I

Define and/or Explain (20 Points)

What is Law (10 Points)

What is benevolent neutrality? (5 Points)

Define Ignorantia juris non excusat and the reason for this doctrine (5 Points)

II
True or False AND EXPLAIN (40 Points, 10 Points Each)

1. Every case of illegal dismissal would automatically be decided in favor of

labor.

2. Where the dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process will
nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual.

3. Mistake by a party in an agreement makes a contract voidable.

4. If there is no law, the court shall apply the general principles of law.

III

ANALYSIS (40 POINTS)

A.
Ang BABADBAD parytlist wants to run for the next elections. It is an organization
of young people who do not want to join society and would just like to “babad”
themselves on anime and video games and lock themselves in their own rooms. Thus,
they are registering their partylist. m

This was objected to by the Church of No Light but Work who believes that god
never rested and so must man. They argue that these young people are promoting
immorality.

You are the COMELEC Chairman, decide and cite your legal basis.
(15 points)
 B.

From the inception of the suit at the RTC to the time the judgment was to be executed,
the corporate existence of MOCHA TUCSON DIVINE TRUTH CORP. (“MTDTC”)
appears to have been taken for granted, and was not then put in issue.

The RTC issued an order of execution against MTDTC.

By virtue of this writ, the Sheriff of the City of Manila went to see Mocha Tucson
President of MTDTC. They then discovered that no such entity exists. A verification
made at the Securities and Exchange Commission confirmed this fact. Thus, Mocha
Tucson should be personally liable.

Mocha Tucson instead of informing the RTC that it had in its possession copies of its
certificate of registration, its articles of incorporation, its by-laws and all other paper
materials to its disputed corporate existence. chose to remain silent and merely argued
that she was not party to the case.

The RTC came up with an order, which reads thus:

It appearing that Mocha Tucson against whom the judgment rendered herein is
sought to be enforced is not a party to this case, motion for execution is denied.

Plaintiff Lenin Robrado appealed to the Supreme Court on the sole issue that the lower
court erred in denying her petition praying that the judgment rendered against the
alleged corporation, be executed against the personal assets and properties of Mocha
Tucson, the real party to this case."

The Supreme Court resolved the issue as follows:

On account of the non-registration it cannot be considered a corporation, not

even a corporation de facto. It has therefore no personality separate from Mocha
Tucson; it cannot be sued independently.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and the
case remanded ordering the lower court to hold supplementary proceedings for
the purpose of carrying the judgment into effect against MTDTC. and/or Mocha
Tucson

When the foregoing judgment came, MTDTC, in its motion for reconsideration asked
that it be afforded opportunity to prove its corporate existence. It submitted with that
motion for reconsideration, its certificate of registration, articles of incorporation, by-
laws, and a certificate of reconstitution of records issued by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Mocha Tucson, the president and counsel of MTDTC., for the first time appeared in
propria persona before this Court as a "member of the Philippine Bar, private citizen." He
pointedly stated that he did not submit to the jurisdiction of this Court. He wanted,
though, that his side of the case be heard. He formally joined hands with MTDTC, Inc.
on the plea of due process in his favor. He insisted that he was not a party to this
litigation.

The Supreme Court denied Mocha Tucon’s motion for reconsideration stating that
when the said issue was squarely presented before the court, MTDTC chose to keep the
courts in the dark by withholding pertinent documents and papers in its possession and
control, Court had to decide the points raised according to the records of the case and
whatever related matters necessarily included therein. Hence, as a consequence of the
certification of the Securities and Exchange Commission that its records 'do not show
the registration either as a corporation or partnership. That by virtue of its non-
registration it cannot be considered a corporation. 1äwphï1.ñët

Armed with the aforementioned decision and resolution of the Supreme Court, Lenin
Robrado returned to the RTC with a motion for execution and approval of the bill of
costs and asking specifically for the issuance of the corresponding writ against Mocha
Tucson to satisfy the judgment.

The RTC Judge Puto Bong Bong Varcos denied the motion for a writ of execution
against Mocha Tucson — upon the ground that "said Mocha Tucson has never been a
party to the case and that the judgment sought to be executed is not against him."

Is the RTC Judge correct? (15 Points)

B.

The Social Security Commission issued its Circular No. 22 of the following tenor:

Effective 12 October 2018 all Employers in computing the premiums due the System,
will take into consideration and include in the Employee's remuneration all bonuses
and overtime pay, as well as the cash value of other media of remuneration. All these
will comprise the Employee's remuneration or earnings, upon which the 3-1/2% and 2-
1/2% contributions will be based, up to a maximum of P500 for any one month.

Circular No. 22 in question was issued by the Social Security Commission, in view of
the amendment of the provisions of the Social Security Law defining the term
"compensation" contained in Section 8 (f) of Republic Act No. 1161 which, before its
amendment, reads as follows: .

(f) Compensation — All remuneration for employment include the cash value of
any remuneration paid in any medium other than cash except (1) that part of the
remuneration in excess of P500 received during the month; (2) bonuses,
 allowances or overtime pay; and (3) dismissal and all other payments which the
employer may make, although not legally required to do so.

Republic Act No. 1792 changed the definition of "compensation" to:

(f) Compensation — All remuneration for employment include the cash value of
any remuneration paid in any medium other than cash except that part of the
remuneration in excess of P500.00 received during the month.

Upon receipt of a copy thereof, petitioner BONG GO, Inc., through counsel, wrote the
Social Security Commission in effect protesting against the circular as contradictory to a
previous Circular No. 7, expressly excluding overtime pay and bonus in the
computation of the employers' and employees' respective monthly premium
contributions, and submitting, "In order to assist your System in arriving at a
proper interpretation of the term 'compensation' for the purposes of" such computation,
their observations on Republic Act 1161 and its amendment and on the general
interpretation of the words "compensation", "remuneration" and "wages". Counsel
further questioned the validity of the circular for lack of authority on the part of the
Social Security Commission to promulgate it without the approval of the President and
for lack of publication in the Official Gazette.

Is Bong Go Inc. correct? (10 Points)