A SIMPLE GUIDE TO HURDLING THE BAR EXAMS

As prepared and suggested by:

Marc Lovel C. Bedona

INTRODUCTION

Greetings! Passing the bar exam is such an

overwhelming feeling, especially when you look back at
how far you’ve come in order to attain the title
“Attorney”. On my part, it felt like a heavy burden has
been lifted off my shoulders when I found out that I
passed the 2017 Bar exams, my third attempt at it. The
whole experience made me discover that I’m capable of
so much more than I thought I was.

Soon, it will be your turn to hurdle the dreaded

exams. As Atty. Manny Riguera of Jurists would say, you
have to be well-equipped in order to slay the Bar exam
dragon. While people left and right would say that all
you need to do is study hard in order to pass the Bar,
I strongly disagree. I have learned along the way that
there are many factors that may increase your chances
of passing the Bar.

As a way of giving back and helping aspiring

lawyers, I made this simple guide for you to take into
consideration when heading into the battlefield. No,
this is not the ultimate guide into passing the Bar
exams. This does not guarantee a successful attempt.
This guide just consists simple suggestions as to what
formats you will use and how you should prepare for the
Bar exams.

A lot of the formats here are actually inspired by

the “Jurists way” in answering. I reviewed there in
2017 and find that their formats were effective and of
great help in the Bar exams.

I hope that this humble guide will help you in

slaying the Bar exam dragon in the future.

Please do not distribute this guide without my

knowledge and consent. This was specially made without
the intention of it circulating to the public channel
and becoming “viral”. Please do consider the effort I
have put into making this guide. Thank you!
 DISCLAIMER

If you have decided to use the formats suggested

here, I heavily suggest that you practice your time
management when answering questions. Using these
formats will consume a significant amount of time, so
you need to develop a method in order not to waste any
of the allotted time. In my case, after I failed to
finish my Mercantile Law and Civil Law mock Bar exams
in Jurists, I developed a self-rule that if I couldn’t
come up with an answer within 2 minutes after reading
the question, I’ll just skip the question and allocate
the necessary pages for my answer. It proved to be
effective in the actual Bar exams as I managed to
finish all exams on time (with just a few minutes to
spare).

Again, please be warned that using the formats here

will consume time, but if you manage to pull it off,
the rewards are worth it. If you have mock Bar exams in
your review center, take all of those exams and treat
them as if you’re answering the actual Bar exams. Take
the opportunity to practice your pacing.

I wish all of you the best!

THE BIG QUESTION

Why consider using the formats provided here? Why

shouldn’t you just settle answering in one or two
paragraphs which are straight to the point?

First, you will be able to flesh out your answers

in a way that fully explains what you intended to
write. If you answer with just one or two paragraphs,
the idea might be there, but the overall answer is
lacking.

It was unfortunate in my part to follow the advice

of one review instructor that said that there’s no need
to provide the legal source because the examiner
already knows that. He said to directly provide the
reason why a contention is correct or not.

Here is a sample short answer format as suggested

by one review instructor:
 “A’s contention is wrong because the law states
that laws shall take effect fifteen days after its
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
of general circulation.”

The above sample answer does answer a question

directly (Is A’s contention correct?) and does go
straight to the point, but then it comes off as short
and too compressed. It may be good for short problem
questions, but it is not appealing to the eyes in
standalone questions. The answer can be fleshed out in
order to provide a legal source and apply such source
to the statement of facts in order to arrive at a much
more organized and complete answer.

Here is sample format using the Jurists Method of

answering Bar questions:

A’s contention is not correct in contending that

the law should not yet take effect.

Under the Civil Code, laws take effect fifteen days

after its publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation.

Here, more than fifteen days has already lapsed

since the law’s publication in a newspaper of general
circulation on March 11, 2014, as it is now March 30
2014. Thus, the law already took effect.

Therefore, A’s contention is not correct.

The above sample answer may be longer than the

previous one, but it is much more organized and
complete. Here’s a brief explanation:

First Paragraph. The first paragraph answers the

“call” or the question being asked of you, usually in
yes-or-no questions.

Second Paragraph. The second paragraph provides for

the legal source or basis of your answer.

Third Paragraph. The third paragraph is the

application of the legal source to the facts provided.

Fourth Paragraph. The fourth paragraph is your

conclusion which echoes the first paragraph.
 The format presented above is effective in
situational questions. However, it cannot be applied to
every Bar exam question as there are different types,
but we’ll discuss those types below.

Now that everything is in order, let’s jump to the

various types of Bar exam questions you will encounter:

I
DEFINITION

Definition is one of the most frequently asked

questions in the Bar exams, and usually the source of
those annoying shock questions. From Jason Clause, to
depacage, to even wheel and chain conspiracy,
definition questions are usually the ones that catch
examinees off guard.

Situation #1. Using key words to define a term or

doctrine.

QUESTION:

What is the doctrine of benevolent neutrality?

(Political Law, 2016 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Pursuant to the 1987 Constitution of the

Philippines, the doctrine of benevolent neutrality
states that the separation of the church and the State
should not be used to protect the State, but to protect
the church. As such, with respect to governmental
actions, religious accommodation may be allowed for
individuals and groups to exercise their religion
without hindrance.

Personal Note: Let’s assume you have no idea what the

doctrine of benevolent neutrality is. Use how you
understand “benevolent” and “neutrality” to form your
answer. Benevolent means kind or compassionate while
neutrality means unbiased. From there, one can conclude
that the doctrine is about religion, and subsequently
the separation of the church and the state. Neutrality
hints that there should be complete separation while
benevolent contradicts such. Meaning to say, when the
two are combined, it would mean that although there is
a separation of the church and the state, religion may
be allowed in government functions in some way.

