Skip to content
VVocatus · Bar Exam Practice
← All subjects
Bar subject

Legal & Judicial Ethics

Legal and judicial ethics and the practice of law.

291 questions so far — more are being added.

Start practicing →
2022 Bar2 questions
2020 Bar6 questions
2019 Bar17 questions
2018 Bar16 questions
Q. XVI

On March 1, 2017, sisters and business partners Carmina and Celeste Corominas borrowed PhP500,000 from Carmen Carunungan. It was agreed that the amount will be paid in full one 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 PhP550,000 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 falsication of a commercial document. After nding 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; (b) The Judicial Affidavit; and (c) The Dacion en Pago.

Q. XV

Charo Conti engaged the services of Atty. Cesar Compostela for the registration of a property located in Cebu, and which property she had inherited together with her siblings. It was agreed in writing that Charo would pay Atty. Compostela PhP 20,000 as acceptance fee and PhP2,000 as appearance fee. During the last hearing of the case, Atty. Compostela demanded an additional amount of PhP20,000 for the preparation of a memorandum, which he said would further strengthen Charo’s position, plus 20% of the total area of the property as additional fees for his services. Charo did not agree to Atty. Compostela’s demands since they were contrary to their agreement. Besides, the property was co—owned with her siblings and she could not agree to Atty. Compostela’s demands without the consent of her co-heirs. Four (4) years later, the petition for registration was approved and the Land Registration Authority notified Charo that the decree of registration and the original of the owner's duplicate copy of the title had already been transmitted to the Register of Deeds (RD). When Charo went to the RD, she was surprised to discover that the owner's duplicate copy of the title had already been claimed by, and released to, Atty. Compostela. Despite demand, Atty. Compostela refused to deliver the title to Charo until she paid the additional attorneys’ fees that he was demanding. Charo then instituted a complaint for disbarment against him. In his defense, Atty. Compostela claimed that: (a) he had a right to retain the owner's duplicate of the title as his retaining lien; and (b) he was entitled to the payment of additional professional fees on the basis of the principle of quantum meruit. Rule on Atty. Compostela’s defenses.

Q. XIV

Cacai, law student, filed an administrative complaint a against RTC Judge Casimiro Conde, her professor in law school, based on the following allegations: (a) In a school convocation where Judge Conde was the guest speaker, Judge Conde openly disagreed and criticized a recently-decided Supreme Court decision and even stressed that the decision of the Supreme Court in that case was a serious violation of the Constitution. b) In his class discussions, Judge Conde named Cacai’s mother, an MTC judge, as one of the judges involved in a marriage scam. At that time, the case against her mother was still pending. Judge Conde also included in his class discussion Cacai’s brother whom he referred to as a “court-noted drug addict.” Cacai assented that the acts of Judge Conde were open displays of insensitivity, impropriety, and lack of delicadeza bordering on oppressive and abusive conduct. She also alleged that Judge Conde acted with absolute disrespect for the Court and violated the “subjudice rule” when he discussed the marriage scam involving her mother because, at that time, the case was still pending. In his defense, Judge Conde argued that the case he discussed in the school convocation was already of public knowledge and had been published after it had become final. He also said it was part of his academic freedom to openly discuss and criticize a decision of the Court since it was already decided with finality, was patently erroneous, and clearly a violation of the Constitution. With respect to discussions in class about Cacai’s mother, he said that the marriage scam where her mother was charged scandalized the Judiciary and became public knowledge when the Office of the Court Administrator held a press conference on the matter and, that as a citizen, he could comment thereon in the exercise of his rights to freedom of speech and expression. He also asserted that his discussions in both fora could not be the subject of an administrative complaint because they were not done in the performance of his judicial duties. Rule on each of the charges raised by Cacai, and the corresponding defenses raised by Judge Conde.

