stipulated in the “non -waiver” clause that the compromise agreement was without prejudice to CCA’s cause of action arising from the pretermination of the Management and Royalty Agreement. Should the motion to dismiss be granted? Explain. III Dino, a resident of Cebu City, borrowed P1 million from Celso, a resident of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Dino did not pay Celso despite demands. Celso engaged Atty. Birit, whose office and residence is in Quezon City, to file a collection case against Dino. Celso executed an SPA authorizing Atty. Birit to prosecute the case in his behalf. Atty. Birit, as attorney-in-fact of Celso, filed the collection case before the RTC of Quezon City. The complaint was captioned, “Atty. Birit, as attorney -in-fact of Celso vs. Dino.” Dino filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: (a) failure to state a cause of action, since Atty. Birit, the attorney-in-fact, is not the real party in interest; and (b) improper venue, arguing that none of the parties reside in Quezon City. How would you rule on the motion to dismiss? Explain. IV Jacob filed a complaint for annulment of loan and mortgage contract against Petro Bank on the ground of fraud. Petro Bank filed an answer denying any fraud against Jacob. After the termination of the pretrial, Jacob filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to the senior loan manager of Petro Bank to appear and testify in the initial hearing for the presentation of Jacob’s evidence as Jacob’s first witness and to bring documents relative to Jacob’s loan. You are the counsel of Petro Bank. What ground/s if any would you raise to oppose Jacob’s motion? Explain. V Peter filed a tort case against David before the RTC of Manila for damages when David’s car collided with Peter’s car . Before the trial, Peter with prior notice to David, took the deposition of Weng, wherein Weng stated that David had entered the intersection when the stoplight was red against him. During the trial, Peter no longer presents Weng as a witness and instead offers in evidence her deposition to prove that David had entered the Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Remedial Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 2 of 6
intersection when the stoplight was red. David objects to the offer of the deposition on the ground that the deposition may not be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. a) Should David’s objection be sustained? Explain. b) What if before the trial, Weng went to Davao City to work and reside therein. Should David’s objection be sustained? Explain. VI Dina borrowed P500,000 from Pam for which Dina executed a promissory note in favor of Pam. Dina failed to pay on the due date so Pam filed a complaint before the RTC against Dina. Before Dina could file an answer, Pam filed a notice of dismissal of the case, which notice was confirmed by the RTC. A year later Pam filed a second case with the RTC to collect the P500,000 arising from the same promissory note. Dina filed her answer. Before pre-trial, Pam filed a motion for dismissal of the case. The RTC issued an order granting Pam’s motion for dismissal. Eight months later Pam filed a third case to collect on the same P500,000 promissory note. Dina filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata, invoking the two-dismissal rule. Rule on the motion to dismiss. VII China Bank filed with the RTC a loan collection case against Ever Electrical Mfg. Co. and Ng Meng Tam, a surety to Ever’s loan. N g filed an answer with affirmative defense of the nullity of the suretyship contract. Ng moved for a preliminary hearing on his affirmative defense which was granted. After serving written interrogatories on George Yap, China Bank’s account officer, and receiving Yap’s answers thereto, Ng applied for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum against George Yap. China Bank objected, arguing that Yap cannot be compelled to testify in court because Ng did not obtain and present Yap’s jud icial affidavit pursuant to Section 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Should China Bank’s objection be sustained? Explain. VIII a) What is the final judgment rule? What are the exceptions thereto? b) State and discuss briefly the dual function of an appellate court. IX Due to the worsening traffic situation in Imus, Cavite, the city council passed an ordinance declaring the main road of Posh Homes, a gated private subdivision in Imus, as an “amity route” and allowing city residents t o pass through such main road, provided their cars bear an amity route sticker issued by the city government. You are the lawyer of Posh Homes Homeowners’ Association (PHHA) . a) What action or proceeding would you file in behalf of PHHA in order to protect its rights? In what court would you file the action or proceeding? Explain. b) Assume that the city government of Imus has already issued and is issuing the amity route stickers, pursuant to which city residents are already traversing the main road of Posh Homes. The city police force is preventing the security guards of Posh Homes from barring entry of outsiders to the main road. What action or proceeding would you file in behalf of PHHA? In what court would you file the action or proceeding? Explain. Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Remedial Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 3 of 6