Make sure to provide your source if possible as an

introductory statement. Never ever use the phrase
“under the law”, but provide the specific or general
law or principle applicable. Also, please note that I
used the phrase “pursuant to the…” and not “under the…”
or “according to the…”. This is because the doctrine of
benevolent neutrality is not specifically found in our
Constitution. By using the phrase “pursuant to the…”, I
did not limit my answer within the confines of the
Constitution, but also included a much larger scope
outside of, but related to, the Constitution.

Situation #2. When the question is preceded by a

statement of facts.

QUESTION:

Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens.

They were married in the Philippines but they later
migrated to the United States where they were
naturalized as American citizens. In their union, they
were able to accumulate several real properties both in
the US and in the Philippines. Unfortunately, they were
not blessed with children. In the US, they constituted
a joint will instituting as their common heirs to
divide their common estate in equal shares, the five
siblings of Alden and the seven siblings of Stela.
Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also
died. The siblings of Alden, who were all citizens of
the US instituted probate proceedings in a US court
impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the
Philippines.

Is the situation presented in Item I an example of

depecage? (Civil Law, 2015 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

No. The situation presented in Item I is not an

example of depecage.
 Depecage is a conflict of laws where different
issues within a case may be governed by the laws of
different States.

Here, the facts of the situation involve two

naturalized American citizens who constituted a joint
will in the US. Hence, the constitution of such will
and its subsequent consequences shall be governed by
the US law alone as there is no Philippine law
applicable that is conflicting with the US law.

Therefore, the situation presented is not an

example of depecage.

Personal Note: When I first stumbled upon this question

back in 2015, the only thing I knew was that depecage
was a French word. I constructed my answer based on the
facts of the given case and it turned out that my
answer was the complete opposite of the actual answer,
which is given above. Although the question here does
not require you to define what depecage is, you need to
define it in order to construct the third paragraph of
your answer. In the facts, we could extract that the
idea was that we should be focusing on both Philippine
law and US law, which means that there is a high chance
that depecage involves conflict of laws.

Also take note that I didn’t give a legal basis on

my second paragraph. That is to make sure that I won’t
be technically wrong. Plus, to write “Pursuant to
conflict of laws principles, depecage is a conflict of
law…” is redundant.

If the answer here was that there was depecage,

then you have to write in the second paragraph what
applicable Philippine law is involved after defining
depecage and state in the third paragraph that the laws
of the different States are conflicting. Remember to
keep your answers short, but with substance.

Also note that this type of question may be

considered as a shock question, so don’t dwell too much
in formulating an answer because the examiner might
just be testing you on how quick you are to think on
your feet. Remember to use the facts given from where
you derive your definition.
Situation #3. When you know the specific law or
principle applicable.

QUESTION:

Define obligation. (Civil Law, Hypothetical

Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Under the Law on Obligations and Contracts, an

obligation is a juridical necessity to give, to do or
not to do.

Personal Note: Remember to provide the legal basis at

the beginning rather than give the definition
immediately. If the question above is worth a
significant amount of points and the definition is
short, feel free to provide more definitions, but
remember to state their legal basis.

An example of a longer format would be:

“Under the Law on (insert law), (insert term) is

defined as…

Also, the Supreme Court defined (insert term) as…

Finally, (insert person or author), an expert in

(insert law), defined (insert term) as…”

Situation #4. When you know the general law or

principle applicable.

QUESTION:

What is the right of legation, and how is it

undertaken between states? Explain your answer.
(Political Law, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Pursuant to Public International Law, the right of

legation is the right of a State to send and receive
diplomatic envoys.
 States may send diplomatic envoys to other states
as a right if both the states are members of the Family
of Nations. Receiving States may refuse an appointment
of the Sending State through persona non grata.

-OR-

Below is a concept of the right of legation

pursuant to Public International Law:

The right of legation is the right of a State to

send and receive diplomatic envoys.

States are not bound to send or receive diplomatic

envoys. However, the Sending State has the right to
send a diplomatic envoy to the Receiving State if both
states are members of the Family of Nations. The
Receiving State may only refuse an appointment through
persona non grata.

Personal Note: According to Atty. William Manuel (a

Jurists coach), use the phrase “Pursuant to…” or “In
line with…” when your answer involves a general legal
topic. Using the phrase “Under…” limits your scope. For
example, using the phrase “Under Criminal Law” limits
your scope to Criminal Law only. Using the phrase
“Pursuant to Criminal Law” not only includes Criminal
Law, but also, for example, some Remedial Law topics
which are related to Criminal Law.

Situation #5. When it is provided by the Supreme Court.

QUESTION:

What is wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy?

Explain. (Criminal Law, 2016 and 2017 Bar.)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Supreme Court has held that WHEEL CONSPIRACY or

circle conspiracy is that in which there is a single
person or group, called the “hub”, dealing with two or
more persons or groups, called the “spokes”, while
CHAIN CONSPIRACY is that which usually involves
distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which
there is successive communication and cooperation in
much the same way with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler
and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.

-OR-

Below are the definitions of wheel conspiracy and

chain conspiracy respectively as held by the Supreme
Court:

WHEEL CONSPIRACY. Conspiracy in which there is a

single person or group, called the “hub”, dealing with
two or more persons or groups, called the “spokes”.