Q. XIII

Dr. Cielo is a well-known medical doctor specializing in cosmetic surgery. Dr. Cielo, together with a team of doctors, performed a surgical buttocks enhancement procedure in her clinic on Ms. Cossette Concio (Concio). Unfortunately, after a couple of years, the implant introduced during the enhancement procedure caused infection and Concio became seriously ill. Concio filed a criminal action for medical malpractice against Dr. Cielo which was eventually dismissed for failure to prove that Dr. Cielo was negligent. Concio was represented in this action by Atty. Cogie Ciguerra (Ciguerra). After they lost the medical malpractice case, Ciguerra started writing a series of posts on his Facebook (FB) account containing insulting and verbally abuse language against Dr. Cielo. Among others, Ciguerra called Dr. Cielo a quack doctor, “reyna ng kaplastikan at kapalpakan”, and accused her of maintaining a payola or extra-legal budget to pay off prosecutors and judges in order to win her cases. He also called on patients to boycott the clinic of Dr. Cielo. Dr. Cielo filed a disbarment case against Ciguerra for posting on his FB account, sexist, vulgar, and obscene comments, and language disrespectful of women in his FB posts. Ciguerra’s defense is that his FB posts were private remarks on his private FB account and only meant to be shared among his FB friends, and Dr. Cielo was not part of them. He also claimed that the disbarment case was filed in violation of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy. The Court, however, found that Ciguerra’s FB account did not have privacy settings. Can Ciguerra be disbarred for the series of posts in his FB account against Dr. Cielo?

Q. III

Carina was dismissed by her employer for breach of trust and confidence, and for willful violation of company rules and policies. She filed an action for illegal dismissal claiming that her termination was without legal basis. The Labor Arbiter found that she was illegally dismissed and awarded her the amount of PhP 80 million. On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the award was reduced to PhP40 million as separation pay, plus PhP5 million for the value of her stock option plans which would have vested if she were not illegally dismissed from her job. Unsatised with the NLRC’s decision, she appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) the amount of monetary award granted by the NLRC. She engaged the services of Casal, Casos and Associates to handle her appeal. Her retainer agreement with Casal, Casos and Associates provided for contingent fees equivalent to 10% of her claim for separation pay and 10% of the value of stock options to be awarded to her. The CA decision was not favorable to Carina, so she appealed the same to the Supreme Court (the Court). While the case was pending appeal with the Court, Carina entered into a compromise agreement with her employer to terminate the case upon payment to her of the full amount of PhP 40 million, less the PhP15 million previously paid to her by her employer. Before the compromise agreement was finalized, Carina terminated the services of Casal, Casos and Associates and asked them to withdraw from the case pending before the Court. The parties negotiated the compromise agreement without the participation of their lawyers since the employer imposed the condition that no lawyers should be involved in the compromise negotiation. She, together with her employer, then filed the Compromise Agreement for approval by the Court, and sought the termination of the case, with prejudice. Casal, Casos and Associates filed amotion to intervene in the case pending with the Court, praying that Carina be ordered to pay them PhP4 million, representing 10% of the amount received by Carina from her employer in settlement of the case, plus 6% legal interest from the date of filing of the motion for intervention, until fully paid. The intervenors claimed that they were dismissed without justifiable cause prior to the signing of the compromise agreement for the reason that Carina, their client, wanted to evade payment of their legal fees. Carina claimed they were dismissed because Attys. Casal and Casos, who personally handled her case, had resigned from the law firm to join the government, and because of the negligence and failure of her lawyers to attend to her case. In reply, the intervenors said that the engagement was with the law firm and not with individual lawyers. The law firm also presented letters signed by their client commending them for work done well in the case. (a) May lawyers legally charge their clients based on contingent fees? (b) Should Casal, Casos and Associates be allowed to intervene in the case pending before the Court in order to collect their fees from Carina? (c) Can Carina refuse to pay attorneys’ fees on the ground that the lawyers who personally handled her case had already resigned from the law firm with which she had contracted? (d) May Carina’s employer, defendant in this case, be held solidarily liable with Carina for the payment of the attorneys’ fees of Carina’s lawyers? (e) May the intervenors collect legal interest in addition to their attorneys’ fees?

