Question B.16, 2019 Legal Ethics Bar Exam

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor


(Question B.16, Civil Law, 2019 Bar Exam)

C Corp. entered into a contract with D, Inc. for the construction of the latter’s production warehouse. In consideration thereof, D, Inc. was obliged to pay C Corp. the amount of ₱50,000,000.00 within a period of one (1) month from the time of the project’s completion. To secure the payment of the said sum, D, Inc. entered into a surety agreement with S Company.

After more than a month from the completion date of the project, C Corp. remained unpaid. Claiming that it was suffering from serious financial reverses, D, Inc. asked C Corp. for an extension of three (3) months to pay the ₱50,000,000.00 it still owed, to which C Corp. agreed. However, after more than three (3) months, D, Inc. still refused to pay. Hence, C Corp. proceeded to collect the above sum from the surety, S Company.

For its part, S Company refused the claim and raised the defense that the extension of time granted by C Corp. to D, Inc. without its consent released it from liability.

(a) Will the defense of S Company against the claim hold water? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming that S Company instead refused the claim on the ground that C Corp. has yet to exhaust D, Inc.’s property to satisfy the claim before proceeding against it, will this defense prosper? Explain. (2%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) No. Answer

Under jurisprudence, a contract of surety creates a solidary obligation on the part of the surety to guarantee the performance of the debtor. The surety is directly liable for the non-performance of the debtor. Rule

In the case at bar, S Company bound itself to be a surety to secure D Inc.’s obligation resulting in a solidary liability. The extension granted by C Corp. does not affect the solidary liability of S Company. Apply

Thus, the defense of S Company against the claim does not hold water. Conclusion

(b) No. Answer

Under jurisprudence, the surety is solidarily liable with the debtor. As a result, the surety is directly liable for the non-performance of the debtor without need of exhausting the debtor’s property. Rule

In the case at bar, as a surety, S Company was a surety and thus directly liable for D, Inc.’s non-performance of the obligation. It is not necessary to exhaust the property of D, Inc. to render S Company liable.. Apply

Thus, the defense will not prosper. Conclusion


(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

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

E. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Covered Institution” refers to: 1) Banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by

1. Criminal liabilities and felonies

Frequency: ★★★★★ FELONIES: Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). (Article 3, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code) DOLO; CULPA: Felonies are committed

L. Crimes against honor

Frequency: ★★★★★ GENERAL PROVISIONS 1) Persons responsible Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or

D. Crimes against public interest


C. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Frequency: ★★★★☆ “Government” – includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic

error: Content is protected.