CHAIN CONSPIRACY. Conspiracy which usually involves

distribution of narcotics or other contraband, in which
there is successive communication and cooperation in
much the same way with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler
and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.

Personal Note: Although these types of conspiracies are

found in G.R. No. 148965, it was argued that they were
found in the footnotes of the case rather in the
decision. I have not personally verified this, although
these types of conspiracy were found in Boado’s
reviewer and she cited the above-mentioned case. Treat
this as a sample format only. If this question appears
in the bar exam again, use the phrase “Pursuant to
Criminal Law” rather than citing the Supreme Court.

Do not be afraid to use capital letters. It is

allowed in the Bar exams and are of great help in
emphasizing important words or phrases. Just don’t
overdo it in a single answer.

Situation #6. When you are not sure of the source

QUESTION:

What is insurable interest? (Mercantile Law, 2017

Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Below is a simple concept of insurable interest:

Insurable interest is that interest over a property

or health or life of an individual where a person
stands to be benefited by the preservation of such
property or health or life of an individual or injured
by their loss.

Personal Note: When you are not sure of the source, you
can also use the phrase “Pursuant to…” and the subject
of the exam, such as “Pursuant to Mercantile Law…” or
“Pursuant to Taxation Law…”, but for this specific
question, I found that the above-cited answer is
sufficient.

Situation #7. When you are required to define multiple

terms.

QUESTION:

Define the following: a) Territorial Waters, b)

Contiguous Zone, c) Estrada Doctrine, and d) Stimson
Doctrine. (Political Law, 2017 Jurists Mock Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Below are the definitions of Territorial Waters,

Contiguous Zone, Estrada Doctrine, and Stimson Doctrine
respectively pursuant to Public International Law:

TERRITORIAL WATERS. A maritime zone which is 12

nautical miles from the baseline wherein the State can
enforce its laws.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE. A maritime zone which is 24

nautical miles from the baseline wherein the State can
enforce its custom, fiscal, immigration and sanitary
laws.

ESTRADA DOCTRINE. A doctrine which states that it

is not necessary to recognize government once a State
is recognized. Thus, the practice of recognizing is
eliminated altogether with the focus being on the
recognition of States.
 STIMSON DOCTRINE. A doctrine wherein a State may
opt not to recognize any changes in another State that
would curtail its treaty rights in the area and that
the “open door” must be maintained.

Personal Note: If you have no idea what a certain

doctrine is and you have no clue from which to derive
your answer, just make something up, but make sure it
is related to the topic at hand (Public International
Law in this case). Usually, it’s just a “shock
question” to throw you off-guard.

Also remember to use capital letters to emphasize

each term you are required to define.

II
DISTINCTION

This type of question is also common in the Bar

exams. I have listed two samples below for your
reference. The first sample should be your main format
when tackling this kind of questions. The second format
should only be used if you cannot provide at least
three distinguishing factors.

Sample #1

QUESTION:

Distinguish a learner from an apprentice. (Labor

Law, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

Under existing Philippine labor laws, a learner is

distinguished from an apprentice as follows:

AS TO INDUSTRY. A learner is hired in semi-skilled

or non-apprenticeable occupations, while an apprentice
is employed in highly technical industries.

AS TO DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT. A learner is employed

for a maximum of three months, while an apprentice is
employed for a period not exceeding six months.
 AS TO PRESENCE OF THEORETICAL INSTRCTION. The
practical training of a learner need not be
supplemented by theoretical instruction, while that of
an apprentice needs to be supplemented.

AS TO MINIMUM AGE OF WORKER. The minimum age of

learners is eighteen years old while that of
apprentices is fourteen years old.

AS TO COMPENSATION. Learners are compensated with

75% of the applicable minimum wage, while apprentices
are compensated with 75% of the statutory minimum wage,
but subject to some exceptions.

Personal Note: Personally, this is the best format when

you are required to distinguish between two things.
Emphasize first a differentiating factor and explain
how the terms differ from one another. This format is
pleasing to the eyes of the examiner.

Law professors and lecturers advise that when faced

with this scenario, just give three differences as it
will yield full marks. However, for me, if you have
time and the question does not limit how many you
should give, it’s better to exhaust all your knowledge
differentiating one term from the other.

Sample #2

QUESTION:

Are there differences between a house helper and a

homeworker? Explain your answer. (Labor Law, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, there are differences between a house helper

and a homeworker, which are as follows:

HOUSE HELPERS or domestic workers are engaged to

perform work for a household within an employment
relationship, while HOMEWORKERS are employees who
perform industrial work in their respective homes for
the benefit of persons who deliver to them the goods to
be processed or fabricated into a finished product.
 HOUSE HELPERS are governed by the Kasambahay Act
while HOMEWORKERS are governed by the Labor Code and
its implementing rules and regulations.

Personal Note: I have deliberately provided only two

distinguishing factors and presented it in this format
to give an illusion of a long answer. If I would put
emphasized differentiating factors at the beginning of
each paragraph, it might come off as lacking since I
wrote only two distinguishing factors.

III
SITUATIONAL SCENARIOS

This type of question composes the bulk of your

exams. Atty. Manny Riguera explains that when you’re
answering this type of question, you have to answer the
“call” or what is being asked of you. The examiner will
usually throw facts left and right to conceal the
essential ones needed to answer the “call”. Make sure
that you carefully select which statements of facts are
important and which ones are distractions. Remember to
provide an answer which is short, but with substance.

Again, make sure you answer the “call”. If the

problem asks whether or not the contention is correct,
don’t write “the contention has no legal anchor to
stand on” or “the contention holds no water”. Instead,
simply answer with “the contention is not correct”.