2017 Bar16 questions
Q. II

A. Pedro Tigas, a known toughie, asked Atty. Chloe to meet with him in the Jollibee Res- taurant in Harrison Plaza because he wanted to seek her legal advice on an important matter. Atty. Chloe had once before been consulted by Pedro Tigas, who had then paid her well. When they met in Jollibee Restaurant, he confided his planned assassination of Pepeng Taga, his rival for control of the neighborhood in San Andres Bukid, Manila. He wanted her to represent him should he be apprehended for the assassina- tion. Atty. Chloe did not agree, and left the restaurant in a hurry before Pedro Tigas could utter anything more. A few days afterwards, Pepeng Taga was killed near his house in San Andres Bukid, Manila. The police follow-up team arrested Pedro Tigas on the basis of testimony by at least two residents that they had heard him saying two days before the killing that Pepeng Taga would not live beyond 48 hours. Should Atty. Chloe reveal to the police investigator what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant without violating the confidence of the latter as a client? Explain your answer. B. Assuming that the meeting between Pedro Tigas and Atty. Chloe in Jollibee Restaurant occurred after the killing of Pepeng Taga, and in that meeting Pedro Tigas expressly admitted to Atty. Chloe in strict confidence as his lawyer that he had shot Pepeng Taga. Is Atty. Chloe ethically bound to reveal the admission of Pedro Tigas to the police investigator what Pedro Tigas had stated to her at the Jollibee Restaurant? Explain your answer.

Q. I

A. 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. B. Under the facts of the preceding question, assume that you had resigned from the Brando & Luzon Law Office prior to the filing of the money laundering case against Gregory and the others, and that you were not implicated in ' the case. However, you had assisted in handling the Cobra Co. account during your time with the law firm. Cobra Co. was largely owned by Cable Co. The public prosecutor handling the case against Gregory and the others asks you, as a former member of the Brando & Luzon Law Office, to help strengthen the case for the Government, and hints that you may be implicated in the case if you do not cooperate. What is your legal and ethical course of action? Explain your answer.

Q. VIII

A. Sancho Mahilig went to the office of Atty. Charm to engage her legal representation in the criminal case for adultery that the husband of his socialite friend had brought against him in the City Prosecutor's Office in Manila. Atty. Charm thoroughly interviewed Sancho in her office with only Linda, the secretary/steno- grapher of Atty. Charm, the only other person present. On that occasion, Sancho candidly informed Atty. Charm about his illicit affair with the socialite wife, and gave many details. Linda faithfully recorded the interview. During the trial of the criminal case for adultery, the trial prosecutor requested the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of the record of the interview and a subpoena ad testicandum to compel Linda to testify on the admission of the affair by Sancho. Atty. Charm objected to the request on the basis of lawyer-client confidentiality. If you were the trial judge, how will you resolve the objection of Atty. Charm? Justify your answer. B. Prosecutor Regan was designated to represent the State during the trial of an action to declare the nullity of a marriage. He realized soon enough, however, that the counsels of the parties were very competent and sincere in doing their work for their respective clients. Thus, Prosecutor Regan, mindful of his large caseload of preliminary investigations, and believing that his attendance at the trial was superfluous, decided not to attend the trial anymore so that he could devote more time to the work back in his office. Explain whether or not the decision of Prosecutor Regan to miss the trial of the action to declare the nullity of the marriage was warranted.

2016 Bar20 questions
2015 Bar24 questions
Q. X

The spouses Manuel were the registered owners of a parcel of land measuring about 200,000 square meters. On May 4, 2008, the spouses Manuel sold the land for P3,500,000.00 to the spouses Rivera who were issued a certificate of title for said land in their names. Because the spouses Rivera failed to pay the balance of the purchase price for the land, the spouses Manuel, through Atty. Enriquez, instituted an action on March 18, 2010 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for sum of money and/or annulment of sale, docketed as Civil Case No. 1111. The complaint in Civil Case No. 1111 specifically alleged that Atty. Enriquez would be paid P200,000.00 as attorney's fees on a contingency basis. The RTC subsequently promulgated its decision upholding the sale of the land to the spouses Rivera. Atty. Enriquez timely filed an appeal on behalf of the spouses Manuel before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found for the spouses Manuel, declared the sale of the land to the spouses Rivera null and void, and ordered the cancellation of the spouses Rivera's certificate of title for the land. The Supreme Court dismissed the spouses Rivera's appeal for lack of merit. With the finality of judgment in Civil Case No. 1111 on October 20, 2014, Atty. Enriquez filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Meanwhile, the spouses Rivera filed on November 10, 2014 before the RTC a case for quieting of title against the spouses Manuel, docketed as Civil Case No. 2222. The spouses Manuel, again through Atty. Enriquez, filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 2222 on the ground of res judicata given the final judgment in Civil Case No. 1111. Pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 2222, the RTC granted on February 9, 2015 the motion for issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 1111 and placed the spouses Manuel in possession of the land. Atty. Enriquez, based on a purported oral agreement with the spouses Manuel, laid claim to 1/2 of the land, measuring 100,000.00 square meters with market value of P1,750,000.00, as his "attorney's fees. Atty. Enriquez caused the subdivision of the land in two equal portions and entered into the half he appropriated for himself. Based on the professional and ethical standards for lawyers, may Atty. Enriquez claim 1/2 of the land as his contingency fee? Why?

