UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

P. DEL ROSARIO ST., CEBU CITY

COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL PROFESSION GROUP ACTIVITY

Members:

Arab, Alaniah B.
Cavalida, Ervin
Elizan, Ayamae E.
Inot, Jermilyn P.
Montejo, Stiffany Ruth B.
Soy, Maria Carmen C.
Tubat, Divina Mari A.

Submitted to:

Judge Amy Rose Soler-Rellin

Date Submitted:

05 August 2017
A. What are the 8 Bar Subjects for the 2017 Bar Examinations?

The 8 Bar Subjects for the 2017 Bar Examinations are:

1. Political Law
2. Labor Law
3. Civil Law
4. Taxation
5. Commercial Law
6. Criminal Law
7. Remedial Law
8. Legal Ethics

B. What kinds of questions are asked in the bar examinations?

Studying for the bar exam is one of the toughest challenges aspiring lawyers face. While
the multi-day test itself will feel like it goes by in a flash, the days leading up to this
brutal exam can feel like an eternity. Although study guides and bar outlines can assist
you in navigating this journey, practice bar exam questions will arm you with the skills
and experience you'll need to succeed on test day.

Generally, bar exams are divided into two parts: essays and multiple choice questions.
The bar taker's score on all three areas are combined and the weighted score must be at a
certain level in order to pass. By learning the ins-and-outs of each type of test, you can
gain a better understanding of the test as a whole and develop strategies to attack it.
Essays

Essays are the most common type of written test used by state bar exams. They usually
consist of a 2-3 paragraph fact pattern followed by a call of the question. The topics of
the essays depend on the jurisdiction where you'll be taking the test. Each essay can
either consist of one area of law or multiple areas of law, often called "crossovers."
Multiple Choice Bar Examination

The Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) questions consist of a brief fact pattern, a call of the
question, and four multiple choice answers.

C. Give 2 Examples of questions and your suggested answers for each bar subject.

TAXATION
Bar Question No. 1 (2003)
o Question:
Why is the power to tax considered inherent in a sovereign State?

o Suggested Answer:
It is considered inherent in a sovereign State because it is a necessary attribute
of sovereignty. Without this power, no sovereign State can exist nor endure.
The power to tax proceeds upon the theory that the existence of a government
is a necessity. The power to tax is an essential and inherent attribute of
sovereignty, belonging as a matter of right to every independent State. No
sovereign State can continue to exist without the means to pay its expenses,
and for those means, it hast the right to compel all citizens and property within
its limits to contribute; hence, the emergence of the power to tax.

Bar Question No. 2 (2005)

o Question:
Describe the power of taxation. May a legislative body enact laws to raise
revenues in the absence of a constitutional provision granting said body the
power to tax? Explain.
 o Suggested Answer:
The power of taxation is inherent in the State, being an attribute of
sovereignty. As an incident of sovereignty, the power to tax has been
described as unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits,
so that security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the
legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency who are to pay it
(Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667
[1996]).

COMMERCIAL LAW (OR MERCANTILE LAW)

Bar Question No. 1 (2014)
o Question:
What vote is needed to consider every decision to be a valid corporate act?
(A) A majority of the directors present at the meeting
(B) Two-thirds of the directors present at the meeting
(C) A majority of the directors present at the meeting at which there is a
quorum
(D) Two-thirds of the directors present at the meeting at which there is a
quorum

o Suggested Answer:
(C) A majority of the directors present at the meeting at which there is a
quorum (Sec. 25, Corporation Code).

Bar Question No. 2 (2014)

o Question:
On May 13, 1996, PAM, Inc. obtained a P15,000,000.00 fire insurance policy
from Ilocano Insurance covering its machineries and equipment effective for
one (1) year or until May 14, 1997. The policy expressly stated that the
insured properties were located at Sanyo Precision Phils. Building, Phase III,
Lots 4 and 6, Block 15, PEZA, Rosario, Cavite. Before its expiration, the
policy was renewed on as is basis for another year or until May 13, 1998.
The subject properties were later transferred to Pace Factory also in PEZA.
On October 12, 1997, during the effectivity of the renewed policy, a fire broke
out at the Pace Factory which totally burned the insured properties.