When can you be creative with your introductory

statement? You can do so when the question presents one
contention and asks you to decide (as in the “call” is
that one single word: Decide). That’s the perfect time
to use those poetic phrases.

If there are several contentions and you were made

to decide on your own, you choose a side over which
your answer will be based on. Do not decide in A’s
favor when your answer actually provides an explanation
why B’s contention is wrong. Instead, decide against B
and provide an explanation why you did so. Only decide
in A’s favor when your answer explains why A’s
contention is right.

Situation #1. When you know the specific law or

principle.
QUESTION:

A holographic will was presented for probate. The

opposition challenged the validity of the will on the
ground that the testator executed the same under undue
influence. The proponent presented two witnesses who
testified that the will is in the handwriting of the
testatrix and that no undue influence was exerted upon
her. The opposition argued that the will should not be
allowed since the proponent did not present three
witnesses as provided for in Article 811 of the Civil
Code. Should the will be allowed? Explain. (Civil Law.
2017 Jurists Mock Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

Yes, the will should be allowed.

Under the Law on Succession, a holographic will may

be allowed upon the testimony of only one witness that
the handwriting on the will is that of the testator’s
if the handwriting is unopposed, and upon the testimony
of three witnesses if opposed.

Here, what was opposed was the voluntariness of the

testator when he made the will and not his handwriting.
Hence, the testimonies of the two witnesses are more
than sufficient for the will to be allowed into
probate.

Therefore, the will should be allowed into probate.

Personal Note: Remember to stick to what is being

asked. Keep your answers simple and concise, but at the
same time sufficient in substance. You don’t need to
discuss lengthily unless required by the question.

Situation #2. When you know the general law or

principle.

QUESTION:

Phil, a resident alien, sought employment in the

Philippines. The employer, noticing Phil was a
foreigner, demanded that he first secures an employment
permit from the DOLE. Is the employer correct? Explain
your answer. (Labor Law, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

No, the employer is not correct in demanding that

Phil should first secure an employment permit from the
DOLE.

Under Philippine labor laws, resident aliens are

not required to secure an employment permit from the
DOLE. Only non-resident aliens are required to do so.

Here, Phil is a resident alien and thus not

required to secure an employment permit from the DOLE.

Hence, the employer is not correct.

Personal Note: You may have noticed that I did not

merely write “No, the employer is not correct.” as my
introductory statement. In fact, I wrote what act of
the employer was not correct. By doing this, you are
relaying to the examiner the issue in which your answer
or explanation will revolve upon.

If you compare this with Situation #1, you would

find out that you cannot add anything more in the
statement “Yes, the will should be allowed.”. Here, you
can still add what action the employer did that was not
correct. Do keep that in mind.

Situation #3. When it is provided by the Supreme Court.

QUESTION:

Daniel, a private American citizen, a university

graduate, and frequent visitor to the Philippines, was
inside the US embassy when he got into a heated
argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then, in
front of many shocked witnesses and as captured in
videotape, he killed the person he was arguing with.
The police came and took Daniel to the nearest jail.
Daniel protested his arrest, saying that since the
incident took place within the US embassy, then
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the matter
as US embassy grounds are not Philippine territory. Is
Daniel correct? (Political Law, 2017 Jurists Mock Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

No, Daniel is not correct in saying that Philippine

courts have no jurisdiction on crimes occurring inside
US embassy grounds.

The Supreme Court has held that embassy grounds of

foreign States are still to be considered as Philippine
territory and any crime committed therein is subject to
Philippine jurisdiction. This is in line with the
territoriality principle which provides that the law is
applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of
the Philippine territory.

Here, Daniel is a private American citizen who

committed a crime inside the US embassy, which is still
considered as Philippine territory, by killing a
private Filipino citizen. Since he is not a person who
is granted immunity by law, he can be arrested and sent
to jail.

Hence, Daniel is not correct.

-OR-

No, Daniel is not correct in saying that Philippine

courts have no jurisdiction on crimes occurring inside
US embassy grounds.

In a case of similar facts, the Supreme Court held

that individuals not granted immunity by law who commit
a crime inside a foreign embassy are still subject to
Philippine jurisdiction and may be arrested and sent to
jail. This is because the foreign embassy grounds are
still part of Philippine Territory.

Hence, Daniel is not correct.

Personal Note: Atty. Manny Riguera warns to only use

the phrase “The Supreme Court has held…” when you are
sure that there is existing jurisprudence to the topic.
When you are sure that the facts presented are the
exact facts of jurisprudence, you can use the phrase
“In a case of similar facts, the Supreme Court held…”
to shorten your answer to 3 paragraphs, but be warned
not to forget to provide a rationale on why the Supreme
Court decided in that way.

Here, you can see that the second suggested answer

is relatively shorter. This is because when the facts
of the question are the exact same facts of an actual
Supreme Court case, you can combine your second and
third paragraph. You do not need to relate the facts of
the situation to the legal source you have provided, as
they are the same exact facts.

Situation #4. When you are required to provide multiple

answers in one situational question.

