Sample Bar Exam Legal Opinion Essay 1 from the Supreme

Court
May 20, 2011 at 2:18pm

PART 2 LEGAL OPINION:

Below is an exchange between you and a hypothetical client. Based on the information given, write (1) a brief legal
opinion/advice specifying the relevant facts of the case, the legal problems raised by your hypothetical client, your
assessment of the issues involved, and the possible courses of action that may be taken under the law; and (2) one
legal document that may be used in connection with your recommended course of action.
Judy Ann Sanchez has come to consult you about the possibility of her bringing a lawsuit against McBee as a result
of the injuries she sustained after she fell from the food chains staircase. Judy Ann brought along her daughter,
Mara Clarita, to the interview. Mara Clarita witnessed what happened. The following is your interview with her.
Interview with Mara Clarita Sanchez,
accompanied by client, Judy Ann Sanchez
January 10, 2011
Q:
Mara, where were you on October 18, 2010?
A:
I was at McBee-Metropark Branch with my mother, Judy Ann.
Q:
Did you see your mother fall from the staircase?
A:
Yes.
Q:
What exactly happened?
A:
We have just ordered some spaghetti and sundaes. Since the ground floor was already filled with people, we
decided to eat at the second floor. But when we reached the staircase, we found out that there was a birthday party
upstairs and it was closed to the public.
Q:
So where did you eat?
A:
I approached a crew and asked if he could find a table for us.
Q:
What did he do?
A:
He said that the birthday party was about to end so we can go up and eat there.
Q:
Did you go upstairs?
A:
Yes. My mother went up first.
Q:
What happened next?
A:
On her way up, she met the McBee mascot (which was a pink bee) who was hurrying down with another
crew member. Since the mascot was so big, he hit my mother by the shoulder.
Q:
What happened then?
A:
My mother lost her balance. She missed four steps and hit her head, shoulders, back and buttocks on each
step.
Q:
What did you when you saw your mother?
A:
I was shocked and temporarily rendered motionless. When I realized what happened, I immediately rushed to
my mothers side. I told the crew to call an ambulance.
Q:
What did your mother do?
A:
She was crying. She complained of extreme back pain and could not stand up.
Q:
What happened next?
A:
The store manager approached us. She said that it would be faster if we use her car on the way to the
hospital. Two crew members carried my mother and we brought her to the nearest hospital for treatment.

When you asked Judy Ann what she has done so far with the case, she told you that she asked the management of
McBee-Metropark Branch to pay her P100,000 in damages for what she suffered. Although the management paid
for the hospital bills, she suffered pain and was greatly inconvenienced by the weekly physical therapy she was
undergoing since the accident. When you asked about the managements response to her demand for damages,
she gave you the following letter:
December 15, 2010
Judy Ann Sanchez
911 Bluewhale Street
Palanan, Makati City
Dear Ms. Sanchez:
I am writing in reference to your letter dated November 18, 2010 addressed to Ms. Anna Batungbacal, Manager of
the McBee-Metropark Branch. She endorsed your letter to me as Operations Manager in charge of the McBeeMetropark Branch.
We, at McBee-Metropark Branch are very sorry for any inconvenience your family may have experienced in
connection with your unfortunate accident last October 18, 2010. As Ms. Batungbacal and I told you during our
hospital visit on October 19, 2010, we truly understand how you and your family feel about the incident. We assure
you that we will continue to shoulder all expenses related to your weekly physical therapy until such time that you are
fully restored to your previous health.
Our conversation helped us understand each others situation. I hope that with this, any past misunderstanding has
been cleared up, and we can now put this unfortunate incident behind us.
Please accept my sincerest apologies in behalf of the McBee-Metropark Branch team. We truly hope to see you and
your family in our store again.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
McBee Foods Corporation
By:
Ted Pallone
Operations Manager Metro Manila (South) Area

Laws and jurisprudence that may apply

1. Article 2176 of the Civil Code

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called
a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
2. Article 2179 of the Civil Code
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be
awarded.
3. Article 2180 of the Civil Code
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry. xxx xxx xxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
4. Article 1170 of the Civil Code
Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
5. Article 2202 of the Civil Code
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or
could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
6. Article 2203 of the Civil Code
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages
resulting from the act or omission in question.
7. Article 2214 of the Civil Code
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.
8. Article 2215 of the Civil Code
In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances
other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
That the loss would have resulted in any event;
That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.

