SET 35 QUESTIONS

1. TAXA TION LAW 2015

Q: KKK Corp. secured its Certificate of Incorporation from the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 3, 2013. It commenced business operations on August 12, 2013. In April 2014, Ms. J, an employee of
KKK Corp. in charge of preparing the annual income tax return of the corporation for 2013, got confused
on whether she should prepare payment for the regular corporate oncome tax or the minimum corporate
income tax. a. As Ms. J’s supervisor, what will be your advice? A: As Ms. J’s supervisor, I will advise that
KKK Corp. should prepare payment for the regular corporate income tax and not the minimum corporate
income tax. Under the Tax Code, minimum corporate income tax is only applicable beginning on the fourth
taxable year following the commencement of business operation. [Sec. 27 (e) (1), NIRC] b. What are the
distinctions between regular corporate income tax and minimum corporate income tax? (2015 Bar)

2. REMEDIAL LAW 2016

Q: John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Anne on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. He obtained a copy of the confidential psychiatric evaluation
report on his wife from the secretary of the psychiatrist. Can he testify on the said report without
offending the rule on privileged communication? (2016 Bar)

3. REMEDIAL LAW 2013

Q: For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her husband Walter because of the latter’s suspicion
that she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita
lived in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the house of Nenita’s sister inexplicably burned
almost to the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the house but Nenita survived as she fled
in time, while her sister tried to save belongings and was caught inside when the house collapsed. As she
was running away from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her husband also running away
from the scene. Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist who lived near the burned house and whom Walter
medically consulted after the fire, also saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire.
Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who regularly hears Walter’s confession and who heard it after
the fire, also encountered him not too far away from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson
and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the
priestconfessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at about the time of the fire. (2006, 2013
Bar)

a. May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the objection of Walter?

b. May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist, be allowed over Walter’s objection?

c. May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priestconfessor, be allowed over Walter’s objection?
 4. CIVIL LAW 2013

Q: You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
(under Article 36 of the Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a drunkard, a
womanizer, a gambler, and a mama's boy- traits that she never knew or saw when Neil was courting her.
Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria's petition and never appeared in court.

To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses- herself, Dr. Elsie Chan, and Ambrosia. Dr. Chan
testified on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never acknowledged nor
responded to her invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the
spouses' minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder,
an ailment that she found to be already present since Neil's early adulthood and one that is grave and
incurable. Maria testified on the specific instances when she found Neil drunk, with another woman, or
squandering the family's resources in a casino. Ambrosia, the spouses' current household help,
corroborated Maria's testimony. On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant the petition?
(1996, 2006, 2012, 2013) 2016

5. LEGAL ETHICS

Q: State the duties of a lawyer imposed by the Lawyer’s oath (2016 Bar)

6. CRIMINAL LAW 2012

Q: A postal van containing mail matter, including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a
national highway by ten (10) men, two of whom, were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation
against the three postal employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and
aspiration of the entire van and its contents.

(A) If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van
with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and AntiHighway
Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer.

(B) If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of highway robbery that the
prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? (2012 Bar)

7. POLITICAL LAW 2010

Q: A was a career Ambassador when he accepted an ad interim appointment as cabinet Member. The
Commission on Appointment bypassed his ad interim appointment, however, and he was not
reappointed. Can he re-assume his position as career Ambassador? (2010)

8. POLITICAL LAW 2013

9. MERCANTILE LAW 2015

Q: Nadine has a checking account with Fair & Square Bank. One day, she lost her checkbook and the finder
was able to forge her signature and encash the forged check. Will Nadine be able to recover the amount
debited from her checking account from Fair & Square Bank? Justify your answer. (2015 Bar)

10. LABOR LAW 2014

Q: Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by television and radio networks. He
employed Lionel as his agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty Communications to formally engage in
the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of the incorporators and assigned to him 100 Liberty
shares. Lionel was also given the title Assistant Vice-President for Sales and Head of Technical
Coordination. After several months, there were allegations that Lionel was engaged in “under the table
dealings” and received “confidential commissions” from Liberty’s clients and suppliers. He was, therefore,
charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust, and was given 48 hours to present his
explanation on the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48-hour deadline and was subsequently
barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming
constructive dismissal. Among others, the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that
the case involved an intra-corporate controversy which was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you rule on the company’s
motion to dismiss? (2014 Bar)