Every year, aspiring lawyers spend their time in sleepless nights to ace the Bar exam and fulfill their lifelong dream to become attorneys. The pressure is intense as it’ll determine a part of their future, but the good thing about this year’s Bar exam is how they managed to make the atmosphere lighter for the examinees as they include famous pop culture personalities in the exam questions.
Here are some of the pop culture references mentioned in the exam:
Extraordinary Attorney Woo
It’s amusing to see the popular law drama be part of an actual Bar exam! This might be an excellent way to motivate aspiring law students that are also K-drama fans.
“Attorney Woo, the newly-hired lawyer of a law firm, booked Samurai Express, a duly accredited courier service within the National Capital Judicial Region, to serve a copy of a motion for reconsideration to Attorney Han, counsel for the adverse party, whose office is in the City of Manila. Attorney Han moved to deny the motion for failure to contain a written explanation as to why the motion was not served personally.”
Followed by a question: “Was the motion for reconsideration properly served? Explain briefly. What shall be considered as proof of service of this motion? Explain briefly.”
Following the feature of BTS Yoongi and Jungkook in the previous days of the Bar exam, it was Namjoon’s turn. I bet examinees who were fans contained their excitement after seeing this!
“Namjoon, a Korean national, and Regine, a Filipina, were married in Makati City on February 14, 2012. Unfortunately, their relationship shortly turned sour and ended with a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea. The local court in Korea granted the divorce. Wanting to marry her new boyfriend Taehyung, Regine filed a petition for recognition of the foreign decree of divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu where she resides.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition contending that the proper remedy is a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which can only be filed in the RTC of Makati where the marriage was celebrated and recorded in the Civil Registry of Makati.Is the OSG’s contention tenable? Explain briefly.”
We’re so *kilig*! One of the most popular romantic films from the 90s was included in Item 9 of the Bar exam. We missed Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant. It’s time for a rewatch!
“Notting Hill Corp. filed an action for forcible entry against the ten occupants of a parcel of land it owns. After the summary proceedings, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment against the ten defendants. The defendants filed a notice of appeal, but failed to file a supersedeas bond to stay the judgment to vacate. Upon Notting Hill Corp.’s motion, the MTC issued a writ of execution.
When Hugh, the sheriff, was implementing the writ of execution, he discovered that the land was occupied by a number of families who all claimed that they were legitimate lessees of the ten defendants. Julia, one of the lessees, pleaded with Hugh, beseeching: ‘I’m just a lessee, standing in front of a sheriff, asking him to let me stay in my home.’ May Hugh implement the writ of execution against the lessees? Explain briefly.”
The Umbrella Academy
OMG, we didn’t see this coming! Examinees were probably imagining the cast while answering the case, which makes it more intriguing! On question 14 of the Remedial Law I, the characters from the Netflix series were mentioned:
“Klaus was drinking in front of his rented apartment when he suddenly heard a gunshot which came from inside the apartment owned by Luther. Klaus then saw Igor, a neighbor, going down the stairs and leaving the scene holding a gun. Klaus also witnessed Luther fall from the stairs with blood oozing from his chest. Vanya, Luther’s daughter, also rushed to Luther when he fell.
During Igor’s trial for Murder, Vanya testified and presented a flash drive containing the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footages of the scene. Said footages showed a man appearing to be Igor, armed with a gun, proceeding up the stairs and entering Luther’s apartment. In the video, the same man was seen hastily leaving the premises. Vanya further testified that she was the one who transferred to the flash drive the video footages from the barangay-owned CCTV that was located outside their apartment.
When the footages were played in court and an enlarged screenshot was presented, Vanya identified the shooter as Igor. The defense objected on the ground that Vanya was not the recorder of the video footages.”
Four Sisters and a Wedding
Oh, wow! In a parallel universe, the sisters have reached the court, and it’s so cool to see them retain the lines of the characters! Featured in the Under Remedial Law 2:
“Alex, Bobbie, and Gabbie were charged with the crime of Murder. Finding them to have acted in conspiracy, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of Homicide. Only Bobbie appealed the conviction with the Court of Appeals (CA). Consequently, an entry of judgment was issued as against Alex and Gabbie.
Subsequently, the CA modified Bobbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder. In the same judgment, the CA likewise modified Alex and Gabbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder.
Upon learning of the CA’s decision, Alex and Gabbie confronted Bobbie, saying: ‘Bakit ka pa ba nag-appeal? Tumaas tuloy ang sentensya namin. Nadamay pa kami!’ Bobbie snapped back: ‘Bakit parang galit kayo? Pero bakit kasalanan ko? Parang kasalanan ko?'”