POLITICAL LAW

Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals working with the Asian Development Bank (ADS)
in its headquarters in Manila. Both were charged with criminal acts before the local trial
courts.
Andreas was caught importing illegal drugs into the country as part of his "personal effects"
and was thus charged with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Before
the criminal proceedings could commence, the President had him deported as an
undesirable alien. Aristotle was charged with grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory
words against a colleague at work. In his defense, Aristotle claimed diplomatic immunity. He
presented as proof a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that,
pursuant to the Agreement between the Philippine Government and the ADS, the bank's
officers and staff are immune from legal processes with respect to acts performed by them in
their official capacity.
(a) Can the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien be subject to judicial
review? (2.5%)
(b) Is Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity proper? (2.5%)

LABOR LAW

A certification election was conducted in Nation Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of

eligible voters in the bargaining unit cast their votes. The results were as follows:
Union Nana : 45 votes
Union Nada: 40 votes
Union Nara : 30 votes
No Union : 80 votes
Union Nana moved to be declared as the winner of the certification election.
a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner? (2.5%)
b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was challenged during the pre-election
conference. The ballots of the 30 challenged voters were placed inside an envelope
sealed by the DOLE Election Officer. Considering the said envelope remains sealed,
what should be the next course of action with respect to the said challenged votes?
(2.5%)

CIVIL LAW

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate
indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of
21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female.
On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to
Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first
name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male
characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a
condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests
revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or
menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and
emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that
her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be
changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be
frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married
based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their
Philippine citizenship.
(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of
entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's petition? (2.5%)
(c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized
as valid in the Philippines? (2.5%)

TAXATION LAW

Spouses Konstantino and Karina are Filipino citizens and are principal shareholders of a
restaurant chain, Karina's, Inc. The restaurant's principal office is in Makati City, Philippines.
Korina's became so popular as a Filipino restaurant that the owners decided to expand its
operations overseas. During the period 2010-2015 alone, it opened ten (10) stores
throughout North America and five (5) stores in various parts of Europe where there were
large Filipino communities. Each store abroad was in the name of a corporation organized
under the laws of the state or country in which the store was located. All stores had identical
capital structures: 60% of the outstanding capital stock was owned by Karina's, Inc., while
the remaining 40% was owned directly by the spouses Konstantino and Korina.
Beginning 2017, in light of the immigration policy enunciated by US President Donald Trump,
many Filipinos have since returned to the Philippines and the number of Filipino immigrants
in the US dropped significantly. On account of these developments, Konstantino and Karina
decided to sell their shares of stock in the five (5) US corporations that were doing poorly in
gross sales. The spouses' lawyer-friend advised them that they will be taxed 5% on the first
PhP100,000 net capital gain, and 10% on the net capital gain in excess of PhP100,000.
Is the lawyer correct? If not, how should the spouses Konstantino and Karina be taxed on the
sale of their shares? (5%)

COMMERCIAL LAW

Shortly after Yin and Yang were wed, they each took out separate life insurance policies on
their lives, and mutually designated one another as sole beneficiary. Both life insurance
policies provided for a double indemnity clause, the cost for which was added to the premium
rate. During the last 10 years of their marriage, the spouses had faithfully paid for the annual
premiums over the life policies from both their salaries. Unfortunately, Yin fell in love with his
officemate, Vessel, and they carried on an affair. After two years, their relationship bore them
a daughter named Vinsel. Without the knowledge of Yang, Yin changed the designation of
the beneficiary to an "irrevocable designation" of Vinsel and Vessel jointly. When Yang
learned of the affair, she was so despondent that, having chanced upon Yin and Vessel on a
date, she rammed them down with the car she was driving, resulting in Vin's death and
Vessel's complete loss of mobilization. Yang was sued for parricide, and while the case was
pending, she filed a claim on the proceeds of the life insurance of Yin as irrevocable
beneficiary, or at least his legal heir, and opposed the claims on behalf of Vessel and her
daughter Vinsel. Yang claimed that her designation as beneficiary in Vin's life insurance
policy was irrevocable, in the nature of one "coupled with interest," since it was made in
accordance with their mutual agreement to designate one another as sole beneficiary in their
respective life policies. She also claimed that the beneficiary designation of Vessel and the
illegitimate minor child Vinsel was void being the product of an illicit relationship, and
therefore without "insurable interest."
(a) Is Yang correct in saying that her designation as beneficiary was irrevocable?
(2.5%)
(b) Do Vessel and Vinsel have "insurable interest" on the life of Yin? (2.5%)

CRIMINAL LAW

On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw
what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the
necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store owner.
Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of
the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised
the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was the owner of the
necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica? (2.5%)
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was the
real owner of the necklace? (2.5%)

REMEDIAL LAW

Dodo was knocked unconscious in a fist fight with Dindo. He was rushed to the emergency
room of the Medical City where he was examined and treated by Dr. Datu. As he was being
examined, a plastic sachet appearing to contain shabu fell from Dodo's jacket which was on
a chair beside him. Dodo was thus arrested by the same policemen who assisted him to the
hospital. At Dodo's trial, the public prosecutor called Dr. Datu to the witness stand. When the
public prosecutor asked Or. Datu as to what he saw in the emergency room, Dodo's counsel
objected, claiming doctor-patient privilege rule.
How would you rule on the objection? (2.5%)

LEGAL ETHICS

On March 1, 2017, sisters and business partners Carmina and Celeste Corominas borrowed
PhP 500,000 from Carmen Carunungan. It was agreed that the amount will be paid in full
one (1) year after, or on March 1, 2018, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, without
necessity of a demand. They also agreed to be bound jointly and severally. For this purpose,
they executed a promissory note, secured by a postdated check in the amount of PhP
550,000 drawn from their joint account, which check was dated March 1, 2018.
When the debt became due, Carmen deposited the check but it was dishonored for
insufficient funds. Carmen then sued Carmina and Celeste for estafa through falsification of
a commercial document. After finding probable cause, the prosecutor filed a criminal case in
court, where the sisters were required to file their joint judicial affidavit. In their affidavit, they
raised the defense that they could not be guilty of estafa because: (i) the check was issued
only as a form of security; (ii) even if issued as payment, it was for a pre-existing debt; and
(iii) it was only upon Carmen's insistence that they issued the check.
Before the case could be decided, the sisters offered to settle their debt through a dacion en
pago. They offered a Honda CRV which they jointly owned in full settlement of the loan.
Carmen agreed.
Prepare the judicial affidavit, based on the above facts.