The first part of the 2011 Bar Exams and beyond may consist of the multiple choice questions

(MCQs). This first part may test the examinees:

I - knowledge and recall of the law, rule or principle 20 % 1. Every ordinary civil action must be based on __________; or 2. What is the basis of an ordinary civil action? Options: A) the act or omission by the defendant B) the plaintiffs right violated by the defendant C) a cause of action D) the rules of civil procedure; II - understanding the law, rule or principle 40 % 1. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. It is a plain statement of facts in __________asserting a claim; or 2. Where to state a cause of action? Options: A) an affidavit B) a pleading C) a pre-trial brief D) in a position paper; III - analysis and solution of a given legal problem 40 % 1. Mr. A, the Manager of the XYZ Coop., entered into a contract of lease of the Coop. Canteen with Ms. B for a period of 5 years from January 20, 2004 to January 20, 2009. The contract also obligated Ms. B to advance the cost of the required renovation of the canteen. The P1,000.00 monthly rental was to be deducted from the cost of the repair until the amount she spent therefore would be fully paid. On January 20, 2008, Mr. A assured Ms. B that the contract would be renewed for another 5 years to enable the latter to recover her expenses she incurred for the repair of the canteen. Due to the serious illness of Mr. A, the Coop. appointed Ms. C as the new Coop. Manager. Then Ms. B, the lessee, formally informed the new Coop. Manager, Ms. C, her intention to renew the contract for another 5 years, that is, until January 20, 2014. But Ms. C replied: that the BOD of XYZ Coop. had no intention to renew the contract as it was an unauthorized contract; and the BOD had never assured Ms. B that the lease contract would be renewed. Consequently, one month after, Ms. B filed a civil action before the RTC for specific performance and damages against the BOD of XYZ Coop., represented by Ms. C. Then the cooperative through Ms. C filed a motion to dismiss the complaint of Ms. B on the ground that the cooperative had never assured Ms. B for the

-2renewal of lease contract as alleged in the complaint. If you were the judge, would you grant the instant motion to dismiss? Yes, or No? Why? OPTIONS: A) Yes, because the complainant XYZ Coop. had never assured Ms. B for the renewal of the alleged lease contract. The case must be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence or lack of cause of action B) Yes, because the complaint fails to state a cause of action. C) No, because the XYZ Coop. is bound by the act of its agent, Ms. C. D) No, because in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. Prior approval or assurance of renewal of a contract is a matter of evidence to be threshed out in a full-blown trial. Note: An MCQ question maybe asked from any of the three (3) other legal principles as discussed in the case of Dr Melanio Malicdem, Et Al., vs. Romeo Flores, [G.R. No. 151001, Sept. 8, 2006, CDSCD, pp. 936-937], to wit: 1. The denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court as it is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. 2. The motion to dismiss must be filed within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim. 3. The trial courts order denying the motion to dismiss was merely interlocutory, and it complied with Sec. 3, Rule 16, RRC. Further, the requirement of specificity of the rulings under Sec. 14, Art VIII, Phil. Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36 is stringently applied only to judgments and final orders. A liberal interpretation of this requirement may be given to interlocutory orders.

Read the above-cited and related legal principles: No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based [Sec. 14, Art. VIII, Phil Const. In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefore Sec. 3, Par. 3, Rule 16, RRC]. ________________________________________________________________

-3The second part of the bar exams is the essay-type exam, covering one or two legal-dispute situations. It aims at measuring the examinees lawyering skills or depth of learning and true intelligence by requiring him/her to write a position paper/ memorandum or decision/ resolution. For example, the examinee in an easy-type exam would be asked to take the side of Ms. C, the lessor in the above given-legal dispute, and would be required to submit a memorandum or decision/ resolution in support of his/her position/ opinion that Ms. Cs motion to dismiss should be granted. How would s/he prepare his/her arguments? If the examinee takes the side of Ms. B, the lessee in the same legal dispute, how would s/he prepare the arguments in his/her memorandum or decision/ resolution in support of his/her position/opinion that a motion to dismiss should denied by trial court? In this instance, the examinee will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer/ position/ decision as expected of a seasoned lawyer, but for the quality of his/her legal advocacy expected of a new practitioner, thus: a) Communicating in English 20 b) Sorting out the conflicting claims and extracting those facts that are relevant to the issue or issues in the case 15% c) Identifying the issue or issues presented 15 % d) Constructing your arguments and persuading your reader to your point of view 50 % According to Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad of the Supreme Court and the 2011 Bar Exams Chairperson , the rating for MCQs will be 60 %; and the one (1) or two (2) essay-type exams will be 40 % of the total 100 % highest bar rating. The passing grade which is 75 % will not possibly be reduced anymore to 70, 71, 72, 73 or 74 % because the MCQs are very much easy to answer. However, the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter on the matter [Preparing for the 2011 Bar exams and Beyond, Manila, Philippine, July 2010]. Now, in the subject of Practice Court II (Mock pre-trial, trial or hearing), the law students maybe required to submit their respective position papers/ memorandum by introducing therein the partys definite legal theory of a case/ defense citing the facts and the law, including the related legal principles, relied upon by them; or by clearly and distinctly the stating their arguments or the reasons on a particular legal or factual issue(s) and convincing the professor/instructor that it is right and just that the judgment be rendered in his/ her favor. Or they maybe asked to prepare a decision/ judgment or final order stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

