Question 16, 2018 Legal Ethics Bar Exam

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor


(Question XVI, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2018 Bar Exam)

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 following documents in legally acceptable and enforceable forms, based on the above facts:

(a) The promissory note (5% );

(b) The judicial affidavit (10%); and

(c) The dacion en pago (10%).

Suggested Answer:

(a) The promissory note

(b) The judicial affidavit

(c) The dacion en pago


(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)



Political Law, Labor Law

E. State immunity

Frequency: ★★★★☆ 1. Concept The State may not be sued without its consent. (Section 3, Article XVI, 1987 Constitution) No suit shall lie against the

Question 4, 2018 Labor Law Bar Exam

IV. (Question IV, Labor Law, 2018 Bar Exam) Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the retrenchment of 550 employees in

Question 3, 2017 Labor Law Bar Exam

III. (Question III, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam) A. Andrew Manning Agency (AMA) recruited Feliciano for employment by lnvictus Shipping, its foreign principal. Meantime, AMA

4. Retroactive effect of penal laws

Frequency: ★★★★☆ Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,

1. Mala in se and mala prohibita

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ Mala in se – refers to acts wrong in themselves. (Dungo v. People, G.R. No. 209464, 01 July 2015) Mala prohibita – refers

Question 10, 2017 Civil Law Bar Exam

X. (Question X, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam) Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (a) A contract of sale

error: Content is protected.