SAMPLE A. The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No.

1234, authorizing the expropriation of two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon review, the |Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because the municipality has an existing freedom park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and to pursue expropriation would be needless expenditure of the people's money. Is the disapproval of the ordinance correct? http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/107916.ht m
The disapproval of the ordinance is incorrect. The power of the Provincial Board to review and disapprove ordinances of a municipal council within its jurisdiction is limited only to ascertaining whether such ordinance is beyond the power of the municipality to enact. The exercise of the power of eminent domain is well within the right of the municipality by virtue of the legislatures delegation through the Local Government Code. In this case, the Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte is merely exercising its right to expropriate private property for public use, which is well within the bounds of its power. The Provincial Board has no authority to substitute its judgment on the propriety of the expropriation since the law only gives it the power to ascertain whether such act of the municipal council and approval by the mayor is within the bounds of the law a strictly legal question. Hence, the provincial board has no authority to disapprove such ordinance.

B. The Municipality of Pinatukdao is sued for damages arising from injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was hit by a glass pane that fell from a dilapidated window frame of the municipal hall. The municipality files a motion to dismiss the complaint, invoking state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion with reasons.

Suability is not the same as liability http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/apr1991/gr_l_52179_199 1.htm C. Diosdado, a carpenter, was hired by Building Industries Corporation (BIC), and assigned to build a small house in Alabang. His contract of employment specifically referred to him as a "project employee," although it did not provide any particular date of completion of the project. Is the completion of the house a valid cause for the termination of Diosdados employment? If so, what are the due process requirements that the BIC must satisfy? If not, why not?
The services of a project employees are co-terminus with the project and may be terminated upon the end or completion of the project for which they were hired. No prior notice of termination is required if the termination is brought about by completion of the contract or phase thereof for which the worker has been engaged. This is because completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment. (Cioco vs. C.E. Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 156748, Sept. 8, 2004). Diosdado being a project employee whose nature of employment was fully informed about at the time of his engagement, his employment legally ends upon completion of said project.

MOCK ESSAY MIDTERMS I. An informer told the police that a Toyota Car with plate ABC 134 would deliver an unspecified quantity of ecstacy in Forbes Park, Makati City. The officers whom the police sent to watch the Forbes Park gates saw the described car and flagged it down. When the driver stopped and lowered his window, an officer saw

a gun tucked on the driver's waist. The officer asked the driver to step out and he did. When an officer looked inside the car, he saw many tablets strewn on the driver's seat. The driver admitted they were ecstacy. Is the search valid? Yes the search is valid. II. Upon endorsement from the Senate where it was first mistakenly filed, the House of Representatives Committee on Justice found the verified complaint for impeachment against the President sufficient in form but insufficient in substance. Within the same year, another impeachment suit was filed against the President who questioned the same for being violative of the Constitution. Is the President correct? Yes, the president is correct. III. After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel, he told the investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel or to be provided one. He made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who was assigned to assist and explain to him the consequences of such waiver. Is the waiver valid? No. It is not in writing. IV. Pedro (Filipino) and Bill (American) entered into a contract in Australia, whereby it was agreed that Pedro will build a commercial building for Bill in the Philippines, and in payment for the construction, Bill will transfer and convey his cattle ranch located in Japan in favor of Pedro. In case Pedro performs his obligation, but Bill fails or refuses to pay, what law will govern?

V. Ricky and Princess were sweethearts. Princess became pregnant. Knowing that Ricky is preparing for the bar

examinations, Marforth, a lawyer and cousin of Princess, threatened Ricky with the filing of a complaint for immorality in the Supreme Court, thus preventing him from taking the examinations unless he marries Princess. As a consequence of the threat, Ricky married Princess. Can the marriage be annulled on the ground of intimidation under Article 45 of the Family Code? No. VI. Agay, a Filipino citizen and Topacio, an Australian citizen, got married in the consular office of the Philippines in Australia. According to the laws of Australia, a marriage solemnized by a consular official is valid, provided that such marriage is celebrated in accordance with the laws of such consular official. Under Philippine law, what is the status of the marriage of Agay and Topacio? VII. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victims son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AAs defense prosper? Reason briefly. VIII. A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift Cs mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put

the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? IX. Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?