The policy forbade the removal of the insured properties unless sanctioned by
Ilocano. Condition 9 (c) of the policy provides that the insurance ceases to
attach as regards the property affected unless the insured, before the
occurrence of any loss or damage, obtains the sanction of the company
signified by endorsements upon the policy (c) if the property insured is
removed to any building or place other than in that which is herein stated to be
insured. PAM claims that it has substantially complied with notifying
Ilocano through its sister company, the RBC, which in fact, referred PAM to
Ilocano for the insurance coverage.

Is Ilocano liable under the policy?

o Suggested Answer:
Ilocano Insurance is not liable under the policy. By the clear and express
condition in the renewal policy, the removal of the insured property to any
building or place required the consent of Ilocano. Any transfer effected by
PAM, Inc. without Ilocanos consent (as is the case here) would free the latter
from any liability (Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. v. PAPCO, Ltd., G.R.
No. 200784, August 7, 2013).

CRIMINAL LAW
Bar Question No. 1 (2014)
o Question:
Which of the following is not a privilege mitigating circumstance?
(A) 17-year-old offender
(B) 14-year-old offender
 (C) Incomplete self-defense
(D) Incomplete defense of a relative

o Suggested Answer:
(B) 14-year-old offender

Bar Question No. 2 (2014)

o Question:
Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case
pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money,
through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal,
proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused.

(A) Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit
wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene
under the law. He was later charged also with indirect bribery under
the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be charged
under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he
correct?
(B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he
misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is
the charge correct?

o Suggested Answer/s:
(A) No. One may be charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019 in addition
to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act,
either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under
the Revised Penal Code. This is very clear from Section 3 of R.A. No.
3019. Also R.A. No. 3019 is a special law, the elements of the crime is
not the same as those punished under the Revised Penal Code.
(B) Yes. Estafa is committed by any person who shall ask money from
another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee
when in truth the offender intended to convert the money to his own
personal use and benefit (Article 315 (2) (c) of the Revised Penal
Code).

POLITICAL LAW
State Immunity from Suit
Question:
1. The Republic of Balau (formerly Palau Islands) opened and operated in Manila
an office engaged in trading Balau products with Philippine products. In one Transaction,
the local buyer complained Balau goods delivered to him were substandard and he sued
the Republic of Balau, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for damages.
a. How can the Republic of Balau invoke its sovereign immunity?
b. Will such defense of sovereign immunity prosper? Explain.

Suggested Answer:
a. The Republic of Balau can invoke its sovereign immunity by filing a motion to
dismiss in accordance with Section I (a) Rule 16 of the Rules of Court on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction over its person.

According to Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524, in Public International Law,
when a State wishes to plead sovereign immunity in foreign court, it requests the
Foreign Office of the State where it is being sued to convey to the court that it is
entitled to immunity. In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government
to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign immunity. In
some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity is submitted directly to the local
court by the foreign government through counsel by filing a motion to dismiss on
the ground that the court has no Jurisdiction over its person
 b. No, the defense of sovereign immunity will not prosper. The sale of Balau
products is a contract involving a commercial activity. In United States vs. Ruiz,
136 SCRA 487 and United States vs. Guinto 182 SCRA 644, it was stated that a
foreign State cannot invoke immunity from suit if it enters into a commercial
contract. The Philippines adheres to restrictive sovereign immunity.