Q. XXIII

Atty. Billy, a young associate in a medium-sized law firm, was in a rush to meet the deadline for filing his appellant's brief. He used the internet for legal research by typing keywords on his favorite search engine, which led him to many websites containing text of Philippine jurisprudence. None of these sites was owned or maintained by the Supreme Court. He found a case he believed to be directly applicable to his client's cause, so he copied the text of the decision from the blog of another law firm, and pasted the text to the document he was working on. The formatting of the text he had copied was lost when he pasted it to the document, and he could not distinguish anymore which portions were the actual findings or rulings of the Supreme Court, and which were quoted portions from the other sources that were used in the body of the decision. Since his deadline was fast approaching, he decided to just make it appear as if every word he quoted was part of the ruling of the Court, thinking that it would not be discovered. k Atty. Billy's opponent, Atty. Ally, a very conscientious former editor of her school's law journal, noticed many discrepancies in Atty. Billy's supposed quotations from the Supreme Court decision when she read the text of the case from her copy of the PhUippine Reports. Atty. Billy failed to reproduce the punctuation marks and font sizes used by the Court. Worse, he quoted the arguments of one party as presented in the case, which arguments happened to be favorable to his position, and not the ruling or reasoning of the Court, but this distinction was not apparent in his brief. Appalled, she filed a complaint against him. a. Did Atty. Billy fail in his duty as a lawyer? What rules did he violate, if any? b. How should lawyers quote a Supreme Court decision?

Q. XVIII

Atty. Javier sold a piece of land in favor of Gregorio for P2,000,000.00. Atty. Javier drafted the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase which he and Gregorio signed on August 12, 2002. Under said Deed, Atty. Javier represented that he had "the perfect right to dispose as owner in fee simple" the land and that the land is "free from all liens and encumbrances." The Deed also stated that Atty. Javier had two years within which to repurchase the property. Atty. Javier turned over the owner's copy of his certificate of title, TCT No. 12121, to Gregorio. Gregorio then immediately took possession of the land. Atty. Javier failed to exercise his right to repurchase within two years. Gregorio sent Atty. Javier a letter dated April 8, 2005 demanding that the latter already repurchase the property. Despite receipt of Gregorio's letter, Atty. Javier still failed to repurchase the property. Gregorio remained in peaceful possession of the land until July 25, 2013, when he received notice from Trustworthy Bank informing him that the land was mortgaged to said bank, that the bank already foreclosed on the land, and that Gregorio should therefore vacate the land. Upon investigation, Gregorio discovered that Atty. Javier's TCT No. 12121 had already been cancelled when another bank foreclosed on a previous mortgage on the land, but after a series of transactions, Atty. Javier was able to reacquire the land and secure TCT No. 34343 for the same. With TCT No. 34343, Atty. Javier constituted another mortgage on the land in favor of Trustworthy Bank on February 22, 2002. Gregorio was subsequently dispossessed of the property. Gregorio filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Javier. In his defense, Atty. Javier argued that he could not be held administratively liable as there was no attorney-client relationship between him and Gregorio. Moreover, the transaction was not actually one of sale with right to repurchase, but one of equitable mortgage, wherein he still had the legal right to mortgage the land to other persons. a. If you are tasked to investigate and report on Gregorio's administrative complaint against Atty. Javier, what will be your recommendation and finding? b. In the same administrative case, may Atty. Javier be ordered to return the P2,000,000.00 purchase price to Gregorio? Explain.