QUESTION:

Leandro married Lily in 1995. After the birth of

their third child in 2005, Leandro left the conjugal
dwelling to work in Jordan as a masseur. War broke out
in Jordan in 2007, and since then Leandro had not
communicated with Lily. Lily learned from a friend that
Leandro moved to Iraq and that he has in fact
contracted marriage with an Iraqi seamstress, named
Tahiquo. In 2011, Lily filed with the RTC of Palo,
Leyte, a petition to declare Leandro presumptively
dead. The trial court granted the petition after Lily
presented her sole testimony stating that Leandro has
not been heard of since war broke out in Jordan in
2007. In January 2012, Lily married her childhood
sweetheart, Lorenzo, who, like her, was aware of
Leandro’s existence. Lilito was born to Lily and
Lorenzo that same year. They acquired three parcels of
land the following year.

Discuss the validity of the marriage between

Leandro and Tahiquo and that between Lily and Lorenzo.
(Civil Law, 2017 Jurists Mock Bar).

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

Both marriages are void for being bigamous.

1)The marriage between Leandro and Tahiquo is void.

Under the Family Code, there is a bigamous marriage

when a Filipino contracts a subsequent marriage while
the prior marriage is still subsisting.
 Here, Leandro, a Filipino, married Tahiquo while
his marriage to Lily was still subsisting.

Therefore, the marriage between Leandro and Tahiquo

is void for being bigamous.

2)The marriage between Lily and Lorenzo is void.

Pursuant to Civil Law, a declaration of presumptive

death is defective when a person has knowledge that her
spouse is alive.

Here, Lily learned from a friend that his husband

was still alive and had moved to Iraq. Thus, the
declaration of presumptive death she obtained from the
trial court is defective and she is still considered to
be married to Leandro.

Hence, the marriage between Lily and Lorenzo is

void for being bigamous.

Personal Note: Again, be wary of facts being thrown at

you and carefully determine which ones are essential to
answer the question. Also, be sure to answer all the
possible questions thrown at you. Sometimes, there are
multiple questions integrated in the paragraph rather
than separated by numbers and letters after the
statement of facts. Be sure to answer all these issues.

When answering this type of question, Atty. Manny

Riguera suggests to place markers to separate each
issue and for the examiner to easily spot your answers
to the issues. Here, I placed “1)” and “2)” as my
markers. Don’t worry. It’s allowed in the bar exams.
Also, if possible, write an introductory answer at the
beginning before delving to each issue.

Situation #5. When to use the Lifeblood Theory in

Taxation Law.

QUESTION:

Vanderful, Inc.’s income tax return for taxable

year 2015 showed an overpayment due to excess
creditable withholding taxes in the amount of
P750,000.00. The company opted to carry over the excess
income tax credits as tax credit in its quarterly
income tax liabilities for the next succeeding years.
For taxable year 2016, the company’s income tax return
showed an overpayment due to excess creditable
withholding taxes in the amount of P1,100,000.00, which
included the carry over from year 2015 in the amount of
P750,000.00 because its operations resulted in a net
loss; hence, there was no application for tax
liability. This time, the company opted and marked the
box “To be refunded” in respect to the total amount of
P1,100,000.00.

Vanderful, Inc. now files in the BIR a claim for

refund of unutilized overpayments of P1,100,000.00. Is
the claim meritorious?

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

No, the claim for refund of unutilized overpayments

of P1,100,000.00 by Vanderful, Inc. is not meritorious.

Under Taxation Law, when a taxpayer has opt to

carry over his excess creditable withholding taxes of
the current year to succeeding years, he cannot later
on change the option to refund that same amount opted
to be carried over. Doing so would be against the
Lifeblood Theory that states that taxes are essential
in order to prevent government functions from becoming
paralyzed due to insufficient funds.

Here, Vanderful, Inc. cannot ask for the refund of

the entire P1,100,000.00 since it includes the P750,000
which he previously opted to carry over. To allow him
to do so would cripple the flow of taxes as funds to be
used for government functions.

Hence, the claim for refund by Vanderful, Inc. is

not meritorious.

Personal Note: There is a popular saying that when you

don’t know the answer to a question in the Taxation Law
exam, just write about the Lifeblood Theory. DO NOT
FOLLOW THIS SAYING! Instead, mention the Lifeblood
Theory in situations where the taxpayer claims for
refund, credit or exemption and your answer calls on
you to not grant his claim. In the 2017 Bar exams, I
believe I mentioned the Lifeblood Theory on four
different questions where the taxpayer claims for
refund, credit or exemption.

Situation #6-1. Criminal Law questions where the

accused is liable for the crime.

QUESTION:

In the heat of anger, Rodrigo pointed a gun at

Reyno. With intention to kill the latter, Rodrigo
pressed the trigger but no bullet came out of the gun.
When he checked it, he found that the trigger had
jammed. (a) For what crime is Rodrigo liable? (b)
Assuming that the reason why no bullet came out was
that there was no more bullet left inside the gun,
would Rodrigo still be criminally liable? Explain
fully. (Criminal Law, 2017 Jurists Mock Bar).

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

(a)

Rodrigo is liable for the crime of attempted

homicide.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a felony is attempted

when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts but does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous
desistance.

Here, Rodrigo would have inflicted a mortal wound

upon Reyno which would result in the latter’s death
were it not for his gun getting jammed. Hence, not all
the acts of execution to commit homicide were performed
by reason of some cause other than Rodrigo’s own
spontaneous desistance.

Thus, Rodrigo is only liable for the crime of

attempted homicide.

Personal Note: Although the accused here is liable for

a crime, you do not need to provide all the elements of
homicide because the main focus here was that the crime
was in the attempted stage. Instead, provide for what
is necessary in order for a crime to be considered in
the attempted stage.