X Paul filed a complaint captioned as one for forcible entry against Daryl before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. Daryl engaged you to be his lawyer. You read the allegations of the complaint which state that the assessed value of the subject land is P150,000. The allegations state that Daryl unlawfully deprived Paul of physical possession of the land but did not describe how the unlawful deprivation was done. What legal step would you take in behalf of Daryl in order to ensure a favorable outcome for him? Explain. XI Owner filed an action for forcible entry against Squatter before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Pinas City. In his complaint for forcible entry, Owner prayed for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction to forthwith restore him in possession during the pendency of the case. Both Owner and Squatter are residents of Las Pinas City and the subject land is located therein. Squatter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the case did not undergo barangay conciliation as required under the Local Government Code. Owner opposed the motion on the ground that a motion to dismiss is prohibited. a) How should the MeTC resolve the motion to dismiss? Explain. Assume that the motion to dismiss was denied. the reglementary period.
Squatter did not file an answer within
b) If you are the lawyer for Owner, what legal step would you take in behalf of your client? Explain. Assume a judgment was rendered in favor of Owner ordering Squatter to vacate the premises and to pay reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. On the 15 th day from notice of the judgment, Squatter filed a motion for reconsideration, serving a copy thereof on Owner and setting the motion for hearing with notice of the hearing served on Owner. c) If you were the lawyer for Owner, what legal step would you take in behalf of your client? Explain. XII The President issued a proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao because of widespread rebellion. Jose, who was detained by the military in Pagadian City on the claim that he was a rebel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the RTC of Zamboanga City. The RTC dismissed forthwith the petition on the following grounds: (a) The President’s suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and (b) improper venue since although Pagadian City and Zamboanga City both belong to the 9 th Judicial Region, the petition should have been filed with the RTC of Pagadian City where Jose was detained. Did the RTC act correctly in dismissing the petition? Explain. XIII Raymund and Reynaldo were extrajudicially abducted and detained by the military and then subjected to torture. From time to time, Raymund and Reynaldo were given medical treatment. Eventually, they were able to escape. They filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo against the military officers responsible for their abduction and torture. In their petition, Raymund and Reynaldo prayed that respondents furnish them with all official and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with their case and that respondents cause to be produced all medical reports and records regarding their treatment. Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Remedial Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 4 of 6
Respondents argue that the production order sought by Raymund and Reynaldo partakes of the characteristics of a search warrant. Thus, they claim that the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant must be complied with prior to the grant of the production order, namely: (1) the application must be under oath or affirmation; (2) the search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized; (3) there exists probable cause with one specific offense; and (4) the probable cause must be personally determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Is the Respondents’ argument meritorious? Explain. XIV On 17 May 2003 Respondent parked his car in a no-parking zone in Baguio City. Petitioner Jadewell Parking Systems put clamps on the Respondent’s wheel. Respondent removed the clamps and drove away with them. On 23 May 2003 Petitioner filed a complaint- affidavit for robbery with the prosecutor’s office against Responden t. After preliminary investigation, the Prosecutor found probable cause for violation of Baguio City Ordinance No. 003-2000 (rather than robbery) against the Respondent and filed the information with the MTC of Baguio City on 2 October 2003. Respondent filed a motion to quash on the ground of extinction of the criminal liability, pointing out that under Act No. 3326, violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months from the commission of the offense. The prosecution countered that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office already interrupted the running of the prescriptive period pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 110. Should the motion to quash be granted? Explain. XV Gildo was charged in the Sandiganbayan with the violation of Sec. 3(g) of the AntiGraft Law for entering into a contract manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Gildo pleaded not guilty. The prosecution and Gildo entered into a stipulation during the pre-trial that Gildo as a director of the GSIS did not sign the minutes wherein the board resolution approving the contract subject of the information was passed. Thereafter, invoking the stipulation, Gildo filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and dismissed the case. The People appealed the order of dismissal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. Will the appeal place Gildo in double jeopardy? Explain. XVI Petitioners were charged before the MeTC for Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution’s complaining witness was Li Luen Ping, a frail, old businessman from Cambodia. The private prosecutor filed with the MeTC a motion to take oral deposition of Li before the Philippine consular official in Cambodia, alleging that Li was being treated for lung infection in Cambodia and upon doctor’s advice, he could not make the long travel to the Philippines by reason of ill health. Notwithstanding the Petitioners’ objections, the MeTC granted the motion. Did the MeTC act correctly in granting the motion to take oral deposition? Explain. XVII Police officer Probinsyano was arrested for extortion after an entrapment operation. Probinsyano was compelled to undergo a drug test by submitting his urine sample. The urine sample tested positive for drugs and Probinsyano was charged before the RTC with the crime of use of dangerous drugs. Probinsyano challenged the admissibility of the drug report on the ground that it violated his right against self-incrimination. The trial court brushed aside Probinsyano’s objection and convicted him, relying primarily on the drug -test result . Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Remedial Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 5 of 6
a) Was the drug-test result admissible in evidence against Probinsyano? Explain. b) Assume that Probinsyano did not appeal from his conviction and the judgment became final and executory. Probinsyano is serving sentence at Bilibid. The wife of Probinsyano comes to your law office and requests your opinion on whether Probinsyano still has a remedy from his conviction. What would your opinion be? Explain. XVIII Acme Corporation filed a collection case against Subas Corporation for unpaid purchases made by the latter. Acme Corporation offered in evidence the sales invoices of the transactions with Subas Corporation to prove t he latter’s obligations. The sales invoices were identified by the sales manager of Acme Corporation, Mr. Jao. However Mr. Jao was not present during the preparation of the sales invoices and the clerks who prepared them were not presented in court. a) Are the sales invoices admissible in evidence over the relevant objection? Explain. b) What if Mr. Jao had testified that the clerks who had prepared the sales invoices had already resigned from Acme Corporation and could no longer be located despite diligent efforts? Would the sales invoices be admissible in evidence over the relevant objection? Explain. XIX Boris Ivkov filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent Olga Petrova. The marriage had been celebrated in Alfonso, Cavite, on 1 June 1992. Boris was able to present a certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar (MCR) of Alfonso, Cavite, attesting that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar "has no record nor copy of any marriage license ever issued in favor of Boris Ivkov and Olga Petrova whose marriage was celebrated on June 1, 1992." Olga in turn presented a marriage certificate stating that a marriage between her and Boris was celebrated on 1 June 1992 in Alfonso, Cavite, but the marriage certificate did not contain any entry regarding a marriage license. The RTC rendered a judgment dismissing the petition on the following grounds: (a) the certification issued by the MCR may not be relied upon as Boris did not present the MCR in court to identify the certification, and (b) the certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar is not adequate proof that the marriage license does not exist because it did not indicate that the MCR exerted diligent efforts and it did not categorically state that the marriage license did not exist. Was the judgment of the RTC correct? Explain. XX In a criminal prosecution of Akusado for murder, the principal witness against him is Testigo. The defense calls to the witness stand, Balimbing, a co-employee of Testigo, for the purpose of impeaching the latter’s testimony . Balimbing is examined by defense counsel who brings out the fact that Balimbing has known Testigo for over a decade as his coemployee. Defense counsel then asks Balimbing what he knows about Testigo’s honesty and Balimbing replies, “I personally know that Testigo is a n inveterate liar! He has lied to me and to his co-employees countless times!” If you are the prosecutor, may you successfully move to strike out Balimbing’s ans wer? Explain.
-oOo-
rem mock bar 2017 (q)3/laptop/jurists bar review folder
Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Remedial Law. All rights reserved 2017 by Jurists Review Center Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 6 of 6