2014 Bar29 questions
2013 Bar30 questions
Q. 12

A Regional Trial Court issues a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the demolition order issued by the City Mayor who has long loathed the cluster of shanties put up by informal settlers along the road leading to the city's commercial district. The TRO, however, carried conditions that must be in place before the threatened demolition can be fully halted. The city legal officer advised the City Engineer's Office and the local PNP chief that the TRO's conditions are not in place so that the demolition could proceed. The city filed a manifestation reflecting the city legal officer's position, while the informal settlers' counsel sought its own clarification and reconsideration from the court, which responded by decreeing that the conditions have been fulfilled. Despite this ruling, the city legal officer insisted that the conditions have not been fulfilled and thus gave the PNP clearance to aid the City Engineer's Office in proceeding with the demolition. From the perspective of professional ethics, how would you characterize the City Legal Officer's actions? (A) It is unethical since he counseled civil servants to disregard a court order. (B) It is ethical, since he acted in accordance with his honest conviction after considering that the court's conditions have not been met. (C) It constitutes indirect contempt, but the lawyer cannot be disciplined because he acted out of his firm and honest conviction. (D) It is neither contemptuous nor unethical since he was performing his duties as city legal officer. (E) It is unethical since the City Legal Officer was simply blindly following the Mayor's wishes.

Q. 15

Based on the same facts as Question XIV, assume that Diana, aside from being a family friend of the couple, has been formally and informally acting as their lawyer in all their personal and family affairs. She has represented them in court in a case involving a car accident and in the purchase of their family home, for which they formally paid the attorney's fees that Diana billed. In this instance, Wanda asked about her legal rights but did not formally ask for a written opinion from Diana. Horacio never had any input on the query as he was then away on an out-of-town trip for his office. Diana advised Wanda that she is fully protected in law and her best course of action is to have an abortion while her pregnancy is not yet far advanced. Did Diana violate the prohibition against representing conflicting interests when she provided legal advice to Wanda without Horacio's knowledge? (A) Yes. The decision of whether to have an abortion should be decided by both spouses; thus, Diana should not have provided legal advice in the absence of Horacio whose concerns and positions are unknown to her. (B) No. Diana did not give any formal advice that would constitute legal practice calling for the strict observance of the conflict of interest rules. (C) No. The decision on whether or not to have an abortion lies solely with Wanda; it is her body and health that is in issue. (D) No. Horacio and Wanda are married, any advice given to Wanda is deemed to have been given to Horacio as well. (E) No. Giving advice to Wanda is not necessarily acting against Horacio's interest; Diana was giving advice based on the couple's best interest.

Q. 19

You are a lawyer working at the Office of the Special Prosecutor and you are part of the team handling the case against former Senator Avido who is charged with plunder. Based on your assessment of the evidence that the complainant Linda submitted, you know that the case against former Senator Avido is weak, although you instinctively feel that he is guilty. You inform your friend Atty. Curioso (who works with the office of Senator Elmismo, a known political rival of Senator Avido) regarding your instinctive feeling about Senator Avido. Atty. Curioso springs a surprise by giving you a recording of the wiretapped conversation between Senator Avido and Napo, a private party co-accused, about the transaction complained of and how they would split the proceeds. What will you do under these circumstances? (A) Disregard the wiretapped conversation as it is inadmissible and will not serve any useful purpose in the trial of the case. (B) Present the wiretapped conversation in court; although inadmissible, its introduction and the disclosure of its existence is a right that the public is entitled to. (C) Leak the wiretapped conversation to the media, to let the public know what really happened. (D) Submit the wiretapped conversation to the Senate which is in the best position to determine what to do with it. (E) Let Napo privately know, through 3"‘ parties, that you are aware of the existence of the taped conversation, with the hint that he can still hope for a lighter penalty if he would cooperate.