(b)

Assuming that the reason why no bullet came out was

that there was no more bullets left inside the gun,
Rodrigo is still liable for the impossible crime of
homicide.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an

impossible crime when the offender commits a crime
against persons or property were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or was
performed through ineffectual or inefficient means.

Here, Rodrigo would have committed the crime of

homicide by killing Reyno with his gun were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment since
his gun was not loaded.

Therefore, Rodrigo is liable for the impossible

crime of homicide.

Personal Note: Notice how the second paragraph

enumerates the elements of an impossible crime and the
third paragraph applies what is being discussed in the
second. Atty. Manny Riguera calls this the “rule of
interlocking concepts”. Your legal basis must interlock
with your application. Make sure to practice answering
this way in situational questions.

Situation #6-2. Criminal Law questions where the

accused is not liable for the crime.

QUESTION:

A Cebu Pacific Aircraft is bound for Cebu City.

While the pilot and co-pilot were on their way to the
aircraft, M and P followed them. As soon as the pilots
entered the cockpit, M and P, with drawn guns,
instructed them to fly the plane. The passengers were
still boarding at this time. Are M and P liable for
hijacking? (Criminal Law, 2017 Jurists Mock Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

No. M and P are not liable for hijacking.

Under Criminal Law, one mode of hijacking is

seizing a plane registered in the Philippines while it
is in flight. A plane is considered to be in flight
when all of its external doors are closed.

Here, the aircraft is not yet in flight. The

external doors are still open since the passengers were
still boarding when M and P demanded the pilots to fly
the plane.

Thus, M and P are not liable for hijacking.

Personal Note: When your answer is that the accused is

not liable for the crime, only mention the element that
is lacking in the third paragraph. You do not need to
apply the satisfied elements in your answer. This way,
your answers will be shorter and more concise.

Situation #6-3. Sample Criminal Law question relating

to Self-Defense.

QUESTION:

A threatened to sue B for not fulfilling their

contract. In retaliation, B brawled A. A sustained
serious injuries which caused his death. During trial
for homicide, B alleged that he acted in self-defense
since B threatened him. Is B’s contention correct?
(Criminal Law, Hypothetical Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (Jurists Method):

No. B’s contention that he acted in self-defense

when he killed B is not correct.

Under the Revised Penal Code, an essential element

of self-defense is unlawful aggression. Without it, no
self-defense may be had, whether justifying or
mitigating.

Here, there was no unlawful aggression since A’s

act of threatening to sue B was more of a lawful
exercise of his right as an injured party in a contract
rather than unlawful aggression.

Therefore, B’s contention is not correct.

-OR-

No. B’s contention that he acted in self-defense

when he killed B is not correct.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is a valid

self-defense when the elements of 1)unlawful
aggression, 2)reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it and 3)lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself are satisfied.

Here, there was no unlawful aggression since A was

exercising his legal right when he threatened to sue B
for not fulfilling their contract.

Assuming, however, that there was unlawful

aggression, self-defense could still not be had because
there was no reasonable necessity of brawling A to
death in order to repel or prevent his legal threats to
sue.

Therefore, B’s contention is not correct.

Personal Note: The first sample answer is better since

it is straight to the point with legal substance. The
second sample answer is more to impress the examiner,
although not really recommended in this kind of
question.

Situation #7. Legal Ethics questions asking you whether

the action of the lawyer is ethical or not, or
justified or not.

QUESTION #1:

Atty. Anna Kirmet was one of Worry Bank’s valued

clients. The bank gave her a credit card with a credit
limit of P250,000.00. Because of her extravagance,
Atty. Kirmet exceeded her credit limit and refused to
pay the monthly charges as they fell due.
 Hence, aside from a collection case, Worry Bank
filed a disbarment case against Atty. Kirmet. In her
comment on the disbarment complaint, Atty. Kirmet
insisted that she did not violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility because her obligation to
the bank was personal in nature and had no relation to
her being a lawyer.

Is Atty. Kirmet correct? Explain your answer

briefly. (Legal Ethics, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Atty. Kirmet is not correct in saying that she

did not violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, a lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes.

Under Canon 7, a lawyer shall at all times uphold

the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

In line with the above-stated Canons, a lawyer must

maintain good moral character both in the practice of
law and in the lawyer’s personal capacity in dealing
with others.

Here, Atty. Kirmet’s refusal to pay her obligation

to the bank signifies the absence of good moral
character.

Hence, Atty. Kirmet is not correct.

Personal Note: Notice how I deviated from the usual

four-paragraph rule in order to emphasize each Canon
and relating them both in the fourth paragraph. Mention
every applicable Canon that you can think of if you
want to guarantee full marks. Organize your answer in
an orderly fashion like presented above.

QUESTION #2:
 Brando & Luzon Law Office had a retainer agreement
with Gregory, a businessman with shady connections.
Gregory was recently charged in the RTC in Manila with
money laundering in relation to an illegal drugs
syndicate using Cable Co., his holding company, as its
money laundering conduit. The members of the Brando &
Luzon Law Office assigned to handle Gregory’s account,
including yourself, were implicated in the money
laundering case for their role in the incorporation of
Cable Co. and in the active management of its business
affairs.

In a bid to fortify the case against Gregory and

the others, the public prosecutor approaches you (as
the least guilty person who will qualify for a
discharge as a state witness) and offers to make you a
state witness. Should you accept the offer? Explain
your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, I will not accept the offer to become a state

witness.

CANON 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

states that a lawyer must obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes. This
includes promoting the respect for the attorney-client
privilege in law and legal processes.