Question:
2. A property owner filed an action directly in court against the Republic of the
Philippines seeking payment for a parcel of land which the national government
utilized for a road widening project.
a. Can the government invoke the doctrine of non-suability of the state?
b. In connection with the preceding question, can the property owner garnish public
funds to satisfy his claim for payment? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer/s:
a. No, the government cannot invoke the doctrine of stat immunity from suit. As
held in Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, when the
government expropriates property for public use without paying just
compensation, it cannot invoke its immunity from the suit. Otherwise, the right
guaranteed in Section 9 Article III of the 1987 Constitution that the private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation will be
rendered nugatory.
b. No, the owner cannot garnish public funds to satisfy his claim for payment,
Section 7 of Act No. 3038 prohibits execution upon any judgment against the
government. As held in Republic vs. Palacio, 23 SCRA 899, even if the
government may be sued, it does not follow that its properties may be seized
under execution.

LABOR LAW

1. National Union of Workers In Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries (NUWHRAIN)

Philippine Plaza Chapter vs. Philippine Plaza, Inc., G.R. No. 177524, 23 July 2014. The
Union anchors its claim for unpaid services charges on Section 68 and 69 of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), in relation to Article 96 of the Labor Code.
Section 68 states that the sale of food, beverage, transportation, laundry and rooms are
subject to service charge at the rate of ten percent (10%). Excepted from the coverage of
the 10% service charge are the so called negotiated contracts and special rates.

Question:
Can the Union validly claim proportionate share of service charges from non-sales
(example: free benefits from hotel and credit cards; and similar arrangements?

Suggested Answer/s:
No. Hotel does not have any obligation to the Union, inasmuch as their claims arises
from non-sale transactions like Westin Gold Cards Revenue and Maxi Media
Barter to be negotiated contracts or contracts under special rates, and the entries
Business Promotions and Gift Certificates as contracts that did not involve sale of
food, beverage, etc. Jurisprudence settles that CBA in the law between the contracting
parties who are obliged under the law to comply with its provisions. Thus, if the terms of
CBA are plain, clear and leave no doubt on the intention of the contracting parties, the
literal meaning of its stipulation, as they appear on the face of the contract shall prevail.
Only when the words used are ambiguous and doubtful or leading to several
interpretation of the parties agreement that a resort to interpretation and construction is
called for.

2. Philippine Journalist Inc. vs. Journal Employees Union, G.R. No. 192601 26 June 2013.
CBA provision states:
Section 4. Funeral/Bereavement Aid. The company agrees to grant a funeral or
bereavement aid in the following instances:
a. Death of a regular employee in line of duty Php50,000.00
b. Death of a regular employee not in line of duty Php40,000.00
 c. Death of legal dependent of a regular employee Php15,000.00

Question:
In the availment of funeral and bereavement aid under the CBA, may the company
interpret legal dependent in accordance with SSS definition of beneficiary and hence,
refuse payment of the benefit?

Suggested Answer/s:
Supreme Court held, no, the company cannot do so. The coverage of the term legal
dependent as used in a stipulation in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) granting
funeral or bereavement benefit to a regular employee for the death of a legal dependent, if
CBA is silent about it, is to be construed as similar to the meaning that contemporaneous
social legislations have set. This is because the term of social legislations are deemed
incorporated in or adopted by CBA. The court defined a dependent one who derives his
or her main support from another. Meaning, relying on or subject to someone else
support, not able to exist or sustain oneself, or to perform anything without the will,
power or aid of someone else.

Citing statutory definitions, Supreme Court concluded that the civil status of the
employee as either married or single is not the controlling consideration in order that a
person may qualify as employees legal dependent. What is rather decidedly controlling
is the fact that the spouse, child, or parent is actually dependent for support upon the
employee.

CIVIL LAW

1. 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 n9r 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.

Question:
On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant the petition? (8%)

Suggested Answer/s:
If I were the judge, I will not grant the petition. Although psychological incapacity has
not been defined by the Family Code, the Supreme Court in several cases (Republic vs.
San Jose - February 28, 2007; Zamora v. CA an Zamora G.R. No. 141917 February 7,
2007; Benjamin Ting v. Carmen Ting G.R. No. 166562; March 31, 2009) has ruled that
the intendment of the law is to confine psychological incapacity to the most serious cases
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. What the law requires is downright incapacity
and not refusal or neglect or difficulty but a failure to perform essential marital
obligations due to causes psychological in nature.