2012 Bar51 questions
Q. B

Mr. Henry Chao is charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Manila with five (5) counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22). Consider the factual scenario from the testimonies of complainant Mr. Ben Que and accused Mr. Henry Chao. Assume to be the Defense Counsel and prepare a MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED for your client, Mr. Henry Chao. Testimony of Mr. Ben Que (After the cases were called for joint trial) P. Prosecutor: Good Morning, Your Honor. Appearing for the prosecution. Ready. D. Counsel: Good Morning, Your Honor. Appearing as counsel for the accused. Ready. P. Prosecutor: We are calling to the witness stand, the complainant, Mr. Ben Que, who will prove the commission of the offense. Court Staff: Mr. Ben Que, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Witness: Yes, sir. Court Staff: State your name, age, status and other personal circumstances. Witness: I am Ben Que, 60 years old, married, and a resident of 123 Tridalo Street, Mandaluyong City P. Prosecutor: Mr. Que, do you know Mr. Henry Chao who is the accused in this case and, if so, under what circumstances? Witness: Yes, sir. He is the Manager of Atlas Parts. Last June 01, 2011, accused borrowed from me the amount of P 50,000.00, with 5% monthly interest, payable in five (5) equal monthly installments of P12,500.00. He said that the money will be used to pay for their stocks. P. Prosecutor: Did you execute a document to evidence your transaction? Witness: As per our agreement, he issued and delivered to me five ( 5) checks. D. Counsel: Your Honor, please. For the record, I take exception to the statement of the witness that he received checks from the accused. If we closely examine these instruments, it will show that they are NOW slips, that is, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal slips. These are not bills of exchange within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Law, and therefore, cannot be considered as checks. P. Prosecutor: Your Honor, they are still bank instruments. Complainant Mr. Que specifically required the issuance of checks to facilitate and ensure the payment of the obligation, and the accused issued and delivered them for that purpose. Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law is malum prohibitum. The law was enacted to maintain faith in bank instruments for utilization in commercial transactions. We have to apply the spirit of the law. COURT: Observation noted. P. Prosecutor: When and where did the accused execute and hand over to you these five (5) instruments? Witness: On June 01, 2011, at my house in Mandaluyong City, after I gave him in cash the P 50,000.00 that he loaned. P. Prosecutor: And where are these instruments now? Witness: Here sir. (Witness handling them to the prosecutor.) P. Prosecutor: May I manifest for the record the observation that the instruments are of the same size and material as the normal checks and have these check-like features: NOW Account No. 123456 No. 0001 Atlas Parts Date: July 1, 2011 PAY TO: Mr. Ben Que P 12,500.00 PESOS: Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Pesos Sgd. Henry Chao Alloy Bank Pasong Tamo Branch Makati P. Prosecutor: Do you know whose signature is that appearing on the lower right side of this instrument and all the four (4) others, as well? Witness: Those are the signatures of the accused Henry Chao. I personally saw him sign them and thereafter, handed the five (5) instruments to me. P. Prosecutor: May I request that No. 0001 dated July 1, 2011 in the amount of P 12,500.00 be marked as Exhibit A for the prosecution; No. 0002 dated August 1, 2011 also in the same amount as Exhibit B; No. 0003 dated September 2, 2011 as Exhibit C; No. 0004 dated October 1, 2011 as Exhibit D; and No. 0005 dated November 1, 2011 as Exhibit E. COURT: Mark them as requested. P. Prosecutor: What did you do with these instruments which represented the installment payments of accused for his loan obligation? Witness: On their respective due dates, I deposited each of them to my Savings Account at BOD Bank, Manila City Hall Branch in Manila, but all of them were dishonored by the drawee, Alloy Bank, for the reason “Account Closed." P. Prosecutor: What proof do you have that these instruments were dishonored? Witness: I received several debit advices from BOD Bank together with the returned slips with a stamp at the back stating as follows: DISHONORED/RETURNED Reason: Account Closed Officer: Mr. M P. Prosecutor: May I request that the stamps of dishonor and the reason “Account 134 BAR Q 8. A C|osed" appearing at the back of each instrument be correspondingly marked as Exhibits A-1 to E-1, respectively. COURT: Mark them accordingly. D. Counsel: I move to strike out this particular testimony for being hearsay. This witness is not competent to testify on these matters