This Site

Home
About Us
Testimonials
Lecturers
Review Options
Bar Exam Results
ARTICLES
MAP

Home
About Us
o Our Company
o Our Story
o Our System
o Contact Us
o Why Jurists
Testimonials
o 2015 Testimonials
o 2014 Testimonials
o 2013 Testimonials
o 2012 Testimonials
o 2011 Testimonials
o 2010 Testimonials
o 2005 - 2009 Testimonials
Lecturers
o Bar Methods
o Political Law
o Labor Law
 o Taxation
o Civil Law
o Mercantile Law
o Remedial Law
o Legal Ethics
o Criminal Law
Review Options
o Classic Bar Review
How to Enroll
Schedule
Fees
ENROLL NOW
Downloads
o Online Bar Review
FAQs
How to Enroll
ENROLL NOW
Downloads
o Combo Bar Review
About Jurist Combo
ENROLL NOW
Downloads
o Preweek Bar Review
About Jurist Preweek
ENROLL NOW
Downloads
Bar Exam Results
o 2015 Bar Passers
o 2014 Bar Passers
o 2013 Bar Passers
o 2012 Bar Passers
o 2011 Bar Passers
o 2010 Bar Passers
o 2009 Bar Passers
o 2008 Bar Passers
o 2007 Bar Passers
o 2006 Bar Passers
o 2005 Bar Passers
ARTICLES
MAP

How to Enroll

Enroll Now

Schedule

Downloads

Jurists Online

Contact Us

KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THE FACTS

by: PROF. MANUEL R. RIGUERA

As a long-time bar exam coach, one of the common errors or shortcomings which I note in my
coachees is the misstatement or assumption of facts. I strongly advise my coachees to read
carefully the facts of the question in order to avoid this error. One of the most irritating
experiences for an examiner is to read answers which misstate or assume facts. The following
suggested answer to Question No. V(B) of the 2014 Remedial Law Bar Exam shows that even
the experts may fall prey to this kind of oversight.
Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a lease contract with Tenant, a resident of
Marikina City, over a residential house in Las Pias City. The lease contract provided, among
others, for a monthly rental of P25,000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case of non-
payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord migrated to the United States of America
(USA) but granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of attorney to manage the
property and file and defend suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant failed to pay the
rentals due for five (5) months. Maria asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously
collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests due. (A) What judicial remedy would you
recommend to Maria? (B) Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy which you
recommended?

Suggested Answer of the UP Law Center Committee to V(B): If Maria decides to file a
complaint for collection of sum of money under the Rules of Summary Procedure or Small
Claims, the venue is the residence of the plaintiff or defendant, at the election of the plaintiff.
(Section 2, Rule 4, Rules of Court). Hence it may be in Quezon City or Marikina City, at the
option of Maria. (Emphases supplied).

The suggested answer overlooks however that Landlord had already migrated to the USA prior
to the filing of the complaint. Clearly therefore Landlord the Plaintiff no longer resided in
Quezon City and hence the collection suit may not be filed there.

There is a psychological explanation for this oversight. The problem starts out with Landlord, a
resident of Quezon City, and this fact stands out and remains embedded in the mind of the
reader, creating a mental blind spot to the significance of the phrase migrated to the United
States. That is why I always tell my coachees to read carefully the fact-setting of a problem
twice and to underline important facts. The examinee should take note of fact-changers or
fact-modifiers. For instance the examinee might have underlined twice migrated and then
put an x atop resident, thus alerting him that resident is already a superseded or modified
fact.

The suggested answer seems to assume that Maria resides in Marikina. There are two things
wrong with this: First. Nothing in the fact-setting shows that Maria resides in Marikina. To imply
that Maria resides in Marikina is therefore an unjustified assumption, something which an
examinee should not do at the risk of offending the examiner. Second. Even if we were to
assume that Maria resides in Marikina, it would not make Marikina a venue for the collection
suit. In a collection suit brought by a non-resident plaintiff represented by his attorney-in-fact,
the real party-in-interest is the plaintiff and not the attorney-in-fact. (See Section 3, Rule 3).
Hence venue cannot be laid where the attorney-in-fact resides since he is not the real party-in-
interest. (Ang v. Ang, 22 August 2012).

It is advised that a bar reviewee take practice exams and have the same reviewed by another
person, preferably a bar exam coach. Factual misstatements are often not detected by the
examinee himself even if he reviews his answer since he is still laboring under the same blind
spot. A certified bar exam coach can spot these errors and identify and remedy the mental blind
spots which lead to these blunders.