The multiple choice questions (MCQs) testing the examinees:

I - knowledge and recall of the law, rule or principle 20 % Religious or political belief, interest in the out come of the case, or conviction of a crime unless provided by law, shall not be a ground ______________, Options: A) for qualification; B) for disqualification; C) for inhibition; D) for objection.

II - understanding the law, rule or principle 40 % A witness can testify only to those facts which s/he knows of his/her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from _______________________, Options: A) his own perception; B) his own hearing of others declarations; C) his own reading of treatises; D) his own impressions of others character. III - analysis and solution of a given legal problem 40 % Mr. Terso Cruz and Mrs. Susana Santos stand charged of the crime of concubenage allegedly committed in or about January 2010 at Barangay Gumamela, Butuan City filed by Mrs. Maria Cruz. Incidentally, Mr. Pedro Santos asked the City Prosecutor to be a witness in this case and to testify against his wife Mrs. Santos. When the testimony of Mr. Santos was offered, the defense counsel for Mrs. Santos interposed his vehement objection thereto. Is Mr. Santos qualified to testify against his wife? Options: A) B) C) D) No, because the affected spouse, Mrs. Santos, did not give consent thereto; Yes, because Mrs. Santos did not object thereto; Yes, because this is a crime committed by one against the other; No, because this is not a crime committed by one against the other.

The essay-type exam (Select any of the three questions/ options):

1. If you are the prosecutor, prepare a memorandum why Mr. Santos is qualified to testify against his wife Mrs. Santos? 2. If you are the defense counsel, prepare a memorandum why Mr. Santos is not qualified to testify? 4. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the legal issue?

The MCQs and objective types for the Jan. 19, 2011 Midterm Exams I - Knowledge and recall 1. Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of the ___ A) witnesses. B) court. C) counsel. D) litigants. 2. The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of A) controversy. B) litigation. C) investigation. D) inquiry. 3. A party who calls for the production of a document and inspect the same is not obliged to offer it as ________ A) evidence. B) exhibit. C) proof agreement. D) copy of a contract. II - Understanding 4. Real or object evidence is authenticated by showing A) who owns it. B) similar or like objects. C) that it is what it is claimed to be. D) how the evidence got to court. III - Analysis and solution 5. Accused Victor Cruz was charged of the crime of rape with the use of a knife. The examining physician failed to conclude that victim Ms. Maria Santos was forced as said victim sustained no physical injuries. After due trial, the RTC adjudged the accused guilty as charged. Was a judgment of conviction valid? A) No, because of the absence of physical injuries. B) No, because the alleged knife was not offered in evidence. C) Yes, because it is not necessary for the commission of rape that there be marks of physical violence on the victims body. D) Yes, because the knife is not necessary to be presented in court. 6. Accused Abalos was convicted by the RTC of murder on the testimony of Veronica Bulatao who testified that Abalos shot the victim in her house at close range. The accused argued that there is not enough evidence to convict him because the paraffin test conducted on him yielded negative for powder burns on his hand. Is Abalos correct? A) Yes, because of the absence of nitrates or object evidence. B) Yes, because of insufficiency of evidence. C) No, because the traces of nitrates can easily be removed by simple act of washing ones hand. D) Yes, because the prosecutions eye witness was not corroborated

IV - Objective type (definitions) 7. What is the best evidence rule? 8. What is secondary evidence rule? 9. What is parol evidence rule? 10. When may a party present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of the written agreement? V - Objective type (enumerations) 11. State at least five rules on the interpretation of documents? 12. Upon proof of unavailability of the original document, how may the offeror prove the contents thereof?