pertaining to bank records. COURT: Does the defense deny that all five (5) instruments were dishonored and returned to the witness? D. Counsel: No, Your Honor. But these matters should be testified on by the bank personnel. COURT: Motion to strike is denied. P. Prosecutor: What action did you take? Witness: After each dishonor, I personally went to Mr. Chao and demanded that he make good his commitment, but he merely ignored my demands. P. Prosecutor: What did you do then after all the five (5) instruments were dishonored and your demands ignored? Witness: I consulted a lawyer and he advised me to send a formal demand letter to the accused, which I did. On January 2, 2012, I sent the letter by registered mail to Mr. Henry Chao to his office address at 007 Malugay Street, Malabon City giving him five (5) days to make good his promise. Here is the registry receipt. P. Prosecutor: I request that the demand letter be marked as Exhibit F and that the Registry Receipt No. 321 dated January 2, 2012 posted at Mandaluyong City Post Office be marked as Exhibit G for the prosecution. COURT: Mark it then. P. Prosecutor: Do you know if accused actually received your letter sent by registered mail? Witness: I assumed that he had received it because the registered letter was not returned to me. D. Counsel: I take exception to that statement. Your Honor, because jurisprudence require actual receipt by the drawer of the demand before any criminal liability can attach. P. Prosecutor: May I clarify, Your Honor, that the five (5) days from notice of dishonor given to the drawer of a check to make arrangement for payment by the drawee of the amount of the dishonored checks is to forestall the existence of a prima facie evidence of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. But here, the reason of the dishonor is “Account Closed," and not just insufficiency of funds. In short, there is actual proof of lack of credit with drawee bank. The account is already closed and accused cannot even make a deposit anymore. COURT: The manifestation is noted. P. Prosecutor: Has the accused paid the amounts covered by the dishonored instruments? Witness: No, sir. He has arrogantly refused to make any payment. P. Prosecutor: No further questions. COURT: Cross. D. Counsel: With the Court's permission. You earlier stated that accused Henry Chao is the Manager of Atlas Parts and that the money borrowed was used to pay for their stocks, is that correct? Witness: Yes, sir. That is what he told me. D. Counsel: So, it is clear that the money loaned from you was not used by the accused for his benefit? Witness: I do not know how he used it. The fact is that I lent the money to him. D. Counsel: Regarding the demand letter that you allegedly sent to accused, do you have the registry return card showing that accused received the letter? Witness: No, sir. But I have the registry receipt. Since the letter was not returned to sender, it is presumed that it was received by the addressee. D. Counsel: Is it not a fact that you have filed another collection suit against Atlas Parts seeking to recover the same P 50,000.00 covered by the dishonored slips? Witness: Yes, sir. That is true because I want to recover my money from either of them. D. Counsel: No further questions, Your Honor. Testimony of Mr. Henry Chao (After oath and formal of fer of testimony.) D. Counsel: Do you own NOW Account No. 123456 maintained at Alloy Bank, Pasong Tamo Branch? Witness: No, sir. That is owned by my employer Atlas Parts and, as the Manager, I am the signatory. D. Counsel: Mr. Chao, in June 2011 when you issued the dishonored NOW slips, did you derive any personal benefit from the amount loaned? Witness: No, sir. The money was used to pay an account payable. D. Counsel: During the due dates of the NOW slips that you issued to Mr. Que, were you still the Manager of Atlas 138 BAR Q &A - Parts? Witness: Not anymore, sir, because in the middle of June 2011, I resigned as Manager, and I was not aware of the dishonor. D. Counsel: Did you receive the demand letter sent to you by Mr. Que after the dishonor? Witness: No, sir. COURT: Cross? P. Prosecutor: With the kind permission of the Court. Mr. Chao, is it not a fact that Mr. Que specifically required you to issue checks to pay the monthly installment of the loan? Witness: Yes, sir. P. Prosecutor: You will agree with me that without those five (5) checks, or NOW slips as you call them, Mr. Que will not lend money to you? Witness: Yes, sir. P. Prosecutor: You will also agree that the demand letter of Mr. Que was delivered to your office address because that is the address that you gave to Mr. Que in connection with your transaction? Witness: Yes, sir. That is possible, but I was not able to receive it because I had already resigned and I could not do anything anymore. P. Prosecutor: That is all, Your Honor.

2011 Bar50 questions
2010 Bar30 questions