CANON 15 states that a lawyer shall observe candor,

fairness and loyalty in dealings and transactions with
his clients. This generally includes not divulging any
information relayed to him in his capacity as a lawyer
by his client as he owes loyalty to his client.

The Lawyer’s Oath mandates that lawyers must

conduct their selves as lawyers to the best of their
knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well
as to the courts as to their clients. This affirms
Canons 1 and 15 as mentioned above.

All these considered, I will not accept the offer

to become a state witness. Doing so would violate the
Code of Professional Ethics and Lawyer’s Oath.
Personal Note: Notice how I inserted the word
“generally” after mentioning Canon 15. This is because
there are exceptions to the non-disclosure of the
client’s information. By including that single word, I
need not mention that the rule is subject to
exceptions.

IV
ENUMERATION

Ah, enumeration. This type of questions appeared

frequently in the 2016 Bar exams. In fact, it was even
announced by Justice Velasco that all Bar exams will
have at least one question calling for an enumeration.
This type of question is looked down upon as it calls
for memorization and not analysis. In any case, the
format here is pretty simple and already commonly used.
Just remember to not jump immediately to enumerating
what is being asked. Write an introductory statement
first.

Law professors and lecturers posit that you need to

provide only three of the required enumeration in order
to gain full marks. Again, if you are not restricted to
give a limited answer, it’s better to provide all those
being asked.

Sample #1

QUESTION:

What are the formal requirements for the validity

of a holographic will? (Civil Law, 2017 Jurists Mock
Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The following are the formal requirements for the

validity of a holographic will:

1.It must be written by the hand of the testator;

2.It must be dated by the hand of the testator; and

3.It must be signed by the hand of the testator.

Personal Note: Practice proper punctuation. The
examiner will appreciate even those simple efforts.
Also, give spaces in between your enumeration to make
it easier to read for the examiner.

Sample #2

QUESTION:

What are the responsibilities of a lawyer under the

Lawyer’s Oath? (Legal Ethics, 2016 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The following are the responsibilities of a lawyer

under the Lawyer’s Oath:

1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the

Philippines;

2. To support the Constitution and obey the laws

as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein;

3. To do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of

any in court;

4. To not wittingly or willingly promote or sue

any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
nor consent to the same;

5. To delay no man for money or malice;

6. To conduct oneself as a lawyer to the best of

one’s knowledge or discretion with all good fidelity as
well to the courts as to one’s clients; and

7. To impose upon oneself this voluntary

obligation without mental reservation or purpose of
evasion.

Personal Note: Although this may seem to be a simple

question, it is actually not. Since the Laywer’s Oath
is written in first-person, you have to convert the
entirety to third-person. It can be a bit tricky
though, so be very careful.

Sample #3

QUESTION:

What are the accepted tests to determine the

existence of an employer-employee relationship? (Labor
Law, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Below are the accepted tests to determine the

existence of an employer-employee relationship:

THE ECONOMIC FACTS OF THE RELATION TEST. When a

worker possesses some attributes of an employee and
others of an independent contractor which makes him
fall within an intermediate area, he may be classified
as an employee when the economic facts of the relation
make it more nearly one of employment with respect to
the ends sought to be accomplished.

THE CONTROL TEST. Employer-employee relationship

will be deemed to exist where the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the right to control
not only the end to be achieved but also the means to
be used in reaching such end.

Personal Note: The question here was worth five points.

If you were to enumerate these two tests without
explaining each, I doubt you’d receive full marks for
it. Even a short explanation will do.

V
SHORT PROBLEMS

Short problems are the worst in my opinion. In the

2017 Bar Exams, they are usually found in the last
pages of the exam and demands so much time that you are
risking not being able to finish. Be very careful with
this type of question. Below are samples of how I
approached each of the sample short problems. Do take
note that the short problem in Legal Ethics was quickly
answered as I was trying to catch up with the time
limit. Still, presentation-wise, I think it was
satisfactory. I had a bit of time during the Civil Law
exam which is why the presentation is quite different.
In a “True or False” short problem, however, I used the
format in Sample #1.

Sampe #1

QUESTION:

Determine if the following advertisements by an

attorney are ethical or unethical. Explain your answer.

a)A calling card, 2 inches x 2 inches in size,

bearing the attorney’s name in bold print, office,
residence and email addresses, telephone and facsimile
numbers.

b)A business card, 3 inches x 4 inches in size,

indicating the aforementioned data with his 1 inch x
inch photograph.

c)A pictorial press release in broadsheet newspaper

made by the attorney showing him being congratulated by
the president of a client corporation for winning a
multi-million damage suit against the company in the
Supreme Court.

d)The same press release made in a tabloid by the

attorney’s client.

e)A small announcement that the attorney is giving

free legal advice on November 30, 2017 published in
Balita, a tabloid in Filipino. (Legal Ethics, 2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a)ETHICAL. The calling card fits the requirements of

advertising of legal services pursuant to Canon 3 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

b)UNETHICAL. Only the name, address, contact

information and specialization may appear in the
calling card. The photograph is prohibited in the
advertising of legal services pursuant to Canon 3 of
the said Code.

c)UNETHICAL. Canon 3 of the said Code prohibits

lawyers from using media for publicity in order to
attract clients.

d)ETHICAL. Canon 3 of the said Code does not govern

the clients of lawyers, especially if the latter had no
knowledge of such publication.

e)ETHICAL. What the Code prohibits is the

commercialization of the legal profession. There is no
commercialization in rendering free legal advice.

Sample #2

QUESTION:

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are

valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void:

(a) A contract of sale between Lana and Andy

wherein 16-year old Lana agreed to sell her grand piano
for P5,000.00.

