How To Answer Bar Exam and Law School Exam

Use the ALAC pattern. Eventually, pag sanay na sanay na sanay na kayong mag answer in this format, you will develop a more coherent way. So, start muna tayo sa basic.

A – your direct Answer

L – state the Legal basis or bases

A – Apply the law to the pertinent facts of the case

C – Conclude

A – your direct Answer Its either Yes, No or very seldom yung “Assuming”, Walang “It depends”. Sa mga BQA books maraming answer sila na nag-start sa “it depends”. Well, sila yun. They intend to lecture and give you a wide range of information kaya they lecture which is good. But answering for bar questions is very different. Dapat first sentence pa lang tama na agad ang answer. With all 8,000 booklets to check, the examiner would just glance at the first sentence, if tama ang answer, he would just look for the legal basis, then ok na. You would get Five (5) points. So dapat maigsi lang, at the first two sentences pa lang nadun na yung correct answer at legal basis dahil most likely yan na lang yung babasahin ng exminer.

Pwede rin naman na hindi “yes or no” ang first word na gamitin mo. You can write a positive or negative statement like “ The RTC’s decision to annul the marriage is not proper”. That is a negative statement. “The RTC is correct”. That is a positive statement.

If you want to be more emphatic, you can answer like this “Yes, the RTC is correct to annul the marriage” or “No, the RTC is not correct”.

L – state the Legal basis or bases

Here, you may start with the phrase “In Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code”, “In one of the decisions of the Supreme Court”, “In the annals of decision”, According to the Family Code”, “According to Section 10, Rule 100 of the Rules of Court”. Etc. Ayan, ganyan. You are now justifying your answer. Do you have state the whole law, provision or case number? Wag na. You know why? Alam na ng examiner ang batas, you don’t have to state every detail. Just state the “magic words”. Yung mga importante lang to justify your direct Answer. That is my general suggestion. Pero, if you are 100% sure of the case number, section or law, sige ilagay mo. The problem with that is paano if the examiner had different jurisrudence or law in mind. Di ba maraming jurisprudence na iisa lang naman ang basis? So, I suggest wag na lang. Bawas points din yan.

Because A and L are the most important part of your answer, let us have an actual bar questions and answer. This time, maging emphatic muna tayo and we state the whole law para mabasa ninyo as part of your review.

2018 BAR No. 1, Remedial Law Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.

(a) Was there a need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case? (2.5%)

Paano mo ito babasahin? Read first the question. Why? Para alam mo na what to look for from the facts of he case. Para may automatic elimination ng mga unnecessary words at magfofocus ka na agad sa issue. Yan, that is how to spot the issue. So basahin ang question.

Anong papasok sa kukote mo as you read the question? Local government code, rules on conciliation before Lupon Tagapayapa, cases and the exception to the rule, di ba? So, ayan…eh di naka-focus ka na agad sa issue.

LCG, Section 408, paragraph F.

The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes, except: [f] disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.

Then, basahin mo na yung question and eliminate the non-pertinent facts.

Danielle, a Filipino citizen and permanent resident of Milan, Italy, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, where she owns a rest house, a complaint for ejectment against Dan, a resident of Barangay Daliao, Davao City. Danielle’s property, which is located in Digos City, Davao del Sur, has an assessed value of PhP25,000. Appended to the complaint was Danielle’s certification on non-forum shopping executed in Davao City duly notarized by Atty. Dane Danoza, a notary public.

After mental elimination, the question would only be like this.

Danielle, a resident of Milan, Italy, owns a resthouse in Digos City, filed an ejectment case against Dan, a resident of baranggay Daliao, Davao City.

So, Danielle and Dan are not residents of one barangay unit nor their barangays are adjoined.

The direct answer therefor is NO. Let us be emphatic muna for reading purposes. The answer could be any of the following.

[1] No, there was no need to refer the case to the Lupong Tagapamyapa for prior barangay conciliation before the court can take cognizance of the case. According to Section 408, paragraph F, of the 1991 Local Government Code, the lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes, except: [f] disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon.

[2] No, there is no need to refer the case to the Lupon Tagapamayapa for prior barangay conciliation. According to the 1991 Local Gocernment Code, disputes involving parties who actually resides in barangays of different cities or municipalities except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon, are exempted from the pre-condition requirement of conciliation before filing of complaint in court.

[3] No. Disputes involving parties who reside in different barangay units located in different cities or municipalites except when the barangay units are adjoined and the parties agreed thereto to submit their differences for conciliation to an appropriate lupon are exempted from the pre-conciliatory condition before filing of complaint to court.

Now that you have perfected how to the A and L, lets go to A (the second A of ALAC).

A – apply the law to the pertinent facts.

Pertinent facts means facts in the question relevant to the legal basis. So sa question above, ang mga pertinente lang yung actual residence ni Danille and Dan.

Danielle lives is Milan while Dan lives in Daliao, Davao City. Obviously, the dispute between the parties are one of the exceptions. So the answer for the

A portion would be like this.

HERE, Danielle is a permanent resident of Milan, Italy while Dan resides in Daliao, Davao City. They actually reside in different baranggay units of different cities or municipalities and neither the units are adjoined.

IN THE CASE AT BAR, Danielle is a permanent resident of Milan, Italy while Dan resides in Daliao, Davao City. They actually reside in different baranggay units of different cities or municipalities and neither the units are adjoined.

You may use phrases and words such as HERE, IN THE CASE AT BAR, o kahit wala na kung snay na sanay ka na.

Danielle is a permanent resident of Milan, Italy while Dan resides in Daliao, Davao City. They actually reside in different baranggay units of different cities or municipalities and neither the units are adjoined.

Ok let us combine ALA.

No. Disputes involving parties who reside in different barangay units located in different cities or municipalites except when the barangay units are adjoined and the parties agreed thereto to submit their differences for conciliation to an appropriate lupon are exempted from the pre-conciliatory condition before filing of complaint to court.

HERE, Danielle is a permanent resident of Milan, Italy while Dan resides in Daliao, Davao City. They actually reside in different baranggay units of different cities or municipalities and neither the units are adjoined.

C – conclusion

Sa C portion, for emphasis na lang ito.

HENCE, the dispute can be filed directly in court.

Totoo, dapat ganyan lang kaigsi. Kasi dadaanan lang yan ng mata ng examiner. Ang importante ay yung A (direct answer) at L (legal basis). Yung second A and C, dadaanan lang yan ng mata ng examiner kung tama na yung A and L.

So, ang ating final answer ay….

No. Disputes involving parties who reside in different barangay units located in different cities or municipalites except when the barangay units are adjoined and the parties agreed thereto to submit their differences for conciliation to an appropriate lupon are exempted from the pre-conciliatory condition before filing of complaint to court.

HERE, Danielle is a permanent resident of Milan, Italy, while Dan resides in Daliao, Davao City. They actually reside in different baranggay units of different cities or municipalities and neither the units are adjoined.HENCE, the dispute can be filed directly in court.