Further, the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment
of the parties by the psychologist or expert for a conclusive diagnosis of grave, severe,
and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. (Paz vs. Paz February 18, 2010) In
this case, the report of Dr. Chan is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the
 children. She did not actually hear, see and evaluate Neil. Hence, the report cannot
constitute a reasonable basis to reach a conclusion as to Neils psychological incapacity.

2. A collision occurred at an intersection involving a bicycle and a taxicab. Both the bicycle
rider (a businessman then doing his morning exercise) and the taxi driver claimed that the
other was at fault. Based on the police report, the bicycle crossed the intersection first but
the taxicab, crossing at a fast clip from the bicycle's left, could not brake in time and hit
the bicycle's rear wheel, toppling it and throwing the bicycle rider into the sidewalk 5
meters away.

The bicycle rider suffered a fractured right knee, sustained when he fell on his right side
on the concrete side walk. He was hospitalized and was subsequently operated on,
rendering him immobile for 3 weeks and requiring physical rehabilitation for another 3
months. In his complaint for damages, the rider prayed for the award ofP1,000,000 actual
damages,P200,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages, P1 00,000 nominal
damages and P50,000 attorney's fees.

Question:
Assuming the police report to be correct and as the lawyer for the bicycle rider, what
evidence (documentary and testimonial) and legal arguments will you present in court to
justify the damages that your client claims? (8%)

Suggested Answer/s:
As lawyer for the bicycle rider, I will present in addition to the police report, the medical
abstract as to the injuries sustained by my client as well as copies of receipts of expenses
incurred in connection with the treatment of his injuries. I will also present the testimony
of my client and perhaps a bystander who witnessed the incident as to the circumstances
surrounding the accident.

As for the legal argument, I will rebut the claim of negligence on my clients part by
presenting evidence that my client has actually crossed the intersection ahead of the
taxicab and it was the taxicab driver who rapidly cut the path of the bicycle which caused
the collision. Also, even assuming that there was contributory negligence on the part of
my client, I will argue that it will not preclude the recovery of damages but may only
mitigate the damages to which he is entitled.

LEGAL ETHICS

Question:
1. Your services as a lawyer are engaged by John Dizon to defend him from the charges
of malversation of public funds before the SandiganBayan. John confessed to you that he
actually misappropriated the amount charged but she said it was out of extreme necessity
to pay for the emergency operation of his wife. Will you agree to defend him? State your
reason.

Suggested Answer/s:
I will agree to defend him, notwithstanding his confession to me that he actually
misappropriated the amount. Rule 14.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer shall not decline to represent a person because of his own opinion
regarding the guilt of the person. One of the duties of an attorney is that he should, in the
defence of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honourable means regardless of his
personal opinion as to guilt of the accused, present every defence that the law permits, to
the end that no person may be deprived of life liberty but by due process of law. The
burden of proof lies with the prosecution and if the prosecution fails to discharge such
burden, the lawyers can always invoke the presumption of innocence for the acquittal of
his client. If the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the
lawyer can strive to lower the penalty by presenting mitigating circumstances, for he is
not necessarily expected to sustain the clients innocence. A lawyer is an advocate, not a
judge, and if he has rendered effective legal assistance to his client as allowed by law, he
can rightfully say that he has faithfully discharged his duties as a lawyer, even if the
accused is found guilty by the court.
Question/s:
1) Would it be proper for the judge to accept a donation of a lawyers table and chairs for
his sala from the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)? Explain
your answer.
2) May a judge properly solicit for his promotion the endorsement of the local chapter of
the IBP to the Judicial and Bar Council? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer/s:
1) It would be proper for a judge to accept the donations of a lawyers table and chairs for
his sala from the local chapter of the IBP because the donation comes from an
organization of lawyers whose duty, among others, is to help in the proper administration
of justice. Accepting the donation is not for the personal benefit of the judge but for
providing physical facilities for the administration of justice, which is the concern by
both the judge and the IBP local chapter. What is prohibited is accepting presents or
donations from litigants or from particular lawyers practicing before him.