9. Article 2216 of the Civil Code

No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages,
may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court,
according to the circumstances of each case.
10. Article 2217 of the Civil Code
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission.
11. Article 2219 of the Civil Code

Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: xxx xxx xxx

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

xxx xxx xxx

12. Article 2221 of the Civil Code

13. Article 2229 of the Civil Code

14. Article 2231 of the Civil Code

15. Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, 321 SCRA 375

L E G A L OP IN IO N LE T T ER LE G AL W R IT IN G A S SI G N M E N T
To: Ms. Debra Hansen
From: Jason MacLeod, Attorney at Law
Date: August 25, 2009
RE: The Charges Against You, File No. 08-16933
Dear Ms. Hansen,
Thank you for meeting with me this past week. In this letter, I will provide you with my legal
opinion and analysis so you can make a qualified decision regarding the charges you face. I will
first restate the facts, as I know them, to confirm their accuracy. Next, I will provide you with an
explanation of the law as it applies in your case, and lastly, give you my opinion on whether
conviction of being in physical control of a vehicle under the influence is a potentiality.
On the night of the incident, you and your daughter, Ms. Burke, were attending a friends
barbecue. At that event, you had several drinks knowing that your seventeen-year old daughter
was going to drive you home. After leaving the barbecue, you and your daughter were heading
home on a rainy freeway. As your daughter turned to exit the freeway, the cell phone rang. Your
daughter attempted to answer the phone, despite your instructions, and she lost control of the
car on the wet road. The car spun and stopped halfway on the shoulder of the off-ramp facing the
wrong direction. You instructed her to back up the car onto the shoulder whereupon you stated
you wanted to drive. Your intent was to get you and your daughter home safely. Your house was
only a half-mile away. After moving the car onto the shoulder, five feet from the freeway, your
daughter got out of the car while you maneuvered into the driving seat. The keys were in the
ignition, the transmission was in reverse, and you never took your foot off the break. Here, the
police officer came up to your car. You told the officer that you only wanted to get home fearful
for your daughters safety. The officer requested an on-site Breathalyzer, which you refused; at
this point, the officer arrested you. The Breathalyzer later administered at the police station
showed a 0.16% blood alcohol content (BAC).
The State of Washington must prove two requirements to satisfy conviction. First, that you had a
BAC of .08% or more. Second, that you were in physical control of the vehicle under the
influence. Regrettably, your BAC level was twice the legal limit. Therefore, you satisfy this first
requirement. The second requirement, being in physical control of vehicle, is our main area of
focus.
To simplify Case law, proving physical control requires that you had the means and intent to
operate the vehicle. In your case, you were in the drivers seat with the keys in the ignition; the
car was in working condition and running; your expressed intent was to drive home; and the
transmission was in reverse. Unless the officer came to the scene, you would have driven home.
Proving otherwise would be difficult. If we were able to prove that you didnt have physical
control of the vehicle, the charges would be dropped. Unfortunately, the State will most likely
establish that you had physical control. If we are unable to prove otherwise, there is a defense
that we can use to strike down the charge.

To establish this defense, we must prove to the jury that your vehicle was safely off the
roadway before the officer arrived on the scene. In your case, the officer came upon your car
after your daughter moved it to the shoulder. Once your vehicle idled on the shoulder, we can
assume the jury will conclude your car was off the roadway. The next characteristic of this
defense is proving that your car was safely off the roadway.
The jury will decide if your car was safely situated by examining whether it posed a danger to the
public. A prior court decision found that a car idling in a parking lot 20 feet from the road was
safely off the roadway. In contrast, another court decided that a car parked in a parking lot, but
blocking traffic, was not safely off the roadway. The difference between 20 feet and 5 feet is an
area of dispute, but your vehicle was not blocking traffic. Utilizing these past court decisions in
our favor is one strategy we would employ. The distinguishing fact that differentiates your case
with the ones above is the position of your car. Your daughters accident resulted in the car
facing the wrong direction on the freeway shoulder. Thus, questions presented to the jury will
revolve around the positioning of your car and if it posed a danger. For example, if the headlights
were on, could they have caused an accident by distracting or blinding other drivers? Would it be
dangerous if you resumed exiting the off-ramp beginning your acceleration in the wrong
direction? Questions such as these, if proved in the affirmative, will damage our defense. Our
objective is to prove that your car was off the roadway, not blocking traffic, and not posing a
danger to others.
What would be beneficial in proving that your vehicle was safely off the roadway is securing
testimony by the arresting officer stating your vehicle did not pose a danger to the public. With
this testimony, no jury could find that we did not prove the defense. Without the officers
testimony, the jury may conclude the vehicle was not safely off the roadway. Facts they will use
to support this conclusion are: your vehicle was five feet from the freeway, your vehicle was
facing the wrong direction, and the maneuvers needed to merge onto the freeway posed a risk to
other drivers. Consequently, the success of this defense is not an absolute. The state has a
strong case against you.
The success of your case relies on persuading the jury that you were safely off the roadway.
Proving that defense would exonerate you, but the likelihood of success is not in your favor. We
cannot rely on the possibility of the officers testimony; nor can we rely on the jurys sympathy
concerning your daughters safety; what we can rely on is my complete support for your family
and your interests. I will work with and for you in creating a strong case in your favor if you so
choose.
Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. Also, if there are any
misstatements of fact in this letter it is important that you contact me when possible. Again, it
was a pleasure meeting you and I look forward to your call.
Most Sincerely,
Jason MacLeod