SAMPLE 1998 BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF JANET ABUEL (BAR TOPNOTCHER, 91.

8%)

Political and International Law (Rating: 88%)

Question No. I

The Department of National Defense entered into a contract with Raintree Corporation for the
supply of ponchos to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stipulating that, in the event of breach,
action may be filed in the proper courts of Manila.

Suppose the AFP fails to pay for delivered ponchos, where must Raintree Corporation file its claim?
Why? (10%)

Answer:

The Raintree Corporation cannot file its claim or sue before any court in
case the AFP fails to pay in the case at bar by virtue of the constitutional
guarantee of the State’s immunity from suit.

It is provided for in the Constitution that the State cannot be sued

without its consent. Anent thereto, jurisprudence provides that such consent
may be extended by a law enacted by Congress or in cases where the state or
the government enters into contracts in the exercise of its proprietary
functions.

The contract entered into in this case by the AFP is under the exercise of
the government’s governmental function. Hence, it is covered by the immunity
of the state rule.

Labor and Social Legislation (90%)

Question No. IX

The weekly work schedule of a driver is as follows:

Monday, Wednesday, Friday – Drive the family car to bring and fetch the children to and from
school.

Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday – Drive the family van to fetch merchandise from suppliers and deliver
the same to a boutique in a mall owned by the family.

Is the driver a househelper? (3%)

The same driver claims that for work performed on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, he should be
paid the minimum daily wage of a driver of a commercial establishment.
 Is the claim of the driver valid? (2%).

Answer:

No. The driver is not househelper, per se.

According to the law, a househelper is one who works in a home, for the
care and maintenance of the household and tending to the personal comfort
and convenience of the members of the household, including a family driver.

However, it is likewise provided in the same law, that no househelper

should be assigned to perform or render service in a commercial and
industrial business or undertaking of his employer at any time, in addition
to his or her household work. Otherwise, such a househelper will cease to be
such and be considered as a non-agricultural worker entitled to the proper
compensation therefor, as regards such services.

Since the driver in the case at bar renders driving services connected
with the business of his employer, he is not to be considered as a househelper
and should be paid minimum daily wage for Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday. Hence, his claim is valid.

Civil Law (90%)

Question No. V

In 1973, Mauricio, a Filipino pensioner of the U.S. Government, contracted a bigamous marriage with
Erlinda, despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living. In 1975, Mauricio and Erlinda jointly bought
a parcel of riceland, with the title being placed jointly in their names. Shortly thereafter, they purchased
another property (a house and lot) which was placed in her name alone as buyer. In 1981, Mauricio died, and
Carol promptly filed an action against Erlinda to recover both the riceland and the house and lot, claiming
them to be conjugal property of the first marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late Mauricio were co-
owners of the riceland; and with respect to the house and lot, she claims that she is the exclusive owner.
Assuming she fails to prove that she had actually used her own money in either purchase, how would you
decide? (5%)

Answer:

The law provides in case a man and a woman live together under a
bigamous marriage, the properties acquired by them during their cohabitation
shall be owned by them based on their actual joint contributions. In the
absence of a proof to the contrary, their contributions shall be presumed equal.

[2]
 Based on the foregoing, the presumption of the law is that, Erlinda
contributed equally in the purchase in the case at bar. Hence, to rebut the
same Carol should present proof to the contrary.

If Carol was able to submit the contrary proofs and the same be
convincing, the failure of Erlinda to prove that she had actually contributed
in the purchase of both properties will defeat her claim over them.

If this be the case, I will rule in favor of Carol and declare both
properties as conjugal property of the first marriage.

On the other hand, if Carol was not able to prove the contrary, the
presumption of the law previously cited will stand. Hence, I will rule in favor
of Erlinda.

Criminal Law (96%)

Question No. VII

King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three
bottles of beer, King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura
and took her jewelry.

Doming, King’s adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura’s house, hid her
body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.

Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew
that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.00.

What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. (10%)

Answer:

King committed the crimes of rape with homicide and theft. Doming is
an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide committed by King. Jose
committed a violation of the anti-fencing law and is an accessory to the crime
of theft committed by King.

King is liable as the principal by direct participation for the two crimes
above-mentioned since he is the author thereof. He is liable for the crime of
rape with homicide because under the law, a person whose primary intention

[3]
is to rape the victim also killed the latter by reasons or on the occasion thereof,
shall be liable for the crime of rape with homicide. Likewise, he is liable for
the crime of theft, because as an afterthought, he took the belongings of his
dead victim.

Doming is an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide only, since

having knowledge of the crime committed, he committed acts in order to
conceal the body of the crime or the corpus delicti. He shall be exempted
because he is a brother of King. Although he is only an adopted brother,
under the law, he is considered legitimate one. Moreover, the law did not
distinguish, therefore, its application should not also be distinguished. Hence,
he is exempt from criminal liability as an accessory.

Jose, however, although a legitimate brother of King shall be liable as an

accessory because the exemption from criminal liability of accessories who are
brothers, among others, of the principal is not applicable when the acts
consisted of profiting from the effects of the crime.

Likewise, Jose is liable as a fence for the jewelry he received from King
and sold because he profited therefrom knowing the same to be a fruit or effect
of the crime of theft or robbery.

Legal Ethics (93%)

Question No. V

A lawyer advertised in the newspaper the following:

“Can secure annulment of your marriage promptly. Expert in legal separation cases. Consult
anytime.”

Is the advertisement proper? (5%)

Answer:

No. The advertisement is not proper.

As provided for under the Code of Professional Responsibility and as a

well-settled rule, advertising and solicitation are generally prohibited. This is
so because the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession where utmost
public interest is involved. All members admitted to the profession are equally

[4]
competent and are charged with the duty of serving the public in the
administration of justice.

Moreover, the advertisement in the case at bar promotes against public

policy. Marriage is an inviolable social institution which the state seeks to
protect.

It is overwhelmingly absurd to allow a lawyer, who is supposedly an

officer of justice, to promote acts against public policy.

[5]