2) A judge may not properly solicit for his promotion the endorsement of a local chapter
of the IBP to the Judicial and Bar Council because it will give the impression that his
promotion is not purely on merit, and the judge may feel beholden to the particular
officers of the local chapter which may, in the future, influence him in the dispositions of
cases handled by such officers as counsels for litigants. Moreover, considering his
position, the local chapter officers may not be able to refuse such solicitation even if they
believe that he is not qualified for promotions. The judge should stand by his own ability,
qualifications and fitness, without exerting extra efforts on his part to influence the local
chapter to endorse his promotion. The local chapter should, on its own and without
solicitations from the judge, make its own assessment and appraisal of the judges
qualifications and fitness for promotion, and if it is convinced that the judge possesses the
required qualifications, it is the duty of the local chapter to make known such assessment
to the Judicial and Bar Council.

REMEDIAL LAW

1. Lender extended to Borrower a P100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later,

Borrower obtained another P100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still
later, Borrower obtained a P300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land
valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured.
Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying
the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a
collection suit for P500,000.00.

Question/s:
a.) Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action?
(2%) At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining Lender, successfully elicited
an admission from the latter that the two promissory notes have been paid. Thereafter,
Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that as proven only
P300,000.00 was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. He further argued that lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

b.) Should the court dismiss the case? (3%)

Suggested Answer/s:
a) Yes Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of
action. Under the rule on joinder of causes of action, a party may in one pleading assert
as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party. Under the totality
rule, where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money,
the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. Here the causes of action
by Lender are all against borrower and all the claims are principally for recovery of
money. Hence the aggregate amount claimed, which is P500,000.00 shall be the test of
jurisdiction and thus it is the RTC of Manila which has jurisdiction. Although the rules on
joinder of causes of action state that the joinder shall not include special civil actions, the
remedy resorted to with respect to the third loan was not foreclosure but collection.
Hence joinder of causes of action would still be proper.

b) No, the court should not dismiss the case.

The Supreme Court has held that subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the amount
of the claim alleged in the complaint and not the amount substantiated during the trial.
(Dionisio v Sioson Puerto, 31 October 1974). Here the amount claimed was P500,000.00.
Even if the claim substantiated during the trial was only P300,000 that is not
determinative of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hence the argument that lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time is misplaced since in the first place the RTC
has jurisdiction.

2. Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the foreclosure of real estate mortgage against
siblings Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners of the property and cosignatories to the
mortgage deed. The siblings permanently reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off
Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel
in Pasay City. Sheriff Pluto went to the hotel and personally served Scylla the summons,
but the latter refused to receive summons for Charybdis as she was not authorized to do
so. Sheriff Pluto requested Scylla for the email address and fax number of Charybdis
which the latter readily gave. Sheriff Pluto, in his return of the summons, stated that
"Summons for Scylla was served personally as shown by her signature on the receiving
copy of the summons. Summons on Charybdis was served pursuant to the amendment of
Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the summons and complaint on defendant's fax
number as evidenced by transmission verification report automatically generated by the
fax machine indicating that it was received by the fax number to which it was sent on the
date and time indicated therein." Circe, sixty (60) days after her receipt of Sheriff Pluto's
return, filed a Motion to Declare Charybdis in default as Charybdis did not file any
responsive pleading.