(b) A contract of lease of the Philippine Sea

entered by and between Mitoy and Elsa.

(c) A barter of toys executed by 12-year old

Clarence and 10-year old Czar.

(d) A sale entered by Barri and Garri, both minors,

which their parents later ratified.

(e) Jenny’s sale of her car to Celestine in order

to evade attachment by Jenny’s creditors. (Civil Law,
2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) The contract between Lana and Andy is VOIDABLE

because Lana is incapable of giving consent, her being
a minor. The Civil Code provides that if one of the
parties to a contract is incapable of giving consent,
that contract is voidable.

(b) The contract between Mitoy and Elsa is VOID.

The Civil Code provides that a contract whose object is
outside the commerce of men is void. Here, the
Philippine Sea is an object outside the commerce of
men.

(c) The barter between Clarence and Czar is

UNENFORCEABLE as both are minors and therefore
incapable of giving consent. The Civil Code provides
that if both parties are incapable of giving consent,
the contract is unenforceable.

(d) The sale between Barri and Garri is VALID. The

Civil Code provides that if both parties are minors,
but their parents ratified the contract, the contract
is considered to be validated from inception.

(e) Jenny’s sale to Celestine is RESCISSIBLE. The

Civil Code provides that a contract entered to defraud
creditors is rescissible. Here, Jenny entered into a
contract of sale in order to prevent her creditors from
attaching her car.

A FEW POINTERS

As we near the end of this guide, I would like to

share my observations as to what factors play an
important role in your preparation, in no particular
order:

PENMANSHIP. Penmanship plays a very important role

as this will be your medium in communicating your
answers to the examiner. I personally suggest that you
write in print in order for the examiners to easily
read your answers. I write in cursive, but trained
myself to write in print for the benefit of the
examiners.

PEN. You have to look for a pen that best suits

your writing comfort. Don’t be afraid to try out
different pens. You can do this while taking down notes
during review classes. Write at a pace as if you’re
answering the Bar exams and determine whether the pen
tires you out in the long run.

HEALTH. You should guard your health throughout

your preparation. Coming to review classes sick means
you cannot focus on the lessons at hand. Make sure not
to overdo your personal studies and as much as possible
get at least 7 hours of sleep every day. If you are
working, don’t stress yourself in both work and study.
Stress could complicate your health.

HABITS. Surprisingly, your habits also play a role

in your preparation. Train yourself to sleep early as
if the Bar exam is already on the following day. Try to
limit your caffeine intake. Alter your bowel movements
so you won’t have those pesky bathroom urges during Bar
exams. Also, have a positive attitude throughout your
preparation. You’d be surprised to feel fresh and
active with a simple switch of a button.

Also with habits is your study habit. I suggest you

check the schedule of your review center and prepare
accordingly with the upcoming subject. It is better to
come in to review classes having read in advance since
you will either understand even more what you have read
or find answers to the topics you are still confused
about. Relying on the review classes alone won’t help
you absorb the topics of each subject. Take that from
me who did such thing during my preparation for the
2015 and 2016 Bar exams.

Most importantly, study because you want to, not

because you need to. Forcing yourself to study will do
more harm than good. Free yourself from distractions so
that you are more enticed to study. Also, give yourself
some “me-time”. On the first half of my preparation, my
Mondays are my rest days. I don’t study during these
days because I’ve got review classes during weekends.
This is the day I usually recharge myself so I won’t
get overworked during self-review.

COMPREHENSION. If you feel that you’re still having

a difficult time understanding when you read a
statement of facts, have a dictionary on hand or online
so you can access the meanings of unfamiliar words. If
you have difficulty on why authors are conflicting in
views over the same Supreme Court decision (especially
in Remedial Law), go over the case and read it fully.
It will help you determine what your stand will be when
faced with such dilemma in the Bar exams.

STAGES OF REVIEW

SELF-REVIEW. Check your syllabus whether or not the

topics are included in the coverage of the Bar exams.
Based on personal experience, examiners don’t go beyond
the coverage. Although they ask out-of-this-world
questions, those questions were still well within the
coverage for the Bar exams. Don’t focus on shortcut
explanations in your sources. It’s better to read a
1000-page reviewer that’s complete in content than a
100-page reviewer that quickly sums up the subject.
Make sure to determine which environment you are
effective in studying. I’m effective in my room in
Manila: well-lighted and surrounded by complete
silence. Determine also whether you are effective in
group study. Sometimes group study will waste your
time. My classmates and I only do group discussions
while waiting for the class to start or while hanging
out to relax. We don’t invade each other’s personal
study time.

REVIEW CLASSES. I suggest you attend your review

classes religiously, no matter how boring those classes
are. If you have read in advance, you would find the
class less boring since then you will be unconsciously
focusing on the content of the discussion and not in
the method. Don’t forget to take down notes and ask the
instructor questions bothering you.

PRE-WEEK CLASSES. Don’t consider pre-week classes

as a way to determine the possible bar exam questions.
Ask yourself whether you’re all set or still need more
time. If you’re all set, by all means, attend those
pre-week classes. If you feel like you haven’t studied
enough, then spend this time to look back at the more
problematic topics. Aside from the first pre-week
classes and pre-week classes for Taxation, I spent most
of my pre-weeks doing self-study.

END NOTE
 So there you have it! I hope that this quick guide
will help you in answering the upcoming Bar exams. If
you have any questions, feel free to message me on
Messenger.

Thank you and God bless!