Question/s:
a.) Should the court declare Charybdis in default? (2%) Scylla seasonably filed her
answer setting forth therein as a defense that Charybdis had paid the mortgage debt.
b.) On the premise that Charybdis was properly declared in default, what is the effect of
Scylla's answer to the complaint? (2%)

Suggested Answer/s:
a) No, the court should not declare Charybdis in default. Under the Rules of Court, the
amendment of Rule 14 allowing service of summons by facsimile transmittal refers only
to service of summons upon a foreign private juridical entity under Section 12 of Rule 14,
not to a non-resident defendant under Section 15 of Rule 14. Service of summons by
facsimile cannot be effected under Section 15 unless leave of court was obtained
specifically permitting service by facsimile transmittal. Here the defendant is not a
foreign private juridical entity but a non-resident defendant and no leave of court was
obtained to serve summons by facsimile. Hence there was no valid service of summons
and thus the court could not declare Charybdis in default.

b) The effect of Scyllas answer to the complaint is that the court shall try the case
against both Scylla and Charybdis upon the answer filed by Scylla. Under Section 3(c) of
Rule 9, when a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several
defending parties, some of who answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the
case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence
presented. Here there was a common cause of action against Scylla and Charybdis since
both were co-signatories to the mortgage deed. Hence the court should not render
judgment by default against Charybdis but should proceed to try the case upon the answer
filed and the evidence presented by Scylla.
D. What are the rules in the conduct of bar examinations?

1. In the conduct of bar examinations, the examinee must know that his failure to take any
subject will bar him from taking the rest of the examinations.
2. A Notice of Admission, will be given to the examinee who has been allowed to take the
bar exam, which will serve as his pass to the examination compound/room.
3. Once inside the examination compound, he is not allowed to bring deadly weapons,
cameras, tape recorders, other radio or stereo equipment, communication gadgets or any
electronic device.
4. Eating and smoking inside the examination area is likewise prohibited.
5. Bringing of papers, books or notes into the examination room is also prohibited.
6. A name card will be given by the proctor or headwatcher which the examinee should
accomplish strictly following rules, by printing his name, affixing his customary
signature, indicating the school where he came from, and affixing his right thumb mark
on the space provided therein.
7. Thereafter, the examinee shall insert the said name card into an envelope which is
attached at the back of the examination notebook.
8. The examinee shall answer the questions in his own handwriting without help from
anyone.
9. Only fountain pens and sign pens in permanent blue, blue-black, or black ink should be
used during the examinations.
10. Variations in the color of ink and style of handwriting should be avoided.
11. While answering the examination, examinees are not allowed to communicate with each
other.
12. Upon a verified application made by the examinee himself stating that his penmanship is
so poor that it is very difficult to read his answers without much loss of time, the
Supreme Court may allow said examinee to use a noiseless typewriter in answering the
questions.
13. In correcting a mistake, the examinee is directed to simply draw a line across the word or
words he wants to change.
14. Any other form of erasures or tearing off of any page of the examination booklet as well
as writing the name of the examinee or making unnecessary marking or impression may
be construed as a means of identifying his booklet which will be a ground for
disqualification.

Rule 138 of Revised Rules of Court:

Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing. Persons taking
the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into the examination rooms. The
questions shall be the same for all examinees and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall
be given to each examinee. Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help
from anyone.

Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship is so poor that it
will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of time, the Supreme Court may allow
such examinee to use a typewriter in answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters
shall be allowed to be used.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the
substitution of papers or commission of other frauds. Examinees shall not place their names
on the examination papers. No oral examination shall be given.
E. If an examinee would want to correct his/her answer, how is the correction done?

Strike out the words/phrase/sentence intended to be erased by a straight single horizontal

line. After which, write the desired answer accordingly.

F. What are the passing grade(s) for admission to the bar?

The examinee has to obtain an average grade of at least 75% in all subjects, without
however failing 50% in any subject in order for him to pass the bar examinations. Unlike
in other professional examinations, partial passing of the examinations is not allowed in
view of the constant development in laws and jurisprudence.

G. How many times can one take the Bar Examinations, and what are the rules on
retaking of the bar?
A qualified examinee can take the Bar Examination up to five times before he becomes
perpetually disqualified from taking Bar Examinations.

Candidates who have failed the Bar Examinations for three times shall be disqualified
from taking another examination unless they show to the satisfaction of the court that
they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year classes as well as attended a pre-bar
review course in a recognized law school. The professors of the individual review
subjects attended by the candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the
candidates have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the same
conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject.