General Principles of

Mercantile Law
Commercial Transaction Foreign Currency Deposit Act (R.A. No.
(2003) 6426), including its punitive provisions,
A “Commercial transaction” is defined
refers to foreign currency deposits accounts
as ...... It is not essential that at least one
constituted within the Philippines. It has no
party to the commercial transaction be a
application at all to accounts, even though
merchant. What is essential is that the
they are banks, opened and constituted
transaction evince an intent to engage in Banks: Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Garnishment
abroad.
commerce
Joint or trade.
Account (2004)
(2000)
A joint account is a transaction of merchants
No. CDC's complaint is not meritorious. It
where other merchants agree to contribute
was held in
the amount of capital agreed upon, and
China Banking Corporation v. Ortega, 49
participating in the favorable or unfavorable Banks; Classifications of Banks (2002)
SCRA 355 (1973)
resultsAccount
Joint thereofvs.in Partnership
the proportion they may Any peso
four deposits
(4) of themayfollowing six (6)andclasses of
that be garnished
the depositary bank can comply with the Law of
determine.
(2000) banks identified in the General Banking
The following are the distinctions between 2002, of to garnishment
wit:
order without violating
joint account and partnership: 1 Universal Banks
the Law on the Secrecy of–Bank
These are those
Deposits.
which used to be called expanded
Execution is the goal of litigation as commercial
it is
(1) A partnership has a firm name while a banks and the operations of which are now
joint account has none and is conducted in its fruit. Garnishment is part of the
primarily governed
execution by theservice
process. Upon Generalof Banking
the
the name of the ostensible partner. Law of 2002. They can exercise the powers of
notice of garnishment on the bank where
(2) While a partnership has juridical an investment house and invest
the defendant deposited funds, such in non-allied
personality and may sue or be sued under enterprises.
funds become They
parthave
of thethe highest
subject matter
its firm name, a joint account has no capitalization
of litigation. requirement.
juridical personality and can sue or be sued 2 Commercial Banks – These are
onlyWhile
(3) in thea name of the ostensible
partnership has a commonpartner.
fund, ordinary or regular commercial banks, as
a joint account has none. distinguished from a universal bank. They have
a lower capitalization requirement than
(4) While in a partnership, all general
universal banks and cannot exercise the powers
partners have the right of management, in a
of an investment house and invest in non-allied
joint account, the ostensible partner
enterprises.
manages
(5) its business
While operations.
liquidations of a partnership 3 Thrift Banks – These banks (such as
may, by agreement, be entrusted to a partner savings and mortgage banks, stock savings and
or partners, in a joint account liquidation loan associations, and private development
thereof can only be done by the ostensible banks) may exercise most of the powers and
partner.
Theory of Cognition vs. Theory of Manifestation functions of a commercial bank except that
(1997) they cannot, among others, open current or
Under the theory of cognition, the
check accounts without prior Monetary Board
acceptance is considered to effectively bind
approval, and they cannot issue letters of
the offeror only from the time it came to his
credit. Their operations are governed primarily
knowledge. Under the theory of
by the Thrift Banks Act of 1995 (RA 7906).
manifestation, the contract is perfected at
4 Rural Banks – these are those which
the moment when the acceptance is declared
are organized primarily to extend loans and
or made by the offeree.
other credit facilities to farmers, fishermen or
farm families, as well as cooperatives,
No. CDC's complaint is not meritorious. It was held
merchants, and private and public employees
in
China Banking Corporation v. Ortega, 49 SCRA 355and whose operations are primarily governed
that peso deposits may be garnished and the
(1973)
by the Rural Banks Act of 1992 (RA 7353).
depositary bank can comply with the order
5 Cooperative Banks – these are those
of garnishment without violating the Law on
which are organized primarily to provide
the Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Execution is
financial and credit services to cooperatives
the goal of litigation as it is its fruit.
and whose operations are primarily governed
Garnishment is part of the execution
by the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (RA
process. Upon service of the notice of
6938).
garnishment on the bank where the
6 Islamic Banks – these are those which
defendant deposited funds, such funds
are organized primarily to provide financial and
become part of the subject matter of
credit services in a manner or transaction
litigation.
consistent with the Islamic Shari’ah. At
present, only the Al Amanah Islamic Investment
Bank of the Philippines has been organized as
an Islamic Bank.
 Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A Banking Law
Banks; Conservator vs. Receiver
(2006) Banks: Applicability: Foreign Currency Deposit Act
The Conservator is appointed for a period & Secrecy of Bank Deposits (2005)
not exceeding one (1) year, to take charge of
the assets, liabilities, and the management
of a bank or a quasi-bank in a state of
continuing inability, or unwillingness to
maintain a condition of liquidity deemed
adequate to protect the interest of
depositors and creditors. On the other hand,
the Receiver is appointed to manage a bank
or quasi-bank that is unable to pay its
liabilities in the ordinary course of business,
or has insufficient realizable assets to meet
its liabilities, or cannot continue in business
without probable losses to its depositors or
creditors; or has willfully violated a final
cease and
Banks; desist order,
Insolvency; involving acts or
Requirements
transactions
(1997) amounting to fraud or a
Before
dissipationthe of
Monetary
the assetsBoard can institution.
of the declare a
bank insolvent, order it closed
The main purpose of the Receiver and forbid
is it
to
from doing further business
recommend the rehabilitation or liquidation in the
Philippines,
of the bank. the following basic
requirements
1 must be complied with
There must be an examination by the by the
BSP , to wit:
head of the Department of Supervision or
his examiners or agents into the condition of
the bank.
2 The examination discloses that the
condition of the bank is one of insolvency, or
that its continuance in business would
involve probable loss to creditors or
depositors.
3 The head of said Department shall
inform in writing the Monetary Board of
such facts.
4 Upon finding said information or
statement to be true, the Monetary Board
shall appoint a receiver to take charge of the
assets Restrictions
Banks; and liabilities
on of the bank.
Loan Accommodations
5
(2002) Within 60 days, the Monetary Board
Any two (2) of the following limits or
shall determine and confirm if the bank is
restrictions
1.SBL Rules on (i.e.,
loan Single
and credit transactions
insolvent, and–public Borrower’s
interest requires, Limit)
to
which
rules may be extended by banks,
by theas part of
orderarethethose promulgated
liquidation of the bank. Bangko
the safeguards
Sentral against
ng Pilipinas, upon imprudent banking,
the authority of
to wit:
Section 35 of the General Banking Law of
2000, which regulate the total amount of
loans, credit accommodations and
guarantees that may be extended by a bank
to any person, partnership, association,
corporation or other entity. The rules seek to
protect a bank from making excessive loans
to a single borrower by prohibiting it from
lending beyond a specified ceiling.
2. DOSRI Rules – These rules promulgated
by the BSP, upon authority of Section 5 of the
General Banking Law of 2000, which
regulate the amount of credit
accommodations that a bank may extend to
its directors, officers, stockholders and their
related interests (thus, DOSRI). Generally, a
bank’s credit accommodations to its DOSRI
must be in the regular course of business
and on terms not less favorable to the bank
than those offered to non-DOSRI borrowers.
 Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (

Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Garnishment 3. No commercial bank shall make any
(2001) loan or discount on the security of shares of
No. The notice of garnishment served on a
its own capital stock.
bank at the instance of a creditor is not Banks; Safety Deposit Box;
covered by the Law on Secrecy of Bank Liability
Deposits. Garnishment is just a part of the The bank is liable, based on the decisions of
process of execution. The moment a notice of the Supreme Court in CA Agro-Industrial
garnishment is served on a bank and there Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 219
exists a deposit by the judgment debtor, the SCRA 426 (1993) and Sia v. Court of Appeals,
bank is directly accountable to the sheriff, 222 SCRA 24 (1993). In those cases, the
for the benefit of the judgment creditor, for Supreme Court ruled that the renting out of
the whole amount of the deposit. In such safety deposit boxes is a "special kind of
Legal Tender
event, the amount of the deposit becomes, in deposit" wherein the bank is the depositary.
(2000)
No. The
effect, a salesgirl’s understanding
subject of the litigation. that coins In the absence of any stipulation prescribing
are not legal tender is not correct. Coins are the degree of diligence required, that of a
legal tender in amounts not exceeding fifty good father of a family is to be observed by
pesos for denominations from twenty five the depositary. Any stipulation exempting
centavos and above, and in amounts not the depositary from any liability arising from
exceeding twenty pesos for denominations the lossSecrecy
of the of
thing
Bankdeposited
Deposit; would be void
ten centavos and less. Banks; Exceptions
for being
(2006) contrary to law and public policy.
The
The exceptions
deposit boxto is the BankinSecrecy
located the bank Law are
the
1. following:
premises and is under the absolute
Special or general examination of acontrol
of the authorized
bank, bank. by the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas' Monetary Board, in connection
with a bank fraud or serious irregularity.
2. Examination by an independent
Auditor, hired by the Bank and for the
Bank's exclusive use.
3. Disclosure with the Depositor's written
permission.
1 In case of Impeachment.
2 In cases of Bribery or dereliction of
duty by a Public Officer, upon order of a
competent court.
3 In cases of money deposited/invested
which, in turn, is the subject of Litigation,
4. upon DOSRI
orderLoans: Loans with
of a competent their Banks
Court.
of Bank
4 Directors, Officers, Stockholders and
related interests.
5 Loans in excess of 5% of the Bank's
Capital & Surplus
6 The Borrower waived his right as
regards the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
5. 7 Violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
6. Coup d' etat Law (RA 6968,
Oct 24,1990).
7. BIR Commissioner's authority to verify
a decedent's Gross Estate and a taxpayer's
request for a compromise agreement due to
incapacity to pay his tax liability.
8. Foreign Currency Deposits by foreign
lenders & investors under PDs 1034.
9. Violations of the Anti-Money
Laundering Law.
10. When the State exercises/invokes its
Police Power.
 Bulk Sales Law; Obligation of the Vendor
(2001)
A must prepare an affidavit stating the
names of all his creditors, in this case, X, Y,
and Z, their addresses, the amount of their
credits and their maturity. A should give the
affidavit to B who, in turn, should furnish a
copy to each creditor and notify the
creditors that there is a proposed bulk sale
in order
The to enable
recourse of X,the
Y, latter
and Z to
is protect their
to question
interests.
the validity of the sale from A to B so as to
recover the goods and merchandise to
satisfy their credits.
Corporation Law
BOD: Election of Aliens as members
(2005)
Yes, just as long as sixty percent (60%) of the
Board of Directors are Filipinos.
Corporations that are sixty percent (60%)
Bulk Sales Law owned by Filipinos can engage in the
business of exploration, development and
Bulk Sales Law; Covered Transactions utilization of natural resources. (Art. XII,
(2006) Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution) The election of
1) The sale involves all fixtures and
equipment, not in the ordinary course of aliens as members of the Board Of Directors
trade and the regular prosecution of engaging in partially-nationalized activities
business of Stanrus, Inc. (Sec 2 Act 3952, as is allowed in proportion to their allowable
The sale by sheriff at public sale is not a sale
amended) participation or share in the capital of such
by a merchant. Section 8 of the Bulk Sales entities. (Sec.
BOD; 2-A, Anti-Dummy Law)
Compensation
Law itself provides that it has no application Nothing in the facts shows that more than
(1991)
The
fortystockholder
percent (40%) as aofvalid and legal
the Board ground
of Directors
to executors, administrators, receivers,
to
areobject to the payment to the directors of a
foreigners.
assignees in insolvency, or public officers,
bonus equivalent to 15% of the company’s
acting under process. The Bulk Sales Law
net income. The law provides that the total
only applies to the sale or encumbrance of a
annual compensation of the directors, in the
merchant of goods, merchandise or
Bulk Sales Law;done
Exclusions preceding year, cannot exceed 10% of the
commodity "in bulk" as defined by the
(1993) company’s
BOD; net income
Interlocking before income tax
Directors
Law itself.
1) The requirements of the Bulk Sales Law (Sec 30 Corp Code).
(1995)
Chito Santos is a director of both Platinum
must be complied with. The seller delivers Corporation and Kwik Silver Corporation. He
to the purchaser a list of his creditors and owns 1% of the outstanding capital stock of
the purchaser in turn notifies such creditors Platinum and 40T of Kwik. Platinum plans to
of the proposed sale at a stipulated time in enter into a contract with Kwik that will
advance.
2) If the sale and transfer is made a) by the make both companies earn very substantial
vendor, mortgagor, transferor or assignor profits. The contract is presented at the
who produces and delivers a written waiver 1. In orderboard
respective that the contract
meetings ofwill not be and
Platinum
of the provisions of the Bulk Sales Law from Kwik.voidable, what conditions will have to be
his creditors as shown by verified statement; complied with? Explain.
and b) by a vendor, mortgagor, transferor or 2. If these conditions are not met, how
assignor who is an executor, administrator, may this
SUGGESTED contract be ratified? Explain.
ANSWER:
receiver, assignee in insolvency, or public
officer acting under judicial process, the sale 1. At the meeting of the BOD of Platinum to
Bulk Sales Law; Obligation of the Vendor approve the contract, Chito would have to
or transfer is not covered by the Bulk Sales
(1995) make sure that
Law.is a sale of the stock of goods, fixtures
This a) his presence as director at the
and entire business, not in the ordinary meeting is not necessary to constitute a
course of business or trade of the vendor. quorum for is
such
b) his vote not meeting;
necessary for the
Before receiving from the vendee any part of
approval of the contract; and c) the
the purchase price, the vendor must deliver
contract is fair and reasonable under the
to such vendee a written statement, duly
circumstances.
sworn, of the names and addresses of all
creditors to whom said vendor may be
indebted, together with the amount of
indebtedness due or owing, on account of
the goods, fixtures or business subject
matter of the bulk sale.
Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006)

The provision in the amended by-laws Controversy; Intra-Corporate (1994)

2.disqualifying any relating

If the conditions stockholderto the who is also a
quorum The RTC has jurisdiction over this case
director or stockholder of
and required number of votes are not met, a competing
business from being electedbytothethevote
Board which involves intra-corporate controversy.
the contract must be ratified of of As of 2006, the applicable rule is that there
Directors of MS Corp is
stockholders representing at least 2/3 of thevalid. The
is a TRANSFERRED JURISDICTION under
outstanding capital stock in a meeting calledof
corporation is empowered to adopt a code
Sec. 5.2 of the SRC, the Commission’s
by-laws
for for its Furthermore,
the purpose. government not the inconsistent
adverse
with the Corp Code. Such disqualifying jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under
interest of Chito in the contract must be PD 902-A sec. 5 has been transferred to the
provisionand
disclosed is not inconsistent
the contract is fairwith
and the Corp
By-Laws;
Code. Validity; limiting qualifications of Courts of general jurisdiction or the
reasonable. (Secs. 32 and 33, BP 68) appropriate Regional Trial Court.
BOD members (2000)
The SC reiterated in the case of SMC vs.
SEC decided in April 11, 1979, that it is An intra-corporate controversy is a conflict
recognized by all authorities that 'every between stockholders, members or partners
corporation has the inherent power to adopt and the corporation, association or
by-laws 'for its internal government, and to partnership regarding the regulation of the
regulate the conduct and prescribe the corporation. The controversy must arise out
rights and duties of its members towards of intra-corporate or partnership relations of
itself and among themselves in reference to the parties; or between such corporation,
the management of its affairs.'" At common partnership or association and the State
law, the rule was "that the power to make insofar as it concerns their individual
and adopt bylaws was inherent in every franchises. It is further required that the
corporation as one of its necessary and dispute be intrinsically connected with the
inseparable legal incidents. And it is settled regulation of the corporation (Speed
throughout the United States that in the Distributing Corp., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et
absence of positive legislative provisions al, G.R. No. 149351, March 17, 2004; Intestate
Estate of Alexander T.Tyv. Court of Appeals, G.R.
limiting it, every private corporation has this
No. 112872, April 19, 2001).
inherent power as one of its necessary and
inseparable legal incidents, independent of
any specific enabling provision in its charter
or in general law, such power of self-
government being essential to enable the
corporation to accomplish the purposes of its
creation."

1. What are the remedies available to

Close Corporations;
Robert Deadlocks
under the Corp code to break the
(1995)
deadlock? Explain.
2. Are there any remedies to prevent the
paralyzation of the business available to
Robert under PD 902-A while the petition
to break the deadlock is pending
litigation? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. Robert can petition the SEC to arbitrate

the dispute, with such powers as
provided in Sec 104 of the Corp Code.
2. The SEC can appoint a rehabilitation
receiver or a management committee.

Closed Corporation; Restriction; Transfer of shares

(1994)

In a close corporation, the restriction as to

the transfer of shares has to be stated/
annotated in the Articles of Incorporation,
the By-Laws and the certificate of stock. This
serves as notice to the person dealing with
such shares like Rafael in this case. With
such notice, he is bound by the pricing
stated in the By-laws.
 Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A

Corporation; Incorporation; Residency Requirements

(2006)
As a general rule, the stockholders or the
Not all directors and incorporators need to managers cannot be held solidarily liable for
be residents of the Philippines. Under the obligations incurred by the corporation.
Section 10 of the Corporation Code, only a The corporation has a separate and distinct
majority of the incorporators need to be personality from that of the stockholders or
residents of the Philippines. As provided in managers. The latter are presumed to be
Section 23 of the same Code, only a majority acting in good faith in continuing the
of the members operation of the corporation. The obligations
Corporation; Meetings;of BOD
the Board of Directors
& Stockholders
need to be residents of the Philippines. incurred by the corporation are those of the
(1993)
corporation which alone is liable therefor.
1) The President presides over the meeting However, when the corporation is already
of the directors, if there is no position of insolvent, the directors and officers become
Chairman provided in the By-Laws. If there trustees of the business and assets of the
is the position of Chairman provided in the corporation for the benefit of the creditors
By-Laws, the Chairman presides over the and are liable for negligence or
meeting
2) The oflaw the Directors
provides (Secthat54 the
Corp annual
Code) mismanagement.
stockholders’ meeting shall be held in the
city or municipality where the principal
office of the Corporation is located. For this
purpose, the law also provides that Metro
Manila is considered a city or municipality. Corporation Sole; Definition
Since the principal place of business of MIC (2004)
Section 110 of the Corporation Code defines
is Pasig, MM, the holding of the annual a "corporation sole" as one formed for the
3) No. The law allows the BOD to hold its
stockholders meeting in Manila is proper. purpose of administering and managing, as
meeting anywhere in the Philippines. The
(Sec 51 Corp) trustee, the affairs, property and
holding of the BOD meeting in Makati was
proper and the validity of the resolutions temporalities of any religious denomination,
adopted by the Board in that meeting cannot sect or church. It is formed by the chief
be questioned. (Sec 53 Corp code) archbishop, bishop, priest, minister, rabbi or
other presiding
Corporation: elder
Right of of such of
Repurchase religious
Shares; Trust
denomination,
Fund sect or church.
Doctrine (2005)
In line with the trust fund doctrine that
generally renders it unlawful for the
corporation to return assets to the
stockholders representing capital, a
corporation may acquire its own shares only
when there exists in the books unrestricted
retained earnings to cover the repurchase of
shares.
1 The purpose
ELIMINATE of the shares
fractional repurchase
arisingof
shares must be a
out of stock dividends; legitimate business
purpose
2 of the corporation,
COLLECT such as to:
or COMPROMISE an
indebtedness to the corporation arising out
of unpaid subscription in a delinquency sale;
3 to PURCHASE delinquent shares sold
during the sale; and
4 to PAY dissenting or withdrawing
stockholders entitled to such payment under
the Corporation Code. (Sees. 41 and 82,
Corporation Incorporation;
Corporation; Code) Requirements
(2006)
Under Section 10 of the Corporation Code,
any number of natural persons not less than
five (5) but not more than fifteen (15), all of
legal age and a majority of whom are
residents of the Philippines, may form a
private corporation for any lawful purpose.
This is the same minimum and maximum
number of directors required in a stock
corporation under Section 14(6) of the
Corporation Code.
 Corporation; Separate Juridical Personality
(1995)

Corporation; Voluntary Dissolution

(2002)
The three (3) methods by which a stock
corporation may be voluntarily dissolved are:
1) Voluntary Dissolution where no creditors
are affected. This is done by a majority vote
of the directors, and resolution of at least 2/3
vote of stockholders, submitted to the
Securities
2) and Exchange
Voluntary Commission.
dissolution where creditors
are affected. This is done by a petition for
dissolution which must be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, signed
by a majority of the members of the board of
directors, verified by the president or
secretary, and upon affirmative vote of
stockholders
3) representing
Dissolution at least 2/3
by shortening of ofthe
the
outstanding
corporate capital
term. Thisstock.
is done by amendment
Corporation; Power to Invest Corporate Funds in of the articles of incorporation.
another Corporation (1996)
A corporation may invest its funds in another Corporation; Voting Trust Agreement
corporation or business or for any other (1992)
purpose other than the primary purpose for
which it was organized when the said
investment is approved by a majority of the
BOD and such approval is ratified by the
stockholders representing at least 2/3 of the
outstanding capital stock. Written notice of
the proposed investment and the date, time
and place Recovery
Corporation; of the stockholders’
of Moral Damages meeting at
which
(1998) such proposal will be taken up must be
No.
sentAtocorporation,
each stockholder.
being (Sec
an artificial
42 Corpperson
Code)
which has no feelings, emotions or senses,
and which cannot experience physical
suffering or mental anguish, is not entitled
to moral damages.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes. When a juridical person has a good

reputation that is debased, resulting in
social humiliation, moral damages may be
awarded. Moreover, goodwill can be
considered an asset of the corporation.
The law simply provides that a voting trust
agreement is an agreement in writing
whereby one or more stockholders of a
corporation consent to transfer his or their
shares to a trustee in order to vest in the
latter voting or other rights pertaining to
said shares for a period not exceeding five
years upon the fulfillment of statutory
conditions and such other terms and
conditions specified in the agreement. The
five year-period
Under section 59m of
aythe
be extended in cases
Corporation C ode,
where the voting trust is executed
supra, a voting trust agreement may pursuant
confer
to a loan
upon agreement
a trustee not whereby
only thethe period is
stockholder's
made contingent
voting uponother
rights but also full payment of the
rights pertaining
loan.
to his shares as long as the voting trust
agreement is not entered "for the purpose of
circum venting the law against monopolies
and illegal combinations in restraint of trade
or used for purposes of fraud." (section 59,
5th paragraph of the Corporation Code).
Thus, the traditional concept of a voting
trust agreement primarily intended to single
out a stockholder's right to vote from his
other rights as such and made irrevocable
for a limited duration may in practice
become a legal device whereby a transfer of
the stockholders shares is effected subject to
the specific provision of the voting trust
agreement.
 Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006) Page
The execution of a voting trust agreem ent,
therefore, m ay create a dichotom y between
the equitable or beneficial ownership ofthe
corporate shares ofa stockholder, on the one
hand, and the legaltitle thereto on the other
hand. (Lee vs. CA, Feb. 4, 1992)
Derivative Suit: Watered Shares (2004)
In a derivative suit, the action is instituted/
brought in the name of a corporation and
reliefs are prayed for therein for the
corporation, by a minority stockholder. The
law does not qualify the term “minority” in
terms of the number of shares owned by a
stockholder bringing the action in behalf of
WATERED SHARES
the corporation. (SMCare those
v Khan 176 sold
SCRAby
448)
corporation for less than the par/book value.
In the instant case, it will depend upon the
value of services rendered in relation to the
total par value of the shares.
Distinction: De facto Corporation vs. Corporation
by Estoppel (2004)
A DE FACTO CORPORATION is one which
actually exists for all practical purposes as a
corporation but which has no legal right to
corporate existence as against the State. It
is essential to the existence of a de facto
corporation that there be (1) a valid law
under which a corporation might be
incorporated, (2) a bona fide attempt to
organize as a corporation under such law,
and
A (3) actual useBY
CORPORATION or ESTOPPEL
exercise in good
existsfaith
when
of corporate powers conferred upon
persons assume to act as a corporation it by
law
knowing it to be without authority to do so.
In this case, those persons will be liable as
general partners for all debts, liabilities and
damages incurred or arising as a result of
Distinction: Dividends vs. Profit: Cash Dividend
their actions.
vs. Stock Dividend (2005)
PROFITS are residual amounts representing
return of capital after deducting all
corporate costs and expenses from
revenues. The accumulated profits, from
year to year, represent the corporate
retained earnings from which the dividends
CASH DIVIDENDS represent an actual
can be declared.
distribution of accumulated profits to the
stockholders as a return on their
investments. Declaration of cash dividends
requires only the approval of the majority of
the Board of Directors in a proper
STOCK DIVIDENDS are simply transfers of
resolution.
retained earnings to capital stock, thereby
increasing the number of shares of stocks of
each stockholder with no required cash
contribution. A two-thirds vote of the
stockholders, coupled with a majority vote
of the Board of Directors, is needed to
declare stock dividends.
34 of 103
Distinction; Private vs. Public Corporation
(2004)
A PRIVATE CORPORATION is one formed for
some private purpose, benefit or end, while a
PUBLIC CORPORATION is formed for the
government of a portion of the State for the
general good or welfare. The true test is the
purpose of the corporation. If the
corporation is created for political or public
purpose connected with the administration
of government, then it is a public
corporation. If not, it is a private corporation
although the whole or substantially the
whole interest in the corporation belongs to
the State. A public corporation is created by
the
special legislation
Distinction; or act ofCorporation
Stock vs. Non-Stock Congress. A
private corporation must be organized under
(2004)
A stock corporation is one that has capital
the Corporation Code.
stock divided into shares and is authorized
to distribute to the holders of such shares
dividends or allotments of the surplus profits
on the basis of the shares held. All other
corporations are non-stock corporations.
Dividends: Declaration of Dividends
(2005)
No form of dividends can be declared and
paid by the corporation except from
unrestricted retained earnings appearing on
its books. Dividends must be paid in amounts
proportional to all stockholders on the basis
of outstanding stock held by them. Cash or
property dividends, can be declared from
such unrestricted retained earnings by a
proper resolution of the Board of Directors.
Stock dividends, however, must be declared
by a proper resolution of the Board of
Directors from existing unrestricted retained
earnings and ratified by stockholders
representing at least two-thirdsTrust
(2/8)Fund
of the
Dividends: Sources of Dividends;
outstanding capital stock of the corporation,
Doctrine (2005)
obtained in a meeting duly called for the
All cash and
purpose. (Sec.stock dividends are
43, Corporation always paid
Code)
out of the unrestricted retained earnings
(also called surplus profit) of the
corporation. If the corporation has no
unrestricted retained earnings, the
dividends would have to be sourced from the
capital stock. This is illegal. It violates the
"TRUST FUND DOCTRINE" that provides
that the capital stock of the corporation is a
trust fund to be kept intact during the life of
the corporation for the benefit of the
creditors of the corporation. (Commissioner of
Internal- Revenue v. Court of Appeal®, G.R. No.
108576, January 20, 1999; Boman Environmental
Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
77860, November 22, 1988; and Steinberg v.
Velasco, G.R. No. 30460, March 12,1929)
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 38 37
Page of 103 of 103 Code.acquires,
As Page in36
shortened, of 103
violation the of his
No.2.
fromThereretaining
Opening
is no surplus
offices
need by for
profits the inabsorbed
excess of corporation
duty, an interest continued adverse
its business
to the corporation
3.
corporation
100% of
whatever Participating
their
name
to paid-in
undertake incapital.
thedissolution
management, and operations
in respect untilof anyMaymatter 30, 1997, which thehas lastbeenday
supervision
winding or control of
up procedure. Asany domestic
a result of entity
the of its
reposed
corporate in him existence.
in confidence, Prior to hesaidshall date,
be
b) Are Entering
4.
merger, there
the instances into
absorbed when a corporation
corporation is there
liable
were as aa number
trustee for of pending
the corporation civil and
5.
shall not
service
automatically Appointing
contracts held representatives
bedissolved liable
and for its notassetsor
declaring
and actions,
must of account
varying fornature
the profitsbut mostlywhich money otherwise
distributors,
dividends?
SUGGESTED operating
(3%)
ANSWER: under
liabilities are acquired and assumed by the the control of claims
would filedhave by accrued
creditors, tonone
the corporation.
of which was
2) The
surviving instances
Pending
the foreigncorporation. when
approval
entity, who a corporation
of domiciled
is the merger shall
in thebynot expected
Equity to imposes
be completed liability or uponresolved
him not within
to deal
be held
thePhilippines liable
SEC, mayor the for not
who surviving declaring
stays in thecorporation dividends
country for a fivefor
years
his own frombenefit.
May 30,(Sec. 1997. 31, Corporation
are:
already
period or institute suits to
periods totaling collect
at least 180 days all If the
Under
Code)creditorsSec. 34 had of sought
the Corporation
your professional Code
1) when
receivables justified
in any calendardue to year. by definite corporate
the absorbed corporation expansion helpwhere
at that a director,
time about by virtue
whether of or
his not
office,
their
projects
SUGGESTED or
ANSWER: programs
from its customers? Explain your answer.approved by the BOD; or 2)
cases
acquires
could for
be pursued
himself abeyond
business May opportunity
30,
No.
(3%) The the
when merger does not
corporation become effective
is prohibited under any loan 1997,
which what shouldwould belong
have been to theyour corporation,
advice?
until
agreement with any financialby
and unless approved the SEC.
institution SUGGESTED
or creditor,
(2%)therebyANSWER: obtaining profits to the prejudice of
Before
whether approval
local or byforeign,
the SEC fromof the merger,
declaring Thesuch
dividends cases can be pursued
corporation, he must even beyondtoMay
account the
thewithout
surviving corporation has no legal 30, 1997, the
its or his consent, and such consent has notlatter for all such profits by refunding the last day of the corporate
personality with respect
yet been secured; or 3)towhen receivables
it can bedue clearly existence
same, unless of GHQ his Corp.
act hasThebeen Corporation
ratified by is a
to the absorbed corporation.
shown that such retention is necessary under special not actually dissolved
vote of the stockholders owning or upon the expiration of
3) A case was filed against a customer to its corporate term. There is still the period
circumstances obtaining in the corporation, such asrepresenting at least two-thirds (2/8) of the
collect on the promissory note issued by him forEffect: Expiration
liquidation or ofwinding
Corporate up.Term
when there is need for special reserve for probable outstanding
Under Section capital
122 enteredstock.
of the C orporation C ode, a of
after the date of the merger agreement. The NOTE:
(2004)
XYZ Corporation into a contract
contingencies. corporation whose corporate existence is terminated in
customer raised the defense that while the lease with ABC, Inc., over a piece of three
real
any manner continues to be a body corporate for
receivables as of the date of the merger (3) years afterits dissolution forpurposes ofprosecuting for
estate for a term of 20 years, renewable
Dividends; was
agreement Right;transferred
Managing to Corporation
the surviving andanother
defending20 suitsyears,
by andprovided
againstitand that to le XYZ's
and itto se
enable
(1991)
ABC Management
corporation, Inc. presented
those receivables which to the were DEF corporate term is extended inclose its
accordance
Mining Co, the draft of its proposed affairs,
created after the merger agreement remained with law. Four years after theculminating term of XYZ
to Management
be owned byContract. the absorbedAs an incentive,
corporation. ABC Corporation expired, but still in within
the the
included
These in the would
receivables terms be of distributed
compensation to thethat Theperiod
termination allowed ofthe lifebyofthe a corporate
lease contract entity does
disposition for the
ABC wouldconformably
stockholders be entitled with to 10% the of any stock
dissolution notby itself cause the extinction or dim inution
extension of the lease period,and XYZ of the
Corp.
rights and liabilities ofsuch entity. 27 If the three-
distribution
anddividend
liquidation which DEF may declare
procedures under the during New the notified ABC,
yearextended life hasInc.,
expired that it is aexercising
without trustee
of its rem or the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
lifetime of the Management Contract.
Corporation
Whether the Code? receivable Discusswasthe meritsby
incurred of Would
this
the option
receiver having to extend
been expresslythe lease. ABC,
designated byInc.,
aining the
you approve
argument. (3%) of such before provision? If not, what objected
corporation, to the
within proposed
thatperiod, ed
extension,
the board to so arguing
assets.
of directors (or
absorbed
SUGGESTED corporation or after the
would youANSWER: suggest as an alternative? trustees)
that itself, mthe
since ay be permi
corporate life continue
ofItmay,
XYZ as
Corp. had
I would
merger not approve
agreement, a proposed
or before or after stipulation
the "trustees"
during the
in the thereof
approval management by the contractSEC, thethat saidthe expired, it could no longer opt
bythree-to renew
legal im the
managing
receivable would corporation,
still belong as to the ansurviving
additional lease. XYZ Corp. countered plication that withstanding
yearterm to ,
the lapse of its corporate com
term plete
it
appointastill has the
compensation
corporation undertoSec it,80should
of the be Corp. entitled
Code to the
Foreign
right Corporation;
to renew “Doing
the Business”
lease becauseintrustee
the noora quo
10%does
which of any stock any
not make dividend
distinctionthat as mayto be corporate
receiverwh
Philippines
warranto (1998)
thedeclared.
assets and Stockholders
liabilities of arethe theabsorbed
only ones SUGGESTEDproceedings ANSWER: for involuntary
liquidation.
o m ay
When is a foreign
dissolution of XYZ corporation
Corp. deemed
has(PEPSI-
been to be
instituted
entitled tothat
corporation receivethe stock dividends
surviving corporation
(Nielsen & XYZ Corporation's contention is not
actbeyond
Effects; Winding “doing business in the Philippines?” (3%)
Lepanto Up Period26 of a Corporation by the Office Based of the on Solicitor COLA
General.
would
Co vinherit. Mining s 569) I would add that SUGGESTED meritorious. ANSWER:
the ruling
PHILIPPINE
of theIs the
thatperiod.
(1997)
Thethe corporation,
unsubscribed once dissolved,
capital stock thereafter contention
Supreme
of a A foreign of XYZ
Court in Corp. meritorious?
Philippine National Explain
corporation is deemed to be
S, INC., vs. Bank vs.
continues
corporation to bemay a bodyonly corporate
be issued for for three
cash or “doing briefly.
CFI of (5%)209 SCRA (1992).THE
Rizal, XYZ Corp.
COURT was
business in the Philippines” if it is
years for purposes of prosecuting and dissolvedthe ipso facto OFexpiration of
property or for services already rendered continuing body or upon
substance the
APPEALS,of the
defending suits by and against
constituting a demandable debt (Sec 62 business it and of its original term. It ceased to be a body
or enterprise for which [G.R. it No.
was
enabling it to settle andalternative,
close its affairs, corporate
Corp Code). As an I would organized. It is the intention of an entity tothe
for the purpose of continuing
145855.
culminating in the the final disposition and
suggest that managing corporation continue thefor
business bodywhich of its it was
business organized,
November except
in the
distribution
should instead of its remaining
be given assets.a net If theprofit
3 only for purposes connected 24, 2004.])
with its winding
Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity (2005) country. The grant and extension of 90day
year extended life expires
if it without
later so adesires, trustee to up or liquidation. Extending the lease
participation
Briefly
and,
discuss the designated doctrine of by corporate credit terms of a foreign corporation to ais not
or thenreceiver
convertbeing the amount that may bethedue an act to wind up or liquidate XYZ Corp.'s
opportunity. (2%) domestic
Effects; corporation
Merger of“Doing for
Corporations every purchase
corporation
thereby towithin
equitythat or period
shares and of stockby that at no Foreign Corporation;
affairs. It is contrary Business”
to the idea in theof winding
SUGGESTED ANSWER: shows
(1999)
Two an intention
corporations toagreed
continue transacting
to merge. They
timeless(expiry
than of par
the the value
3 year extended term),
thereof. Philippines;
up the Acts
affairs or Activities
of the (2002)
corporation.
In brief,ANSWER:
SUGGESTED the doctrine disqualifies a director, with thentheexecuted
latter. an agreement specifying the
the corporate liquidation is not with yet over,
Thetrustee
liquidation
or officer canfrom continue
appropriating for his Give
the at least three (3) examples of the acts or
surviving
how,
winding if
personal
at all,
up. benefit can
The membersa final settlement
a transactionof theorBOD of the
can
opportunity activities thatcorporation
are specifically and the absorbed
identified
corporate affairs be made? corporation.
our foreign investment laws as of merger
Under the agreement
continue with thetowinding
that pertains of the corporate
the corporation, and which under dated November 5, 1998, the surviving
affairs
under until
thefinal
dutyliquidation.
of loyalty he They shouldcan first
act as bring constituting
corporation
“doing business”
acquired all the
in the
rights,
SUGGESTED
Philippines (3%) ANSWER:
trustees
to the or receivers for
corporation for this
its usepurpose.
or exploitation.
Effects; Winding Up Period of a Corporation Anyproperties
three (3) of and the following
liabilities of acts or
the absorbed
activitiesMust
corporation. the 1)
constitute absorbed
What“doing corporation
would business”
happen undertake
intothethe
(2000)
TheThe SEC doctrine
approved of corporate
the amendment opportunity of the is an dissolution and the winding up procedures?
Articles
enforcement
of Incorporation
of the duty of of GHQ loyalty
Corp of Philippines
absorbed under our
corporation? foreign investment
1.
laws: your
Explain
Solicitinganswer. orders(3%)
shortening
corporate its directors
corporate and life to officers.
only 25 When years a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in accordance
director, trustee with Sec or120 officer
of the Corp attempts to
acquire or
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 43 39 of 103 103 children.
5) When Page They
he
Page40
42
44 is 41 103
then
made,
of of 103 brought
by a the
Onthe
substantial
c) No.
December
2)
number
Theto have period
amount
6,of1988,
more
shares
ofofshares
30
A,damages.
an
hedays incorporator
holds
with within which
on
It would
record
whichto pay in forthe
Whatdeed
specific
majority
is the
SUGGESTED of assignment
ANSWER: of to
provision
doctrine
stockholders law, the
"piercing
can toproper
always the corporate
veil of
thus
the
and thethe
be acquisition
stockholder
the
corporation.
General
difficult Manager
forcan of
Pablomore of
pay toassets
the Pajelike
convincingly
the Multi acquisitionmuster
unpaid ofd.
corporateNo,
officers
Chattel the
Mortgage
personally
a 2/3 stockholder
forvote,
entity?" registration
vs. After-Incurred
answer
Explain.
would you maywith
for not
allowtheexercise
Obligations request
corporate
the for action.
assert Co,
subscription
Farms that company
resigned
the car,
hadincorporation
not asyet GM stocks,
expired.
and of house,
sold the to machinery
family
the appraisal
(1999)
Onthe
ormajority transfer
Mercantile
December
SUGGESTED (Tramat right
stockholders
ANSWER: 1,in1996,
Incbecause
the corporation's
v CA
toBorrowerGR the
remove the matter
111008, stock
executedonethatand
Nov he
7,
a 94
b) Pre-emptive
corporation business;
his
wasshares right
andof must
intended stocks
merely be in as exercised
the a case in The
chatteldoctrine
dissented
SUGGESTED
director 238s14)
transfer mortgage
ANSWER:of "piercing
from
books
representing of
inis favor
not
the the onethe
assigned
of the of
minority?veilthose of
shares,
Bank where
to the
Stockholders:
3)
accordance
of “estate tax
corporation to have Preemptive
for P300th,extra
with
planning.” share Right
the
the (Tan with
book Boon which
Articles
valueBee v to cover
of or No. I
corporate
rightwill
Liabilities;
cancellation
secure a of not
entity,"
loan allow
Stockholders,
appraisal
of of P3M.is
thethe
the
is majority
stock
In doctrine
dueDirectors,
available certificates
time that
under
the allows
Officers
the
in PX's
loan
Piercing
(2004)
The Board
meet the
Incorporation
thereof, 41337
Jarencio the
payable Corporate
requirement
of Directors
or the Veil
as follows: a) P100th as
30June88) for
of
By-Laws. declaration
ABC, Inc.,
When of astock
the stockholders
the
was courts
(1997)
A,
name, B,
corporation
paid. and
and
Onto to
look
Cthe remove
are
code.
December behind
issuance the
shareholders
1, the ofdirector.
1997, separate
new of
stock
Borrower While
XYZ Co. A
(1996)
E Co
domestic
down sold
Articles
payment; dividend.
its ofassets
corporation, b) P100thto Mpassed
Incorporation Inc on after
orand a complying
before resolution
the By-Laws
31 the SEC;
juridical
has Jurisdiction;
stockholders
an
certificates
obtained personality
unpaid
another in the Transferred
may,
loan of by
names
for aP2M Jurisdiction
2/3
a corporation
subscription of his vote,
ofwife
which remove
and
P100th,and his
the B’s
with thesilent,
authorizing requirements
additional of the Bulk
issuance ofa Sales
shares a (1996)
What
director,
treat the
shares is the
corporation
are original
law
fully also
paid and up,exclusive
provides,
asowners.
an association
while however,
Cofficers
ownsof only
are
July1989; and the
c) theBOD remaining may fix
balance of of
reasonable Bankchildren
granted as under
the new the same The
security as of
Law.Stocks;
stocks
time
P100th Sale,
Subsequently,
without
on within Transfer
or before notice
which oneof Certificates
30 of
nor
the
Sep the 1989. of A
creditors
approval
stockholders Stockofof the Emay that
thatjurisdiction
persons
thehis
nominal
which right
andsecured
Corporation offully
may
thereby
but thenot, SEC?
make
denied
the without
paidfirstthe the
uploan. just
individual
shares
request cause, andthe
on is a
Pre-Emptive
(1996)
Arnold has Right
in his vs.
name Appraisal
1,000 Right
shares of the be
For SUGGESTED
exercised
actorsthe
director second
personally andANSWER:
so as
loan, to
liable
officer. deprive
Borrower
for
XYZ themerely
corporate
becomes minority of
insolvent,
Co exercise
tried to collect
stockholders.
promissory the
note, DX,right.the
with amount
a stockholder,
an acceleration dueobjectedit, butclause, to ground that another heir is contesting the
The Foreign
(1999)
ABCcorporationCorporation;
Corporation failed “Doing
has to an Business”
pay the
authorized in the
first The SEC has original and exclusive
capital
found
the
was out
issuance,
executed stock
that byEof Co ABC
contending
the had Cono
corporation asmore
that evidencedassets
it for
violatedthecapital
byhis
left. a representation
delivered
liabilities.
and
validity it a
jurisdiction
Stockholders;
The
isof the
Rights
in
promissory
fiction
established
over
the of
deed BOD
cases ofnote;
corporate
that (Sec no
assignment.
involving:
the new
28 chattel
identity
insolvency
Corp Maycode;
a)within
Devices
is is
the
The Philippines;
installment
stock
creditor
right ofbalance.
unpaid of P1MTest
on
certificate.
thendue(2002) date.
divided
sued Arnold
preemption to the unissued shares. M A
into then
Inc 50,000
delivered
on sued
the Paje
common
the
theory on
stock mortgage
disregarded
the
Gov’t vs result agreement
Agoncillo
Corporation and
of the
fraudulent
50p348)
be compelled was
individuals executed
practices as
comprising
by mandamus the it
tothe
the What
promissory
shares isand the legal
note
50,000 test
in thefor
preferred determining
RTC. a) Does if its
the an (1996)
Whator schemes
are
canSUGGESTED theIf amounting
rights
ANSWER: of a counsel to fraud and
SUGGESTED
that
Is certificate
hisM Inc ANSWER:
is ato
contention Steven
mere alter
tenable? who ego now ofshares.
Explain Eclaims At
Co. briefly.to
Will be parties
be
company.
register relied
treated
misrepresentation;
on you
the shares b) a provision
identically.were of stock The in
Controversies
the for1996
stockholders
in the names a creditor
arising of
Yes. DX's
unlicensed
SUGGESTED
court have
inception, contention
ANSWER: foreign
jurisdiction
the Corporation is the
corporation
over tenable. case?
offered is doing Under
b)
for stockholder?
G.R.
canYes. No.
SUGGESTED
SUGGESTEDThe 108734,corporation
ANSWER:ANSWER: May 29, may be compelled by
thethe
(5%) suit real owner
prosper? of the
Explain. shares, having paid for chattel
The ofbe
the
out
mortgage
held
XYZ,
assignees?
rights
of of directly
would
a agreement
liable
Explain
stockholder
intra-corporate
you
or
for
advise
briefly.
are which
corporate
as
partnership (5%) included
legal
follows: action
1)
The
Sectionsuit
business
Would your
subscriptionwill not
39 subscription.
in ofthe
answer prosper.
the
all beCorporation
Philippines?
the theABC
common The
same sale
(2%)if A
shares.by
Code, EtoCoall
instead of a) As to A—an
1996).
mandamus toamong action can
register the be brought
shares of stock against in
Arnold’s refused future
obligations,
The against
rightdebts to as
A,even B,
vote, and to C? the
the
including extent obligations
the of their
right tolegal
its assets
stockholders
SUGGESTED to M
of
ANSWER: Inc
ABC, does
Inc. not
enjoy result
preemptive in the To relations;
A
the
what
“In for name
case P100th c)Mortgagor
of
circumstances
the Controversies
thewhich assignee. is the
will
executes in
amount
Thethe the
only election
doctrine of unpaid or
sold his shares
However,
recognize only
and to register
his friend
40,000 shares Mabel
Steven’s were and
ownership.the secured
personalaby assetsthe mortgage.
(Concept Thetoprovision
Builders v. NLRC,
The
transfer testof iscasewhether or not theagainst
unlicensed appoint
appointment
subscription. proxy; of2)Since
The byright
directors, orshare
theofficers, corporation in
ofetc; the
d) is
right to
SUGGESTED
latter
Is filed
subscribed.
the athe
subscribe
refusal liabilities
ANSWER: with
Recently, to all
justified? the of
issues
the RTCthe
directors
Explain. latter
of sharesto, the
thought norof limitation
apply?
subsequent
reads:
Marabe, (2.5%)
et al,imposed
promissory Section
note 63
notes the
either
ABC’s
foreign
in the refusal
assumptioncorporation to recognize
thereof has and
performed register an act or profits
The Petitionsof
doctrine
insolvent, the to corporation,
is be
the declared
applicablelimit ofincluding
in
when a
the state
the the
of
notion
stockholder’s
any class,
corporation
of raising toincluding
compel
additional toby,
the
itcapital the
register and former.
reissuance the sale
decided Theofto asCorporation
a renewal, Code as an is when
extension, or Corporation
as a new
Steven’s ownership right
ofloan,
legal tothis
suspension declare
entity of
is stock
payments
used dividends;
to (Sec
—against
1) isDefeat53)PD The 902-A)
public
acts
facts togiven
treasury
and offer that
to shares
issue theimply
donew public allis
aindicate
incontinuity
notcertificates justified.
proportion
the that ofofstock
such
authorized The
commercialinfacts
totransfer
their
her
shares liability
holds
right to a
tounpaid
anymortgage
proportionate
the creditor
claim
shall
share
also
of
only
stand
the
the up
shares
as
assets
to the
or indicate
Stockholders;
dealings
assumption
have
respective
SUGGESTED
name? that
or
pre-emptive the
Appraisal
took
shareholdings.
ANSWER: stock
arrangements, place
rights certificate
Right or
to and
was
the for
contemplate
stipulated
remaining the convenience.
extent
intended
security of his
to 2)be
for theupon Justify
unpaid
transferred.
payment wrong.
subscription. 3)
The
of said 4) Protect
alleged
promissory claim
of the Corporation at their market value. a) the
of b)corporation
As to B—there liquidation;
is causeThe
nov. sufficient of toaction
a)
In
uponThe
(2003)
1,000
what
to
10,000 RTC
that
by shares
instanceshas parties
extent
shares?
the jurisdiction
inthe question
may
(2%) the
performance
b)
in over
is
right
Would
their in the
of of
Mr. case.
name
appraisal
acts
agreement.
X have orof fraud.
of 4)
another Defend
noteoforappraisal; heir
notes without crime
of PX (PNB
is not
necessity Andrada of executing deny
Would Mr. X, a stockholder holding 4,000 right
against
TAKE NOTE: The
B No.because RTC 5) The has
he pre-emptive
jurisdiction
has already right
over to
fully the
paid
The
be SC said
Arnold.
availed
works,
Furthermore,
pre-emptive orof that
Although
under
thethe asale
rights corporation
the
the
exercise by
to certificate
Corporation
theof
E some
Co50,000may
of of
its only
wasCode?
the
assets
preferred buyis Electric,
the
ashares; G.R.
issuance
new contract of andnew thiscertificates
mortgage of stock
shall
shares, ANSWER: to cases
for his 6)
which The right
involves
subscription. to inspect
intra-corporate
As stated corporate
earlier, the
its ownofshares
delivered
SUGGESTED
functions
a sale
shares? its(2%) byof
property. stockincident
Arnold
normally ifdoes
Itto it hasnot
Steven, enough
to, the
andfacts
involve in the do his wife
have and children.
the records;
same force and It effect
wouldas beifotherwise
the said
SECTION
surplus 81.
profits
c)of indicate Instances
therefore. of Appraisal Right. books
limit and
controversy.
142936, of the
April As of7)
stockholder’s
17, The
2006,
2002) .right
the to elect
applicable
liability torule the
salenot theAssuming
progressive shares thatofthe
prosecution stock thatof
certificate
of,the the
commercialwas duly
corporation existing
gain if the transferee's
promissory note or title
notes towere the shares existing hasonno
—
b) My
Any answer
stockholder would be
of the
a corporation
same. An actionshall directors;
5) is that
Trust
creditor
Asdate
Borrower Fund
Shield 8)
thereof Such
Doctrine
a theis a other
violation TRANSFERRED
corporation, rights
of the as may
proscription
when the latter
stockholders
endorsed
or
belongingof the to by Arnold
purpose itsarestockholders.
and entitled
atobject
the time to
of the itpre-emptive
was
There business is prima faciefailed
hereof.” validity to pay or isthe second loan,
uncertain.
have
to Joint
compel Venture;
the anoright Corporation
corporation to price dissent contractually
JURISDICTION
(1992)
A Corporation be granted
under
executed to
Sec. athe 5.2the
promissory of the SRC,
note
rights,
delivered
corporation.
therefore at towhatSteven
merger ortothat
or register
willthe and
consolidation the a shares
demand
salethatbe
procedure for against
the becomes
Bank
the
forum
proceeded
stockholders
shopping
insolvent,
by the
is
(First
to foreclose
corporation
extent
Philippine Chattel
or
of his
Piercing
(1996)
May
payment
and d) to
offered? a the
issue
theplace. of theCorporate
corporation
new
Assuming
effective (2%) fair
certificates
value
a Veil
enter of into
his
stockholder of a
stockjoint
shares is in
disagreesthe c)
the As
binding
International to
subscription.
Mortgage.Borrower C—an
Commission’s
itself
Bank tov.action
pay
Court
sued its can
jurisdiction
ofthe be
Appeals,
Bank filed
over
President/Director, G.R. against
all
claiming cases
No. C,
took E transfer
Co continues of shares to ofexist stockand set by special law.
1
(2001)
Plaintiffs
venture?
following
itself an
SUGGESTED
with In case
filed
intra-corporate
instances: any
a the
ANSWER: amendment
collection matter action to
that the articles
against and Xthe of 6) not Work
as
enumerated
who
137537,thehad January inequities
stockholder
tendered under
24, 1996). PD
his among
because
902-A
longersec.
noresignation, members
he has
5ahas of
already
been
certain
out
remains inthethe
liable issuance
by-laws
to of of ABC
creditor. new Co,shares if any, was that mortgage was in force.
A corporation
incorporation has may
the enter
effect into a the
of changing joint venture. the corporation
paid upclaimedthetointernally,
shares, but involving
inchattel
his no rights
capacity and as
Corporation.
exclusively
pricing
observed. lies
for Upon
the
Since with execution
thethe
shares, RTC. may
certificate ofthe was notor
court’s
stockholder transferred
sum
Borrower in payment the ofCourts
that thea latter’s
fresh of general
shares
However,
NOTE: The
restricting
decision,
TAKEinvoke
endorsed the
Xhis inasmuch
RTC
rights
Corporation
in
has
appraisal
favor ofas
of
the
jurisdiction
any
Steven was
rights term
stockholders
(orfound ‘joint
andoverto
anybody
theor
demand be class Stockholders;
else
of the public
director
jurisdiction
interests
mortgage
Voting
inor
should andor
the
Power
third
the
have
of Stockholders
persons
officer
appropriate
company. been Thebecause
(Secosa
executed Regional
corporation whenof Trial
v. Heirs the
of venture’
cases
shares,
without which or
assets.has of no
involves precise
authorizing
Thereafter legal
intra-corporate preferences
plaintiffs definition, filed in it
any
an (1990)
Mercy
ofErwin subscribed
Stockholder;
Suarez
corporation’s Delinquent;
Francisco, to
insolvency1,000
Unpaid
G.R. shares
Subscription
No.
being of
156104,the stock June
result of of
SUGGESTED
payment ANSWER:
for his shareholdings? (2%) could be the Court.
defaulted
second in
loan paying the full amount so that
a was
for that matter), the only conclusion Rosario Corporation.
Evade granted.
Sheobligations
paidby a)25% Decide the
of collection
said
Stocks;
may
a. Yes.
controversy.
respect
action Sale,
take Mr.
superior
against As Transfer
variousX, aits
ofto2006, of Certificates
forms.
stockholder
those theofItoutstanding
present could
applicableofholding
Stock
takerule
and the4,000 of 7)
shares
past (1997)
The
29,said
2004). BOD
fraudulentformer ofthe lawful
corporation,
practices
President within
filed suit athe vote
for the
of ten in
company.
no other than that the shares in question still case and
subscription.
corporation
favor ofratiocinate.
one During
like a
against, (4%)
the
judgment b) Suppose
stockholders’
declared credit due the
and
is
any (2001)
A
formis
shares,
thatclass,
stockholder the
of or
there registered
a has
simple
isY aextending
of TRANSFERRED
Corporation owner
poolingorofshortening
pre-emptive of Stock
resources
which right owned (notterm
to
the the Directors
would
of the its are
balance validity liable
before and jointly
effectiveness
the SEC. (Sibagat
anda)severally
Under be for
belong to Arnold. (Razon v IAC GR 74306 Mar chattel
G.R.
meeting,
Timber mortgage
No.Corp.112546,
can v.Mercy was
December
Garcia, votenot registered,
11,
all 1992).
her 8) the capital
subscribed
of Certificate
involving
remaining
JURISDICTION
corporate
substantially No.
existence;
all 000011.
incorporation)
10,000under ofshares.
Sec. the He
between
5.2 All entrusted
of
stocks the two
stockholders
SRC, of the
or X of payable
damages
impaired?
what all
conditions unpaid
sustained
Explain. is subscription
a (4%)
stock by the
corporation to corporation,
16,92 207s234) Escape
stock.liability
SUGGESTED
shares? ANSWER:
Explain.
The lone arisingdissenting from adirector
debt (Arcilla
failed v. to
the
2 possession
more
a
Corporation. Incorporations
stock
Commission’s case of
Theofsaid
corporation sale,
two certificate
for
jurisdiction
lease, a specific
shall
corporations enjoy
over to his
exchange, havebest
project,
preemptive
all cases
transfer,
the stockholders
SUGGESTED
empowered ANSWER: to oracquire
other persons
itssubscribed
own resulting
shares? b)fromIs
Yes,
Court Mercy
of Appeals,
pay arrangement
on duecan vote
G.R.
date, i.e., all
No. her
88113, October 23,
friend
purpose
right
enumerated toBpledge
who
orunder
subscribe borrowed
ofundertaking,PD to902-A
allandtheorsec.
issues said
for a
or
5 endorsed
limited
has disposition
ofbeen 1 the
gross The foreclosure
negligence or of19the
bad Sept
faith 1997,
chattel
in his
directing
mortgage,
same board or
directors other disposition
Y Corporation all or shares. Avoid
Section theinclusion
72 between
ofthe theofOther
corporate
Corporationthe corporation
assets as the
isCode
9) Piercing
1992). Corporate Veil than
certificate
SUGGESTED
time.
of shares
transferred
substantially
financed ANSWER:
Itthemaytooftothe
all support
involve
any class,
of Courts
operationsthe theB’s in
of
corporateof application
creation
proportion
general of a for
property
X Corporation. more
to their
and unpaid
mortgage
affairs
and its subscription.
regarding
of
President the corporation.
covered second by loan
the(Sec the
trust shares
not
31 fundCorp
Yes, Y Corporation may be held liable for the part
states ofthat
(1994)
Mr.
wherein the estate
Pablo, holders
he awas rich ofunable
ofthe
merchant decedent
subscribed to in his
complete shares
(Cease
early not
v.forties,
payment,
ALTERNATIVE
passport
formal
respective
jurisdiction
assets
May as
Y Corporation (or
structure
or
provided ANSWER.
for a
shareholdings.
the purpose
and,
appropriate
in the
be have hence,
Code; other the
Regional
held pre-emptiveand than
formation
liable for the Trial valid.
Code) A
SUGGESTED
doctrine? chattel Explainmortgage
ANSWER:
your cannot
answers validly
briefly.
a. No, Mr X does fully
hepaid
Court ofstock which
Appeals, are
G.R. not
No. delinquent
L-35861, October shall 18,its
debts
of
Court.
3
debts a of
of
transfer). X But
corporation.
In X case
Corporation.
of B
Corporation? Ifnot
sold
merger the theor
Why?
Theventure
certificate
joint
consolidation.
(5%)
doctrine towouldX,(n)right
of
a 10)
a)
was
secure AdidTo
a not
after promote
corporation
defendant
own
incurred any
or
in
toshare amay
obligations.
shield inonly
lawsuit theThe
unfair
acquire
which
corporation.
objectives
could
over
piercing
bona fide
involve Credit Transactions
the the
the remaining
veil
purchaser
creation of of 10,000
who corporation shares
relied on theas the
a partnership, because
fiction 1979).
haveown all
subject the
shares
On (Villanueva
affidavit
Stocks; 23 Sept
of
Increase
rights
him
good of
of to
1997, faith
v.
Capital
of
stock
Adre,
a
he stockholder.
if
substantial the
was No.
required
G.R.
Stock
trustdamages.
informed
under fund
80863,the by
April
A
the27, year
Liabilities;
these
Stockholders;
applies
endorsed to BOD;
shares Removal
this Corporate
have
case.
certificates of The Acts
already
Officers two
and believed & been BOD offered
corporations at doctrine
before
BOD
chattel that, the
mortgage is notcourt
unless impaired.
duerendered
law expressly payment This is to
judgment,
is say,
meanwhile
provides that forPablo
term is understood under the Civil him Code, to be (2001)
Suppose X Corporation 1989).
has an authorized
In (1996)
When
incorporation
(2001)
have 1999,
the the
ownermay a corporate
Corporation
same thereof.and
board he
a) A
of
Can director,
chose passed not
directors
A claim trustee,
toathe subscribe
board
and sharesor
Y “thesought corporation
instance,
received,
foregoing histhat
he:lawyer’s
a)it forthwith:
mortgage mayadvice
could purchase
no
is longer
made on how its
for own
serve to plan
as a his
then a corporation cannot be a party to it. Pre-emptive Right
Chattel
officerMortgage
to stock
them.
SUGGESTED
resolution
Corporation
of be from
vs. therefore,
held
He,ANSWER:
removing
owned After-Incurred
X?personally
X from
substantially
Explain hasObligations
liable
(3%) his waived
b) with
position
all
Would ofthethe
his right capital
as
your b)
shares
estate
director
securing
stock would
of
the
of P1M
toofstock
avoid
the not
obligation by divided
be entitled
utilizing
taxes.
into
His merely
specified toin
lawyer
100,000
the the cash
its and
suggested
(1991)
To secure
a) No.
corporation?
SUGGESTED
thereto the
Assuming
and payment
ANSWER:
the that of
corporationthean earlier
shares may loan
wereoffer of them (2001)
Suppose
shares
stock of
ALTERNATIVE
surplus that
stock
dividends
profitsX Corporation
with
ANSWER: par
which
over and value
were has
above of already
P10
declared
the each. and
manager
stocks
answer of of X said corporation.
Corporation, if AwhichlostThe by-laws
facts justify of that hehereof,
conditions should andform for no a othercorporation
purpose.” with
A
the A
P20,000 corporate
already
SUGGESTED
to anyone.
corporation
conclusionasbe well the
transferred
ANSWER:assame
director,
provides
that the totrustee
subsequent B,
that
latterAthe
the
or
loans
cannot
stock
officer
isofficers which
merelyclaim may
are the
an
issued
a) a)
Give (an
payable the
subscribed
himself,
twoanswer
1000
onways
his 24
originally
capital
wife
enumerating
whereby
Sep and 1997;
of theauthorized
his
said
and the
corporation.
children
instances
authorized sharesor
(all students
certificate
b. Yes. Mr. in question
X would haveor if it was
pre-emptive stolen from
rights The
of the after-incurred
cases obligation not being
thebe
her sharesheldof
friend
president,
extension personally
Noreen,
of stock
the would
from liable
vice-president,
personality X. extend
Thewith the
to
certificate
oftreasurer
the her, former, of
and c) corporation
capital
and
under
stock could
still
may the
not
unemployed)
so
be Corporation
votethatinits
increased the BOD Code
to
as stockholders
andwhere the
about
stockholders and
him?
to (2%)
the 50,000 preferred shares. All specified
stockholders
Corp in the
allows wish affidavit,
the to
acquisition
increase ispractical
not secured
X’s
of shares
authorized by
such
corporation
Karen
stock
secretary.
and executed
that thecovering
Upon under
in
former favor
said the
complaint of
sharesfollowing
Noreen
controls filed have a
the policiesbeenchattel
with the duly of P1.5M.
meeting
then
(3%)
transfer
b)
scheduledGive
all his
three
to assets
take place andon
reasons
26
liabilitiesSeptasto
stockholders
circumstances: of 1) aWhen stock hethe corporation
assents to shall mortgage.
capital
for in the stock.
stockholder’s
a corporation After tocomplying
increaseexercise itswith
of appraisal
capital the stock
mortgage
SEC,
the endorsedit held
latter. over by her
Added A and
that (Karen)
to entrusted
a
this car.
manager
is Is the
byfact him
could toaB.
that be Y 1997.
this corporation. Mr Pablo isfollowed the
corporation;
enjoy
SUGGESTED
patently pre-emptive
ANSWER:
unlawful 2) When actright hethe
of acts
to in badfrom
subscribe faith to or all 2
SUGGESTED
requirements
(2%)right,
Was Yes.
thefailure The
ANSWER:
action of chattel
of
the bids
of law
the inmortgage
on
BOD the increase
sale
on of
each not
of of valid
delinquent
the
mortgage
By
removed his
Corporation byvalid?
said acts,
mere
controls A is
resolution now
the estopped
of the
finances board of of
X recommendation of his lawyer. 1 year later,
A chattel
with gross
issues mortgage
orsaid negligence
disposition cannot ineffectively
of shares of any secure a)
as Two
against ways any ofXperson,
increasing except the the Authorized
mortgagor,
claiming
directors.
Corporation On which shares
motion isfor from X, a an
reconsideration,
merely bona fideclass,
adjunct,
capital
X or in his shares,
foregoing
the
stock,
court
etc.) mattersissuedvalid?
rendered
an additional
judgment
1000
against Pablo
after-incurred
directing
ALTERNATIVE
Piercing
in the Corporate
proportion obligations.
the
ANSWER: affairs Veil
to While
of the
their a stipulation
corporation,
respective Capital
executors
SUGGESTED
shares
SUGGESTED Stock
of the of
and
ANSWER:
same
ANSWER: X corporation
administrators.
value. a) to
Assume P1.5M thatare: the
purchaser
alleged
business that he who
conduit couldrelied only
or on be the
alter endorsement
removed ego byof the Y and
1) the Increase
plaintiff the sought
number to
of shares
enforce this
to b.
b) Yes,
includewith
conflict
Yes. Mr. X
after-incurred
the has
interest preemptive
of obligations
the right
corporation over
in a resulting the b) The arrangement
in a) No. TheA period of 30 between days200 the
within which
(2004)
How by A
affirmative
Corporation of In
shareholdings.
does theonethe
vote
(CIR
case
pierce
certificate
v
where
of
Norton
the
of the
&
the
veil
stock.
Harrison
certificate
of corporate
stockholdersCo 11
of
S
stockholder
judgment.
from 100,000
presently
The to sheriff,
150,000
holds
however,
shares
out of
with
the
could
the not
50,000
chattel
stock
fiction?
SUGGESTED damages
was preferred
mortgage
ANSWER:losttoor isthe shares
itself
stolecorporation,
from because
not invalid, A, A its has they
the were
stockholders
a right corporation
theoriginal
stockholder
or SUGGESTED
1000 and
shares.
ANSWER: its
canWouldPresident
pay the A have to
unpaid the
a pre- extent
representing
714 (1964))
not
obligation
Theto veil
other offered
ofcannot, 2/3
corporate
persons; of
before
3) the
however, by
fiction
When outstanding
the
he bemay corporation
deemed
consents be capital
pierced
to the for b) locate
same
that
When it
subscription
The plaintiff par
any
calls
should value
property
for theof
stockholder
had not P10.00
in
payment
yet the A each.
name
expired. of
exercisethe of Pablo
latter’s
the and
No. Stockholders’
claim the approval
certificate of is necessary
stock from only
the emptive
2) piercingrightIncrease tocan 200availparof the himself
value new of
of theofdoctrine
issue
100,000
stock.theIsremoval
subscription.
automatically
by
for proving
issuance X’sin ofcontention
secured
court
watered
of thatby legally
stocksthat
thetitle tenable.
mortgage
notion Why?
of same.until
legal therefore
shares
pre-emptive
of is returned
covered
right? the(2%) by
veil thethe oftrust writ fund
corporate of doctrine.
execution
fiction
thief who has nothe right members
or of the
to the BOD. 1000 shares? Why? (3%)
(5%)SUGGESTED
after
entity
For“One a
theornew
is who, ANSWER:
being
removal having
chattel ofused knowledge
mortgage
a to
corporate or
defeatanthereof,
officer public does
or not shares
unsatisfied.
The
b)
SUGGESTEDNo. only to
The
ANSWER:P15.00What
exceptions
delinquency
which can be invoked when a corporation each.
remedy,
from did the if
not any,
trust
deprive is
fundavailable
the is
c. The who has
shares lostwill any be movable
offered or has
to secretarybeen
existing his
addendum forthwith
convenience, to the file
justify with
original
wrong, the
chattel corporate
protect mortgage
fraud, or is a) Yes,
to the
doctrine A
stockholder would
plaintiff?
are ofhave
the his a
formed or used in avoiding a just obligation. pre-emptive
redemption
right to of
receive right
redeemable to
dividends
employee,
unlawfully
stockholders, thedeprived
vote who of thereof,
the BOD arehemay isentitled
sufficient
recover itto
b) Three
200 of the practical
new issue reasons
of forclose a dividend
corporation
objection
executed
defend
forfrom
the written
crime
purpose.
the thereto;
to person
cover orthe in 4)
the When
obligation
entity
possession agrees
after
is
of the toan
it same.”
just has hold shares
declared.
While itand, truein
isHowever, the
that casea1000
the of
cash
family shares.
corporation A is a may
corporation,
preemptive
Stocks; Sale, right,
Transfer at a price fixed by the to increase
stockholder
when there its
of capital
record
should stock
holding
be are:
a deadlock 200 1) to
shares
and the in tax;
beenhimself
Stockholders;
(Art actually
instrument 559 personally
Removal;
or
NCC) alterofand
incurred. Certificates
Minority
Accordingly,
ego ofadjunct
orDirector Stockunlessof declared
be organized may beto appliedpursue by the an corporation
estate
BOD,
Piercing
(2004) which
the
solidarily shall
Corporate
liable not
withVeil be the less than
corporation; the par generate
X Corpo.
SEC theordersmore
According working
the to
payment the capital;
Corp Code, each
Four
(1991)
Assuming
such
another months
supplementsthat or
entity before
the minority
are
person. his death,
made, block
the PX of assigned
chattel the XYZ to
planning, unpaid which is not ofper
subscription. the se
(Sec appraised
71 illegal
Corp or
value
(2006)
100or of such shares. Trust
stockholder
value Fundof aDoctrine;
has theIntra-Corporate
stockholder’s pre-emptive Controversy
right to all
Corporation
mortgage shares in the isofablestock
problem toregistered
elect
givenonly would in1his bename
director Code)
unlawful (Delpher Trades share. Corp v IAC 157 SCRA
andintherefore,
favor of his wife (1991)
issues of shares made by the corporation in
deemed to secure onlyand thehis loan of P20,000 349) the factual settings, however, indicate
(Sec 5 Act 1505; Belgian Catholic Missionaries v proportion
the existence to of a lawsuit that could subject
Magallanes Press 49p647) Pablo to a
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 45 of 103
FiveWould
yearsthelater
seller-mortgagee
after completing be payment
legally of situated as well as the LTO where the
thejustified
purchase in foreclosing
price, debtor on obtained
this second title
chattel
to vehicle is registered. (Sec 4 Chattel
theSUGGESTED
mortgage?
lot. And even ANSWER: as the chattel mortgage on Mortgage Law)
theNo.house
The two was mortgages were executed
still subsisting, to
debtor Credit Transactions
secure the payment
mortgaged to a bank the lot and of the unpaid (1999)
Various buyers of lots in a subdivision
installmentsthereon
improvement for the to purchase
secure of a newThis
a loan. car. brought actions to compel either or both the
realWhen the mortgage
estate mortgage on was thedulyold car was
registered developer and the bank to lease and deliver
andforeclosed,
Due to business
annotated the seller-mortgagee
reverses,
at the back ofdebtor
the title.is deemed
failed to free and clear the titles to their respective
paytohishave renounced
creditors. Theall other mortgage
chattel rights. A was lots.
foreclosure
foreclosed whenof additional
the debtorproperty, that is,
failed to The problem arose because notwithstanding
the new the
reimburse car surety
covered by the second
company mortgage
for payments prior sales mostly on installments – made by
madeChattel
wouldon Mortgage;
be
thea bond. Ownership
nullity. In theof foreclosure
Thing Mortgaged sale, the developer to buyers, developer had
(1990)
Zonee, who lives
the surety company was awarded in Bulacan, bought a 1988
the house mortgaged the whole subdivision to a
model
as the Toyota
highest Corolla sedan on July 1, 1989
bidder. commercial bank. The mortgage was duly
Onlyfrom Anadelaida,
after the foreclosure who lives
salein Quezon
did City,
the surety executed and registered with the appropriate
for P300th,
company learnpaying P150th
of the real estateas downpayment
mortgage in governmental agencies. However, as the lot
andofpromising
favor the lending to pay the balance
investor on theinlot 3 equal
and buyers were completely unaware of the
thequarterly
improvement installments
thereon. beginning Octoberit1,
Immediately, mortgage lien of the bank, they religiously
1989.
filed Anadelaida
a complaint executed
praying for the a deed of saleofof
exclusion As
paidthe developer
the failed
installments dueto under
pay itstheir
loan,sale
the
thethe vehicle
house from in the
favor of Zonee
real estate and, to secure
mortgage. It mortgage
contracts. was foreclosed and the whole
was the unpaid balance
submitted that asofthe thechattel
purchase price,
mortgage subdivision was acquired by the bank as the
was had Zonee execute
executed a deed ofahead,
and registered chattel it was highest bidder. a) May the bank dispossess
Ten days
mortgage after
on the
the execution
vehicle in of the
Anadelaida’s priorindividual lotsof
purchasers or, alternatively, require
superior to the real estate mortgage.
abovementioned
Onfavor. documents,
the suggestion that a chattel mortgage Zonee had on the them to pay again for the paid lots?
car transferred and registered
a house- a real property- was a nullity, the in her name. b) Discuss
What(3%)
are the rights of the bank vis-à-
Contemporaneously,
surety company countered Anadelaidathat whenhad thethe vis those buyers with remaining unpaid
chattel
chattel mortgage
mortgage wason executed,
the car registered
debtor was in installments? Discuss. (3%)
notthe yetChattel
the owner Mortgage of the Registry
lot onofwhich the Office
the Recommendation: Since the subject matter
of the
house wasRegister of Deeds of Quezon
built. Accordingly, the house City.was of these two (2) questions is not included
1 In Sep
a personal 1989,
Discuss
property Zonee
the sold
validity
and the
of the
a proper sedan to Jimbo
position
subject oftaken
a within the scope of the Bar Questions in
by without
the surety
chattel telling
mortgage. the latter
company. (3%)that the car was Mercantile Law, as it is within Civil Law, it is
2 mortgagedWho has to aAnadelaida.
better claim When
to the Zonee
house, failed
the suggested that whatever answer is given by
to pay
surety the first
company orinstallment
the lendingon OctoberExplain
investor? 1, the examinee, or the lack of answer should
(3%)1989, Anadelaida went to see Zonee and be given full credit. If the examinee gives a
3 discovered
Would that the latter
the position ofhad
the sold
surety thecompany
car to good answer, he should be given additional
be Jimbo.
bolstered a) Jimbo
by therefused
fact that to itgive up thetitle
acquired car on in a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
credit. No. The bank may not dispossess the
the ground
foreclosure salethat the chattel
conducted by mortgage
the Provincial 1
executed
Sheriff. Explainby Zonee
(3%) in favor of Anadelaida is prior purchasers of the individual lots, much
not valid because it was executed before the less require them to pay for the said lots.
car was registered in Zonee’s name, i.e., The bank has to respect the rights of the
before Zonee became the registered owner prior purchasers of the individual lots. The
of the car. Is the said argument meritorious? purchasers have the option to pay the
b) Jimbo also argued that even if the chattel installments of the mortgagee.
Explain your answer.
mortgage is valid, it cannot affect him 2 The bank has to respect the rights of
because it was not properly registered with the buyers with remaining unpaid
the government offices where it should be installments. The purchaser has the option
registered. What government office is Jimbo to pay the installments to the mortgagee
SUGGESTEDto?
referring ANSWER: Mortgage
who should apply the payments to the
a) Jimbo’s argument is not meritorious. (1999)
Debtor purchased a parcel of land from a
Zonee became the owner of the property mortgage indebtedness.
Chattel Mortgage;
realty company Foreclosure
payable in five yearly
upon delivery; registration is not essential (1997)
Ritz bought a new
installments. car on
Under theinstallments
contract of which
sale, title
to vest that ownership in the buyer. The provided for would
to the lot an acceleration clause
be transferred in the
upon full
execution of the chattel mortgage by the event of default.
payment of theTopurchase
secure payment
price. of the
buyer in favor of the seller, in fact, can But even
unpaid before full
installments, as payment,
and whendebtor
due, he
demonstrate the vesting of such ownership constructed
constituted twoachattel
house on the lot. Sometime
mortgages, i.e., one
b) Jimbo
to the was referring to the Register of
mortgagor. thereafter,
over his very olddebtor mortgaged
car and the otherthecovering
house to
Deeds of Bulacan where Zonee was a secure his obligation arising
the new car that he had just bought as from the
resident. The Chattel Mortgage Law issuance of a bond needed
aforesaid, on installments. After Ritzin the conduct of
requires the registration to be made in the his business. The mortgage was
defaulted on three installments, the seller-duly
Office of the Register of Deeds of the registered
mortgagee with the on
foreclosed proper chattel
the old mortgage
car. The
province where the mortgagor resides and registry.
proceeds of the foreclosure were not enough
also in which the property is to satisfy the due obligation; hence, he
similarly sought to foreclose on the new car.
 Mercantile
Mercantile Law Bar Examination Page 46 of 103
Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006)
Q & A (1990-2006) ToPagepay 47 forPage 103
ofher 48loan of 103
obtained
Because of business reverses, neither the from
(5) Stela,
The Liza
b.Integrity lease
Bank constituted
which in
– rentals Stela’s Edzo
granted
belong favor
to athe
LDC countered
Borrower nor Mr. Timbolthat it had wasbuiltable on to the
pay the chattel
loan mortgage
mortgagor.
in 2001 over
inHowever,
the amountantheelectric
ofmortgage generator.
P500,000. extends
The
mortgaged
loan. In June property2001, thewith Bank theextrajudicially
prior Cecil,
loanto wasarentals
creditor
not secured of Liza,
not yetbylevied
any
received on
asset of
when Edzo,the
knowledge
foreclosed theof twomortgagee
real estate whichmortgages,
had received attachment
but it was the
obligation generator.
guaranteed
becomes due Stela
and filed
unconditionally a third
the mortgagee and
withformal
the notice
Bank of as the thelease.onlya)bidderHow would in the you party
solidarily
may claim.
ran Cecil
by afteropposed
Edzo’s
the said the claim.
rentalsRule
President forandthe
mortgagee
resolve the
foreclosure and
sale.dispute
On LDC? (3%) b)the
between
September Is the
16, 2001, the SUGGESTED
on
controlling
payment ANSWER:
their conflictingstockholder, claims.
of the mortgage Eduardodebt. Z. Ong, as
mortgagee
certificates of entitled
sale of to the thetwo lease rentals due
properties in Mortgage; Foreclosure;
accommodation surety. Effect of mere taking by
from Mortgage;
loan due Extrajudicial
Thecreditor-mortgagor to Integrity Foreclose
of property (1992)
Bank fell due on
favor of LDC
the under
Bank were the lease agreement?
registered with (3%) the
Ten months later, both
Recommendation: the Borrower
Since the and Mr.
subject (2006)
A
matter of
Junereal
X& 15,Coestate
2002.
obtained mortgage
Despite a loan may
pleas fromforbea foreclosed
extension
local bankof in
Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Timbol were (2) questions
these twoto raise
able is not includedfunds
sufficient withintothe judicially
payment
the amount orbyextrajudicially.
Edzo, of P500th,
the bank In what mortgaginginstance as
demanded
redeem their scope of the Bar properties
respective Questions infrom Mercantile
the may
immediatea mortgagee
security payment.
thereforeextrajudicially
Because
its real foreclose banka
the property.
Bank, but Law, theas Bank it is withinrefusedCivil to Law,permit it is SUGGESTED
real estateANSWER:
threatened
Subsequently, mortgage?
to proceed (5%)
the company against applied
the surety,
with the
suggested that whatever answer is given When a sale is made under a special power
redemption on the ground that the period Eduardo
same bank Z. Ong, forEdzo a Letter
decided of to Creditpay up (LC) all for
by the examinee, or the lack of answer inserted or attached to any real-estate
for redemption had already expired, so that its $200th
obligations in favor
to Integrity
of a foreign
Bank. On
bank June to 20,
cover
should be given full credit. If the mortgage, thereafter given as security for the
theSUGGESTED
Bank examinee
now has
ANSWER: givesabsolute ownership
a good answer, of
he should 2002,
the Edzoimportationpaid toofIntegritymachinery. Bank To theguarantee
full
payment of money or the fulfillment of any
botha. The mortgagee
properties. The has
be given additional credit. a
Borrower better right
and Mr.than principal
payment amount
of the of
obligation
P500,000, underplus the
accrued
LC, the
other obligation, then the mortgagee may
LDC. came
Timbol The to mortgage
you today, extends Septemberto15,the interests company amounting
and its toPresident P55,000. and As a Treasurer
result,
extrajudicially
The machinery foreclose
arrived the was
and realreleased
estate to
improvements
2002, to find out if introduced
the position on of thethe land,
Bank with Edzo executed
Mortgage;had hardlyaForeclosure
surety
any cashagreement
left for operations
in the local
mortgage
the company(Sec. 1,under Act No.
a trust After3135, as
receipt
is the
correct. declarations,
What would amplifications, be your answer?and and bank’s
(2003)
May decided
the favor.
sale attopublic
close its business.
auction by a bank of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
limitations
State your established by law, whether the paying
amended).
agreement. As the company defaulted inathe
1 Withreasons
respect(5%). to the real estate mortgage property
How
the mortgaged
would
payment
unpaid
you, as
salaries
judge
of its obligations, to of
in it its
the be employees,
nullified
insolvency
theonbank took
estate remains in the possession of the Edzo because filed the a petition
price was forextremely
insolvency low? July 1,
Why?
over the land and building owned by the
mortgagor or passes into the hands of a proceedings, possession
2002.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rank
of the the respective
imported credits
machinery. Atorthe
Borrower, Primetime Corporation, a juridical body, claims sameof time, the five it (5)soughtcreditors mentionedthe
to foreclose
third person (Art 2127 NCC). The notice
the period of redemption is only three (3) months, above mortgagedin terms of
propertypreference and or
to priority
hold the
given by LDC to the mortgagee was not Mortgage; Foreclosure
which period already expired. SUGGESTED
against
company eachANSWER:
other?
as (5%)
well as its President
enough to remove the building from (2003) Because
TheDid claim ofoffailure
Handyman of Janette and forJeanne toand
2 As to the real estate mortgage over the Treasurer, the taking
liable of Garage
possession
under the
P10,000
ofSurety
the
coverage of the mortgage considering that pay a their
specificloan
hasmachinery lien to the
on X car Bank, repaired. the latter
residential house and lot owned by Mr. Timbol, Agreement. by the bank result in the 1) full
the building was built after the mortgage foreclosed on the mortgage constituted on
the period of redemption is one (1) year from the payment of the obligations of the company
was constituted and the notice was only as The their property which was(4) put up by them as
date of registration of the certificate of sale, and its officers,four
remaining and 2) foreclosure claims have
of the
regards the lease and not as to the preference security
SUGGESTED fororANSWER:
the payment
priority against of the each loan.
other The
in
which period has not yet expired in this case. mortgage?
construction of the building. Since the price (1)
the1) paid
The
following for
No.taking the
4 –order: ofproperty
claim of the BIR
possession at the offor foreclosure
the unpaid
machinery
mortgagee was informed of the lease and did sale value
by thewas
added bank not
taxes enough to liquidate
did not result in full payment the of
not object to it, the mortgagee became (2) obligation.
the obligations owing from the companyIn
No. 3The
– bank
claim of sued
Joselyn for deficiency.
Reyes for and
bound by Remedies
Mortgage; the terms of the lease when it Unlawful their
its answer, termination
officers. Janette
The taking and ofJeanne did not
such possession
acquired the
(2003)
Carmakers, Inc.,property
sold a asmotor the highest
vehiclebidder.on (3)
denymust theNo.be 1considered
– claimofofthe
existence Ace loan
merely equipment
nor
as athe fact of in
measure
Hence, thebasis
installment mortgagee to Chari steps Paredes.
into the shoes The of Supplies
their as
default. an unpaid
They, seller;
however,
order to protect or further safeguard andinterposed thethe
the mortgagor
transaction
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and acquires
was reflected on the rights of the (4)
a promissory defenses
bank’s No.that 5 – claim
security of at Dacion
the interest.
price the auction en pago was can
a) The
notelessor house under
executed
1st Alternative is always
Answer:Art
by 1768 a real
Chari ofproperty
the favor
in NCC. even This Integrity
of extremely
only beBank.
low and thatastheir
considered having loan, takendespiteplace
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
though
a. Theit mortgagee
provision
Carmakers. was constructed
gives
The note the
haswas lessoron
a better athe
secured land
right nota
right
byto to the(PNB
the loanv aPineda
when documents,
creditor 197 saccepts
1)
was a and long-term loan
appropriates
belonging
appropriate
building.over
mortgage toUnderthetheArtbuilder.
condominium
car. 2127 However,
of the building
Contemporaneous the
NCC, the which
the had
but Mortgage; not yetofmatured.
ownership
Foreclosure the
of goods If in
Improvements you were the
payment of a
2)
due The
parties
withafter
mortgage
themay
paying treat theit lessee
extends
execution as toa the
of personal
all half of the
improvements
note property
andvalue theon judge,
of (1999) mere
howobtainedwould taking you rule of onpossession
the case? of
Borrower obligation. a loan against the
and constitute
the building
mortgage a chattel
deed,atCarmakers,
mortgaged that
property mortgage
time.regardless
Should thereon.
theoflessor
Inc., assigned who mortgaged
Why? (6%) assets does not amount to
security of a mortgage on arequires
parcel ofa land.
Such
therefuse
and mortgage
to reimburse
when
instruments shall
sans be said
the recourse valid and
amount,
improvements
to binding
the lessee
Adelantado were foreclosure. Foreclosure sale at
While the mortgage was subsisting,
but mayonly on
remove
introduced.
Finance the parties.
the
LDC cannot
Corporation. It
improvement will
Charicomplain not
defaulted evenbind or
though
otherwise,
in her public auction. The foreclosure, therefore,
borrower
has not asleased yet beenfor
b) The lending investor hasthe a better claimittowas fifty years the
SUGGESTED
affect
the third
land
because
obligations.
ANSWER:
parties.
will sufferthat
it Could
knew damage
Adelantado thereby.
property Finance effected.
Preference
the 2nd house.
alternativeof The Creditsreal estate mortgage mortgaged
Mortgage; Redemption Period; Development
property to Land Foreclosed
leasing
corporation wasAnswer:
mortgaged
take action when
against it builtboth the Company (LDC). The mortgagee was duly
(2002)
As a. ofAssuming
covering June
the 1,that2002,
house theand Edzo
office
lot Systems
condominium
was duly Property (2002)
condominium.
Carmakers Inc., and Chari? Why? (6%) advised of Corporation
the lease. (the Thereafter,
Corporation
was
registered duly
and (Edzo)
binds was
constituted indebted
the parties andto third
under the the Primetime Borrower)LDC
(1)
following Ace
Condominium
persons. Equipment
creditors:
On theLaw, other Supplies
beforehand, LDC – for
the various
could validly
chattel constructed on the
obtained a P10 Million, five-year mortgaged property
term loan an
Borrower
office condominium.defaulted on his loan and
personal
constitute
mortgage computers
on the house and accessories
same securingas a condominium, sold to
the credit it from Universal Bank (the Bank) in 1996. As
mortgagee foreclosed the mortgage. At the
Edzo on
of should credit
the surety amounting
causecompany
to be recorded to P300,000.
did notinaffect the register
the security for the loan and as required by the
(2) Handyman foreclosure sale, the mortgagee was
of
rights deeds
of third of Garage
the
parties – such
province for mechanical
or
as city where the
the lending Bank, the Borrower gave the following
awarded the property as the highest bidder.
c)
repairs
No.
land The
(parts
is chattel
and
situated service)
mortgage
an enabling
investor despite registration of the chattel performed
overor the on
master house deed collateral security in favor of the Bank: 1) a
Theownedcorresponding
by mortgage Certificateand
the Borrower of Sale was in
which
Edzo’s company
showing,
mortgage. was amongforeclosed
car others,
amountingdid a not to P10,000.
affect of
certificate thethe real estate over the landlocated and
(3)
rights Joselyn
of third Reyes –
parties former employee of executed
Quezon and after
City; the
2) lapse
the of
joint one year,several
and title
registered owner andlike of the all lending
registered was
building
consolidated inofthe name ofBorrower;
mortgagee.
Edzo who
investor. sued
Since Edzo
the for
thirdunlawful
holders of any lien or encumbrance on the parties are not Timbol,
promissory the President
note Pr. of the
Primo and
Mortgagee then applied with the RTC for
termination
bound by
property the of employment
chattel
that mortgage,
they and was
they
consent able
areto to
not the 3) a real estate mortgage over the
the issuance
lot owned of aby writ ofTimbol,
possession not onlyin Quezon
obtain
also a final judgment
bound
registration byof theanydeed. against(SecEdzo
enforcement 4. RA forof its If
4726). residential houseMr. and also located
(4) Bureau over the land but also the condominium
P100,000.
provisions.
the mortgagee Theofforeclosure
Internal Revenue
gave its consent of such – forchattel
thereto, then
City.
building. The mortgagee contended that the
unpaid value-added
SUGGESTED
mortgage did ANSWER:
not taxes amounting
bolster or add to
anything to
LDC should prevail. If no consent was given, mortgage included all accessions,
Mortgage
P30,000.
thetheposition vs.of theLevysurety company.
condominium was included in the improvements and accessories found on the
(2003)
mortgage. mortgaged property.
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar Mercantile
Examination
Examination Q &Q Law
A& ABar Page
Examination Q & A (1990-2006)
(1990-2006)
(1990-2006) 50 55
52
54
Page 49
53
of 103of 103
of 103 relation,
Moreover,
Yes,
Page On 56
Upon
son,whenMarch 103
his
ofBOY, infailure
Purita
insured
injured
the 51
19,cannot
Page problem
1993, of3103
to
and pay the
a loan
children
insurer
be
a fire
at of
thestated
reinsurance
over
Will
no
After
continuing
1989, evidence
the
his
in
Petra’s
vehicle
building
citingthe
is an crisis
insurance
Gcrcioinsurance
of
insuit
burned
involving
v.favor
suicide
Sun policy,
of
prosper?
against
down,
Life, IOU.
the or
the
G.R.banking
Robin
When
liability
No. arson
principles
Anjo
filedor donee
hand,
have on
POS,
razed
or willful due
agreed
there
ofathe
exposure date,
neighbor,
isbuilding
to
to needless the
deceased.
no the bank
double
perilpayment
who
which areforeclosed
toHence,
the
sued
insurance
ground.
ofSAM
excepted premium
sherisks. Thethe
cannot
because
forGarapal by
insured’s
Insured;
SUGGESTEDAccident
ANSWER: vs. Suicide act was purelyhis
mortgage
Concealment; an act ofand
onnegligence
the 3which is
lots,
Material covered
which byATT,the policy
were and forwas
Concealment;
and
which
defaulted,
Explain.
involvement
his
underlying
financial
claim
the
23703, original
for
sector
IOU
September solidary
fire
of foreclosed
insurer
loss
in
BX
28, the
with
obligations
inmay
1925;Asian
these
the
EFG.
andincur
region.
chattel
GoOn
events.
v.in
would
Feb
favor 28,BX
be also
the
installments
damages.
Insurance
insured
be beneficiary.
with
SAM's
refused the
partial
lawyer
First
to make
payment
Insurance
wasgood has itswho
isbeen
No, Petra’s suit will not prosper (assuming which the insured got the insurance for his protection. In fact, he removed the
(1993)
S Insurance
Does
of the
mortgage,
demanded
1994,
violated
BDoriginal
Redfern, EFG
have Co
. G.R.and
denied
an issued
insured.
(Malayan payment
No.insurable
soughtRobin’s
47705,
Ins atoApril
Co personal
of
interest
vrecover
claim.
CA the
25, accident
within
On
the
GR1841); insurance
L-36413 AprilSep 3, subsequently
Incontestability
different
made paid
obligation
magazine atfor
from the
from
the his
guntime
to
andthe sold
Clause
services
Benjie
of
wheninsured
he for
(1991)
loss,
pointedonly
under
by then
the
with
the P99th
gunthe
the
insurer
tothe at for
hisinsurance
insurer
Second
temple the
he did so
(2)
thethat
Insurance;
policy Neither
the
to
deficiency.
proceeds
1994,
meaning
26, 88 Robinpolicy
Double
Bob can
Insurance
offrom
165s536;May Tan
sought
the the
of life
with
Insurance
IOU the Insured
insurance
arecover
reconsideration
Figuracionstill two Code
vda take
face the
has
value
policies,
deofthe ofbeen
the
Maglana ofthe
the vin Concealment;
foreclosure
Atty
Insurance
becomes
reporting
contract.
because Roberto
liable.
he thought Company.
1)
that Material
itsale.
took
periodically
IsWhen
was Garapal out
The
for Concealment
safeThereafter,
the
him aInsurance
on dolife
same
to car the
so. loss
Heisthe
insurance
case
didtruebank
happened
so tolegally
towith filed
CNI.
assure policy
his In
cash surrender
force
SUGGESTED
(2005)
When does
SUGGESTED
P500th.
Philippines for
ANSWER:
In
deficiency?
premiums
denial,
Consolacion double
the
but value,
aANSWER:
period
evening
(PD1460)?
for
EFG
Explain.
GR which assign
of
insurance
reiterated
60506 of
(2%)less
IS
Aug Sep or
had
6, than
its
92 even
exist?
5, 2 borrow
1992,
been years
position.
212s268) afterfrom (2001)
faithfully
On A applied
sisteran
respect
on that ordinary
from
one the
justified
the 5th the
gun
report,
to for
wasinDana
the
month, aaction
harmless.non-medical
refusing
interests
ATT Therefor
Ins
the Co
disclosed the
(DIC)
isinsured
six none
payment in the
months tolife
collection
on
policy
CNI
in
to insurance.
1that
that
agreed
the Sep
would
Benjie? ofrelieve
two the
1989.
after
2) Is
Yes.
on
his Insurer;
IOU
BDdate
said
the
SUGGESTED
(2%) may
birthday
paying
March has
policy3rd
20,of
ANSWER: itsParty
insurable
no
party,
during1995, longer
without
issue).
Tan
all
RobinLiability
interest
therecover
The
was
the in in
matters his
the
he bank
beneficiary's
a happy
commenced
time deficiency.
which
was mood
judicial Juan the
alive. The insurer
On
policies.
periodhis
Nat of liability fordid
insured
deficiency.
31 Aug A
investigations,
of
entitled
payment the contended
death
1990,
to not of inform
collect
had the insuredthat
Roberto
henot found
onyet since
the
the the
the
died.
elapsed
the death
insurer was anthat
mortgage
DIC
insurance
injuries refused
(UCPB to
(2000)
X
Under was
deposit.
Under
consent Inriding
Section
Art
case 93
1484 a
of suburban
of
loss
of the the
of saidutility
Insurance
NCC, vehicle
deposit,
in Code,
a contract
more (SUV)of accident.
but failed to
(Nario
not drunk.
Starbrite
action disclose
against v.He
refused was
EFG. was
Philamlife, material
G.R.Robin’s
playing
payment,
Should No.
with and
22796, relevant
hisaction
contending hand that
be c)
one SUGGESTED
As
to
the Judge,
policy?
General week
contract pay
3Insurance
childrenANSWER:
heIprior
would
hisexecuted
not
v. toallow his
was
beneficiaries
accidental
Masagana theapplication
businessman
indivisible
Telamart,butbecause and
intentional.
G.R. forto it
gun,covered
there isof
particularly
Junesale
to26,
the
BXfrom
given double
had by
personal
1967);
SUGGESTED to the
ANSWER:
approval
due a
which comprehensive
insurance
extent
property
and
nocourse? when
of
issuance
insurable the
theamount
he previously motor
there
theisinsurance
ofprice
Explain. vehicle
over-
ofinwhich
interestremoved 1)Yes.his
recover
insurance,
and therefore Athe
the the
total was time
loss of P5M
of
examined the loss,
consequently,
No.discovered
137172, April representing
and Benjie was
confined
that4,the bank
Robert
2001) at no
the had
. Francis hadnomisrepresented
legal
can right to
recover
(3)is No,
liability
insurance
excess The
Robin’s
payable
of the Insured
insurance
with action
intwo
limit cannot
or
installments,
covered should
(CMVLI)
more add
by another
not
companies,
the be
underwritten
the PDIC
vendor givenAct,Life’s due
may, by from longer the owner of the property insured as
policy.
magazine.
was not They As would
his
entitled have
secretary
to receiveaffectedwas the Good
watching
proceeds St. SAM
full value
Luke’s
foreclose
certain lost
Peninsula the
of
Hospital
only
material case
his thefacts
Insurance in court,
goods
where
real in hewhich
estatehis
Company, and
was POS
mortgagewere
diagnosed
application.but was
the lost
and The
beneficiary
PBD course.
FastPay
covering
among
will
SUGGESTED
action the
beon because
severalIs
Insurance
same
damnified.
ANSWER:
his filing that
options,
application, Company
property, He would
of will the
the
foreclose
either reduce
when
same
suffer request
by the itthecollided
chattel
approving for he
awarded
through failed oneto redeem
million the
pesos property.
in damages The law
television,
from IS’she insurancestood in coverage front of on his her life and and leave
latter hasfire.
forbeneficiaries
lung cancer.
out thethe Asright to the
The
chattel
sued toinsured
on creditor,
mortgage,
deduct the basis theI amount
soon would
thereafter
and
that then DICallow
of sue can
amountStarbrite
with
insurable
pecuniary
mortgage awhich
reconsideration speeding
interest
loss isthe
on of the first
correct
anddid
bus
P300,000.00,
thing beneficiary
not
owned
the withsuspend
same
sold, by respect
that
if RM
risk. may
one the
is, Travel
Double
has
his tobeen
running thea him
Inc. requires
which in property insurance that a of person
it
pointed
also with theon the gun corresponding
his at her.
property. She adjustment
pushed Is it aside
Starbrite’s for diedhim to
contest
unpaid ahe
inrecover
for
premiumplane
athe sought
supposedthe crash.
validity
from to the
amount collect
deficiency
of to from
Is insurance
the theinsurer the insurer.
extent
judgment.
insurance liable or
If
policy
recover
insurance and therefore
coverage adversely
on the affect
property his isof toIS.
andof The
insurance
bank higher
said the
contentioncollision
constituted,
deposit that prescriptive
exists
premiumof resulted
valid? where
itshould
half
mayaExplain? or
be the
million inperiod
serious
same
vendee’s
rejecting
loaded. pesos
(5%) Heofinjuries
person minus one
failure
the
assured year
same. to can
X; Insurer:
Insurance;
But
you CNI
equivalent
considering
only
proceeds. recover
Effects:
were Lifeused
within tothat
the 2the
Insurance; Several
theATTs
the
Judge,
years proceeds
Assignment
value Insurers
report
fact would
from ofto of
concealed of
you
the the
Policy
deny
the policy
sustain
date the
credit
had ofclaim
no
theif
hehe
issue
vestedThe
stipulatedright
beneficiary (Go in v. the in
Redfem, the
insuranceG.R. property
No. 47705,
policy. insurance Thus, (1991)
(2005)
has insurable interest at the time of
the the
Y,
insured
P200,000.00
pay a
Moreover, passenger
by
cover several
which
two
a of
or
disclosure the
insurers
is more
the bus; may and
separately
maximum
installments.
have Z, a pedestrian
amount in
warranted In such a SUGGESTED
The
What policy
SUGGESTED
SUGGESTED
on is
the ANSWER:
the of
ground insurance
nature
ANSWER:
ANSWER: that of
the upon
theinjuries liability
his life,
to with
of
POS's the
a 3
her that it was Public not and then pointed it at his extended
bearing
contention
and to
with ofthe
during the businessman
the cause
A? lifetime of death for
of the stocks-
ofinsured.
Insurable
April 25, Interest:
policy
when
waiting
respect
recoverable
case,
medical 1941);
of or
robin
the
however,for the
from same
examination a the Enemy
assignee
commenced
ride
subject
the PDIC. at
vendor
of thereof
Juanthe
matter judicial
scene
shall
by and must
Good have of have
action
Life the
no in No.IIf
face Iwould
The
issuance
several
children were
value the
concealed
insurers
of of
wererule
P100thJudge,
the in infact
policy
was
intentional, I would
favor isand
double
assigned dismiss
material
of
hencealso the at
insurance?
by the
to
insurance
the
Jose,
excluded the atime
temple.
(4) Unless The the next
policy moment,
allows, the there Insured was an in-trade
insured?
DecideANSWER: which
Why?
the case. (5%) were mortgaged by the
(2000)
May
The a
insurable
wife
against member
collision.
interests.
further of the
EFG The
action
(Geagonia of
interest the
deceased
Assurance
police MILF
against
v. in
Court the
sought
report or
on
of the its
property
March breakaway
payment
established
Appeals, purchaser 20,
G.R. insured.
on
1995,thatto action
approval
company.
Insurable
SUGGESTED
when
married
Explain.
from the as
the
man
(2%) and being
Interest; loss
with
policy's The premature
issuance
Equitable
2occurs.
legitimate
coverage. of
incontestability
At since
the
Interest the
children,
POS the
insurance
time
countered proper
clause,
of
to fire,
order
explosion
cannot even for and it
designate to reasonably
Tan slumped another assess
to with
beneficiary the afloor the risk businessman.
Insurance;
group,
the BX,
hispolicy the
a Double
ability Abu
merebut to Insurance;
Sayyaf,
friend-companion
herdo claim
so effect
be
had insured
was already of prescribed.
rejected. IS, has
The no The remedy
policy.
(1991)
A
his piece
Benjienature
applies
nephew Itofno would
is
only
Y of
well
machinery
longer
as the
be
security to
settled
ifestopped
the liability
had complete
policy
wasfor thathad of
shipped
insurable
a loan the
the the
been of several
foreclosure
insured
toin Mr
interest
P50th. effect in
No. the
recover
114427,
involved
lifeless. bus was
any
February
in the
unpaid
accepting offending
6, balance
1995) the vehicle.
of
application. the priceThe In bus
and
any that CNI was from using ATTs
should
(1993)
Julie
company and
insurable
insurance
The the Alma
one-year original
licensed formed
interest
company to
period beneficiary
doin ais
agreed business
business
the predecease
residential
counted that under
there
from the
house
was
Feb of
28, 2)
insurers
needof
for
Pablo No.
thenot
at
on While
in
mortgages
die
least
the doubleof2
basisat thethe
years. of time
insurance
and only
disease
C&FThe of 2 the
heis
thereafter
Manila.year loss
that
failed periodhe
Pabloeach
can to had is
had CMVLI
any agreement
case, goodacquires policy to
faith issued
the contrary by Dragon
no isdefense
is beneficiary's void. WhileIns Co. in He the
did property
not give insured.
the
report because it was unethical for ATT to insurer any written
him. His
partnership. estate Under the the
business name Pino and not insurer insurable interest in the building, as he was
Insurance
IS.
no 1994 BX
suicide.
X,
the Y,given
concealment. isCode
when
and not
However,Z
factsEFGofjointly
the
entitled
Thedid Phils
denied
it to
not was
sued
waiver (PD
receive
Robin’s
the
explicitly 1460)?
RM of the
submission proceeds
claim,
Travel
a state medical that there
disclose
counted
insured
notice
provide ofisbyto bound
said
such an
thefrom action to the
insurer.
machinery
assignment
prejudicial thefor contribute
collection
It
time
information is
with
despite sufficient
thethe of
the ratably
against any
Talaga that
insurance his to
vested
Shop,
of As
SUGGESTED
Explain.
the
from toright
the the
ANSWER:
(3%)
IS’s
insurance
the upon
insurance
partnership
insurance
date his
company death;
on
(presumablycoverage
engaged histhatand in
property.
there on
a
after salethe
was oflife
April no of3, the
his the
Merchantsloss
deficiency.owner
nondisclosure
becomes in thereof,
proportion
In
effective
Ins Caltex
Co misled v Nat
until
IAC
(Tamic) to did
the
the
(GR for not
amount
insurer
death
74730, have
loss 25 of in
Aug
or any
forthe
A Dragon
Anjo’s
examination
(5)member Theis failure
of Ins
Insured
the MILF for
to
incannot pay
theindemnity
or covered
theallow‘non-medical’
Abuhis 2
Sayyafunder or more the
life explicit
client
ALTERNATIVE provision
to the ANSWER: to that
insurer, CNI. Who should effect in the policy.
IS,
construction
accident.
1994)
InsuranceBX Inwhen entitled
materials.
support
Code EFG of to
thereof, receive
Julie
reiterated
the insured
Phils it the
contended its
(PD1460). proceeds.
the position
a) The Joseinterest
which
SUGGESTED
forming
insured
89)
damage ,
died. he
the his
during
Uponis
andin
ANSWER:
remedies liable
estimate the
not
the on policy.
undera
of
thereafter
voyage.
claim secured
on the his
The
the There
risks contract
debt,
(Tan
vessel
policy of
vwas
said
by the
CA
sank as no
the
GR
installments,
insurance
creditors
may bein to
insured from
attach this
with Good may
oraexecutecompany safely
Life makes on thebe
licensed presumed
itpolicy.
even to more provided prevail:
ICNI would therule claimant, in POS;
favor or the
of the insurer,
insurance
stocks
that There
denying there is
trade no
Robin’swasof requirement
Pino no
claim.Shop accident
Thewith that WGC
reason BX
when should
for athis Concealment;
automatic
court,
proposed
48044
en CNI?
route is not
for
are
to Manila.byestopped
transfer
either
insurance
29Jun1989) SecMaterial 94
anPablo from
clause
of
action
policy ICP
then Concealment:
using
in
par.
to
or the
filed ATT's
The
collect
in policy
ratable
or
making
a claim to that
lower
because court the applied
right ofJuanthe
IOU “no
Co fault”
to foreclose indemnity the the assignee, Decide the withinsurer reasons refused to pay on
necessary
(Philamlife
do business
have
Insurance
deliberate
rule is
v.
insurable
Coact
Pineda,
under
tofor
thatthe
was
G.R.
interest
P350th.
insure
No.
Insurance
performed
54216,
in
supply
Subsequently,
that the July
Code
claims
unless life19,
complete
of
ofshe
some
the
IS.suit
against It company.
Incontestability
report,
would
contribution
foreclose
inquiries.
with Tamic give Although
Clause
becauseaofhim
which each
contract (1994)
CNI,
such of of in an
interest
each
denied thebriefly.
real
insurer
first
inthe
insurer
security.
for the
(5%)
place, may
policy.
will
These
reason benot
1989) policy
chattel
information of
mortgage the statute,
under
about dismissed
the circumstances
his the
previous is the ground
rescind that the it was contract not notified on of the
ground
Phils.
again was What
SUGGESTED
gotIS an is
ANSWER:
himself prohibited
insurance whocontract to
took be insured
the with insurance is afor on
RSI settled Insurable
Oncommissioned
September
SUGGESTED
determined
that remedies ANSWER:
prior to based
Interest;
are
deliver, 23,
it on and
alternative Property
1990,paid
the Insurance
Tanno
ATT
following
remedies, took
for it. On
formula:a the
although life of
additional,
public
insurance
against
premised
Beneficiary:
hospitalization
No.
If the
Insurable The
enemy. RM
Rights; unexpected,
on
cause
policy companies
Interest;
A Travel,
Anjo’s
Irrevocable
of of
public for
action
life
Life and
failure independent
are
insurance
vs.
enemy ofordered
Beneficiary
such Y
Property
promptly
to
is is
apay based
has Dragon
2 beenoron
information
Insurance
citizen
and
or more Ins
the
in assignment.
misrepresentation
(2001) Upon thePablo otherafter had
hand, an insurable
the heirs
action is
P1m his andown then life. from EIC for P200th. A fire by of the PabloJQ,
insurance
other
AMOUNT had
ownerhand, an
policy
OF of
existing
ATT a
from
POLICY condominium
has insurable
Philam.
no conflict The interest
unit,
of policy
interestinsured
on
was
unforeseen
(2005)
Jacob and
to pay
constitutes
contract
Insurance;
force
(2002)
national
Distinguish
that
installments.
obtained
for
of a
happening
ofinsurance
indemnity
a a
an The
life
carriage,
Return
period
country important
insurable of to
of
with
suits
occur
foreclosure
insurance all
while
Premiums
2 are
years
which
interest
which
three
factor
that brought
would
policyor
the of
in
produces
plaintiffs.
for
which
X
more not
and P1
property have
Good
Z
from Do
is of an action
interest.
Jose
commenced
ALTERNATIVE Decide
contended
ANSWER:
for any
forthe that case.
recovery Y isdivided
deficiency notunder
is not
entitled byprecluded,
the
TOTAL
to
policy, the
unknown origin gutted the store of to thethe the the
issued
SUGGESTED
INSURANCEpiece
because
subject on same
ANSWER: of
November
SAM
tounder machinery
TAKEN
certainagainst
and 6,
CNI 1990.fire
are
multiplied
exceptions he He
on bought.
with died
the
such by as the
sameon
LOSS The XYZ
April
side=
or Lifebrings
insured
you
been
Million
based
(2000)
Name
the agree
valid
date onabout
atwhile
designating
takes with
if
torts.
ofleast it
into
itsthe
the
the
wereThe injury
three
issueevidence
court’s
not
irrevocably
consideration
court or
so.
instances
(on death;
as
judgment?
(The
Diwata,
should
which in and
givennot
when
pointdecidingb)
origin
Explain
ain facts
havean
the any
Each
A amount
insurer
life insurer
insurance is isgoods
not the
isbound,
precluded
assignable. policy
ascongruent because
between
from
A thethose
himself
invoking the
Philippines
insurance
partnership. isJulie
at
from war.filed Such
insurable
her member
claims interestwithof the
the life purchase
26, Insurance
—
LIABILITY
stated1992
their in of ofCo.,
interests
OF Art THE 1484 and
hepatoma.
being
INSURER.
ofmade
under
the the
Civil The aprovision,
loss
Code, perfected
payable
insurance
with by each
a to
that and
(2%)
did
friend, the
whether
dismissed
insured cause
not
astheinsured
hisalso
isto of willfully
state
beneficiary.
the issue the
suit
entitled destruction
explicitly
the
against exposed
Jacob,policy RM whetherhimself
however, has
orTravel. not.not to
Anjo’s yet
(See
The assignment
and other ofwithout
insurers, due noticethat
tobeneficiaries’
contribute toas the
ratably to
MILF
three given
SUGGESTED
or
insurance. facts
insurance
ANSWER:
Abu are
(5%) vague)
Sayyaf
companies. isto
then
not aa Good
However, return
citizen Life her of
or can theno ground
however,
contract
his
company
other, in
brother,
foreclosure of
denied
namely,the misrepresentation
sale policy
MLQ. the
to
on Resolve already
oppose stating
In
the mortgages. case vests
POS's of loss aclaim
written defense
equitable
claim.
While the by fire
It and of in
needless
disappeared.
default
changed
a)
SUGGESTED
Sunlife
court
premium
longer hisperil
Inwas
prove mind
ANSWER:
Assurance
should paid. and
(See
ahave
thatpayment
and
propertyCo thus
Sun
the wants
of Canada
ordered Ins
policyremoved
default
YobOffice
Dragonisvand
insurance, CA or
void Ltd himself
GR aab
Jojo,
Ins vdefault
CA
his
105135,
to the
pay
initio gr insurer
the theloss was
action in void.
proportion
for recovery. tothe the
This issues. amount
is of alright for since
national
SUGGESTED
claims wereof another
ANSWER: denied country,
separately but for of the
breach of notice
interest
rescinded
cannot
factual of such
said
onbe the
settings thean
said assignment
condominium
property
policy
that
in by
ATT
the case in
reason
has should
unit,
favor
used
of Suria v IAC be
who
the of given
the
alleged may
(30
from
other
No. Three
89741,
arising
Insurable the
friends,
expectation
June
each
orThese 22,of coverage
instances
Mar X, 13
from
Interest:
1995
two toY a91
of
245 , breach
Separate
be of
when
195s193)
benefit
and
contentions 268) the
Z an
Insurable
sincluded to insurance
ofmustinsured
areathe
as negative
Interest
beneficiaries
not have
extent ispolicy.
entitled
tenable. apledge
oflegal the whichHowever,
the he
bar is liable
in
problem under his contract. (Sec.
Philippines.
policy is rescindible
condition which by reason
required of the
the fraudulent
insured to the
buyerrecover insurer
even
misrepresentation
information
June 87) on
are is Finman
while
the
to
not valid
the fireitis
similar (Secs
and isnot
General
insurance
disadvantageto
covered
Assurance
181-182
pending
concealment
the facts Insyet
ordelivery
policy? prejudice
given
by
Corp.
State
in
the
ofv.
Are
(1999)
A
The to
or the
a
businessman
considering
basis.
insurance
insurerreturn
breach
concealment two
In that life
is contentions
ofof
coverage,
liablepremium
inorthe a misrepresentation
the
insurance, warranty.
forgrocery
proceedsbut
injury of
paid the
whateverthe
are:
or In
business
of the insurance
such
policy
expectation
death amounteven
of case,
Juan of
is 94, Concealment;
Insurance
SUGGESTED
incontestability
ALTERNATIVE
Court of ANSWER:
Appeals, Code)
ANSWER: Material
clause.
213 SCRA 493 Concealment;
(1992), it was
to give notice of any insurance effected Code).
the
(Filipino
material
of
the SAM. The
reason(s) failure
Merchants
facts made
problem, the of
for your Ins
SC the
by Co
Tannotice
answer.
implied vin CA of
his
that (5%)GR 85144
application.
foreclosure
1
company
arehowever,
Concealment;
obtained
due ( sufficient
benefit
agreed
to the
Sec 48 To
tenable?
from to the
IOU
upon First
for
be
insured’s
Ins WHOLE
Code)the Explain.
Company MaterialthePREMIUM,
Insurance
derived
inin three
gross would
friends.
from
policy
negligence. not
anConcealment:
insurance
the Can if
haveno
Jacob
continued
should Thepart
been beof his Incontestability
Insurer;
The
JQ can
Insurable
explained 3rd
indivisibility Party
recover
Interest; that Clause
Life
there of
on (1998)
Liability
vs. athe
iscontract
Property
no fire
"accident" of real
insurance
Insurance in the policy
covering
SUGGESTED the
ANSWER: stocks trade. Julie went to assignment
28Nov1989)
It returned
as a remedy would
the premiums
in thus
secured preclude
paid.
obligations the must first
policyinterest
able
stillRemedies;
add for
existence
answered to
Incontestability
Yob P5Min andthe
foreclose
Clause
to thing
aJojo
Available
of first fully
life by(1997)
as insured
the
cover
to
needhis
RM his be
chattel exposed
stocks-in-
beneficiaries?
Mortgagee-Creditor
not Travelhave mortgage
any
and to
legal any of Renato
(1996)
Whilesecurity,
for
(1997)
a) A driving
the
obtains
Thecontext
beneficiaries was
losssuch
a hisissued
of
fire as
car
said a
insurance
contend a
along
real life insurance
estate
condominium EDSA,
on
thatunder his
the mortgage
Cesar
unit.
house
if itcompany policy
the oron
He
and aas a
has
fact
court
No,validly
the
that
and
Jacob perils
the
contended
can insured
no
insured longer removed
that
against. addsheYob the
should and magazine
not
Jojo beas the assignee
be
January
sideswiped
chattel
the availed fromof an
2,
mortgage,
insurable of
1990.
Roberto,
accident
claiming
by a He
interest creditor
causing
only
policy,
rights
concealed
means
as in
injuriespreference
thatthe
owner-insured.
is
the
to
a fact
division
the to
that
trade
from
blamed
The
Explain.
(2001)
basis.
Debtor
succeedingassured
from (2%)
theforhand
hiscircumstances
beneficiaries
as
the
“A” issued
theproperty
such
answers
risk
amount
gun
omission,
in
of means
addition
foreclosure,
fire. “No”
a promissory
shouldthat
alleging
to
to Diwata.
the
the benote
that
under
question
paid
insured
the
As
in by the
in generous
hadnatural
policy. no The right result gesture
to rescind
failure ofofthe names
notice the contract
insured's didhis neighbor
not, as
voluntary
however, as act,As
the
Three b)
2 months In
Where the
thereafter, insuranceinsurance,
a fire is
of made the
accidental foractual
a definite other
3
latter,
or years
a remedies
Roberto
partial
beneficiary
beneficiary. prior payment
sued
inIf thethat
to
A’s the
Cesar
house
firemight
of aissuance
and also
secured
insurance
is the
destroyed be invoked
of
third his
obligation by can
life
did the
amount
Dragon application
not willfully
insurance
the irrevocable
of P10M
Insurance
agents
contemplated
for
expose
for
beneficiary,
in a life
favor
up himself
WGC, toRSIpolicy:
of
theand
Diwata
commercialby
“Are
amount
to has needless
EIC
the
you of thelaw,
bank rescission
avoidunaccompanied
him. the policy; must be hence,done
by “during
anything
upon the death of fire,
the
unforeseen policy, by MLQ
originvalue
period broke of of the time
out interest
and
and the
completelytherein
insured is the
surrenders
destroyed limit of
his insurance
successfully
partydoes liability
not claim
warrantpolicy,
insurer against
a he
for had
the
corresponding
damages been
policy? and/or seeing
b)
division A aa
peril.
knew
could
suffering
Y secured
insurance
acquired At
of
only
most,
the
a-vested
frombe by effected
coverage.
existencethe any
mortgage
right
form
insured
ofover
for
the
ofisaheart
The payment
ofonly
additional
Jacob's
his
excess illness?”
guilty
life
default
properties
of oftheIn Jose, B the
cannot
lifetime”
except of recover
the the
proceeds insured
injury. on There
would, the
within in fire
is no
the twoinsurance
years
accident
absence and
when
of a or
policy.
the the
policy,
grocery insurance
to such
including that
portion his canof thevalidly
stocks-in-trade. premium be placed
as doctor
obtains
insurance
For about
insurance
proportionate
the proceeds.
beneficiary his overheart
reduction The his
to ailment.
life
insurance
of
recover and
the names
security
oncompanythe
covering
fact,
worth
claims of
negligence
insurance
the P30M.
(Suntwo
assured
X, Y,
coverages Ins or
When
and has
v CA more
and
been
Z,211 A over
that
installments)
a
failed
s 554)
she
heart
and to patient
above pay (Luis
such for
his prior to
deliberate
designated the commencement
act is performed,
beneficiary, go of
to the the
unless action.
estate someof heartor
fire
Is
This Insurer;
Insured;
SUGGESTED
thereon.
corresponds
prompted
Ridad
many
indebtedness,
insurance
policy.
v3rd
Accident
ANSWER: InParty
Filipinas
years. life
with
the
On Any
vs.
coverage, 7 additional
Liability;
Suicide
insurance,
the
businessman
Investment
Sep
despite 1991,
if
No
unexpired
demands Fault
there towas
beneficiaries
and
the
any, time
file not
Indemnity
ismade
Finance
assured
should noat limit
with aispro his
moved
by SUGGESTED
Co
be the On
neighbor
given.
property March
to
contention
additional Adismiss
ANSWER: B
creditor 1,
the
insurance
of
andestate,
1992,
the
the beneficiary
in
unforeseen
Renato
complaint,
such
policy,
beneficiaries securedbecause
it
happening
died
contending
is debts
required
tenable? ofof A’s
may
occurs secret
that
informed
willNo. reduce about the requirement that such insured.May The in turn, would beon
1)
(1995)
First (1994)
What
Sun-Moon
to
rata
GR An
the
Insurance
killed
bank
answeredL-39806is
rate,
in
Y, athe
insured
theyourplane
or
amount
Insurance
amountunless a iscrash.
claim
Jan27,83
latter
paid arequired
understanding
of by
which
for
RM issued
insurance
short period
five
120s246)
instituted The Diwata,
to
Travel.
disclose
a of acollection
million
insurance that
rate as
aPersonal
“nomay
has
pesos the
the fault
been be
suit No. failure.
for
love
Insurance;
that The
pursue
he
that
liable the B. incontestability
Ifthe A dies,
Perfection
liability
must
brings
for the loan remedy
have
about
the
of can
of Cesar heirs
Insurance
the
of P50,000 of Binjury.
insurable file
clause
successfully
Contracts
foreclosure,
has not ainterest
This
claim
yet
owing inpolicy
does claim
been
in
element partnot
in
favor of
the
against
or
the
of
other
first taken
agreed
representing or
indemnity”
Accident additional
beneficiary,
insurances
Policy
uponupon thelife. may
clause
to
andfull insurance
covering
Henry recover,
appears
valuefound Dy the
of should
with
on which
subject
in
his the aanface
goods. facebe
will
insurance
value
of the proceeds
apply.
(2003)
Josie policy?
the
determined
in Theorinsured
Gatbonton
full, with of an
file the
obtaineddies
finality.
ordinarylifethis
within
a) insurance
from Isaction
the less
Warranty than
contention
for two
company
to enforce denies payment the claim
of the for insurance
P10M account. of Y.property
deliberateness insured. is notIn clearly case, shown MLQ from does thenot
stated
adversely
matter
First SUGGESTED
c) in
of Subsequently,
P500th.
policy, of the
Insurance
policy? affect
the
In
after policy.
ANSWER:
Aandpropertyher
insurance
denied
provision
deducting Is the
vested being
in contention
insurance,
the from right.
claim
the applied
the (Go
because
policy an
whole of
v.
for. Julie
interest
it Is
states
premium SUGGESTED
Renato?
SUGGESTED
years
Promissory
Insurance
of the from
collection
have insurerANSWER: ANSWER:
(5%)
the
Note:
Corporation
insurable on correct?
anyissuance
Liability
amount
interest of
a comprehensive
Explain. due.
in theb)AMay
the policy
favorabletheon
condominium
proceeds returns
bank Ythe also premiums
filed paid.
foreclosure facts
Yes. Theof the
life case,
insurance especially policy considering
inbeneficiary
question the
(New
that Under
tenable?
Redfern,
insured
discovered
any Life
SUGGESTED
“theclaim
the decision
proceedings
the
Explain.
G.R.
Ent
must
that
company “NO
ANSWER:
forNo.
v ofCA
at
lossMay
exist FAULT
47705,
the207or she
when
time
shall
the insurance
against
s
damage
A
INDEMNITY”
recover
April
669)
for the
of
not the25,
insurance
be
under
company
security
on
1941)
loss, her
liablethe
the
given
clause,
takes
in
policy for
a) No.
SUGGESTED
September
(2001)
X, Y
motor
insurer and
judgment In
Insurance; Z
vehicle
be property
ANSWER: Cash
23,
signed
held can 1990.
insurance
liableainsurance,
&
warrant
unit.that BOY is a minor, and the injured Carry
The
promissory
with toan Basisthe
insured
cover
Cesar?
issuancenoteher died
in
brand
of favor onwas
a writ
Beneficiary;
2)
fire any
No,
Assuming claim
because
insurance Life Insurance;
thatfor is
she
policies? the Prohibited
death
guilty oroccurs
incontestability
Explain. of injury
violation of
of clause
aneedany No,
must fact
issued
the
(2003)
What have on
iscontention
insurable
meant January by of 9,than
interest
“cash the1990. ininsurer
and the More property
carry” than
isfrom
innot the2
effect
stocks-in-trade and when
were the
mortgaged loss to ajudge, but
creditor April
of 26,
Aautomobile.
stating: 1992, “We orany less
promise 2
to years
pay A
respect of “bodily injury’ consequent upon iton
SUGGESTED
which
justified? has ANSWER:
previously accrued. new of execution onShe paid,
property, and thenot insurer
exempt
the
Beneficiaries
passenger
warranty/
does account.
not (1998)
condition.
apply or Ifthird you
because were
party the theshall
policy behas how
paid
not parties
years
correct. hadare
There also
elapsed is children.
no whenneed Accordingly,
Renato,
to wait the for is
insured,
the
who
the The
not
3 insured case
exist
likewise When in forthe
obtained
person collection
meantime.
the contract from
attempting will
Second
is In be
life
voidable to (5%) allowed
insurance, to
on accountSeptember
commit insured.
business
Insured;
December
accepted
from (Sec of
Accident
23,
31,
payment
execution, 18 1990.
2001 Ins
insurance?
vs. in Code).
Suicide
the not
check.
belonging sum B does
toofthe
Before not
P5,000.00”
the
judgment have
Juan woulddeenough
without la youCruzthe resolve
was
necessity the
issued two Policy
of cases?
proving No. 8888 fault or possible
died
decision onof that
March the CNI 1,
court may
1992. The
determining prosper. ATT's
incontestability
Cesar’s
been
proceed.
it
Insurance
suicide
of is
the in
or force
Company
fraud But that
willfully
or forthe 2 exposing
fire years,
foreclosure
insurable
misrepresentation insurance from
interest the
proceedings
coverage
himselfof thedate
exists to
insurerof
at The
When
check
SUGGESTED
insurable
Luisright
(1990) thewas
could of
note
ANSWER:
interest
the
be the holder
fell in
insurer
encashed, due, the ofbe
Ahouse
an to
sued
Josie insured.
rescind
accident X
was and is onlyfor
insurance
Y who
involved
of the Midland Life Insurance Co on a whole debtor.
report isThere
not should
conclusive no
on legal
POS orobstacle
the court.
Insurance;
for negligence
issue,
have
the
the time Effects;
stocksduring
to when at Payment
of
be the any
their the of
kind.
lifetime
dismissed. Premiums
contract
full value The
of the
of by
isIn indemnity
insured,
made
P5M. instituting
a) but thein
it lost
Z. clause
liability
Is if
the
policy the applies.
with
defense finality
beneficiary
effective valid?
Nov before
1, has
Why? 1988 the
commenced
(5%)to third
Oct 31, party
an
1989.
needless
or of his peril agent except or on in an attempt
account of facts to the save put
in a a up the
motor
creditor vehicle defense
to waive, accident that
in full A
where
or should
in her car
part, have
his
liferespect
May
human
plan
Installment
separate
decision
foreclosure
needthe
existence
for
not(2006)
life.” of P20,000
exist
businessman any
insurance
of the
Sixwhich
of at one
months
on
the and
the
August
person
coverages
insurance
proceedings, time the
later
insured of 19,
shall
company
after
loss.
creditor
Henry
1989.
over
wasDy not the exceed
not
filing
died
ignorant same to a b) Insurance;
INCONTESTABILITY
actionYes.
liability
At
SUGGESTED
impleaded
became
right
The a on In
boxing thelife
insurer
ANSWER:
a total
to
insurer
Insurance Law
Co-Insurance
foreclosure
insurance,
policy.
contest
wreck.
has
could
two
There
held
She
on
vs.
CLAUSE itis
on
sought
contracts
years
is
be Re-Insurance
noJannot
from
sued.
such1, required
payment
of 1989
the
action
real
The
dateand
Juan
The 1.
in-trade?
obtain is married
Peninsula
Insurable
P5,000.00,
stocks-
pay
collection is police
Explain report
to
Insurance
Interest;
provided
justified.
case Cynthia
(3%)
involving of
Property
b)
they
There thewith
Company
First are
the whom
Insurance
Insurance
wasunder
same offered he
oath,
fraudulent
account hastothe or that
The (1994)
Distinguish
occurrence
in this
SUGGESTED the
defense
case. beneficiary
ANSWER: is
(Tanof not vco-insurance
valid.
the
CA 174must The
injury
s 143) have
liability from
to insurable
of
Roberto re-Y, of
X,
of a bullet
without wound
his fault; inorhis when, head. by Investigation
any default of the from sponsored
the insurer.
security.
issuance of by the his
Could employer,
insurance the insurer he
contract slipped
be made or andof its
three
insure2.
accident;
(1994)
In
refused legitimate
a
followingFrancis'
concealment.
transaction, civil
to death
pay and
suit,
proofs certificate
children.
brand
claiming
bank Itthe isnew
shall YCourt
that
be
not
is and
He,
car evidence
however,
against
ordered
double
sufficient:
material
guilty of all
Benjie
that
splitting the
SUGGESTED
insurance.
interest
Concealment;
(per
toa immediately
and Dondee)
Z hit in on
under ANSWER:
the Yes,
gave life
the of
Material
because the
promissory
rise tohisinsured.
there
the Concealment:
notewas
liability It was aso
is the
joint.
of the
showedinsured that other one than evening actual Henry
fraud, was
the in
insurer a never was
liable under
Beneficiary:
CO-INSURANCE
last reinstatement thethe
Effects: fact
insurance by
Irrevocable
is the
within opponent
coverage?
Beneficiary
percentage
which (6%)
to he
in
contest fell
the
risks sufficient
designated
insurance
pay in the Nat sumto
Purita,
is establish
ofofhis
contrary
P500,000.00.PI Million the
common-law
toloan proper
law.for
To Is
1 executepayee;
wife,
this
year. asisorthe
contention
The insured
Incontestability
perfected
Such himself
being Clause
contract thewho (1996)
of took
insurance
case, the Zposts policy
the
is of moment
not on his
an
happy insured
cause
incurred
3.
thefact mood
revocable
ofdiedany
medical
action.
although
liability aThe
report
beneficiary.
different
he under
andwasevidence
Juan not
the cause
of
referred
P10M
drunk.
policy. than
of to Hethe insurer and policy,
(2005)
What
value
the his under
areofhead the
the
its
hit
effects
whether one
insured
policy. of an
of
or the In
property
not,
other
irrevocable
the which
insured
words,
the the
still
tenable?
policy was
judgment,
principal (3%) issued
concealed. c)
the Suppose
obligation with
sheriff
The thefact you
premium
levied
whilefrom are
concealed, the
upon
thewhich Judge,
fixed at
Benjie’s
that
mortgage is own
Juan
there life.
procured
is
indispensable
whereboxing a
an meeting
insurance
ring. a
party. “non-medical”
Hea was of the
Thepolicy minds
fact
rendered thatlife
with
insures insurance
A respect
unconsciousdid
directlynot
was playing with his handgun he designation
insured himself of beneficiary
assumes or under undertakesthe
Purita
how medical
160,000.00much in his
registered or
would hospital
application
payable
property youin is disbursement
6(aand
months.
parcel policy as
Francis
of landin therespect
and from lives
Insurable Good within
Interest;
Life such Life
Insurance. period.
vs.
cause He Property After two
Insurance
designated years, his to
the
had heart
securing
4. previously ailment,
Claim
the same
removed
may be
is merely
made
material
its an
magazine.
against
accessory
one
to Hethe to the
implead
to againstand object
SUGGESTED
Insurance
act
defenses was
as
Z will
liability,dead
insurer
and
ANSWER:
Code?
not the
the
on
toof
prevent
insurer’s
arrival
Explain.
the extent
of
A from
at payment.
liability
the
(2%)
concealment of
collecting
hospital
the
The
accrues
deficiencydue
theor
legal ALTERNATIVE
of
allowwhich
wife. the 3 INSTANCE:
refund
years
businessman is
later, claimed.Juan and died.
thethe Purita
creditor (2000)
IS, an elderly bachelor with no known
only paidloan
building
determination
said
pointed
In case the
thethereon),and
gun
of
first
obligation.
an at
two
byhis
over
months
the
sister The sold installments.
insurance
insurance who collection
got same
company
byscared. oftothe
several
at wife,
payment
the
immediately
The Petra,
toproportionate of check
“intra-cranial
irrevocable asupon theisdesignation
beneficiary.
athe
share valid
hemorrhage.” of payment
X gives
occurrence Earlier,
and Yunless
the in
of in thehis
filed motor
However,
Despitefromher
recover
public vehicle
their
claim
demands,
auction if the only.
respective
for incontestability
the
he proceeds
failed
Nat, insurers.
to
the pay of clause
Explain
the policy which in
relatives,
application
Can the his insurance
misrepresentation, obtained
(Observation:
oroffather in a responsewho of
life no
Even the
isright
to
awhich insured
matter
insurance
if the
beneficiary
the how
question property.
patent
coverage
liability under as to or
of In
He whether
loan
assured
insurers, and or her
the thenot to
itinsurance
insured was accept
foreclosure not the ofhighest
loaded.
is entitled application
thetoHe
bidder.
amortgage
thenthe
ratable for upon
payment
injury
The
encashment
beneficiary
Insurable
insurer
the
event
Interest:
cannot
loan. the
vested upon check
Bank
be held
bounced.
over
Deposit
solidarily
the
Life liability
liable
as applies
SUGGESTED
Henry’s(3%)
the
subsequent designated
The latter, wife to
ANSWER: the
Beverly,
installments.
onatloan beneficiary
March as the
Five policy
18, monthstherein.
designated
1992, covering The
after
registered case
well
Insurance;
for
whether of
founded,
P250,000.00
X,
said insurance loss
Property
Y,or Theand or
notno damage,
Insurance;
Z from
policylonger
is solidary, lie.
he successfully the
Prescription
Starbrite
had RTC insurer
the everof
Insurance
defense
claim will
been be
insurance
securing
pointed
return the said
gun
ofbusinessman,
the and his
premium, to temple require
constitute andin
proportioned the
one
pulled medical
and
tothe the depends
the with Insurance.
(2000)
BD has
Cesar.
(Sherman
aThe bank Shafer
Insured deposit
liability
v cannot
Judge
of of theto act
half Olongapo
insurertoa divest
million
isin or
a) Yes.
widow,Remedies;
life
beneficiary,
the issuance
with The
of the
Cynthia,
the ofSecured
soughtinsured
Register also
the filed
toaction.
policy,
of Debt
had
collect
Deedsas
athe owner,
been
claim
under
vehicle
the as andforce
the
the was
certificate the
legalfor of2 City liable
Claims
Corporation,(1996)
hospitalized,
indemnity wouldonly for
an
still
from
he such
entity
not
answered
the be proportion
licensed
valid)
insurance in the of
company? the
engage
negative. loss
examination
same cause of of the insured. The filing of the theBranchirrevocable 75 GR l-78848,
beneficiary, Nov 14 in 88 whole167s386) or in
trigger.
SUGGESTED
amount
creditor,
(1991)
To
years secureThe
ANSWER:
as
from by gun which
mortgagee,
the fired
issuance
payment the and have Henry
aggregate
thereof, separate
of rejected
his loanslumped
thesum of insured
insurance
P200th, on basedpesos.
damage on Since
contract
as the the
amount while limit ofthat of
insurance the
of Cesarinsurance
bears is to
wife.
policy.
carnapped.
The
the sale To
collection
in proceeds
floor.all
whom
Sun-Moon
issued
the
Francis
case
ofshould
to the
policies
Insurance
him barsfiled
bythe
insurance the
the proceeds
with
exceeds
the
sheriff.
subsequent
policy the
of
insuranceherthe
Meanwhile,
shall filing of Robin
insurable
the
HeSUGGESTED
based
Explain.
forgot
part,
coverage
insured
insurable
on withouttoANSWER:
tort.
his
business
mention
of
If the
building
the
hisunder
beneficiary's
the insurer
against
confinement
Philippine
were
the fire
consent.
with
Insurance
solidarily
at the To
Deposit
insurable
A
company
insurance
claim
company executed
on interests
apolicy
the claimwould
groundin favor
be
for innot the
its of
awarded?
that be same
the
value. the justified stocks-in-
Angeles
(5%)
death
However, ofin Banking
Henry denying EFG After
Code the
Remedies;
Yes, Juandesignated
ofthe
Assurance. Available
the father
died in Thewho
Philippines percentage
to
a plane Mortgagee-Creditor
is a crash,
insurance beneficiary
(PD1460). of the
Petrain
policy Hefull
under
filed value
also a
be on
the
awarded
value
January
foreclosure
of the to 27,
the 1993,
proceedings.
ESTATE Benjie
ofinterest
Juan insured
de la thewith Kidney
(1)
REINSURANCE
be
liable
Hospital.
specific:
Insurancewith The beneficiary
Corp
Cesar, (PDIC)
it is
could designated
where
(RA beplan3591)
made the isto ainsurer
only life
pay one
trade.
was Co
the
company not
Garapal Each
in
claim 1
accidental.
denied mayforthing
document,
Insurance insure
proceeds
his
at arisk.
Beverly
claim such
for real
ofsued
on the
theestate
P1,000,000.00 insurance
the
ground to
mortgagethat and
the claimof
thethe
(1996)
Finding
contained
insured with property
ahis 24-month
accidentalthe Goodusual
residential insured.
insurancepayment
Life.
stipulation can
Discovering
house that
for attractive,
successfully
any
twice Juan’s that
Cruz.
protect Purita,
Insured; his own theseparate
Accident commonlaw-wife,
Policy interest. b)is The more insurance
procures
tenth than of a contract
BD’s
the third
amountdeposit, cannot
party, stated called
he be would
in changed
the
the reinsurer,
like
policy. some
SUGGESTED
over
in
insurer.
he failed
same returningANSWER:
3to
Decide lots
pay
building registered
the
and premium
Discuss
thebeneficiary
premium infully.
paid.
his
resulting name
In at that
in andthe case, a Anjo claim
previous
action
amount purchasedindemnity
hospitalization,
or within
suit must a Tamaraw
for
thebe same the
filed death
Good FX
within from
of
Life
corporation. onethe Toyota
rejected
yearHe
disqualified
(2004)
CNI insure asFirst the SAM ofthat under was ofasoldthe The deathpublic
homeowner's without
to insure
protection the him consent
for against
the ofbethe
excess beneficiary
liabilityby by to
taking reasonout of
thean
Beverly
contentioncan recover ofthe proceeds the policy
Insurance from that
the insurer.
double of This
QC. He would,
insured. paid however,
aassigned
Clearly, down-paymentthe proximate contrary
ofrightsP100th
cause the
and
chattel
the
cancellation
auction insurer mortgage
to of cannot
the
Nat. policy.
Benjie over
prove Can his
failed the 3
Francistopolicy
cars
redeem void
and ab
the1 Petra’s
after
immediatelythe
because claim
rejection
he onhas theof
a ground
the
vested allclaim. his of
interest concealment
in toof
the
deceased
the insured
policy was not because
due to suicide
against of
claims illicit for relation
accidental between injuries such original insurance. Basically, a
SUGGESTED
insurance
Isuzu
initio
recover
property
ANSWER:
orisrescindible
cargo
from bycontrary
the truck.
March Peninsula to
18, law
by is untenable.
reason
1993.Insurance of fraudulent obtained andinsurance
principles
death
insurance
policy
financing
was
misrepresentation. against
underlying
the boxing
proceeds forall the risks
insurance balance
contest.
to Petra BX, or Death contingencies
suedcontracts.
afrom IOU
Good
friend-
the
There bydeceased
neighbors.
is no law and Purita,
SAM's
providing the
minor that designated
double On of theloss (Philamlife
arising
other hand,fromv. Pineda,ifany the G.R.
unsound No.
insurer 54216,
orwere July
unsafe
concealment
Company? (5%) or misrepresentation of the Co.
Life, He
sustained
companion executed
invoking in
living gooda a chattel
boxing
with faith him. on mortgage
contest part
Three is
of an
Juan.
years accident
later, .
beneficiary.
insurance Due to such illicit 19,
banking
solidarily liable practices
with Cesar including
and it Co unforeseen
is made to
insured.is illegal per se. IS (De lain
died Cruza fire v Capital
that gutted Ins & Surety his insured 17s559)house
twoadverse
pay only
days up aftereffects
to the he had of
amount sold it. There is
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) PagePage58 61
62 59
57
of 103of 103 unpaid
invention
Luz P4,500
hired
Liza balance
cannot
professionals
did not for
be
onfallheld
the
thewithin
damage
toliable
afloat forto
formula
figured
garden
Having
The Victoria
in
stones
E=mc2.
an
already
accident
covered
Hotel
The obtained
IPO
chain
resulting
bydisapproved
the
reproduces
full single
in
payment
the policy
death on the promissory
their
a. theregular
infringement
Page vessel
car
60 ofas103 noteevidenced
for
duties.of
should
toP900,000.00.
copyright
What
print, be
by prevails
paid
a release
reprint, since
Whenand under
isnot
publish, of
re-floated,
the claim
only
the
copy,
of avideotapes,
coverage
Einstein's
insurance
passenger. application
(see policies
distributes
At the on
Oriental time issued
the
Assurance the
ofground
the
copies by
Coaccident,
v that
Y
thereof
CA and his to
200 Z, theIntellectual
provision
the
executed
installments
distribute, vessel ofmultiply,
the
byneeded
Property
Luz
Intellectual
duedischarging
and
repairs
sell Code,
payable
and Property
estimated
makeone Raul.
before
of the Codeatthe
photographs,
Jay
theory
s Fortune
its
459)Cruz hotels
of wasrelativity
may
andlicensedmakes
nois not to
longer
them
drive
patentable.
available
recover
but it was Is tothe
from
hotelX loss
thatP2,000,000.00.
limitations
photo of
holds
the that car.tothe
engravings, the The
invention
and copyright
insurance
pictorial belongs
isillustrations
the
company making
to the of of the
Marine
confiscated
IPO's
insurance
guests Insurance;
action forby an Implied
correct?
policy.
viewing LTO(5%) inagent
theWarranties
hotel
who issued guest rooms. him So Cala
employee,
refused
quotations
works; b. toif demanded
to the
pay
makefrom inventive
the
any reimbursement
a published
claim activity
of the
translation work ship
is not
or from
for
otherowner, Luz,
a version or
(2000)
What
SUGGESTED
Open
a Traffic
It warranties
charges ANSWER:
Policy
Violation a separate are nominal
Report implied
(TVR) just feein minutes
formarine
the use Insurer;
part who
extractsofGroup
stating
purpose refused
hisor thatInsurance;
regular
of any to judicial
there
arrangements pay, Employer-Policy
duties,
was saying
“no that
proceedings
even
or constructive
if he
adaptation Holder
the uses total
or for
total to
thereof;
Yes,of the
SUGGESTED
insurance?
c) If the
each IPO
ANSWER: ofisthe correct Couldbecause
policies obtained under
by the
Fortune (2000)
X company
damage procured
ofifto awas group accident
before the
Thein following
videotape
accident. player.
warranties
1)
Asiatic
Can the
are
Insurers,
implied
Victoria
in
the loss.”
giving
time, facilities
dramatize a) itthe
Was
professorial
betherecar
a and
non-dramatic P9,500.00
“constructive
materials
advice by of legal
work;theSince
total Cala
to loss”
convert it
Intellectual
SUGGESTED
Inc.,
Hotel themade
be ANSWER:
beproblem Property
liable(a)
enjoined forabove
under Code,
infringing is an
its policy? discoveries,
open
Why?policy employer.
copyrights insurance
paid
to owner
P5,000
practitioner,
entitle policy to
the recover
for
only,
provided
ship its
Luz from
construction
contends
that the
the insurance
that
source she and company?
was
marine
Asiatic insurance:
Insurers, Inc., 1)
should That the
be mathematical
made ship
liable is into a non-dramatic work if it be a drama; to
scientific theories and it the Patents: Explain.Infringement;
b) Was Remedies
it assigned
proper &to Defenses
for tothe its ship
(6%)and held
and
and/or
seaworthy
under
it
to
the
was
take
to
policy.
immediately
liable
in
make
for damages?
certain
The the fact
determined
cargoes
voyagethat the
2)
2)
Would
That
driver
after
the
employees
entitled
name
complete of variously
ortothe go
execute after
author it Raul
are be claim
if it identified
a model the
(See orowner
design; c.
methods,
fire that
make are
any the classified
differencevalue of to
Fortune’s
if Victoria be as
Hotel house "non-
doeswas (1993) Ferdie
to
provincial is
send
additional
Section a apatent
notice
infrastructure
P4,500.00
184.1[k] owner
ofof the 1)of a
projects.
Is certain
Cala,
Intellectual Y as subrogee
Property
ship
was shall not
merely deviate
holding a TVRfrom the
does voyage
not violate to exhibit, perform, represent, produce or reproduce
patentable
SUGGESTED
P2.4m,
not charge inventions."
ANSWER:
how any much fee may
for Eintein's
the heuse of theory
collect the fromofX,Y invention. Copyright;
Insurance
ofwork
Code abandonment
Luz, of He Photocopy;
Company
entitled
the discovered when
to
tounderwrote
Philippines). allowed
thethat
reimbursementinsurance
his theinventioncompany?
from Raul?
insured;
the1) Yes.
condition
SUGGESTED 3) That
Victoriathat
ANSWER: the Hotel
the shipdriver shall
has no carry
should right the
to
have use a a the in any manner or by any method whatever
relativity Z? falls within the category of being is (1998)
May (5%)
ainfringed
person
Explain. have photocopies of some
and
videotape?
necessary
In and
such
valid anvideo documents
open
existing policy,
tapes in to
driver’s the
its hotelinsured
license. businessmay recover forbeing
coverage,
2) May
profit
SUGGESTED
the
Cala
or premiums
otherwise;
ANSWER:
by Johann.
recover if of
what
not which1)has
it What
reproduced werepaid arepaid the
Luz?
in copies
non-patentable "scientific theory." pages
remedies
for sale,
entirely of the
available
by Xany book
Companyto of Professor
Ferdie against
without Rosario
any Johann? made
show
Patents:
Besides,
his
without totalnationality
Gas-Saving
suchtheloss a
consent up or to
Device:
condition neutrality
of first
theto
should
the fileand
berulethat
amount
creator/ owner ofit thewill
of not for 1)
No, No. to
there Luzsell was
executedno manuscripts
"constructive
a release orin any
total
favor record
loss"
of
2) without
If
employeeyou were violating
the lawyer
contributions. the copyright
of Johann law?
in (3%)
the
carry
(2005)
Cezar
disregarded
insurance
the anybecause
works
copyright. document
in awhat
cover. which
caris involved
Thus, will
the cast
manufacturing isreasonable
extent a of whatsoever
Raul (Manila
because
SUGGESTED thereof;
the
ANSWER: vessel
Mahogany d.was toWhile
make
Mfgrefloated
the
Corp anyvpolicyother
andGR
CA
was
use or
the
infringement
in effect,
disposition five of suit,
of
the the what
work covered are
consistentthe defenses
employees with the thatlaws of
suspicion
2)
company
passenger No. The
recovery thereon;
owned use of
jeepney,
would 4)
byand
be That
the Joab.
what
P400th theCezar
videotapes isshipinvolved
from shall
isisX, not
forquite
P200th Yes.
costs
52756, The private
of12refloating
Octassert?
1987) reproduction
plus the needed of a published
repairs
your
perished
the client
land at can
sea on their way to their
carry iscontraband,
business
innovative
herefrom not
Y, and and
and
own not
loves
damage
P600th especially
merely
to
from tinkerZ.if home
for
insurance with butthings.
third 2)
work
SUGGESTEDYes.
(P 2.9in Cala
a single
Million)
ANSWER: lost willits
copy, right
notwhere against
be more Raul
thethan three-
it theis problem
making a(a), voyage through belligerent provincial
because assignments. Their wivesby sued Y
Withd)
party In
consumption. materials
liability where and
(Filipinothewhat parts
injuredis
Society theofof extent
the
party is aofhe
car,
Composers, the 1) The
fourths following
reproduction ofofthe theis release
remedies
valuemade ofby executed
are
the available
a vessel.
natural Luz.
Aperson to Ferdie
waters. Insurance
Since Company
the release for
was payment of death
was liability
third able
partyto
Authors of
not the
invent
Publishers privy insurance
avtoTan
gas-saving
the148 companies
contract
s 461; device
pdof 1988) among
that against
exclusively
constructive fortotalresearchloss made onewithout
is and private
which gives the tois
study,
Copyright;
Marine
Insurer; Insurance;
Authorized
SUGGESTED Infringement
ANSWER: Peril
Driver of the
Clause; Ship vs.
vehicle Peril
is of the benefits
consent under of the policy.
Cala, Cala While
may recoverthe suit the was
willthemselves?
insurance.enable cars to consume less gas. permitted,
a person
Johann. a.the without
insured
seize andsigned the authorization
adestroy
right tob.abandon.
injunction of c.
(Sec,the damages
Sea In
(1997)problem
an action
(1998)
stolen (1993) (a), the
for damages insurance on Cezar companies
account of an pending,
amount wives a power of
Francis, a co-worker, saw how created Copyright;
owner
131,
in ofof
Insurance
such P5,000
Commissioned
the
amount copyright
Code)
mayform Luz
Artist
in
There
have the (Manila
been work.
would Mahogany
have
among attorney designating X Company executive, from the
obtained
A
the devicethemselves
infringement
HLmarine
insured insurance
his
andbrand oflikewise, would
a copyright,
policy
new car bewith
on
came liable,
athe cargo
up P Ins viz:
defendant
with Xa–
states
Co useInfringement
Mfg
(1995)
Solid
beenof Corp
Investment
the v vs.
CAUnfair
a constructive
invention GR House Competition
52756,
if total
properly12loss Octtransacted
commissioned 1987).
had the Mon vessel
which can
for4/12
that(the “the of
alleged
comprehensive P600th
insurer pirate)=coverage
P200th
shall raised be Yscrap – 2/12
the
liable
wherein defense ofthe
for P600th
that
losses PJ, Insurer;
as their
(1996)
What is authorized
Authorized
the Driverrepresentative
distinction Clause
between to
similar gadget, also using materials Blanco
MN
be more and
Pearly his
than son
Shells
what Steve,
suffer
the both
loss
infringer noted
or needed
(Johann artists, ) received.
= P100th
hesparewasto Z
unaware – 6/12 ofthe P600th =had P300th enter
(1991)
Sherylinto insured
a settlement herunfair withcompetition?
newly the
acquiredinsurance car, a
incident
insurance
and perils
company
parts of thatof
undertook
the what
company. he
sea.” to Duringcopied
indemnify
Thereafter, the infringement
to paint
refloating a mural andand for the Main
repairs ofd.more Lobby
Attorney’s than of thethe
fees
SUGGESTED
himwas
voyage,againstafiled ANSWER:
copyright
seawater
loss or material.
entered
damage to Would
the the this
compartment
car a) by company.
Nissan When
SUGGESTED Maxima
ANSWER: a settlement
against anywas lossreached,
or damage PJand cost
Francis
No. An an application for registration new building
required of Solid
three-fourths for aof contract
its value, pricei.e., of
more
defense
where
accidental
of e) theintention
hisinfringement.
device becargovalid?
collision with
to
was
...
the
pirate
b) by stored
Bureau
is notdue
fire, external
an element
of Patents.to the instructed
The
for P50th
SUGGESTED
P2m.than
the
distinction
ANSWER:
a) P30.0
who
and
owns
insurance
Million
between
against
the(Sec.
company
3rd
mural? 139,
party to
infringement
Explain
Insurance
issue for
liability
b) Code,
1) of
defective Supposing
Is the
drainpipe in
gas-saving Hence,
problem
of the an
device(a)
ship.honestabove, intention
patentable?
The Fortune
insured the
Yes.However,
settlement
(presumably
P20th
The withthe
suit the
will insurance
check XYZtoIns
trademark)
prosper. the Y company
Co.order
and
Ins Under
Co ofisX
unfair shall
the
liable. pay
policy,
explosion,
Eighteen burglary,
months or
later,theft, and
Cezar c) filed his Who citedowns in the
Oriental copyright
Assurance of the
v. mural?
Court of Appeals
is
was
SUGGESTED
After no defense
able
a month,ANSWER: to theto
collect
on car an action
from
was for
both
carnapped infringement.
Y and whileZ, may 2)
X for
Company,
the
These
Co, the
competition
car are total
which
must theSaw costs
are
bewill
defenses as of
driven refloating
undertake
follows: only
that can 1)bythe and payment
Infringement
an
be asserted needed
authorized in
andthrough
Explain.
filed
maliciousan
application action
act.for the the policy
registration for of recovery
his device of SUGGESTED
Explain. ANSWER:
Panama its executive,
Mill,whereas
G.R. No. PJ, 94052,
acted as
August 9,
Yes,ALTERNATIVE
the ANSWER:
gas-saving device ishe patentable of awhotrademark, unfair competition
he
SUGGESTED
parked
the keep
damagesin the the
ANSWER: entire
parking
caused amount
space
to the in front
cargo. was
ofMay theablethe to to
a) repairs
an the
of
driver
Solid individual
trademark
infringement
agent of owns
Y (P2.9
Ins isthe
suit:
Co. Million).
claimants
is the
either:
Themural. 1) the
latter ofistheir
unauthorized
Solid insured,
thuswas usethe
bound or one2) any is
with
No. Yes. theThe
The Bureauowner
proximate ofof Patents.
athe
cause copyright
of thesolution must
2damage make
totoa 1991)
c) passing Was it
offproper for the ship owner ofto
because
collect
Intercontinental
insured it
recoverprovides
fromdamages?
Hotel the technicalsaid
in Makati.
(5%) HL ’s insurance
wife respective
who
by person the
1 commissioned
the shares.
driving
Patent
misconduct isof
onPJ one’s
invalid
ofthe its goods
misappropriated
the insured’s
(Sec
artists
agent. 45to as
ItRAdo those
isorderthethe
165,
the asor
work with
the others
SUGGESTED
problem cargo awareANSWER:
insuredthat the wasmaterial the in question
defective is send afor
another; notice of abandonment to the
who was in
companies? a fieldsaid
driving of humancar before activity. it was It is new settlement
andhis
usual permission:
amended)
paid
practice amount
the inworkthe and
provided inthe
group thewives
that
sumthe
insurance pursued
of person
P2m
andunder
No,
drainpipe heor
involves
carnapped
can
ofcovered
an
reported
only
the be
ship.
inventive byindemnified
aThis
immediately
copyright.
step, is and peril This
for of
thecertainly
his is
theloss, SUGGESTED
2)
insurance
their 2 casethat
driving
business
ANSWER:
Fraudulent
against
Patent
is company?
theisproper
permitted Ynot intent
new or is
Explain.
Insurance
in
employer-policy unnecessary
Co.holder
patentable
accordance Willwith the isthein
done
not
ship, and
industrially by
profitnotthe giving
thereby;
peril
applicable. of of
the such
hence sea. notice
It therefore he
The mustat
defect a return
in
fulfills No, it
infringement
Insurer;
b)Unless was
trademark,
Liabilitythere not of
ofExplain
the whereas
Insurers
is a for the
fraudulent
stipulation ship owner
intent
to to the tois
incident to various government agencies in suit
the prosper?
3agent
licensing Specification
of or
the other
insurer. (3%)
of the
laws orinvention
regulations does not
the prominent
P200th
drainpipe
requisites of portion
thewas P800th
mandated the of the
he
result copyright
was of able
the
by the intellectual to material.
collect.
ordinary send
(1990)
a) Suppose
contrary a
unfair
essentialnotice
that
inwiththe inof
competition;
Fortuneabandonment
contract, owns
the to
aishouse the
compliance with the insurance comply
drive the motorSec 14 vehicle andcopyright not shall
When the alleged pirate isunder
thus made aware insurance
During the company
effectivity because
of tothe abandonment
use
Becauseof the
Property
requirements. the
Codeship.
car for Towhat
could recover
not be recovered,
is patentable. a marine HL valued
belong4 at in P600th
disqualified joint
Patent from anddriving
ownership
was insured
issued not
such topolicy,
the
Solid thesame
motor and
true the Mon
and car,
vehicle
2) Loss: Assuming
thereof,
insurance Actual
his
policy, act Totalof
that
the Loss
pirating it
proximate is the copy
patentable,
cause material
of thewho isagainst can
then
3) only The
driven be availed
prior
by of
registration
Sheryl when,
herself, in
ofwhoathemarine
had no
filed a claim
Copyright; for the
Infringement loss of the car with the and by Steve.
actual
orderfire with
inventor,
of a court. 3 insurance companies
designer or author of the utility as
(1996)
RC
will
entitled
loss Corporation
or constitute
patent? to
damage What,
the must bepurchased
infringement.
if but
any, iswas
peril theofdenied
remedy
the sea. rice of thethefrom insurance
losingfollows:
driver’s
trademark
Copyright; contract,
license,
isplaintiff
a prerequisite
Commissioned met the
an amount
accident
Artist to an toand be wasfor
action
insurance
(1998) company it on model X or– P400th
the Y –
did P200th
not deriveZ – P600th
his rights
Juan
Thailand,
Mutual Xavier
Insurance whichwroteitand published
intended asell
story
& toDefinition locally.
party?
ground that his Company; wife whoNature was driving the expended
BRinfringement
extensively
(2004)and CT
from the trueare todamaged.
recover
of trademark,
noted
and actual the
artists Thevessel
inventor, whereas
estimated
whose would
paintings
designer have
cost
or of
similar
Due is
(2006)
What
SUGGESTED to
toANSWER:
stormy
a an unpublished
mutual weather, insurance the copyrighted
shipcompany carrying story the
or been
repair
registrationmore
was than
P40th.
of the three-fourths
Sheryl
trademark immediatelyof
is its
not value.
car when it was carnapped was in the are author
highly of theprized
utility by collectors.
model (Sec 28 RA 165Dr.asDL
of
Cezar
rice Manoling
association?
SUGGESTED isbecame
entitled
ANSWER: Santiago.
to the Itpatent
submerged was,
in sea however,
because
water, he and Vessel
necessary MN Pearly
in unfair Shells needed only P2.9
possession of aninsurance
expired driver’s license,isa a notified
commissioned
amended) XYZ, but the
them tocompetition.
latter
paint arefused
mural (Del to pay
the on
atMonte
A conclusively
was mutual
the real life
with it the rice cargo. When thewas
proven
inventor. that
Francis, corporation
Juan Xavier
copying from
cargo not In Million,
the
Corp policy
absence
v CA whichalleging
78325 of does
anyJan not
that meet
Sheryl
stipulation
25,90 181s410) the
in required
violated
the the
violation of the “authorized the driver” clause of main lobby of his new hospital for children.
cooperative
the aware
work that
arrived
indemnify ofinthat thepromotes
Cezar,
Manila,
HL story
for cannot
theRC oflossManoling
claim
filed of awelfare
theinsured
claim
the of its
Santiago
essential
for total
vehicle? Infringement
SUGGESTED
three-fourths
policies
terms from
thereof vs.
ANSWER:
which Unfair
ofwhen its Competition
value
insurance
she to
drove merit
companyit without or a
the insurance company. 1) May the collected Both agreed to collaborate on the project for
own lossmembers,
was
criteria
Explain. protected
of Supposing
with
2) an with
theinventor,by copyright.
insurer, the
that whomoney
because
the Manoling
carmust the possess
was rice was The
(2003)
In whatinsurer
abandonment. way was
is an not
(Section correct
infringement 139, in denying
of
Insurance aequally the
Code,
insurance company be held liable to for their a driver’s
companies
total
Loss: fee
Total license.
may
ofLosstwo Fortune
Only Is
million the insurer
recover
pesos toincorrect?
case
be fire
fromno among
Santiago
essential
brought longer
by HL themselves
sued
elements onfitJuan of Xavier
fornovelty, and
human solely
for infringement
originality
consumption. and claim
trademark
citeddestroy
SUGGESTED since
in
ANSWER:
Oriental the
similar proviso to that
Assurance “thatwhich
v. Courtthepertains
person
ofagreed
Appeals to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: should
divided
(1992)
An between
insurance his house
them.
company completely?
It was
issued also
a marine
own of protection
copyright.
precedence
Admittedly,
installment to and
Is
the be
basis Juan not
rice entitledfor
Xavier
could profit.
liable?
to
still Members
(2%)
protection.
be used as driving
SUGGESTED
unfair
Fortune is permitted
ANSWER:
competition?
may recover fromin accordance
the insurers with
in the
Yes.
areYes,both Juan
RC’s the Xavier
claim
insurer isand
for liable
total
and
there losswere
for
insured. infringement
is installments
justified.
Afilemutual of
The thatand Panama
Dr. DL had
insurance
licensing,
Saiv
policy
etc.”
Mill,
to covering
qualified
G.R.
provide all No. 94052,
the materials
a shipment
only
August
personby sea
a their
9,
Nevertheless,
animal
and
due payablefeed. underIs RC’s
before thethe "first
claim
loss of to
for
the total
car rule,"
as loss
well as such1991)order as he may select up to
copyright. Itcompany
is not necessary thatThailand
Juan forfromthe Mindoro
painting and pay forofthe wages of of
liferice,
insurance
Francis
justified?
which
installmentsapplication was
Explain. notthat
imported
would
yet has have
payable. no from capital
to be stock
Because given
of the
for concurrent
Infringement;
driving the Jurisdiction
vehicle
liability to Batangas
(Sec other 94 Ins than 1,000
the insured
Code) pieces at
Xavier
sale is aware
locally, is the
obviously story of Manoling
intended for technicians
(2003)
K-9
Mindoro Corporation, and
garden laborers
a
stonesforeign needed
againstcorporation “total for the
loss
and relies
priority.
the
losscar, ofCezar,solely
the vendor upon
however, its
demanded contributions
has within from HL or
threethe the
Assume time of
thatproject. the accident
the project is completed and (Palermo v Pyramid
Santiago
consumption was protected
by the unexpected by copyright.
public. Thecancelled The
complete work on
ALTERNATIVE
alleging
only.” the
GRitself
The ANSWER:
stones to31 bewere thepaid registered
loaded ownerofof
premiums
months
balance
unpaid fromof tothethemeet
decision,
promissory to havenote.itHL losses,
resisted theValued bothIns
The BRCoPolicy
and
insurer
36480
CT is are
correct.
May
fully 88)
The“K”, theinamount
clause
two
work of Manoling
physical
contingencies destruction
and Santiago
expenses of is(Republic
the protected
rice is at
v. not b) trademark
lighters,
If each of the
the“K-9”
first
fire and
with
insurancelogo
600 pieces filed
policies and anthe Inter
as the rightful inventor;
demand and claimed that he was only liable for P2M or within one year as artists'driver”
“authorized fee by DL. in the Underpolicythe law
evidently on
the time
essential
Sunlife, G.R. ofto
No itsconstitute
creation.October
158085, an actual 14, total
2005). loss. Partes
second
obtained case
bywith with
Fortune 400 the
pieces.
in Intellectual
the Because
problem Property
of
(a) rough
is a
from installments
the publication, dueto file
and anpayable
action before
to prove the hisloss of intellectual property, who will ownother the
Copyright;
Such
car
priority
the Intellectual Property
but
Infringement
atoloss
nothe exists
longer invention,in thisfor
liable case
which other since the
installments
has been rice, valued applies
Office
seas,
mural? policy
Who
to
against
damage both
andwas
will
the
Kanin
the
own
insured
causedCorporation
value
the oftheand
hissecond
copyright
any
house forinthe lighter
wasthe
(2006)
In
3) having a Supposing
written been legal opinion
Joab
soaked gotin for a client
wind
sea of
water on the
the and person
cancellation driving of the
the vehicle
latter’s at
mark the time
“K-9” of the
takendue
notfrom at the
yet him time and of the loss of theregistered
fraudulently car. resulting
fixed
SUGGESTED
mural? in Why?
each of
ANSWER: in the
Explain. loss
the policies of 325 out
(5%) at P1m,driver” of how and
the 400
difference
inventions
thereby between
of rendered
his employees apprenticeship
unfitandfor and
also human laid accident.
logowould“K.” The
During term the “authorized
of pendency
SUGGESTED
by Decide.
Francis.
Copyright
ANSWER: Under
muchpieces. Section
The owner
Fortune 178.4 recoverthe fromof
of shipment
the X the hecase
Intellectual
iffiled
1) learnership,
Insurer;
claim to
consumption,
Yes. The 3rd
the Liza
Party
carpatents,
washaslost quoted
become duewithout
Liability;
asserting Quitclaim
to totally
theft. thatpermission
What Cezarfor Property
useless should
before be
the construed
IPO, Kanin asCorporation
aof person who broughtis
(1995)
WhatLoss: Constructive
intellectual Total
property Loss rights are has already obtained full payment on the on the
claims against
Code, the
in case
insurance commissioned
company
a
applies labor
(1994)
Raul’s
andthe Francis
purpose law
truck
in thiswere expert's
casebumped
for is using
which comment
the
the “theft” it car
hiswas appearing
owned
materials
imported
clause, byand
and in
Luz.
(Pan authorized
SUGGESTED
work,suitthe
ground ANSWER:
againstcreator
ofANSWER:by law
K-9(in
constructive to
Corporation driver
theClauseabsence
total the before
loss vehicle
ofZ? the (Peza
a written
inasmuch RTC
(2005)
protected
M/V by
Pearly copyright?
Shells, a passenger and cargo insurance
Insurer;
SUGGESTED policies
Authorized issued
Driver by Y and
his
The
company
not the
Malayan book
car time entitled
was
“authorized
Ins Co insured
in v making
CA "Annotations
driver” by
gr 95070 Cala
theclause.
devices,
Sep 5,on It the
Insurance.is
1991) Labor
will his For Fortune
vforAlikpala
stipulation
as may
infringement
more thanstill
160s31)
to ¾ recover
the ofand the only
damages.
contrary)
value the
of balance
Could
the
owns stonesthethe
SUGGESTED
vessel,
Code." ANSWER:
Canwasover the insured
labor law forexpert P40,000,000.00
hold Liza of (2003)
The
Rickinsurance
P200,000 de lafrom Cruzcompany insured is not
his liable under its
passenger
Sec
the prevail
claim
immaterial
5
damage
of PD that
49
caused,
HL ’sthose
provides wife Cala
that of
was paid
his
driving
Copyright
Luz
employees?P5,000.00
the car
shall action
copyright,
had
policy
Patent;
jeepney been before
but
coveringlost
Non-Patentable
with the inXagainst
the
Asiatic
insurance
oneRTC
work prosper?
ofitself
the
Inventions“total
Insurers,
company
belongs
lighters.
loss
Inc.Why? only”
The tothe
Is the
the
policy
withagainst
liable
SUGGESTED
in
Explain. an for“constructive
ANSWER:
amicable
expired infringementsettlement.
driver’s total
of copyright
license Luzloss.”
at Due
for to
executed
the time it a
a since the who insured may only recover up to the
consist
No, Joab's in the
claim exclusive
cannot right:
prevail over those of person
insurance
(2006)
shipment
provided
Supposing company
of
that commissioned
1,000
Albert the liable
pieces
authorized
Einstein under
of were its
Mindoro
driver itscreation.
alive policy?
of garden
the
today
typhoon,
quoting
release ofit sank
a portion
claim, near
ofCompania
subrogatingPalawan.
his bookde Luckily,
without
Cala to hisallthere ALTERNATIVE:
extent of his loss.
was carnapped . (Perla Seguros v her Accordingly,
Why? the mural belongs to loss DL.
his
2)
SUGGESTED
employees.
were
permission?
The
rights no
promissory
ANSWER:
In
casualties,
against (5%) the
Raul.
note first
only
is place,
When
not injured
affectedJoab
Cala did
passengers.
demanded
by not stones.
vehicle
and he filed There
should withishavenothe constructive
aIntellectual
valid and existingtotal
Property
CA 208 s 487)
commission anyowner of theRaul, two employees to of However,
that
driver’s
Office can BRclaimed
license.
(IPO) and TheCT
since
an application own
the ¾
passenger the
forrule copyright,
is tofor
jeepney
patent beofhis
The
whatever
reimbursement ship
befalls the from subject sent matter
the a latter
ofnotice
therefused Copyright; Infringement
since
Rick there
computed
theory de oflaisrelativity
onnothe
Cruz stipulation
total
which 1,000
expressed
was toatthe pieces
the
in contrary.
thetime of driven
invent
accessory the
abandonment
saying that device,
contract.he had ofand his
The itsinterest
already paid over the vessel (1994)
to the insurance company which then Mindoro
by Jay Cruz,
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 66 63
Page of 103
of 103
An deception
insolvent
Page 64 67
Page 65
of 103
debtor,
could be 103
ofafter
rather
bank
be Law
3)
b)
said onIf
demanded
to beCorporate
There Aaron
similar
is
immediate
nois to Recovery
need
declared
such of
payment.
products
exactan insolvent
duplication
as TV, by lawful
the1remote.discharge
petition.
law In Since
are
In suspension
the following
itmeantime,
cannot
conferred of really
an adjudication
payments,
bythe be
thecase said
the
fact
filedthat
debtor
of
by
(2003)
X
stereo
Because Corporation
of the
the court,
and
the
patentee’s
bank
what
radio applied
threatened
would
existing
sets be for
orpatent
to
theits
camerasrehabilitation
proceed
effect,
such as ifor any, of insolvency,
physicians
registration
Vicente
has sufficient can
is released
proceeded
and benot
property soand easily
from,
byto
resulted deceived
cover
use.generally,
all
in hisbydebts
Although
a all
such
ALTERNATIVE
and
betamax
against
when
of such
the ANSWER:
submitted
the
products
surety,
improvement
declaration
ofa Sony.
Eduardorehabilitation
made
onZ. Ong, his plan
by another
Edzo
creditors? which
is debts,
trademark
but
Shangrila claims,
foresees
judgment asliabilities
Corporation's
award “Axilon,”
the in favor and
impossibility it may
parent demands
of be
Vicente.
had hard
of meeting
usedwhich
May to
thethe
ThereSUGGESTED
called
decided
merely
Explain. istoforinfringement.
ANSWER:
minor
pay the entry
all itsby
up(Frank Ifit the
vobligations
Benito, owner
into51p713) to . of
a joint venture
To a
be are expect
or have
tradename
judgment
them anbeen
when opposition
obtained
and they proved
logo bythereto
respectively against
long to
Vicente his
fall succeed.
before,
be estate.
due,
enforced the
A
trademark
Integrity declaration
agreement
independently which
Bank. with by
manufactures
Onpatentable,
June the 2002,
Y Corporation.
20, ancourt
certain
improvement
Edzo that
Under types
paid thethe
of Give ANOTHER
whereas,
protection
independently ANSWER:
5 obligations ofofthe
in insolvency,
of the the
laws insolvent
the
insolvencywilldebtor debtor
be for to
does not
S
of petitioner
goods
agreement,
to Integrity
an existing could
Bank is
Y
patented insolvent
reasonably
Corporation
the fullinvention be will
was
principalmust expected
tohave
amount lend
be aof X the
to
to The
SUGGESTED
SUGGESTED
survive.
Development application
proceedings?
have ANSWER:ANSWER:
sufficient Corporation
Explain. for registration
property because
to pay all it hisof debts
was Turbo
the in
engage 1) improvement
following
Corporation
P500,000,
major inplus The
effects:
the itssheriff
accruedmanufacture
credit shall v take
facilities
interests
(Aquas deof possession
amounting
Leon another
with certain
L-32160 The The 5entity
full;
first judgment
obligations
Corporation tomay obtained
ofbethe
register byinsolvent
contested. Vicente
the Thecan
debtor
intellectual be
factual
product
to of
banksusing
P55,000.
30Jan82) all
to As assets
obtainthe
a result, same
fundsof the
trademark,
Edzo nothad debtor
onlyhardly until
toanother anytheX
operate that
How enforced
survive
settings
2 doesInthe
properties. doindependently
are notas follows:
indicate
international
suspension of
thatthe
of payments, insolvency
there
affiliation the been
had of
Patents; Rights
appointment over the
of aInvention
receiver orthereof
assignee; 1 Taxes
proceedings.
prior use andfor assessments
Under at Sec
least 32 2 due
of the
months the Insolvency
ofthe
party
cash left who
Corporation for uses but the
operations also trademark
for adecided
and part for
to close that
in the Shangrila
purpose is to Corporation
suspend or delay affect
payment ofthe
(1990)
Cheche
product 2) can Payment
inventedbe held a to the
device
liable that
for debtor
can
using convertof
that any government,
Law, the
trademark
outcome national
ofassignment
“Axilon.”
the dispute? orto local;
the assignee
Explain. (5%) of alla
its amount
business.ofAfter P1 million
paying the as initial
unpaiddeposit salariesin a debts which remain unaffected although
debts due
rainwater into to him and
automobile the
fuel. delivery
She asked to the 2 Trademark
Obligations arising from
postponement of payment is declared, and
the real and personal property, estate
trademark. Using this standard, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
sinking
of its employees, fund to Edzo befiled augmented
a petitionannually for in
Macon, debtor of
aonlawyer, any property
to assist inbelonging
getting hertobe him, The (1994)
international
Laberge,
embezzlement
effects of in Inc.,
the ordebtor
fraud;affiliation
manufactures
made ofthe Shangrila
and markets
In the
infringement
amounts
insolvency
Trademark;
insolvency
Test
exists
equivalent
July proceedings
1,
of Dominancy
because
2002. to 10% inSonycourt,
of can
the the yearly whereas, insolvency, the by object clerk of
is to obtain
andinthe
invention
assignee
reasonably transfer
patented.
insolvency
expected of
toMacon
sought
use any toproperty
suggested
such invalidate
trademark by
thathim Corporation
after-shave
3 the court Obligation may
shall be critical
lotion,
of any person
vacate and insetthe
shaving event
liable
aside with
any that
cream,
income
(1996)
N 3)
Corporation from All itsciviloperation
manufactures proceedingsof the
rubber businesspending
shoes of discharge from all debts and liability;
on they
the are
payment
electric form forbidden;
a
made
fans. corporation
by Edzo with
to other
Integrity friends
Bank its affiliates
insolventor
thedeodorant,
judgment debtor
entered parent
talcum for company
inpowder
the action
any same and abroad
debt,toilethad
commenced soap,
underX Corporation.
against
the the From
insolvent this shallfund beforthe
stayed; creditors and 3 In suspension of payments, no limit for
forandbeing
of X4)have atrademark
the
fraudulent
Corporation corporation “Jordann”
transfer
were toapply
which
because
be paidthe
hitit the
annually,
registered
using
either as
withamount
the
a the in
solidary
30 daysofimmediately a foreign
trademarkcodebtor,
indebtedness
jurisdiction
“PRUT”,
surety,
prior to the
is required,
which the is
Phil
was market
patent,
made 80% withinMortgages
in of30 1985,
thedays shares and
and
before of pledges
registered
stock
the are
thereof
filing of not
its to tradename
registered
guarantor,
commencement and
partner, the
with logo.
the
indorser
of insolvency A well-known
Phil
or Patent
otherwise.
proceedings. markOffice.
starting
trademark affected from
with bythe the
the second
order
Bureau year
declaring ofofIntegrity
operations,
aMacon.
Patents, person whereas, in insolvency, the debts must exceed
the be subscribed
insolvency by
petition. Cheche In and
defense, 5% by andLaberge
4 In tradename
thisAlimony
case, does or is not
claim
however, subject
manufacture
for
the to protection
support;
action briefs
and
filed byor and
withinsolvent.
Trademarks the entire and (Sec.indebtedness
59,
Technology Insolvency to beLaw)
(BPTTT) liquidated in P1,000 in case of voluntary insolvency,
The corporation was formed and itthe patent under
5 VicenteTreaty
underwear
Debts not
against of provable
and Paris
these
Carlito foritems the commenced
against
was Protection
are not estate
the of
specified
Bank
1990.in asserted
15 years.
PK debt
that
CompanyThe the payment
creditorsalso of to X
manufactures
was
Corporation for must
JG who notmanufactures
be less than P1,000 briefs in case
and of by
underwear,
a application
legitimate was filed.
that was However,
not covered Cheche by died
the Intellectual
(suchin the
Vicente certificate
as after-incurred
not Property
later of
than Juneto 16,
registration.
obligations) which
1995of, or(thethe
not
objected
c) towith
Assuming the the plan
that, because
Aaron has Yof Corporation
guarantors involuntary
wants tothis know insolvency.
whether,
Franco,
rubber
3 months
prohibition shoes thelater
because estranged
ofovera heart
it was husband
trademark
“aattack.
valuable Cheche,
“Javorski” Philippines
included
facts on in is
the a schedule
member.
point notunder
are submitted clear)our by, the
when laws, he
whichwould
for it his
contested
pecuniary
be taking
debts,
registered the
consideration
are
application
with the the
BPTTT
madethe
business
guarantors
of the
in
in good
andreleased
corporation
1978. faith,”
assets can
insolventInsolvency & Corporate
Insolvency; use
Vicentedebtor.
Voluntary and Insolvency
register
obtained a writ of preliminary
Proceeding
the trademark
of
In and1992,
from X Corporation.
filed PK
theirhisCo adopted
obligations
own Could
patent and once
application court
copied Aaron approve
as thethe is (1991)
Is “PRUTE”
the issuance foragainst
his of merchandise.
an order, declaring What a
is your
thus the
design
falling
SUGGESTEDof
discharged
SUGGESTED
sole plan within
ANSWER:
NANSWER:
surviving despite
Corporation’s
from
the
heir
exception
the
hisofdebts? “Jordann”
Cheche.
specified
objections
Explain.
Decide rubber ofin the
the
attachment
Insolvency;
SUGGESTED
petition
advice?
Recovery
in Effect;
ANSWER: a Declaration
Carlito
Voluntary
or more
of Insolvency than
Insolvency
30
theNo, Insolvency precisely Law. As under judge in the pending days before the petition for involuntary
creditors
SUGGESTED
shoes,
issue both
with ofas XtoCorporation
ANSWER:
reasons. shape the and and principle
color, could but the of Yes. The
(1991)
What
proceeding aretrademark
the effectsregistered
insolvent, of a judgment
mandatory inupon
the in namethe of
insolvency
excussion,
The
creditorsestrangedcase, the how
husband would
liability you
oftoofCheckedecide
the guarantors the plan?
cannot insolvency
Laberge Inc was filed against
covers only Carlito by his
after-shave lotion,
Rehabilitation;
retained
SUGGESTED thebetrademark
ANSWER: compelled
Stay Order “Javorski”follow the
on its SUGGESTED
insolvency
court?
Insolvency
ANSWER: in
vs. Suspension Voluntary Insolvency cases?
respective
The arises
successfully
contention
(2006)
Could
The only
Blue Ycontentions
after
contest
of the
Corporation,
Star the of
the
assignee
Corporation the
exhaustion assignee
application.
in infiled of the
insolvency
managing inThe
with assets the
the other
Assuming
shaving
SUGGESTED creditors.
that
cream,
ANSWER: the (i.e.petition onofJuly
deodorant,
Payment
was 29, in1995)
talcum due form powder
products. (1998)
Distinguish insolvency from
insolvency
May
is of
right the
PKover
correct.
business
Regional and
Company
The of of
principal
inventions
paymentIntegrity obligor.
beCourt
X Corporation
Trial accrue
held Bank?
made liable by
ain The
from Explain
Edzo
the the
to effect
toN Co?
meantime,
petition of
for (Radiola-Toshiba
andThe
and adjudication
substance
toilet soap. and Phil vdeclaration
Itorthat
does IAC GR suspension
the
not 75222
assets
cover of July18,91
of the
briefs
of
and
(5%) payments.
199s373) (3%)
discharge
SUGGESTED
moment
Explain. ANSWER:
rehabilitation
Integrity
be deemed of
Bank to merely
creation
wasonhave the confirms
and
ground
a fraudulent as
taken-over aexhaustion
right
that it it
foresaw
preference can
X Corporation of the
the insolvency
petitioner
underwear.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: are by the
less court,
than after
his hearing
liabilities, orthe
PK ALTERNATIVE
Co may ANSWER:
be liable for unfairly competing Themust limit of the havetrademark is stated in18
a)the
assets
lawfully
impossibility
or payment,
itself? (6%)of
be being the
assigned.
of obligor
paying
made Once
its
within available
the title
obligations
thirty to they
thereto
(30) as his a) default,
court In shall
adjudicate
insolvency, the thefollowing
the insolvency
liabilities effects:
(Sec
of the
Yes.
against Article
N Co. 2076
By of petition
copying the Civilsufficient Code provides:
days creditors.
fallvested
is due.
before Finding
in
thethe filing the of thethe
transferee, the design,
insolvency latter shape in form
has the debtor are more than his assets, while innot
certificate
Forbid
Insolvency theLaw) issued
payment to Laberge
to the debtor Inc. It
of does
any
The
andright
andcolor obligation
substance,of N ofcourt
Corporation’s the issued guarantor
“Jordann” is Insolvency;him
include
debt dueVoluntary
and
briefs
topayments, vs. Involuntary
the delivery
and to him
underwear Solvency
of which
any property
are
petition. to apply forthe its registration. The an Order suspension of assets of the debtor
extinguished
rubber
Insolvency;
appointing shoes
Jurisdiction; at
and the usingsame the
SoleofProprietorship
a rehabilitation time sameas that in of itsthe (1995)
belonging
Distinguish
different to
between
products him; b) Forbid
voluntary
protected the transfer
insolvency
by Larberge’s of
and
estranged husband Cheche, ifreceiver not and are more than his liabilities.
debtor,
rubber
(1990)
One dayshoes
staying
What and
Note:
Jerry
is thethe for
An
Haw, the
examinee
trademarked
enforcement
rationaledoing same whocauses
business
of
for answers
“Javorski,”
all
the as all
under
claims
Stay on
PK other
the
against
Order? is b) any
involuntary property
trademark. insolvency.
In insolvency, by him; theand assets c) Stay of the of debtor
all civil
disqualified to inherit, merely would succeed
obligations.
obviously
the name
the basis
trying
Starlight
corporation.
SUGGESTED of the
ANSWER: issue
passof off
toEnterprise, validityits
a sole of the for
shoes are to be converted into cash for distribution to
JG
SUGGESTED can
proceedings register
ANSWER: against the trademark
the insolvent “PRUTE”
but
(5%)
to
d) the interest
What of
remedies Cheche. are available to the
transfer ofthe patent noas ashort
valid In cover
voluntary insolvency, it is the debtor
thoseThe of purpose
proprietorship,
guarantors
N. Itfinds
in
of is
case
of stay
himself
they
order
moment
are made
isonintended
cash he to
that
to pay the amongforeclosure
hisits creditors,
briefs may
andwhile be allowed
underwear in suspension(Secs
(Faberge 18 Inc& v
of
give
trademark
and unable consideration
the “Javorski”
to pay management
his debts for subscription
was registered
as they committee of the
due or
fall ahead himself
IAC 24
215whoInsolvency
s files
316) the Law)petition for insolvency,
Trademark
SUGGESTED
creditors? ANSWER:
shares Explain.
of stocks should be given due payments, the debtor is only asking for time
rehabilitation
of Under
the trademark receiver “Jordann.” the leeway Priority to make while in involuntary
Trademark, Test of insolvency, Dominancy at least 3
although
(1990)
In 1988,
he has sufficient
Article
the Food
credit. 2081, and the property
Drug guarantor to cover
Administration mayinset within which to convert his frozen assets
creditors
Insolvency;
(1996)
What isare the the
“testones
Fraudulent ofPayment who file the petition
dominancy?”
such thedebts.
registration business Heis viable
not
asks material
you, again,
as in
his without
an
retained actionhaving for to into liquid cash with which to pay his
up againstthe
approved thelabelscreditor submittedall the by defenses
Turbo that ALTERNATIVE
for insolvency
(2002)
SUGGESTED
As of JuneANSWER:
1,against
ANSWER: 2002, Edzo the insolventSystemsdebtor.
divert
unfair
counsel, attention
competition
for advice and
as the
on resources
distinguished
followingdebtor.to litigation
from an
queries: in Patents;
obligations Infringement
when the latter fall thedue. that if the
pertain
Corporation to for the its new principal
drug brandv.name, The TheThe
Corporationfollowing
test of dominancy
(Edzo) are indebted
was requires to thethe
various fora (1992)
In an action for infringement of 3patent,
action
a) Should forheinfringement
file (Philippine
a petition Airlines
ofwith trademark.
the Spouses
SECprincipaltoThe Insolvency: Voluntary Insolvency
discharge
“Axilon.” obtained
Turbo by Aaron onRubber
the 1 competing In involuntary
distinctions: trademark insolvency,
contains or
themore main or
basis
be
G.R.
(Converse
Kurangking,
of
declared
Nos.
an Rubber76879
action
in et
a al,is
state
Co & now
G.R.
for of
77143,
v No. applying
Jacinto
unfair
suspension
October
146698,
competition
with
of
3,the
September 1990;
&
is by following
alleged
(2005) infringer
Aaron, a well-known creditors: defended a)
architect, Ace Equipment
himself by
isinsuffering stating
obligation
Bureau
Rubberworld
Plastics Co of GR can
Patents, nowTrademarks
[Phils.]
27425 beInc.
and used v.
30505, as and
NLRC, aApr28,80
defense
G.R. No. creditors
essential are
computers required,
features and of whereas
another
accessories voluntary
and
sold confusion
to Edzo
24, 2002; BF Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,in 1)
fromSupplies
that the patent
financial – for various issuedHe personal
by hasthe Patent Office
confusing
payments
the
Technology
126773,
97s158)
in
guarantorsand
view
AprilTransfer
misleading
of
14, 1999;
the
against said
for the
Sobrejuanite
similarity
financial
theregistration
creditors.
v. ASB of The
Dev. insolvency,
and on onereverses.
deception
credit creditor
amounting is may be
likely
to
four
sufficient;
P300,000. to result,
general
condition appearance,
he faces? Explain not yoursimilarity
answer. b) of was
creditorsnotIn with
2 infringement really
involuntary a total an claim invention
insolvency, of P26the which
Million. was
creditors
Tradename:
guarantors G.R.International
are also Affiliation
entitled to30,indemnity
2005). It takes place. Duplication
said
Corp.,brand name.
No. 165675, It was subsequently
September b)
patentable;
Despite Handyman2) that Garage
hepay had – for mechanical
no intent to or
trademarks
Should
Development
under he
Insolvency;
(2005)
S also prevents sell
Article profit
Assets participation
vs.
Corporation
2066
that a“Accilonne” of Liabilities
the
creditor from Civilsued Code. Shangrila
obtaining an must be his
imitation
intention
residents is of the
not
to these
Philippines,
necessary; whose
not
confirmed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: is a generic term repairs
infringe
obligations, (parts
sodemand
that and
there
his current service)
was assetsno performed
in actionable
arePhilippines, case it
onis
a) I(1998)
certificates
Horacio
Corporation
would
advantage
for a class
tofor
opened
counsel hisusing
or
of
10 abrothers
Jerry
preference
anti-fungal
coffee
the
to file “S” and
shop
over
drugs the logosisters
using
Petition
another
and and
is
inthe
money
used withas credits
for necessary
Edzo’s or company
infringement; that accrued
the
andcar infringing
amounting the label
to should
P10,000.
order to raise
borrowed
tradename cash
from
“Shangrila”. for his
financial business?
Theinstitutions.
former Explain. After 3
claims insufficient
andsuggest
none of tothe cover
creditors all 3) of hasthatbecome
them. there
His was a no
for Suspension
respect
such by the to of Payment
actions
medical against with
profession the
the and ordinary
corporation
the c)
exact Joselyn
duplication an Reyes
effort of to
the – former
imitate.
patentee’s employee
Similarity
existing of in
that months,
it was Horacio
the first left
toand for
register thethe US with
logo and the creditors
creditor byare about
assignment to suewithin him. 30 days prior
courts,
(Finasia rather
pharmaceutical than
Investments the
industry, SEC. SEC’s
Finance
and that Corp it isv.usedCourt Edzo
size,
petition who
form sued
and
the Edzo
color,
court for unlawful
while
to declarerelevant,With is not
theasintent of defrauding his creditors. While
that .his
patent
to the but
Consequently,
Trademark;
filing only
of he the aInfringement
minor
was
petition, improvement.
constrained whereas toin file ahim
oftradename insuch the107002,Philippines and it termination of employment vand CAwas GRable
jurisdiction
Appeals,
a generic overG. chemical
R. No. cases name isOctober
confined
in various only
7,1994) conclusive. theto
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Asia Brewery 103543
thoseinsolvent,
defenses, can the
would judge you properly
exempt treat
had
to
Suspension
liabilities
been using
petitions
scientific filed
and
of
are Payment
bythe worth same in
corporations
professional
vs.
P1.2m,Insolvency
its
and
publications.
his
restaurant assets,
A Ipetition
(1991)
Sony
voluntary
would
obtain
Jul5,93
the
for
notis
a
insolvency.
a registered
insolvency,
exempt
final
224s437)
petition asthe
judgment
(5%)
thesealleged a) Since
trademark
are
against
one betamax for
not
violator
Edzo
Aaron
required.
involuntary
for
from
for TV,
(1995)
Distinguish
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
however are between
worth suspension
P1.5m. May of payments
Horacio be alleged
was merely
stereo, violator forced
radio, from by
cameras, liability?
circumstances Why? to
and other
business.
partnerships
competing Shangrila
under
drug for Corporation
its registration
regulatory
manufacturer powers.
asks counters
you to 3 P100,000.
d)
liability
SUGGESTED Inforinvoluntary
Bureau
the following
ANSWER: insolvency,
of Internal reasons:Revenue the
1) A debtor
– for
The
SUGGESTED
and application
ANSWER:
insolvency. by Turbo insolvency?
electronic Explain.
b)
that declared
Instead
itHoracio
contest
No. of
is the insolvent?
selling
anregistration
affiliate
may profit(2%) participation
ofofdeclared
notcontested.
be an
the brandinternational name
insolvent. must
patent
No. have
unpaid
This once isdone a products.
value-added
issued anyby
case ofthe
for theA Patent
taxes local
acts
voluntary ofcompany,
amounting insolvency
Office
insolvency to Best
Corporation
SUGGESTED
certificates,
ANSWER:
I whichmay
would be
urge Jerry to The
enter into as Manufacturing
presumption
e)
enumerated
P30,000. Integrity by Inc
Secthat
Bank 20,produced
– the
which
whereas electric
article
granted
in Edzofans
is
organization
“Axilon” by Turbo. hasWhat been will using
you such
advice logo raises
because a this was filed by an insolvent debtor
His
Trademarkassets worth
In suspension Law ofwould P1.5m
payments, notare the
allow more the than
debtor isbe? his
not which it sold under the trademark Sony
a
andpartnership
tradename or to incorporate
“Shangrila” for in
over order 20 to
years. apatentable;
loan
voluntary in 2001
insolvency,
owing debts exceeding the amount ofit in can,
the the amount
however
debtor of
mustP500,000.
be shown
not
liabilities
insolvent.
registration
ALTERNATIVE worth
ANSWER: He of only
a P1.2m. needs time
trademark which, within when which without the consent ofRA Sony. Sony sued Best
raise
However, cash for
Insolvency; his Assignees
Shangrila business. Corporation registered have otherwise
The
P1,000.00doneloanany wasunder (Sec
of not
said 45
secured
acts.
Section by165).any
14 A
asset
of mereof
the
to convert
applied
b) Jerry may to sell
orhis used asset/s
profit into cash with
inparticipation
connection withhis which SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manufacturing for infringement. Decide
the tradename
(1996)
On
to pay June his 16, and
1995,
obligations logo
Vicente whenin obtained
the
they Philippines
fall adue.
writ In of 4 Edzo,
statement
Insolvency
There In but
is Law. it
involuntary or
was allegation
guaranteed
insolvency,
Under Section
no infringement. is not
unconditionally
the
In 20 enough
orderamount thethe
of that to a
Whichproducts,
certificates of the to is merely
two
his descriptive
corporations
brothers and has
sistersor a deceptively
better case.
destroy
and solidarily
of indebtedness that by
mustpresumption.
Edzo’s
not be President
less (than and
P1,000
case for infringement of trademark decan
only after the suit
preliminary was filed.against Carlito. The
attachment Insolvency Law, the petition must Aquas
be filedv by
rightthe
without case
misdescriptive
use the of
to registering of insolvency,
logo them.
the and
same Confusion
thewith the thecan
tradename?debtor
SEC result is
levy on
ALTERNATIVE Carlito’s
ANSWER: property occurred on June threecontrolling
whereas
Leon or 30 in Jan
more stockholder,
voluntary82 L32160
creditors. )In Eduardo
insolvency, the on it must
case Z.
at Ong,
bar, itas
insolvent,
SUGGESTED
from the
Explain.
because ANSWER:
his use that
saleof is, his
is “Axilon”
an exempted assets are
as thetransactionless
generic than his 2) prosper,An the
intention products to filed infringe which
is notthe
S The
Medical
25, 1995.
Development following
drugs
On may29,
July
Corporation are
be1995,procured the
another only upon
creditor is accommodation
exceed
Aaron, P1,000.
the debtor, surety.
who the insolvency
beingliabilities.
productisolated itself. and not a sale tohas a better
the public. trademark
The In
necessary
5 The loan due
nor
involuntary
is used
to
an Integritymust be
element
insolvency, Bank
inof theafell
the
same
due for
case
petition
kind.
on
rightdistinctions:
prescription
filed
Insolvency;to ause petition made
the logo
obligations that by
forsurvive a
and duly
involuntary licensed
the tradename, insolvency proceedings. electric fans produced by Best
June be15,
infringement
must 2002.
accompanied Despite
of a patent. by apleas bond,for extension
whereas of
sincephysician.
against
(1997) the protective The possibility
Carlito. The
benefits of
insolvency
of court gave Manufacturing cannot
payment by Edzo,
such is not required in voluntary insolvency. the
due course to the
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar Mercantile
Examination
Examination
Q &Q Law
A& ABar Page
Examination Q & A (1990-2006)
(1990-2006)
(1990-2006) 70 71
Page of 103
of 103
Page 72
TheAA of 103
insurance
entered
Page 68
Page 69
of 103
into
company 103
aofcontract
b) The
M/VBVIlogagreed
Discuss
Saad
de Manila
Dev
tothe
sell
Coeffects
with
to
enters
AC,a cargo
of
ainto
Ship
theaofvoyage
SEC
and
500 order
tons should
withbear
BB thru
SUGGESTED
rehabilitation the CC
loss
in to
ANSWER: toaccordance
transport
the cargoladies'
becauseweara
with
COGSA;
of iron
Merchandise
charter
suspension
ore Prescription
with
left the XYZ
on
Broker,
Portof
the
over Claims
of
2,500
judicial
the
Zamboanga
latter’s
cubic foreclosure
meters
vessel,
City of the Itdeviation
thefrom incurs
rehabilitation Manila ofnoto
planthe liability
France
vesselwith
approved wasunless
bytranshipment
proper
the SEC. it inis also at the
(2000)
RC imported
proceedings
bound
logs
MV for
LadyLove.
at $27 Manila. computer
initiated
perBeforeFor
cubic byone motherboards
meter
First
the reason
Saad
Bank.
FOB. or
could
(2%)
After from
another,load it, negotiating
order
Taiwan.
to avoid Somehow bank
a peril,the which goods waswere the strong
not
c)
the
M/V UnitedWould
inspecting
XYZ Ilog soldde States
Lady thelogs,
Manila
the order
and
Lovehit CD a
tohad of suspension
them
submerged
Oslob
issued ashipped
Maritimepurchase
obstacle have
Co to b)
SUGGESTED
typhoon.
loaded Bravo
ANSWER:
Theat Taiwan Bank
running received
onout time. from when
of provisions
Hence, Cisco wasthe Bank
any On
Manila
causing the
effect arrangements
aboard
order.itdecided
which on
to sink alongthean foreclosure
oceangoing
to loadwith made
it for upon
itsits instruction
proceedings
cargo
cargo. A ship
own account. f. To
by
a direct preserve
registered
goodsconsequence the
arrived in France, mail assets
an
of the they of
irrevocable
proper the Debtor
arrived "off- of
letter
of
a) the
initiated
owned
salvor, May byby consignee,
Salvador,BC
XYZ Second Shipping
Shipping
Inc., H&T
Bank?was Corporation
Explain
validly (2%)
Company.
Co contracted When
ask toof
forLA,the
the Corporation,
credit issued
ALTERNATIVE
deviation
season" ANSWER:
inand the
order AA byreceiver
to
wasDelta
avoidpaid may
Bank
theonly take
for
perilfortheofcustody
one-half
the account
d) rescission
cargo
refloat Would
California,
thearrivedvessel
of the
the the order
SP
at
for Bank
Manila
charter
P1 ofofparty?
Million.suspension
LAseaport
issued
What If so, have
an
kind
canand Thethe
of, of owner
and
typhoon. Ycontrol
value of by the
Company the cargo
over, allbears
buyer. intheAA the the loss
existing
claimed amountassets of
damages
any
of effect
irrevocable
delivered
average
Saad toon
recover
was RC,the
letter
the suit
the
damages? filedTo
ofcrate
refloatingcredit by Third
available
appeared
fee
what P1Bank?
of extent? at sight
intact; b) If because
and frompropertyin the
US$10,000,000
the case
of
shipping thetoatcompany
bar, they
corporation;
cover the andstayed
sale its of too
evaluate
agent.canned
SUGGESTED
e)
Explain.
but in upon
million,
Oslob What
favor ANSWER:
(2%)
and
did of are
forBVwhose
inspection
not the
for the
load legal of consequences
total
itaccount
for itspurchase
the owncontents,
should account, ofRC
itprice
be? aisofit long
existingat the
assets island, and making
liabilities,
The defense of the respondents was letter
fruit juices. The beneficiary it an improper
earnings
of the and of
Particular Average. The ofowner of themailed
vesselto deviation.
operations Every of deviation
the not specified
corporation; inand
rehabilitation
the(4%)
discovered
Why?bound logs. The
bythat thereceivership?
letter
the
charter items credit (2%)
inside
party? was
c) had
Explainall been the prescription. Considering that the ladies' on
credit was X Corporation which later
shall
f) shoulder
What
FE damaged.
Bank with the
measures average.
the did instructionmay Generallythe
“toof receiver
forward Sec. 124suffered
determine
partially is improper.
the
availed best (Sec.
way
itself of125,
to Insurance
thesalvage
letter ofand credit
badly
meaning of “owner He pro nothac filevice any the ofit
notice wear
Suspension of interest "loss
Payments; of value,"
Remedies as claimed by
speaking,
take to or simple or particular
preserve the averages Code)
to the
damage
vessel.” beneficiary.”
anything
In what kind withThe ofassets
letter
anyone,
charter ofof Debtor
credit
least
party of
does all protect
by
AA,
Carriage
the
submitting
should the to of
Bravo
prescriptive the Bank investors
period all be and
documents
one
include
Corporation? all expenses
(2%) and damages caused toSP (2003)
When isof the
SUGGESTED
creditors.
relative Goods;
to remedy
ANSWER:
theDeviation;
shipment Whenof
of declaration Proper
the cans in a state of fruit
withprovided
BC Shipping that the draft to What
Company. be drawn he didis on was year under the prescriptive
Carriage of Goods by
the
this
vessel
SUGGESTED
obtain?
SUGGESTED orANSWER:
ANSWER: cargo which have not inured to (2005)
of The
Under
juices. applicable
what
suspension Bravo circumstances
ofBank payments
paid can
X period
a vessel
available
Corporation is Sea
ten
tofora its
Bank
to The
proceed and that
directly it be to accompanied
your office toby, among
a.
the a) XYZ
commonSEC may order askoffor
benefit suspension
(Art.the rescission
809, andof paymentofconsult
are, the is Act,
SUGGESTED
years
properly
corporation?
partial
orunderten years
ANSWER:
proceed
availment. thetoCivilunder
a Later,
port Code.the
other Civil
The
however, than Code?
one-year
its
it refused
other
youcharter
about things,
whether a certification from AC, stating
valid with to
therefore, party
respect
be haveborne ashe
if, to the
in
only
should
this
debtor
bycase,
have
thecorporation,
given
it sold
owner thea
of (per
portExplain
dondee)
SUGGESTED
prescriptive
of
further
briefly.
ANSWER:
destination? This
availmentperiod (5%)
remedyunder
Explain.
because
isthe
(4%) available
of Carriage
suspicions
toofa
of
that
notice the
of logs
damage and been how approved
long a prior
time he Deviation
corporation is proper:
when it experiences inability
but
the vessel
not ANSWER:
Before
SUGGESTED
property before
with
loadingwhich therespect
charterer
ongave the rise to tohas
vessel the begun
chartered
the principal
same toby AC, Goods
fraud by Seapracticed
being Act applies upon in casesit and, losstoor ,
of instead
had shipment
to initiate in accordance
a suit under with
the the terms
provisions and
of a)
paywhenone's causeddebts by andcircumstances
liabilities, over which
My the
(Art. advice
stockholders.
load thewhile
logs
810) would
vessel
were The be
and SEC
inspected
general that
the or hasby RC
purchaser
gross customshould
jurisdiction
averagesloads give
inspectors itto damages
Suspension
sued toofthe
X Corporation cargo.
Payments toThe
vs.recovertermand
Stay "loss"
Order
what
where as
it
the conditions
notice
declare
forCarriage
andhis of the
suspension
own
representatives
of
of
damage the
Goods
account.
purchase by Sea
ofsustained
payments
Saad
of the may
order.
Act
by
Bureau with (CA
the
recoverof
65).
cargo
respect 1 the
neither
theSUGGESTED
(2003) has
master
petitioning
interpreted
Distinguish sufficient
nor
ANSWER:
by the the
corporation
the property
owner
Supreme
stay order of
either:to the
cover
Court in ship
in all itshad
has
corporate
Mitsui any
include "all the damages and expenses which paid the latter. How would you rule if you
What
within
to would
damages 3 days
corporations, your
toand the advice
that
partnership
extent he be? has (2%)to file the suit control;
debts but b) when
foresees necessary
the to
impossibility comply of with a
are Forestry,
deliberately who certified
caused inof to its
ordertheor losses
associations,
good
to save (Art
condition
the 689 rehabilitation
O.S.K.
were Lines
the Ltd.
judge from
v. Courtadecide
declaration
of Appeals, in a state of
287 SCRA
to
but b) If
recover
Code
not Oslob
with
of the did
Commerce)
respect not
damage load
to Lady
sustained
individuals. Love for
by itsthe Letters
warranty
meeting
suspension
366 (1998)orof avoid
them Credit;
when a to
, contemplates
of payments? they Three falla(4%)
due the(solvent
Distinct
situation
controversy?
Contract
where
and exportability
vessel,
SUGGESTED itsANSWER:
cargo, or both of the atlogs.
the same After time, the (6%)
own
cargo account, it year
would bethe bound byMate the Relationships
peril, whether
butSUGGESTED
illiquid) or (2002)
or not the peril is insured
from
b. The a within
loading real
SEC was
and one
order completed,
known of
from
risk"
suspension
the
(Art.Chief date
811).
of
of
payment
the
Being of the no delivery
Explain
ANSWER:
the
at all was made by the carrier of
three (3) had distinct but
charter
delivery of party,
the cargo but XYZ
to him. would have to against;
2 the has
goods c) no when
because made
sufficient the in good
property
same faith, and
(insolvent)
perished or
for vessel
the common
suspended issued
the a mate
judicial receipt
benefit,proceedingsgross averages of the cargoare
initiated grounds of belief in its necessity to avoid a are
COGSA;
indemnify Prescriptive
Oslob ifthe Period
it was uponintertwined
isreasonable
Suspension
butgone under of
the contract
Payments;
management relationships
Rehabilitation
of a that
Receiver
to
by which
be
theborneFirst statedby
Bank. thethat owners
According logs ofnot are
the informed
tosale.
thein good
articles
Supreme
of the
peril;
out of commerce deteriorated or
or d) when iningood
Bottomry
(1995)
What is
Charter the prescriptive
Party at the time periodof for actions
(Art 689 indispensable
(1999)
Debtor
rehabilitation
decayed Corporation
while receiver ora afaith, letter
and for the
theits
management of principal
credit
condition.
saved
Court
(1994)
Gigi
(Art.
inoflost
obtained
However,
812).
aCommerce)
line
aorloan
Inofthe AC
present
cases,
from
refused
Jojo the case tothere
issue is
suspension
Corporation,
the life, or
SUGGESTED
purpose
transaction. ANSWER:in
of relieving
saving
transit.
another
human
In
vessel
present
in No.
distress.
case,
(Sec.
involving
Code
required certification damaged in cargo
the letter under of the
credit. stockholders
committee,
the shipment the filed
applicable
of ladies' with law
wearthe is Securities
P
was .D. actually and
no proof
order
c) Theappliesthat
term the
to“Ownervessel
secured had
Pro to
creditors
Hac be Viceput
and afloat
ofato the the The three
Insurance
124,
COGSA; (3)
Code)
Prescription distinctof Claimsbut intertwined contract
payable
Carriage inof installments.
Goods by Sea GigiAct? executed Exchange
902-A pursuant
delivered. Commission
to"loss
Sec. of 5 par. (SEC)isanot petition for
to Because
save
action
SUGGESTED
Vessel,”
Bank
itANSWER:
to from
refused
of
enforce
is
the
generally
to
absence
an imminent
chattel mortgage in favor of Jojo whereby the
the
advance
ofdanger.
security
understood
certification,
payment
against
to
on
be the
the
FE relationships
(1992)
A local
rehabilitation
loss
Letters of Credit
The
consignee
contemplated
thatsought
and
are value"indispensable
declaration to enforce
the Carriage of Goodsof
byExtraordinary of a
theintotal
judicially
state
a letter of
corporation regardless ofof the stage transaction
credit
Carriage of Goods; are:
Exercise
ONE
she YEAR after
charterer
transferred of the “inthe delivery
vessel
favor inJojo,
theof its thereof.
the
case goods
of or a claim
suspension
by against of the
paymentscarrier for lossPD
under of a902-A.
letter
date of
SUGGESTED
thebareboat when credit.
ANSWER:
or the1)goods
demise
May Fe
charter shouldBankhave be held been liable 1) Sea
Diligence
shipment (2005)Act.
Between
of drums theof applicant/buyer/importer
lubricating oil from of and
successors
c. under
The order and assigns,
of suspension all her title,
(Litonjua rights
of payments ... The ofobjective was for SEC to take control
delivered the
(Sec letter
3(6), of credit?
COGSA) Explain. 2) Under Letter
StartheShipping Credit: Lines Mortgage
beneficiary/seller/exporter
accepted 100 cartons of – The
to a vessel
Shipping
suspended of
Co which
v National
the foreclosure Gigi is the
Seamen’s absolute
Board GR Japan under the Carriage
the corporation and allof Goods
itsto AC by Seaand
assets
the facts above, the seller, BV,proceedings argued that FE (2005)
Ricardo mortgaged
applicant/buyer/importer his fishpond is the toBank
Charter
51910
owner.”
initiated
Party
10Aug1989)
The by chattel
the mortgage
Second Bank. was While the sardines
Act
liabilities, fromearnings
(COGSA) Master
after the toand be delivered
carrier
operations,hadone who procures
555
rejected
and to
Bank, of by accepting the obligation to notify to the
secure lettera Manila.
P1 of Millioncredit loan. and In a separate
obliges
(2004)
Under
Doctrine
registered
foreclosure
a charter
Inscrutable
with
isshipped
party,
the Philippine
against
Fault XXO
the property
Trading
CoastofGuard a third
Company
its in
demand. The
determine the Only
carrier
feasibility88 cartons
pleaded of its himself to
were
incontinuing
him that the irrevocable letter of credit has transaction,
reimburse he opened these a letter of credit
Company
(1995)
1. 2
pursuant
party,
vessels
it istoinPD coming
1521.an
reality
sugar
from
Gigi action
to
the Coca-Cola
defaulted opposite
to anddirections
collect had
the
delivered,
Answer
operations the the
however, issuing
affirmative
and rehabilitating
bank
were
defense inuponbad
of company
the
receipt of the
been
Company
collided
SUGGESTED transmittedthrough
with
ANSWER: each toSS it
other on
Negros his
due behalf,
Shipping
to fault has Corp., with the same
documents
condition.
Generally, 555 bank
Company
the for
of $500,000.00
unsecuredclaimed title, from inStar
creditors favorhad
while the
a total accountability of P3M. But Jojo could prescription
for under the provisions of said Act
principal
confirmed
1) No. The
insured
imputable by obligation
the
letter
Capitol
to both.letter of owned
ofInsurance
credit
What credit.provides
are Company.
the by as athe
Consequently,
liabilities Theof of HS the
Shipping
manifestedBank, benefit
Lines athe
beneficiary/seller/exporter
of investors
foreign
value
willingness bank,
of the
to
and
isto creditors.
missing purchase
the
cooperate one withwho in
not foreclose
corporation. the
During mortgage the on timethe vessel
that the inasmuch as the suit was brought by the
FE
cargo
the Bank
conditiontwo arrivedisa liable
certification
vessels but under
withwith the
of
shortages.
respect letter
AC. to Without
the of credit.
Coca-Cola
damage such Is outboard
compliance
goods,
Debtor as well motors.
aswith
Corporation. the the Likewise,
damagedThecontract goods.
secured ofRicardo
sale
Star
creditors, ships the
because
payment it ofsankthe during a typhoon.
principal obligation is consignee after one (1) year from the
the argument tenable? Explain. executed
goods a Surety
to Agreement inthe favor ofdocuments
ACand
certification,
demanded
caused toLutang
Meanwhile,
suspended,
from
them
the
there Capitol
and istheir
Corporation
debtor
no Insurance
obligation whichCo.
cargoes?
corporation
on the
Explain.
is
Shipping
The
however,
delivery
outboard
SUGGESTED
Linesofthe
ANSWER:
buyer
refused
expressed
the
motors goods. and
because
serious
arrived
delivers
In turn, andthe were
the
former
objections
consignee of
SUGGESTED
part
P500.000 of ANSWER:
FE inBank to
settlement advance for payment
XXO Trading. of the The Bank.
title
failed and
to present draft to the issuing bank to recover
2. If
rendered
considered
Lutang
it cannot
salvage
Corporation’sto
be
be
determined
services not
lien for
in
should
which
refloating
default
be
of
given
the
the
and,
two
The
reservations.
contended
claimBank
delivered thataCompany
of Ricardo,
to 555
bill period
the of lading.
but heiswas of Resolve
prescription
meritorious,
not able to
letter
MM
vessels
ALTERNATIVE of
Regional credit.
was
ANSWER: at Trial
fault
(Feati Court,
resulting
Bank where
v CA in196 the
the S civil
collision,
576) suit withpayment
First
was reasons
suspended forhad
the the
claim
by the goods.
already
of 555 Company.
written Their
initiated relationship
extrajudicial judicial is
vessel
therefore,
preference.sued even Gigi.
The Whose
the
lien ofright lienby
Jojo should
tovirtueenforce be of giventhe
acaused even if
paygoverned
the it fails
purchase to present
price a
thereof.bill of a) lading.
Can AC
c. 2)
was No.
which
The FE
filed, party
suspension Bank
"absolved
shouldmay
order have
the
beardoes confirmed
insurance
the notdamageapply the
company,to a (4%)foreclosure by the contract
proceedings of on sale.the mortgage
preference,
security,
loan that of
whether Jojo
owned or Lutang? by the debtor- demand
2)
Although
Bank takeaBetween it
billhad
possessionofon made
lading theofagainst
isissuing
the the thebank
best
outboard carrier
evidence and the
thirdtoofthe
letter
declaringbottomry
party ofvessels
credit
that
mortgage was
when
under
and extinguished
the it
the notified
Code
cargoes?
because of
inwhen
BV, thatthe
Commerce,
Explain.
such an a constituted
within the one-year
beneficiary/seller/exporter
theperiod, factorypursuant
– The
of toDebtor
issuing bank
corporation
vessel sank.
irrevocable or
Under of
letter a third
suchof loan
credit party, on
has has
bottomry
been not yetthe of the
motors? contract
Corporation.Why? of
b) carriage
Can AC for
Bank cargo,
also
3. the shipping
Which party agent
should
case, the credit is not yet being enforced is civilly
bear the liable
damage for to Article 1155 of the Civil Code providing thatand
arisen.
Jojo acted is the
nevertheless
foreclose one
the that
such
mortgage issues
contract over thecanthe letter
exist of
fishpond?even credit
vessels
against thenot
transmitted
damages in only
and to
favor
the
corporation itasonofcreditor
cargoes its
third
but behalf.
if butBut
persons
the
against also
cause the
due
the asoftothe
third the Second
the prescription
undertakes
Bank had
of actions
already
is interrupted
initiated
insurer.
conditions Jojo’s inright to recover the amount of be without
Explain.
foreclosure bill oftoproceedings
a(5%) pay
lading. the
Likeseller any on upon
othera receipt of
third-party
conduct
partycollision
mortgagor’s ofwas thethe letter of
acarrier's
fortuitous
property. credit
event?must
captain, and the
Explain. first
when
SUGGESTED there
ANSWER: is proper
a written extrajudicial demand
thestipulation
loan is
complied
SUGGESTED predicated
ANSWER: with, namely on the that safe
the arrival
draft be of the
contract,
mortgagedraft and
a contract
constituted documents
of carriageon certain of
is a meeting title
assets and
of theto
in the charter party exempting a) SUGGESTED
by theNo,creditors. for AC a) Bank
Has the has
action no in legal
fact
d. SUGGESTED
theForvessel
the
accompanied
ANSWER:
same
at the reason
port
by a of as
destination.
in
certification (c), thefrom The
order AC. of surrender
of minds
principal the
thatstockholders. documents
gives rise to an obligation on
ANSWER: to the buyer upon
the owner from of liability is notwill against public standing,
prescribed? muchWhy? lessTheir aby
b) lien, on theconsignee
outboard
No.
suspension
right was
Further,
Thelost appeal
of payments
when
confirmation theCoca-Cola suspended
vessel
of a sank
letter
not
the
(Sec
of credit suit
17 thea) Theof
reimbursement.
part
Third action
Bank the carrier
hadtaken toIftransport
already the
the filedconsignee’s
local
relationship suitis against
a the action
governed
policy. Coca-Cola appealed. Will theits appeal motors.
were Insofar
predicated as AC
on Bank
misdelivery is concerned,
or it
PDprosper.
Carriage
filed1521)
must byofbe
Letters
prosper? Third Under
ofGoods:
Credit;
expressed.
Reason Bank Article
Deviation:
Liability a587
ofLiability
against
(Feati
briefly.
of
confirming
Bank
(5%) the v CA
Code
and
principal of
196 s 576)
has,
by
goods.
has privity
in fact,
Jurisprudence
with
prescribed.
the principal stockholders who had held by
the terms of
the
the has
person
letterThe
held
of
period
of
that credit
Ricardo
the of one
issued
under
Commerce,
(2005)
On a clear
notifying
ALTERNATIVE
stockholders. weather,
bank
ANSWER: the
(1994) shipping
M/V Sundo,agent is
carrying civilly G.R.conversion
No.
year
the
moment
themselves L-18965,
under
bank.the carrier of
the the
October
liable goods,
Carriage 30,
jointlyof
receives would
1964;
theGoods
and your
Negre
cargo byfor
severally answer
v.
Sea Act for
d. liable
insured
InThe foraction
cargo,
letters damages
of leftcredit the in
against
in portfavor
banking of
of Manila
the third persons
principal
bound
transactions, the 3)Surety
Cabahug
be the
(COGSA) Shipping
same? Agreement,
Between
is not theG.R.
&interrupted
Co.,
Explain and
issuing
No.by
briefly. aL-19609,
lien
a bank on and
written the the
transport,
the loans
ALTERNATIVE then
ANSWER: its duty to exercise
of Debtor Corporation with said
for due
Cebu. to the
stockholders’
distinguish While conduct
the sea,ofthe
at liability
surety the
inof carrier's
vessel
afavor
confirming captain,
of bank the fishpond
April 29, 1966)
extrajudicial based demand.
applicant/buyer/importer on the real Theestate–provisions
Their mortgage
relationship
of Art
extraordinary
StarBank.
Shipping diligence
Lines can arises
refuse . (Cia.
to honor Maritima 555
and
fromthe
corporation
encountered
SUGGESTED shipping
isa strong
ANSWER:
a notifying agent
not suspended
bank. typhoon can exemptforcing
as it is the himself
not an constituted
is
1155governed
After of therein.
the
hearing, by
NCC the
the terms
merely
SEC of
apply
directed the toapplication
the and
v. Insurance
Company's
b) agreementYes, claim Co.
butforof North
for
only the America,
missing and
to issuance
enforce payment of
In case
therefrom
captain
action to anything
against steer onlythethe by wrong
abandoning
vessel
corporation happens
to the the
butnearest tovessel
against the the prescriptive periods the provided of
for the said and of
letter
theappointment
damagedprincipal goods. loanofThe aof rehabilitation
Bill of Lading
P1million isinthe
receiver
secured by
letter
with
stockholders
island all
where ofhis credit,equipment
itwhose
stayed a confirming
for and
personality
seven the bankfreight
days. incurs
Thehe
is separate credit
Code and by the
not bank.
to special laws such as COGSA
liability for the amount theordered
document
real estate ofthetitlesuspension
that
mortgage onofthe
legally all actions
establishes
fishpond and
the
may
vessel
from ran
that have ofout earned
the ofcorporation.duringofthe
provisions theits
for letter ofOn the
voyage. except
claims against
ownership when otherwise
the Debtor provided.
corporation (Dole as
v
SUGGESTED
credit,hand,
other
passengers. ANSWER:
while a notifying
assuming
Consequently, therebank
the isdoes
bareboat
vessel not incur b) If the of 555
consignee’s Company action over were saidpredicated
goods.
well
Maritime as against
Co 148 the
s principal
118). stockholders. a)
e. Under
Assuming
any
charter,
proceeded PD
that
liability. theLeyte
to 902A,
the to the
cargo
stipulation was
replenishappointment
in damaged
the charter
its supplies. of
party a (National
555onneeds
Discuss(2%)
Stolt-Nielaen,
Letter ofclaim
Maritime Commerce
Union
misdelivery
the
Credit; G.R.
Fire Insurance
to present
validity
No.
the BillofofPittsburg
or conversion
of the SEC
87958, AprilConsignee
Lading
of goods,
order
26, 1990)
v.
to
or
the
rehabilitation
Letters
because of
of Credit;
such receiver
Liability
deviation,
exempting the owner from liability is not of awill
Notifying
who suspend
Bank
between theall legally
provisions of Certification
said the COGSAfrom
goods. would be
suspension?
Average; Particular
actions
(2003)
a)
insurance
against forWhat claims
company
public liability,against
and
policy if
the any
because the
owner corporation
is incurred
the the byatan
ofpublic
(1993)
inapplicable.
Charter Party In these cases, the NCCAverage
Average vs. General
and COGSA:
the
SUGGESTED Prescription
corporation
ANSWER: of
willClaims/Actions
be placed under (2003)
prescriptive periods, including Art 1155 of
advising
cargo
large bears or
the notifying
loss? bank
Explain. in a letter of v. (1991)
(2004) istransaction?
credit
not involved (Home Insurance Co.
the NCC will apply (Ang v Compania Maritama
American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 23 SCRA25
(1968). 133 s 600)
 Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006)
owner and the captain as the typhoon came
earlier and overtook the vessel. The vessel
sank and a number of passengers
disappeared with it.
Relatives of the missing passengers claimed
damages against the shipowner. The
shipowner set up the defense that under the
doctrine of limited liability, his liability was
co-extensive with his interest in the vessel.
.1 How will you advice the claimants?
As the vessel was totally lost, his liability
Discuss the doctrine of
had also been extinguished.limited liability in
maritime law. (3%)
.2 Assuming that the vessel was insured, could have been avoided if the captain of SS
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
may the claimants go after the insurance
.1
proceeds? (3%)the doctrine of limited liability in the MV Princes was not asleep at the time of
Under
maritime law, the liability of the shipowner
arising from the operation of a ship is confined to SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the vessel, equipment, and freight, or insurance,
if any, so that if the shipowner abandoned the Princess shall each bear their respective
ship, equipment, and freight, his liability is
extinguished. However, the doctrine of limited suffered by their cargoes both shipowners
liability does not apply when the shipowner or are solidarily liable.
captain is guilty of negligence.
.2 Yes. In case of a lost vessel, the claimants
may go after the proceeds of the insurance
covering the vessel.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Each vessel must bear its own damage. Both The Doctrine of Limited Liability
of them were at fault. (Art 827, Code of
Commerce)
2. Each of them should bear their respective
damages. Since it cannot be determined as to
which vessel is at fault. This is the doctrine of
“inscrutable fault.”
3. No party shall be held liable since the cause
of the collision is fortuitous event. The carrier Limited Liability Rule
is not an insurer.
Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault
(1997)
Explain the doctrine in Maritime accidents –
Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the “doctrine of inscrutable fault,”
where fault is established but it cannot be
determined which of the two vessels were at
fault, both shall be deemed to have been at
fault.
Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault
(1998)
A severe typhoon was raging when the
vessel SS Masdaam collided with MV
Princes. It is conceded that the typhoon was
the major cause of the collision, although
there was a very strong possibility that it
Masdaam was not drunk and the captain of
collisions. Who should bear the damages to
the vessels and their cargoes? (5%)
The shipowners of SS Masdaam and MV
loss of vessels. For the losses and damages
Limited Liability Rule
(1994)
Toni, a copra dealer, loaded 1000 sacks of
copra on board the vessel MV Tonichi (a
common carrier engaged in coastwise trade
owned by Ichi) for shipment from Puerto
Galera to Manila. The cargo did not reach
Manila because the vessel capsized and
When Toniall
sank with sued Ichi for damages based on
its cargo.
breach of contract, the latter invoked the
“limited liability rule.” 1) What do you
understand of the “rule” invoked by Ichi? 2)
Are there exceptions to the “limited liability
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rule”?
1) By “limited liability rule” is meant that
the liability of a shipowner for damages in
case of loss is limited to the value of the
vessel involved. His other properties cannot
be reached by the parties entitled to
2) Yes. When the ship owner of the vessel
damages.
involved is guilty of negligence, the “limited
liability rule” does not apply. In such case,
the ship owner is liable to the full extent of
(Mecenas
the damagesv CAsustained
180 s 83) by the aggrieved
parties
Limited Liability Rule
(1997)
Explain the doctrine in Maritime accidents –
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the “doctrine of limited liability” the
exclusively real and hypothecary nature of
maritime law operates to limit the liability of
the shipowner to the value of the vessel,
earned freightage and proceeds of the
insurance. However, such doctrine does not
apply if the shipowner and the captain are
guilty of negligence.
(1999)
Thinking that the impending typhoon was
still 24 hours away, MV Pioneer left port to
sail for Leyte. That was a miscalculation of
the typhoon signals by both the ship-
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 74 75
76
Page 73
of 103of 103 andrequires
backupClaro
alsoinalready
thethe60%
fact
processing
Filipino
sighted
that A does Manila
holding
of
does
MV engage
SuperFast,
not fall in under
retail
a passenger-cargo
trade.
the category. Besides, Neither
vessel
Matilde’s notin
goods,
on have
land
its
c)radar
the
factories,
corporate
means
screen. and
and
ownership.
Manila
d)
resources
its own had no to invest
radar
owned
doessale it by
appear
of the SF Shipping
asbestos
that Z isproducts Company
habitually to
plying
engaged
Celeste, the P500th
employees.
equipment. in the Is security
EL
As engaged
for speed, agency.inDon retail Claro
trade? was
inter-island
in selling
being wholesale,
to routes,
the general was
the transaction
on
publicits way thattois not ALTERNATIVE
Explain.
twice as ANSWER:
fast as Manila.
(Asbestos
Zamboanga
commodity.
covered by Integrated
Since
City thefrom there
Retail vthe
Peralta
isTrade
Manila 155
no violation
Law port when of the 1) The
SUGGESTED
c) The prosecutor
ANSWER:
Anti-dummy mayLaw establish
allowsthe board fact
S 213)
it accidentally,
Retail Trade Law, andthere without would fault likewise
or by no The
thatAt sale
the
the
representationby
P500th
time EL of of
would
the generators
to constitute
collision,
the extent to
Manila
of government
a major
actual failedandto
Nationalized
negligence
violation of of Activities
theanyoneAnti-Dummy or Undertakings
on the Law. ship, hit a huge offices,
investment
follow
permissibleagricultural
Rule and 19 yet of
foreign Aenterprises
the is not even
International
investments and
elected
in factories
Rules of
(1995)
Global
Retail
floating Trade KL
LawMalaysia,
object. The accident a 100% causedMalaysian damage are
member
the outside
Road
corporations.of the the
which BOD scope or one
requires
Accordingly, of of 2the theterm
vessels
the officers.
President “retail
meeting of
owned
(1993)
A
to foreign
the vessel corporation,
firm and loss ofdesires
is engaged tobusiness
aninaccompanying
the build a hotel of business”
Furthermore,
head on
Acme may and
to no it may,
may
changesit inalso therefore,
thebe
their shown
course
BOD ofbe by
the made
that each A by
beach
manufacturing resort
crated cargo of and in Samal
selling PR.
passenger Island,
rubber Davao
In orderproducts City,
to to the
does said
not even
vessel steering
department corporation.
have
store the However,
means
to corporation
starboard (right) to raise
but cansales the doof
so that so
to take
dealers
lighten advantage
thewho vessel in turnof the
and save increased
sell them it from traffic
to sinking
others. It of generators
d)
amount
each
in The
the of by
Treasurer
P500th
vessel
realty may EL and ofto Acme
thatits theown
may employees
not
officers
pass on the port side (left)
corporation. holdor that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
andtourists
also sells
in order and
directlyto boost
avoid the
risktourism
to agricultural of damage industryto or of the constitute
enterprises,
2)
position
majority
of the
No. The
of retail
either
the directors
other.
mere Manilasales
in
fact
and
thesignaled
department
of being
arethat
are foreigners. proscribed.
acorporation
common
store
it would law
1. Assuming
Philippines.
automotive assembly that plants,
Global public has US$100M utilities to investUnder
turn the
corporationto the amendment
or
port in the
side to
realty
and the
steered Retail Trade
loss of the rest of the shipped items (none of wife of a foreigner does not bring her
which in a hotel beach resort in thetoPhilippines, may
Law sinceintroduced
the Anti-Dummy by PD 714,
Lawthe term
prohibits “retail
the
which buy was them located in onlarge thebulk, deck), and someits had to accordingly, thus resulting in the collision.
officers it and
be allowed
employees. to acquire1) Is the land
there violation on which towithin business”
Don
the ambit
employmentClaro’sshall of ofaliens
not
captain
the Anti-Dummy
include
wasin sucha
off-duty
Law.
manufacturer
nationalized
and was
be jettisoned. SF Shipping had the vessel ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
of the build the
Retail Trade resort?Law? If Explain.
so, under 2) what
May terms
said and(such
areas
having as of a EL)
business
drink selling
at
2) Yes. Being a common law wife, it can be except
the to
ship’s thoseindustrial
bar that
at thecall and
for
time
repaired at its port of destination. SF
firm conditions
operate a may Global
canteen inside acquire
the premisesthe land? of commercial
highly
of thepassengers users
technical
collision. who
or diedwould
consumers
qualifications.
a) Who and the who
you owners
use
hold the of the
liable
Shipping thereafter filed a complaint presumed that she is the one running the
its Discuss
plant exclusively fully. for its officials andto products
for recover
cargoes
the bought
collision?damages byb)them Iffrom
Don the
toClarorenderowner of
service said
demanding all the other cargo owners business, which raises a prima faciewas at
SUGGESTED
2. May
employees
ANSWER:
Global be
without allowed
violating the to Retail
manage Tradethe hotel to Retailvessel?
SUGGESTED
the Trade
general Law
ANSWER:
public (eg government offices)
share in the total repair costs incurred by fault,
presumption
I(1991) may the
of heirs
violation of the
of the Anti-dummy
1) On the
Act? beach
Explain.
assumption
resort? Explain. that the foreign firm is Iscan
and/or theto hold
Filipino the 2
produce
vessels liable.
common-lawor manufacture wife Inof the a goods
the company
doing business and in in
the the value of the
Philippines, the lostsale andto Law,
Retail (RA
problem Trade6084). Law;
given, Consignment
whether on the basis ofretail
the
3. May Global be allowed to operate whichforeigner
Nationalized are barred
in
Activities turn from engaging
sold
or Undertakings by in
them the (eg
jettisoned
the dealers
SUGGESTED cargoes.
of In answer
agricultural
ANSWER: to the
enterprises, (1991)
ABC Manufacturing
factual
SUGGESTED
business? settings
ANSWER: or Inc,
under a company
the doctrine wholly
of
restaurants within the hotel beach resort? (1994)
complaint,
1. Global
automotive
SUGGESTED the can
assembly
ANSWER: shippers’
secure plants, sole
a lease contention
and on
publicthe land. was As a agricultural
Celeste,
ownedA by
Filipino
inscrutable
a domestic
foreignenterprises corporation
fault, nationals,
common-law both vessels
andwholly
wife manufactures
of can
factories).
a foreigner
be said to is
Explain. (Goodyear
owned by Tires
Filipino v Reyes
citizens, Sr Gr
is 30063,
engaged Jly in2,the 83
that,The
No.
utilitiesunder
corporation
is the Code
shippers’
wholesale with of aCommerce,
contention
and, Malaysianis not valid.
therefore, each
nationality,
not inThe typewriters
not
havebarred beenwhich from engaging
guilty ABC
of distributes
negligence. in retail to
Thebusiness.
liability
123s273).
trading
1 On and
ABC operates
consigns as general contractor.
damaged
owners
violation Global
ofof party
thethe should
cannot
cargo
Retail own bear
jettisoned,
Trade theitsAct or
land.to(BFhis
save own the
Goodrich general
of the the public
2assumption
carriers in 2 ways: foritsthat
thetypewriters
she
death acts or for to andofin
injury
damage
2.
vessel Yes,
fromand those
Global
sinking that
canand did
manage
to not
save suffer
the
the hotel
restany beach
of It buys
independent
her and
own resells
dealers
behalf, the
and who products
in
absent turn a of Matilde,
sell
violation themofto athe
v Reyes 121 s 363) passengers and for the loss of or damage to
2)
loss
the Yes. The
orresort.
damage
cargoes, operation
There
are were of
isnot
entitled nothe canteen
obligated
law
to prohibiting
contribution. toinside
make it
The from domestic
theAnti-Dummy
public; corporation,
and, Law which 90% of whose
prohibits capital
a is
the goods arising from the collision
the premises
anyLimited
contribution
jettisoningmanaging of exclusively
Liability
saidthe Rule for
incargoes
favor
resort. its officers
ofconstitute
those whogeneral andIs
did. stock
2 foreignerisThrough
owned from by aliens.either
individuals,
being All whoof theMatilde’s
arereal notthe
solidary. Neither carrier may invoke
employees,
(2000)
MV Mariposa, would amount
one of to
five an input
passenger in the ships goods
employees are made in the Philippines from
the3.shippers’
average Global
loss which contention
may be allowed
entitles valid?thetoExplain
operate
owners (2%) doctrineof
proprietor ofABC,
or
last anclearand
employee who
chance are paid
of which
a person strictly
can only
manufacturing
owned
thereof to by
restaurants process
Marina
contribution within and,
Navigation
fromthetherefore,
beach
the Co,resort.
owner sank does off
of the This materials
theis on ALTERNATIVE
a commission
engaged foundANSWER:
in the orbasisproduced
retail for each
trade, inshe the
sale. would be
be relevant, if at all, between the two
notcoast
vesselviolate
part
and the
of also
Mindoro
of the Retail
from Trade
while
operation
the en
owners Act.
of route
theofresort.to Iloilo City. Philippines.
the An engagement
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On the by
other a wifehand, (including
ECQ
violating
vessels
Yes, but is butthe
subject notRetailon Trade
the
to Filipino claims
the doctrine Act. made by
Retail
SF Trade
Shipping
More
cargoes Lawis 200
than
saved. not entitled
passengers perished in the Integrated
to contribution/ common-law relationships)
a 100% of a of
owned limited in
foreigner
passengers
liability. The or shippers
doctrine is (Litonjua
to the Shipping
effect that vthe
Retail
(1996)
With a
reimbursement Trade
capital
disaster. Evidence Lawof P2th
for the costs Maria
showed operates
of repairsthat on a stall
thethe the
ship corporation retail trade business,
and manufacturer raises the
of asbestos
National
liabilityCeleste Seamen
of thethat Board
shipowners GR 51910
would 10Aug1989)
at a(1990)
Acme
vessel public
captain from Trading
market. CoShe
the shippers.
ignored Inc,manufactures
typhoon a trading
bulletins company soap
issued by products. presumption and she ECQ hastook violated partonly theabe
in to
Anti-
thatwholly
she
Pag-asa owned
sells to
during by
the foreign
general the stockholders,
public.
24-hour Her was
period the
Dummy
public extent
bidding Law. of any
Hence,
conducted remaining
the by wife
MWSS value
is barredof
for the
its from
persuaded
common
immediately byprior
law husband, Pauloto Alva,theavessel’s
MaLee, Filipino,
who hasdeparture to
a invest vessel,pipe
engaging
asbestos proceeds
inrequirements.
the retail of insurance,
trade if any,
business.
Celeste won and
the
in
pendingNationalized Activities or
20% of
petition the outstanding
for naturalization,
from Manila. The bulletins warned all types shares of stock of a bid, Retail
earned
having Trade Law
freightage.
offered 13% Givenlower the thanfactual that settings,
corporation he (1992)
A
theCooperative
shipowner purchased
himself was from Y Co
not guilty onof
occasionally
Undertakings
of sea crafts financestoisavoidforming
the the which
purchase
typhoon’s will
of engage
goods
expected offered by ECQ; and MWSS awarded the
installments a rice mill and made a down
path near Mindoro. To make matters worse, 1) Is Celeste barred under the Flag Law can
forin the
resale, department
and assists store
in the business
management (the of negligence
contract to supplyand, therefore,
its asbestos the
pipes doctrine
to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the“department store payment
well apply therefore.
(Amparo deAs security
los Santos for CAthe
vaward 186 s 69)
No,he
business.
theretookismore no
Is there load corporation”).
violation
athanviolation
of wasRetail
the
of the
allowed Paulofor
Trade
also the Celeste.
from Limited
taking ECQ
Liability
partsought
Rule; to
General
inbalance,
biddings nullify tothe
Average supplyLoss thein
urged
Retail Trade Acme Law? to invest
Explain. inSued
40% for of the payment of the the Cooperative
Nationalized
ship’s Activities
rated or Undertakings
capacity. damages by favor of Celeste.
(2000)
X Shipping
government? Company spent almost a fortune
Law. Maria
outstanding is a shares
manufacturer ofastock who
of the sells to
realty executed a2) Did Celeste
chattel mortgage and Matilde
in favor of Y
(1993)
1) A
the invested
victim’s
thecorporation
general public, P500thsurviving in
through security
relatives,
her stallagency
Marina
in the on Nav in
violate refitting
the and
Anti-Dummy repairing Law? its 3) luxury
Did Celeste
he 1) is putting up to own Corporation. Y Co in turn assigned its rights
October
Co contended30, 1990. He was
that charged
its liability, with iftheany,land had andpassenger vessel, theRetail
MV
public
on market,
which the the soap
department which storeshe will be built toMatilde
the chattel violate the
mortgage toMarina,
ZTrade
Co a 5% which foreign
being
been a dummy
manufactures.
corporation? extinguished of his friend,
Inasmuch
Explain with as her
your a
the foreigner.
sinking
capital
answer. b)does If
Mayof MV Nationalization
plied the inter-island
Law? routes
Explain. of the company
(the “realty corporation”). a)evidence
May Acme owned company doing business in the
you were
Mariposa;
notinvest
exceed
Acme
SUGGESTED theP5th
invest prosecutor,
and
ANSWER: in(it 2)
theis that
only
realty what
assuming
P2th) then
corporation? it
she can
had
is not from La Union in the north to Davao City in
inextinguished,
the said department store Philippines. The cooperative thereafter made
youbeenpresent
Yes.
considered
Discuss. so
The toMay prove
contentions
under
c) Sec
the violation
4a such
of theof
of Marina
President the
liability
Retail Nav
of Acme, Anti-
should
TradeCoa are be SUGGESTED
the
Becausesouth.ANSWER:
the The MV
Cooperative Marina wasmet an
unable untimely
to meet
installment
1) No. The payments
materials offered to Z Co.
Dummy
Law limited Law?
meritorious.
asBODnot
foreigner, toofsit2)
the
engagedthe Juana
The
in loss
said
the de
captainof la
in department
the the Cruz,
of cargo.
“retail astore
MVbusiness.” Are
Mariposa theseis
corporation? fate during
its obligations its in post-repair
full, Z Coin the against
voyage.
filed bids It sank it aoff
common
contentions
guilty
he be law
of
a wife
negligence
director of ofa
meritorious foreigner
the in in
ignoring
realty wrested
the the
corporation?contextthe
typhoon of submitted
the
court coastsuitare of
formade
Zambales in
collection. the Philippines
while
The en
Coop route from
to
resisted La
Inasmuch Mayas Maria’s business is not a “retail
control
applicableof athen television
provisions firm.
by At ofthein instance
the Code articles
Unionproduced orZ grown inillegally
the
bulletins
Discuss.
business,” d) issued
May the the Treasurer
requirement PAGASA of Acme,
Sec 1 of inof
and contending from that Manila. Co Thewas investigation engaged
of the minority
Commerce?
occupy
overloading
another the
foreigner,group
(3%)
the same of
vessel. the
position
Butfirm, in
only shethethe was
said department
captain Philippines,
showed
in the and
that
retail thethe
trade bidder,
captain
business Celeste,
alone for was
having is a sold a
the Retail Trade Law that only Philippine
charged
of the storewith vesselviolation
corporation? MV of the Anti-Dummy
May
Mariposa heorbeindirectly,
isthe treasurer
guilty of of domestic
negligent.
consumer entity. There
good The Flag
aswereopposed Law
no does
casualties
to not in that
a producer
nationals shall engage, directly,
Law. May
said
the
negligence. sherealty be convicted
corporation?
The by the mere fact apply. It
disaster. can
TheFaced be invoked
Coop with only
a claim thatagainst
for the Zahad payment
in the
SUGGESTED retailANSWER:business is ship
inapplicable. owner For is this not. item. also alleged
that she
SUGGESTED
Therefore, is
Explain. a common
ANSWER:the ship law wife
owner ofcan a invoke the bidder
of the
violatedwho is
refitting
the not a
and
Anti-Dummy domestic
repair, Xentity,
Law. Shipping
Is orguilty of
Z
reason, the participation
1) A allows or permits the use or exploitation of Ma Lee, Maria’s 2) No, since Celesteentity is merely a dealer of
a) Acme
Limited
foreigner?
doctrine may
Liability
Explain.
of of not
limitedRule;invest Doctrine
liability. in the of department
Inscrutable against
company
violating a domesticasserted
the Retail whoLaw
exemption
Trade offers
from
and liability
the Anti-
common
or enjoyment Law husband,
a right, in the management
privilege or Matilde
SUGGESTED and not
ANSWER: an alter ego of the latter.
Retail
store
FaultTrade Law
corporation
(1991) since the Retail Trade Act imported
SUGGESTED
on the materials.
basis
ANSWER:
of the hypothecary or limited
of the business
business, the would not
exercise or be a violation
enjoyment of of
which Dummy
No. Law? Why?
(1996)
EL InInc,
allows, a domestic
in the between
a collision case corporation
of corporations,
M/T Manila, with foreign only Celeste
Z CoThe buys
is notassertion
and
guilty sells ofon
of X Shipping
its ownthe
violating Company
account
Retail is
to the aAnti- tanker, liability rule under Article 587 of the Code
the
is Retail
expressly Trade
reserved Law in by relation
the Constitution or the not valid.
products
Trade Law The
ofand total
Matilde.
the destruction
Anti-Dummy ofLaw.the vessel
The
equity,
100%
and M/V manufactures
FilipinoDon owned electric
Claro, companies generators,
an inter-island to engage vessel, in of Commerce. Is X Shipping
Dummy
the laws
andretail
Donsells
Law.
to
them
trade.
Claro
citizensto the
sank
offollowing
and
the Philippines,
many ofcustomers:
by the
its passengers a) 3) Matilde
does
term not RETAILdid
affectnot underviolate
the thethe
liability Retail ofCompany’s
Retail the
Trade Trade
shipAct owner
foreigner not possessing the requisites Law assertion
forsince
repairs it valid?
does
on not
the Explain
sell
vessel its(3%).
products
completed to
before
b) Acme may
government
drowned offices
and invest
died.which in the
All realty
usecargoes
its the were lost. requires that the seller must be habitually
prescribed
corporation,
generators by
during theon Constitution
the assumption
brownouts toorrender
the
that lawsthe of consumers,
its loss. in
engaged butselling
to dealers to thewho generalresellpublic them.
The collision occurred at nighttime but the Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss
the Philippines.
balance The prosecutor should prove Neither did Celeste violate the Retail Trade
public was of
sea service, calm, 60%b) the of ownership
agricultural
weather enterprises fairof andthe lattervisibility consumption goods. By consumption
(2000)
goods
the above
corporation, elements of
isgenerators
Filipino the crime Law since, in the first place, it is not
which
wasutilizegood.the Prior to theowned as since
collision and thewhile
law are meant “personal, family and household”
merely prohibited
purposes. to A Rice Mill
still 4 nautical miles apart, Don
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 77 of 103 Civil Code Page 78
and79
Page 103of 103
ofother laws of
SUGGESTED
prevented
paymentExcel ANSWER:
through
from the
becoming
Clearinga holder
House,
in XM general
drawee-bank application bearscan thestill lossapply (BPI Family Bank v.
dueA
BankSURETY
course, as BOND
honored such failure is issued
it. by a surety
Thereafter,
or refusal Albert or OnG.R.
April No. 1, 1996,
suppletorily.
Buenaventura, 148196, Pentium Septemberstopped30, payment2005). A
insurance
constituted
withdrewbad company
the faith. in favor
P210,000 and closed his of a designated ALTERNATIVE
of the check ANSWER:
drawee-bank for failure
paying of onCD a forged
Bytes to check must
beneficiary,
3) Yes.
account.Not being pursuant a holder in due to course,which such The
deliver dismissal
be considered
the computer. byas thepaying court
Thus, outwas
when correct.
its fundsAand
of Fund
company
When
Excel the acts
is subject check toas was
the a personal
surety
returned todefense
thehim
to debtor
after ora check
(Samsung
House
cannot whether
deposited or
Construction
charge the not
the check, post-dated
amountthe Co. the or
Phils,
to drawee v. crossed,
drawerFar East
obligor
month,
which Po Press of such
William beneficiary.
candiscovered
set up against theA alteration.
CASH
Jose BOND bankis still
Bank, a negotiable
G.R.
dishonored No. 129015,
it. instrument
August 13, and unless
2004). If the
is
XM
(State aInvestment
security
Bank in
recredited the form
House IAC of
vP210,000175cash S to
310)established
William’s PabloHouse
If Fund
drawee-bankis a general files indorser,
hasachargedcomplaint which
against
drawer's is account,
not
Checks;
by
currentCrossed
a guarantorCheck and
account, or sought
surety reimbursement
to secure the expressed
Pentium
the and can
latter in the
CD Bytes
recoverfactual
forsuch settings,
the payment
amount he from
cannot
of thethe
OnChecks:
(1995)
Oct 12,
obligation
from ND1993, Crossed
Bank. ND Checks
Chelsea
of another. Bank Straights,
refused, aclaiming corp G.R.
be
dishonored No. liable
held
drawee-bank 107382,
check, for January
willthethe
(Associated 31,
dishonor 1996;
complaint
Bank of v.Bank
theCourt of P. I.of
(2005)
What
engaged
that XM is Bank
in a crossed
the manufacture
failed to check? What
of cigarettes,
return the altered are the v.
prosper? CaseExplain.
instrument.
Appeals, Montessori
In State
SUGGESTED Internationale,
Investment
ANSWER: House: TheG.R. v IAC No.
effects
ordered
check ofitcrossing
from
to Moises
within 24 a check?
2,000 hourbales Explain.
clearing of tobacco.
period. 149454,
complaint
(GR 72764 May
filed 28,
by Fund
13Jul1989) 2004). , the
House court did not go so
against
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chelsea issued to Moises two crossed However,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
far as to the that
hold drawer the mayofbe
fact precluded
crossing would or
Who, as between, Pentium will not prosper but the one against
A Crossed
SUGGESTED ANSWER:CheckXM underBankaccepted
and ND Bank, banking In State Investment
estopped from House vup
setting IACthe (GR defense
72764 of
checks
should postdated
bear the15 MarExplain.
loss? 94 and 15 Apr 94 CDrender
Bytes will. the instrument
Fund House non-negotiable.
is not a holder in
practice,
ND Bank crossing
should a check
bear the isloss
done if by
XM writing
Bank 13Jul1989),
forgery as the
against SC considered
the drawee-bank, a crossed when it
in full payment therefor. On 19 Jan 94 due course and, therefore, Pentium can raise
two
returned parallel the lines
altereddiagonallycheck on to theND left top
Bank check
is shown as subjecting
that the a subsequent
drawer himself holder
had been
Moises sold to Dragon Investment House at the defense of failure of consideration
portion
within twenty of the checks. The its crossing is thereof
guilty of to the grosscontractualnegligence covenants as to of the have
a discount the twofour checks hours after
drawn discovery
by Chelsea against it. The check in question was issued
special
of the where
alteration. the name
Under ofthe the bank
given or
facts, a payor
facilitated and the payee.
the If such
forgery were ( the case,
Metropolitan
in his favor. Moises failed to deliver the by Pentium to payBENE:
(NOTA for a computerThe question that itdoes not
business
William institution the
discovered is written
alteration between
when the the then
Waterworksthe instrument
v. Court ofis not one
Appeals, which
G.R. No. canL62943,
bales of tobacco as agreed despite Chelsea’s ordered from qualify CD Bytes.
the termThe computer
"forged not
check". An
two
altered parallel
check lines,
was which
returned means
to him that
after thea still
143 be
SCRA said20, to contain
July 14, 1986 an ).unconditional
demand. Consequently, on 1 Mar 94 Chelsea having been delivered, there the was liabilities
a failure of
drawee
month. It should
may pay be
safely onlyassumed with that the promiseanswer to pay addressing
or order a sum certain in of a
issued a “stop payment” order on the 2 consideration. Theshouldcheck discounted deemed with
Effects
intervention
William of Crossed Checks
of that company.
immediately advised claimingXM Bank of money. drawer In the transfer benon-negotiable
of sufficient.
checks
1) issued
The to Moises.
check may Dragon,
not be encashed but Fund House
only by CDaddressing
Answers Bytes is a liabilities
crossed check of parties
such fact and that thefiled latter promptly credits byBank assignment, the transferorBank does —
to be a holder
in the
deposited bank.in 2)due Thecourse,
check may be a negotiated andDrawee
this should
ALTERNATIVE should
ANSWER: have versus
likewise putbe Collecting
Fundgiven House
full credit)on
SUGGESTED
notified ANSWER:
ND Bank thereafter. Central Bank not
When assume liability for the fault of the
complaint
only once—to
Dragon for collection
cannot one
collect against Chelsea for Yes. The
inquiry. Itthe
shouldsignature
check is crossed.
have of theItdrawer
ascertained should theishave forged,
title
theCircular
value of No.
the 9, as from
checks. amended,
Rule
Chelsea.
on theon The which the of
debtor
as
CD between
forewarned
Bytes
or obligor.
to the
Mr.
the check
Accordingly and
drawee-bank
Noble that
or the it
the court’s
was
nature collecting
issued
of the for
who has an
instruments are account with a bank. which3) The
decisions
complaint of ofcrossed
Dragon. the Give
checks
Supreme
your legal
were
Court
basis. in decision
bank,
a
latter’sspecific the was correct.
drawee-bank
purpose.
possession. Hence,
Failing in sustains
Mr
this Noble
respect, thecould loss,
act
intended of crossing
to pay&forShanghaithe check
the 2,000 bales serves as a
of Corp v
Hongkong
the holder that the check Banking
hasItbeen issued forFunda since
notHousebethe collecting
a holder
is deemed in due bank does
course.
guilty notis
He
of gross guarantee
subject
warning
tobacco to to delivered
be to Moises. was
People’s
definite Bank purpose,& Trust so Co he
that and must Republic
inquire if hethe
to the
negligence signature
personal
amounting ofdefense
theto drawer. of
legal The payment
breach
absence of trust/
of of
therefore
Bank the CA
vs obligationwere of Dragon
based was to inquire
expressly
received the check pursuant the
Doagreement check by the
Mr. Pablo.drawee Such bank constitutes
defense
due is
as to has
the
cancelled purpose and of the issuance
superseded by ofto the
CB
that
2 purpose;
No 317
good these
faitharrangements
(Philippine
and, thus,
National
notviolate
Bank
a holder the
v. Court
inRetail
of
Trade
Appeals,
otherwise, he is not a holder in due Law?the
available
course.
Checks; proximate
Fund
Effect; in favor
House
Acceptance negligence
of
canbyMr Carlos
collect
the draweesince
fromagainst
bank it
CD has Mr the
crossed
dated checks
Dec 23before 1970.causing The latter them wasto bein turn G.R.
Checks; No. L-26001,
Crossed Check October 29, 1968).
course. duty
Noble.
SUGGESTED
Bytes
(1998)
X draws to know
ANSWER:
as athe checklatter the
was the
against signature
hisimmediate of
current account its client-
discounted.
amended Failure
by CBChecks on its part
Circular to580,make suchSept
Checks: Crossed vs. NoCancelled dated
Checks a)
with
(1994)
Po
The Press
drawer.
indorserthe first
of issued
the
Ortigas arrangement
check. in favor
branch (Seeof
of Jose Cigar
would
Bataan
Bonifacio
anot
postdated
Bank be in
and in
inquiry,
19, which
1977. Asresulted
to altered in its bad faith,
(2004)
Distinguish clearly (1) checks,
crossedthe new rules
checks from crossed
violation
Cigarette
favor
(b) of B.
Forged
of check,
Factorythe
Although
in
Retail
v CA X
Payee's
payment
etdoesTrade
al 230
Signature:not
of
s 643newsprint
Law.
have GR The
When 93048 law
Dragon
provide cannot
that claim
the drawee to be abank holder caninstill duereturn which Josewhen promised to deliver. Joseto sold
cancelled checks; applies
Mar 3, 94)
sufficient only
funds, pays thethe bank sale honorsis direct
the check theand
course. Moreover, the checks were sold, not drawee-bank the forged check, it must
them
SUGGESTED even ANSWER:after 4:00 pm of the next day negotiated
general public. theA check dealer tobuysExceland Inc.sells at a for
endorsed, byithim to Dragon which when it is presented
be considered for payment.
as paying out of its funds and
A crossed
provided check
does is one
so within with 24 did
two not
hours parallel
from and discount.
in his X Excelbehalf
own did notand, ask Jose the purpose
therefore, the
become
lines a holder
drawn in due
diagonally course.across Not being
its nofacea or Apparently,
cannot charge has conspired
the amount with
so paid the bank’s
to the
discovery
ALTERNATIVE of the
ANSWER: alteration but in event saleof tocrossing
the the check.
general public Since is Jose
made failed
by to
the
holder bookkeeper
account ofsothe that his ledger
depositor. In card
suchwould case, the
XM in
across
beyond due
Bankathe course,
corner
should
period Dragon
thereof.
bear
fixed the orisprovided
On subject
the
loss. other
Whentobyhand,
the
law deliverand
dealer the newsprint,
not by Po
the ordered
manufacturerthe
thea personal defense on the marked
part showbank that he still liable
becomes has sufficient
since itsfunds. primary duty
forcancelled
drawee filingbank of check
a(XMlegal is
Bank)one
action byofthe
failed toChelsea
or stamped
return
returning the ALTERNATIVE
The drawee
(Marsman
bank
ANSWER:
bank
&
files Coantovaction
stop
Firstpayment
Coconut
for recovery on the
Control check.
ofRetail
the Co
concerning
"paid" the
and/or breach
"cancelled" of trust on the
by or onbank part
behalf of of a) is
The to verify
first the
arrangement authenticity of
violates the thepayee's
altered
bankCrossed
Checks; check
against Check to the
the bankcollecting
sending the (ND
same. Efforts
GR39841
amount of Excel
20June1988)
paidbecause
to B becauseto collect from Po failed.
Moises
a draweeLim in
bank notthe complying
to indicate with
payment his thereof. signature
Trade Law (Traders Royal the
when ABC
Bank check
v.“consigned”
Radio
Assuming
Bank)
(1996)
What are the within that
effects the of24relationship
hour
crossing clearing
a between period
the Excel
(c)
presented wants
Forged
has noto sufficient
know from you as
funds. counsel: 1)
Decide
obligation
Checks; tobankdeliver
Crossed the
Check 2000 bales of 9, the Philippines
typewriters, Network, the G.R.
transactionNo. 138510,was October
one of
provided
drawee
SUGGESTED
check? ANSWER:in Secand 4c of
the CBcollecting
Circular bankdated is What
SUGGESTED
the are
Indorsement:
case
10, 2002; the
ANSWER:
(5%) Westmont effects Bankof crossing
v. Ong, G.R.a check?
No. 2)
The(1991)
tobacco.
Mr Pablo
effects
evidenced
Feb 17, of sought
crossing
1949,
by some theto aborrow
checkisare
latter
written P200th as from
document,
absolved Mr
from
the consignment
crossed
The132560,
bank cannot check,sale. In
recover consignment
is it indorser
a holder
the amount in due sale,
course?
paid an
to
Whether as second
January 30, 2002). and holder of
Carlos.
follows:
1 TheCarlos
liability.
prescriptive check agreed
may
period vnot to
beloan
would encashedtheL-28226
be amount
10 but only
years. in agency
B for therelationship
3) Whether check. Po’sWhen is the
defense created of lack
bank so of
honored it is as theif
(See HSBC PB&T Co GR Sep the
the
deposited
(Campos,
30 form
1970; aofsbank;
in35NIL a5th
140; postdated
ed 454-455)
also Rep Bankcheck v CA which
GR 42725 was ABC sells became an acceptor. As acceptor, its
against
consideration
check, it ANSWER: directly
Jose as to
is the
also public
available through
as against
SUGGESTED
Checks;
crossed The1991 Forged
(i.e.
check 2 Check;
parallel Effectslines diagonally agents. Excel?
2 Apr 22, 196may s 100) be negotiated only once to the bank
The became
b) SUGGESTED second primarily
arrangement and directly would be
(2006)
Discuss
onedrawn
who has onthe legal
theaccount
an top left consequences
portion
with a bank; of thewhen check). a ANSWER:
liable
violative to the payee/holder
1) The effects of crossing a checksince the
of the Retail Trade B. Law,
bankThe
3 Before honors
the
act of a forged
due datecheck.
crossing of the
a check (5%) check,
serves as Pablo
a The recourse of the bank should bebeing against
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
saleare:is1done The through check individuals
is for deposit only paid
in the
discounted
warning to the it with
holder Noble
thereof On thatdue thedate,
checkNoble has X and
strictly its bookkeeper
on a commission who conspired
basis. to said
The
The legal consequences when a bank honors account of the payee
deposited
been issuedcheck forthe check purpose
a definite with hisso bank. that the The make X’s ledger
individuals would show thenthat be he has sufficient
acting merelyonly as
a forged are as follows: ALTERNATIVE2 ANSWER: The check may be indorsed
check
holder must was dishonored.
inquire if he has Noble
received sued the Pablo.
check funds.
agents of the manufacturer. Sales, therefore,
(a) When
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Drawer's Signature is Forged: The bankonce can in recover
favor of from a person B. This whoishas an
solutio
The court
pursuant to that dismissed
purpose, Noble’s
otherwise complaint.
he iscannot
notWas a ALTERNATIVE
made accountby ANSWER:
suchwith agents are deemed direct
The court’s
Drawee-bank decision
by accepting was the
incorrect.
check Pablo indebiti
b) The because
2nd there
arrangement a bank
is payment
is not by the
violative of
the court’s
holder in due decision correct?
set
and up thecourse
Carlos, being (See
defense ofBataan
immediateforgery, Cigar and to the
because
parties by sales by
bank
the to3 Bthe
Retail when
manufacturer.
The
Trade suchcheck
Law is issued
payment
because is for
not a specific
due.
typewriters
Cigarette Factory, Inc. v CA GR 93048, Mar 3, 1994;
instrument,theare
accepting instrument,
governed the by drawee
the rules bank of The
are check
notpurpose issued
consumptionand bythe X to person
B as payee
goods who
or goods takes
had no itfor
not
230 s 643)
admits
privity.
Checks; Crossed theCheck
Given genuineness of signature of
the factual circumstances sufficient in accordance
funds.
personal, household with said
and family use. purpose does not
(1996)
Ondrawer
the
March problem,
1,
(BPI 1996, Pablo
Family has no
Pentium
Bank valid
Company
vs. excuse from
Buenaventura G.R. Checks;become
Effects; Alterations;
a holderPrescriptive
in due course Periodand is not
denying
ordered
No.
Unless
148196, liability,
a computer
a forgery from
(State CD
September 30, Bytes,
2005; and
investment
is attributable
Section
House 23,
v IAC
to the fault Negotiable Instruments Law
(1996)
William
2) No.
issued to
entitled
It is a
to payment
Albert a check
crossed check
thereunder. for P10,000
and Excel
issued a
Negotiable
GR 72764 crossed check
Instruments
13July1989).
or negligence of the drawer himself, the inPablo
the
Law). undoubtedly
amount of had drawn on XM Bank. Albert altered the did
benefited
P30,000
remedy post-dated in the
of the drawee-bankMar transaction.
31, 1996. is Upon
To hold
against the amount of the check to P210,000 andpurpose
not
Bond: take
Cash it
Bondin accordance
vs. Surety with
Bond the
otherwise
receipt the would
check, also contravene the basic for which
(2004)
Distinguish the
clearly check to was
cash his bond issued. from Failure NDon
surety
partyofresponsible CD the
for Bytes discounted
forgery. Otherwise, deposited
its
bond. part
the
to
check
inquire as to
account
said purpose,
with
therules
check with of unjust Fund House. enrichment. Even in Bank. When ND Bank presented the check
negotiable instruments, the for
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 80 of 103 alteration ofPage
the 81 of 103
instrument.
liability
thereforin the(Traders
event that Royal it Bank
should pay Yu
v. RPN, Thee)serial
May number is not material
Pablo recover to the
from either Mario or
throughG.R. oversight
No. 138510, orOctober
inadvertence.
10, 2002). Despite negotiability
Jose? of the instrument.
• stopDrawee-bank
the order by Lim,can BPIrecover
neverthelessfrom paid SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yutheupon
collecting bank (Great
presentation of theEastern
check.Life LimIns.sued a) Camilo
b. Yes. As a generalmay not rule, enforce
the drawee said promissory
is not
Co. v. Hongkong & Shanghai
BPI for paying against his order. Decide Bank, G.R. No. the note
liable against
under the Mario
check and because Jose.there The promissory
is no
because
SUGGESTED
18657,
case. even
ANSWER:
August if the indorsement on
23,1922) noteofatcontract
privity the timebetweenof forgery XYZbeing Marketing,payable to
In the theeventcheck that Mr. Lim,byinthe
deposited fact, had
bank's order, the
as payee, and signature
ABC Bank of as the Pablo draweewas essential
sufficient
clientlegal reasons
is forged, to issuebank
collecting the stopis bank.for However,
the instrument if the to passtaken
action title to bysubsequent
the
paymentbound order,
by itshe may sue BPI
warranties for paying
as an bank parties.
is an abuseA forged signature
of right which caused was inoperative
against his order.
indorser The waiver
and cannot set up executed
defenseby of (Sec 23
damage notNIL).
only Accordingly,
to the issuer the of the parties
checkbefore
Mr Lim forgery did not mean that
as against it need
drawee bank not but also to the payee, the payee has arelated
the forgery are not juridically cause to
exercise due diligence
(Associated Bank v. Court to protect the interest
of Appeals, G.R. Checks; Presentment
parties after
of action under quasi-delict. the forgery to allow such
Checks;
of itsLiability;
No. Drawee
107382,
account BankIt 31,
January
holder. 1996).
is not amiss to state Gemmab)
(1994) Camilo
drew amay
enforcement. check notongo against Pablo,
September 13, the
(1995)
Mario
thatGuzman
the drawee, issued to Honesto
unless Santos ahas
the instrument latter not having indorsed
1990. The holder presented the check to the the instrument.
check for P50th
earlier as payment
been accepted by it,forisanot
2ndboundhand to drawee bank only on March 5, 1994. The
car.honor
Without the knowledge of
payment to the holder of the check Mario, bank c) dishonored
Camilo may enforce
the check on the thesame instrument
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: against Julian by because of bank,his special
Honesto changed
that thereby the amount
excludes it from to any
P150th liability if date. After dishonor the drawee the
1991 6b) BPI would not be liable to Mr Lim. indorsement to Camilo,
which alteration
it were to comply could withnotits bestop
detected
payment by holder gave a formal noticethereby of dishonor making to him
Mr Lim and BPI are governed by their own secondarily
theorder
naked(Sec eye.61 Honesto
NIL) deposited the Gemma throughliable,a letter bothdated beingAprilparties
27, after
agreement. The waiver executed by Mr Lim, the forgery.
altered check with Shure Bank which 1994. 1) What is meant by “unreasonable
neither being one of future fraud or gross d) Julian, in turn, may enforce the
forwarded the same to Progressive Bank for time” as applied to presentment? 2) Is
negligence, would be valid. The problem instrument
SUGGESTED ANSWER: against Bert who, by his forgery,
payment. Progressive Bank without noticing Gemma liable to the holder?
does not indicate the existence of fraud or 1) Ashasapplied
rendered to presentment
himself primarily for payment,
liable.
the alteration paid the check, debiting
gross negligence on the part of BPI so as to e) Pablo preserves
“reasonable time: is meant his rightnot more to recoverthan 6from
P150th from the account of Mario. Honesto
Defenses;
warrant Forgery liability on its part. eitherfrom
months Mario or Jose
the date of issue.who Beyond remainsaid parties
withdrew
(2004)
CX maintainedthe amount of P15thaccount
a checking from Shure with juridically
period, related to him.
it is “unreasonable time” Mario and theis still
Bank and disappeared.
UBANK, Makati Branch. AfterOne receiving his
of his checks checkconsidered
becomesprimarilystale. liable to Pablo. Pablo
bank statement,
in a stub Mario discovered
of fifty was missing. Later, he the 2) No.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: may,Aside
in case form of the check being
dishonor, go after already
Jose who,
alteration
Thediscovered
demand and demanded
ofthat
Mario Ms.for restitution
DYrestitution
forged hisof from
signature
the stale, Gemma Note: is It
alsois possible
discharged that
form an answer
by his special indorsement, is secondarily
Progressive
and succeeded
amount Bank.
of P150,000 Discuss
to to
encash fully the
P15,000
his account rights
is from liability might distinguish between blank and
liable.under the check, being a drawer
andanother
the liabilities
tenable. branchof
Progressive ofthe
theparties
Bank bank.
has no concerned.
DY was able
right to to and a person special
whose indorsements of prior parties
liability is secondary,
encash
deduct said the check from
amount whenMario’sET, a friend,
account this is duewhich to the cangiving thereby
of the notice materially of alter
guaranteed
since the orderdue execution,
of Mario saying that she
is different. dishonor beyond the above suggested
the period allowed answers.
by law. The
was a holder
Moreover, in due course.
Progressive Bank is Can liable CX forrecover
the The givingproblem of noticedid not clearly
of dishonor on indicate
April 27, the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Forgery; Liabilities; Prior
the money
negligence of from the bank?inReason
its employees
Yes, CX can recover from the bank. Under
not noticingbriefly. 1994 is more kind (1)&month
of indorsements
than one Subsequent
from Parties
made.
the(5%)
alteration which, though it cannot be March(1995)
Alex5,issued
1994 when a negotiable
the check PN was (promissory
Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments note) payable to Benito or order in payment
detected by the naked eye, could be detected dishonored. Since it is not shown that
As Law,
between forgery is a real Bank
Progressive defense. andbyThe
Shure forged
by a magnifying
check
instrument used tellers. Gemma and the holder resided in the the
of certain goods. Benito indorsed same PN to
Bank, it isisthewholly
former inoperative
that should in relation
bear theto CX. Celso
place, the inperiod
payment within of which
an existing to give obligation.
notice
CXProgressive
loss. cannot be held Bankliablefailedthereon
to notify byShure
anyone, ALTERNATIVE
Later Alex ANSWER:found the samegoodstime to be defective.
notthateven by a washolder in due course. of
2) dishonor must bebe the that the
Bank there something wrong Under with a Gemma
While
notice wouldincan still
Celso’s
reach
liable under
possession
Gemma if sent
the
the
by PN was
mail.
theforged
check signature
within theof the drawer,
clearing hour there
rule of is24
no original
(NIL • contract
stolen
Sec 103byDrawer'sfor the consideration
& Dennis
104; Far account
who Realty
East forged cannotofCelso’sbe
valid
Checks;
hours. instrument
Material that
Alterations; would
Liability give rise to a which the check
charged,
signature and was
and ifissued.
charged,
discounted it hewithcan recover
Edgar, a
contract Investment
Checks; PresentmentInc v CA 166 S 256)
(1999)
A check for which
P50,000.00can be wasthedrawn
basis or source of
against moneyfrom (Associated whoBank
the drawee-bank
lender did v.not Court
make of inquiries
Appeals,
liability
drawee bank on and
the made
part ofpayable
the drawer. to XYZ The (2003)
A bank issues G.R. its
No. own check. May31,1996).
the holder
about the PN.107382
EdgarJanuary indorsed the PN to
drawee bank
Marketing or order.has Theno right
check orwas
authority to hold the • bankDrawer
liable thereunder
has no if he fails
cause to
of action
Felix, a holder in due course. When Felix
touch the
deposited with drawer's
payee’sfunds account deposited
at ABCwith Bankthe –• 1. against
prove are
What presentment
the
collectingrights for
bank,of payment,
Felix,
since ifthe or
any, duty of
Forgery; Liabilities; Prior & Subsequent Parties demanded payment of the PN from Alex the
drawee
which thenbank. sent the check for clearing to • presentAlex,
against
collecting the bill
bank to
Benito,is the
only drawee
Celso to and
the for
Edgar?
payee. A
(1990)
Jose loaned Mario some money and, to latter refused to pay. Dennis could no longer
drawee bank. Drawee bank refused to honor acceptance?
Explain
collecting Explain your
bank answers.
is not (4%)guilty of
evidence his indebtedness, Mario executed be located.
the check on ground that the serial number SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. negligence
Does Celsoover haveaany forged rightindorsement
against Alex,on
1 and delivered toforJose a drawee
promissory note
thereofIs had it proper
been altered. the XYZ marketingbank to Benito and
checks for Felix?
it has Explain.
no way of ascertaining
payable
dishonor the to his
check order.
for the reason that it had
sued
Josedrawee
endorsed bank. the note the authority of the endorsement and
been altered? Explain (2%)to Pablo. Bert when it caused the checks to pass
2 fraudulently
In instantobtainedsuit, drawee the note bank from Pablo
contended Checks;through (Manila
Validity; Waiver Lighter
the of Bank’s Transportation,
clearing liability house Inc. v. Court of
before
and endorsed it to Julian
that XYZ Marketing as payee could not sue the by forging Pablo’s G.R. No. 50373, February 15, 1990). On the
Appeals,
for negligence
allowing (1991) withdrawal of the proceeds
signature. Julian endorsed the note to other a hand, a collecting
drawee bank as there was no privity between Mr. Lim issued
thereof check drawn against bank BPI which
Camilo. a) May Camilo enforce
then. Drawee theorized that there was no basis to the said endorses a check bearing a forged
Bank in favor of Mr Yu as payment of certain
promissory note against
check.Mario Is thisand Jose? b)
make it liable for the contention shares of stock which he purchased. On the to the
endorsement and presents it
May
SUGGESTED Camilo
ANSWER:go against Pablo? c) May
correct? Explain. (3%)
a. No. The enforce
serial number is not a material same day draweethat he issued banktheguaranteescheck to Yu, all prior
Camilo said note against Julian? d)
particular Lim ordered BPI to stop payment. Per the forged
endorsements including
Against of the check.
whom can Julian Its alteration
have the right does of endorsement itself and
notrecourse?
constitute material standard banking practice, Lim wasshould
made to be held
sign a waiver liable of BPI’s
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 82
84 83
Page of 103of 103 delivered
b) Paragraph
Negotiable it to Marie.
Instrument: 2 –Definition
negotiability
She &
Negotiable
a) MP
2. P2,500.00
Celso hasInstrument:
bought Ithe
apromise
used Negotiable
rightcell to
topay phone
collect Document
Pedro from
from
San JR.Alex
Juan
JR accepted
is “NOT
Characteristics the AFFECTED”
check
(2005) Whatin good is a faith
negotiableas payment
andvs.
preferred Negotiable
orBenito.
order cash
the Instrument
Celso sumbutisofMP (2005)
aP2,500.
party is asubsequent
friend so JR to for
instrument?
goods Theshe interest
Give
delivered
theis to be computed
characteristics
to Ruth. Eventually,
ofat aa particular
theDistinguish
acceptedtwo. MR’s However, apromissory
negotiable
Celso note hasdocument
for
no P10,000.
right fromto a Ruth and is
time
regretted
negotiable determinable.
what she
instrument. (2%)didItand does not make the sum
apologized
negotiable
claim
JR thought against of instrument.
converting
Felix who (2%)
the note is intoa party cash uncertain
to Jun. Immediately or the promise he directed conditional.
the drawee c)
(Sgd.)
SUGGESTED
subsequent
by endorsing Noel Castro
ANSWER:
to Celso it to(Sec his 60 brother
and 66 KR. NIL) The SUGGESTED
Paragraph ANSWER: 3 – negotiability
bank to dishonor the check. When Marie is “AFFECTED.”
Negotiable
Incomplete
promissory &noteInstrument
Delivered
is a piece of havepaper requisites
with the of Negotiableencashed Giving theInstrument
the
check, maker isthe
it was a written
option renders
dishonored. contractthe
AX,Sec.
(2004)
following 1 of
2) aManila, the
businessman, June
hand-printed NIL, 3, a1993holder
was of this
preparing
notation: “MP instrument
for
WILL a for the
1. conditional
Is Jun payment
promise liable d)toof money which
Paragraph
Marie? (5%) is intended is
4 – negotiability
have
business
PAY JRright
trip
TEN of recourse
abroad. THOUSAND As he against
usually intermediate
PESOS did IN in as a
“NOTsubstitute
SUGGESTED AFFECTED.”
ANSWER: for money and passes from
parties
P10,000.00
the past, heFOR who are
For
signed secondarily
value received, liable,
I Holder
promise toin Yes.
one This
person
Giving to covers
another
the option the
astomoney, delivery
the in such
holder of a an
does not make
PAYMENT HISseveral
CELLPHONE checks 1 in WEEK
blank
due
pay
and entrusted course
Sergio Dee may or have
order rights
the sum better
of than incomplete
manner promise
the as toinstrument,
give
conditional.
a holder under in dueSection
course 14 theof
FROM TODAY.”them Below to this his secretary
notation MP’s with
transferor,
P10,000.00
instructionwith its
in
to safeguard subject
five (5) is
installments,
them money and
with thethe the
right Negotiable
to hold the Instruments
instrument free Law,
from which
signature “8/1/00” next to and fill them
it, indicating
provides
Negotiability; that Holder there
in Due was
Course prima Suchfacie
theInstrument
out first
only
date installment
ofwhen theitself is property
payable
required
promissory onnote.
to of value.
October
pay 5, 1993
accounts
When JR defenses available to prior parties.
On
and
during the
the
his otherinstallments
other
absence. hand,
OB, negotiable
his on or
secretary, document
before the
filled authority
(1992)
Perla
instrument onmust
brought the parta motor
comply of Ruth car
with to fill-up
payable
Sec. 1 ofonany
the of
presented MP’s note to KR, the latter said it
out does
fifth
one not
day
of ofcontain
the the requisites
succeeding
checks by of Sec.
month
placing her or 1name
of NIL, theinstallments
material
Negotiable particulars
from
Instrument Automotive
Law thereof.
to be Company Having
considered for
was not a negotiable instrument under the The characteristics ofaaitdown
negotiable
as it haspayee.
thereafter.
the no secondary She filledliability
out of intermediate
the amount, doneP250th.
negotiable. so, and She when
made is firstpayment completed
of P50th
law and so could not be a valid substitute for instrument
parties,
(Sgd.) Lito
endorsed andtransferee
Villa
delivered merely check steps tointo the before it isare;
and executed negotiated
a promissory to a note holder for in thedue
cash. JR took the oppositethe view, insisting KC,
on
b)
who shoes
TH is
accepted ofan the transferor,
indorsee
it in good faith of aits subject
promissory are goods
note 1) Negotiability
course
balance. like Marie,
The - That
companyit is quality
valid foror
subsequently attribute
all purposes, whereby a
theSUGGESTED
note’s negotiability.
ANSWER: You for arepayment
asked of to
that
gemsand simply
thatthe instrument
states:
KC sold “PAY
totheOB. is TO merely
JUAN
Later, OBviews evidence
TAN
told OR
AX of bill,
and noteMarie
indorsed or check
the maynote passes
enforce
to or
Reliable may it passwithin
Finance from hand
a to
referee.
The
SUGGESTED Which
promissory
ANSWER: ofnote is opposing
negotiable as it is 2. Supposing the check was stolen while in in
of title;
ORDER what thing
400
shewith of
PESOS.”
did valuewith are
The the
note
regrets. goods
has AXThismentioned
no date,
timely hand,
reasonable similar
Corporation to
time, money,
which as if so
it
financed as
had to give
been
the the
filled
purchase. holder
up
correct?
Yes.Negotiable
AX Instrument; Negotiability
no in
directed thecould
complies
place document.
of payment
the
be Sec
bank
held
to
1,liable
NIL.
and
dishonor noto consideration
KC.
the check.
is a Ruth's
due Thecourse
strictly possession
in the
promissory right
accordance and
notetoahold thief
with
read: thefilled
“For the
instrument
the blank
authority
value and
case(1997)
Can
• of
mentioned. an
a incomplete
bill
Firstly,
It ofwas exchange
it is in
signed check, or
writing
by awhich
MK promissory
andand has
signed been
written note
by the check,
collect
given. endorsed
the sum and
payable delivered
for himself it to Marie
free from in
Could AX NoelbeUnder received, I promised to pay Automotive
delivered.
qualify
maker,
under his as aheld
letterhead Castro.liable
negotiable Section to
specifying
KC?14
instrument Answer if – and
of
the address, the payment
defenses.
Company for the
2) Accumulation
or order goods at its heof purchased
Secondary
office in Legaspi from
Contracts
reason
a.
Negotiable briefly.
it (5%)
is not to the
Instruments Law,
•
which Secondly,
happens bepromisehis KC, isas a holder
unconditional
residence. TH her,
toas theyis
City, are Jun liable
the transferred to
sum of P200,000.00 Marie
from onewithif theperson check is at
to another.
interest
in b.
dated;
due acourse,
pay
accepted the certain
or
sum
the day canandenforce
promissory inthemoney,month,
note payment
asthatbut is,not
payment of thethe
P2,500.00
for dishonored?
twelve (12%) (5%) percent per annum, payable in
year
check asof Thirdly,
itsitmaturity,
if hadit been is given;
filled on ordemand
up strictly in no dateSUGGESTED
Manila ANSWER:
September of 21,P20,000.00
1991.
•
services rendered istopayableSH, who in turn as equal installments monthly
c.
accordance it iswith payablethe toJuan Tan
authority given by AX to No. Even
Negotiable though
Instrument: Marie is a holder
Identification in duefor
of maturity
received the is specified.
note from as payment ten (10) months starting October 21, 1991.
d. itor course,
(2005) this is an incomplete and
OB
for “cash”’
•Fand
ourth,
a prepaid itnames
within is apayable two to time.
reasonable
cell phone card worth 450
State (sgd)
undelivered
and Perla explain whether the following
instrument, covered by Section
are
Incomplete
alternative and drawees Delivered instruments under the Negotiable Instruments
negotiable
order.The payee acknowledged having
pesos. 15 Pay of(5%) the Negotiable Instruments
(2005) was
Brad
The promissory
received
in desperate need of money to pay
the note on note is negotiable.
August 1, 2000.All A theBar
1)
Law: Postal
to the order ofMoney
Reliable Finance Law.
his debt to Pete, a loan shark. Pete Where
2)
Order; A an incomplete
certificate
Corporation. Automotive Company of instrument
time deposit has which not
requirements
reviewee had told of Sec
TH,1who NIL are happenscomplied to be
threatened to take Brad’s life if he failed to been delivered,
states “This is it to will certifynot, that if completed
bearer has and
your with. The sum
friend, that to TH beispaid not isa stillholdercertain in due
pay. Brad and Pete went to see Señorita negotiatedBy:
deposited inwithout
this(Sgd) bank authority,
the sumbeof aFOUR
Manager valid
despite that the sum
course under Article 52 of the Negotiable is to be paid by
Isobel, Brad’s rich cousin, and asked her if contract in the
THOUSAND PESOS hands (P4,000.00)of any holder, only, as
installments
Instruments Law (Sec 2b NIL)
(Act 2031) and therefore 3) Letters of credit;
sheNegotiability
could sign a promissory note in his favor against
repayable
Because any to person,
Perla
the defaulted including
depositor in200 the Jun,days whose
payment after of
does not enjoy the rights and protection 4)
signature Warehouse was placed thereon before
in (2002)
the
Which amount
ofstatute. of
the following P10,000.00 to
stipulations pay Pete. date.”
her installments, Reliable Finance
under the TH asks for our or advice 5) Treasury warrants payable from
SUGGESTED
Fearing
features
ANSWER:
that of Pete
a would kill
promissory note Brad,(PN) Señorita
affect or
receipts;
delivery.
Corporation Such defense initiated isaacase real defenseher
against even for aa
specifically
a) KR is in
right. connection
The promissorywith the note
note being
is not Indorser:
specific
against Irregular
fund.
a holder Indorser
in due vs. General
course, availableIndorserto a
Isobel
do not acceded
affect to the request. assuming
its She affixed sum of money. Perla argued that the
undated
negotiable.
herthe signature
andIt not
on is anegotiability,
mentioning
not
piece issuedof paper
place that
toa order
with the
of
or (2005)
Distinguish
SUGGESTED
party like
promissory
ANSWER: an irregular
Jun note whose is merely
indorser appeared
signature an assignment of
from a
payment
bearer. PN is
and
There otherwise
any is no negotiable?
consideration. Indicate
What would your general
1) Postal
indorser. Money (3%) Order – Non-Negotiable
assurance
answer of writing
Brad thatword he of just
will negotiability
fill it upof prior to delivery.
credit, a non-negotiable instrument open to
your advicebybe?
containing therein. (2%).the Itup paragraph
isthe notblank number
issued in SUGGESTED
as it isANSWER: governed by postal rules and
later. Brad then filled paper, all
Irregular defenses available to the a assignor
party to and,
the stipulation
accordance with or feature
Section 1 ofofthe
theNegotiable
PN as shown regulation Indorser which may is not be inconsistent the
with
making a promissory note for the amount of therefore,
instrument Reliable Finance Corporation is
below
What defense
Instruments and your
LawHe corresponding
or defenses can Señorita answer, either the NIL and it can only be negotiated once.in
but he places his signature
P100,000.00.
“Affected” or “Not then
affected.” indorsed
Explain and
(5%). not a holder in due
blank before delivery. He is not a party but course. a) Is the
b) Theset
Isobel fact upthat against the Pete?
instrument Explain. is (3%)
undated
a)
delivered
SUGGESTED The
the date sameof to thePete, PN iswho “February
accepted 30, 2) promissory
he becomes A certificateonenote a of
because mere ofassignment
time his signature
deposit of credit
which in
and doesANSWER: not mention the place of payment
the b)
2002.”
note
The defense asThe PN
payment bears
(personalof interest
the debt.
defense)payable on the the or a negotiable
instrument. is Becauseinstrument?
to certifyhisthat Why? bearerIs
signature b) hehas is
does not militate against its whichbeing states
SUGGESTED “ThisANSWER:
last dayIsobel of each calendar quarter atPete
a rate Reliable
considered Finance
anthis indorser Corp ainholder isinof due
Señorita
negotiable. The date can set
andup against
place of payment is deposited
a) The promissory in banknoteand the he
sum
the problem liable
FOUR istoa
that equal
the to five percent
amount (5%) above is thenot then the course?
While,parties Explain
a Generalin the briefly.(P4,000.00)
Indorser
instrument. warrants thatonly, the
are not material ofparticulars P100,000.00 required in
to THOUSAND
negotiable PESOS
instrument, being in compliance
prevailing
accordance 91-day Treasury
with thenegotiable. Bill
authority given to her rate as instrument
repayable is genuine, that he has a good
make an instrument with the to the depositor
provisions of Sec 1 200 NIL. daysNeitherafter
to published
The Bradfact (in that atno
the the beginning
presence
mention of
ofisPete)
madesuch and calendar
of that
any title
date.”
the tofact it, that
– Non-Negotiable
that all
the prior
payable parties as it
sum had
is capacity
does
to be not
paid
c)
quarter. The PN gives the maker the option to to contract; thatnor thethat instrument
Pete
consideration
was not isa not holder
material. in due Consideration
course for comply
with with
interest the requisites the Sec.at
ofmaturities 1 of the NIL
aretime in
make payment either in money or in quantity of the Letters
3) SUGGESTED indorsement
ANSWER: of is valid and
credit subsisting;
- uncertain
Non-
acting
is presumed.in bad faith when accepted the note stated installments renders the
of palay Instrument:
or equivalent value. Instruments and 1. that
Felix onpayable
has
dueno presentment,
right
Negotiable
as d) payment ThedespitePN gives
Ambiguous
his theknowledge
holder the that option it Negotiable
amount (Sec 2toNIL) claimthe instrument
against Alex,
(1998)
How
was do you
only treat a negotiable instrument will
4) Benito
be accepted
and
Warehouse Celso or who
paid
receipts
b) Yes, Reliable Finance Corporation are
or
- both
parties
Non-Negotiable accepted
prior
is a to
either
Incomplete to10,000.00
require Incomplete
Instruments;
that was
payment in money
Delivered
allowed or to by
and the
that
Señorita is so ambiguous that
theirthere is doubt for holder in due course given the factualDennis.
paid
the forgery
according
same of
as Celso’s
to
Bill its
of tenor,
signature
Lading and it by
that
merely if it
requireIsobel
Instruments the
vs. maker
Incomplete
during to serve
Undelivered
meeting
as the with
is dishonored,
Parties
represents to
good,an he
instrument
not willmoney.pay who
if the are necessary
such prior
whether
Brad. it is a bill or a note? (5%) settings. Said corporation apparently took
bodyguard
Instrument
SUGGESTED (2006)
ANSWER: or escort of the holder for 30 Negotiability
proceedings
to the forgeryfor dishonor
cannot are
be held
made. liable by any
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the promissory note for value, and there are
Jundays.
1. Where
was about a negotiable
to leave for instrument
a business is so
trip. As (1993)
Discuss
5) no
party the
Treasury
who negotiability
became warrants such or at non-negotiability
payable
or from
subsequent a to
a) Paragraph 1 – negotiability is “NOT indications that it acquired it in bad faith
ambiguous that there issigned
doubt whether it is of the
the following
specific notes
hisAFFECTED.”
usual practice, The he date is not one several of the blank (Sec 52fund
forgery. NIL see - Salas
However, Non-Negotiable
vEdgar,
CA 181 who s 296) being a
became
a bill
checks. or He a note,
instructed the holder
Ruth, his may treat
secretary, it
to payable
party out
Negotiability;to of
the a particular
instrument
Requisites fund.
subsequent to the
requirements for negotiability. 1) Manila,
forgery September
either
fill them asas a payment
bill of exchange or a promissory
for his obligations. Ruth (2000) 1, 1993the same to Felix,
and who indorsed
note atone
filled his election.
check with her name as payee, can be held liable by the latter.
placed P30,000.00 thereon, endorsed and
Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006) Page 86 85
Page of 103
of 103
A, single
latter became
proprietor
a holder
of a
be duly taken, he will pay the amount business
thereof. concern,
As suchisholder, about Napoleon
to leave for cana
thereof to the holder, or to any subsequent business
proceed trip
against
and, as Richard
he so oftenClinton. does on
indorser who may be compelled to pay. these occasions, signs several checks in
Negotiable
blank. Instruments;
He instructs B, Bearer Instruments
his secretary, to
C is not liable to F since the latter cannot (1997)
A delivers a bearer
safekeep the checks and fill them out instrument to B.whenB then
trace his title to the former. The signature of andspecially
as required indorsesto pay it accounts
to C and C later his
during
C in the supposed indorsement by him to D indorses
absence. it inout
B fills blank onetoofD. theE steals
checksthe by
was forged by X. C can raise the defense of instrument
placing her name from asDpayee,
and, forging
fills in the
forgery since it was his signature that was signature
amount, of D, succeeds
endorses and delivers in “negotiating”
the check to it
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
forged. to F accepts
C who who acquires it in good the faith
instrument
as payment in good
As a general endorser, B is secondarily liable
forfaith
goods andsoldfortovalue. a) If, forher
B. B regrets anyaction
reason, andthe
to F. C is liable to F since it is due to the drawee bank refuses to honor the check, can
tells A what she did. A directs the Bank in
negligence of C in placing the note in his SUGGESTED ANSWER:
F enforce the instrument against the
time to dishonor the check.
Yes, A can be held liable to C, assuming that When C
drawer that enabled X to steal the same and drawer? b)check, In case of the dishonor Can of the
encashes
the latter the gave noticeitof is dishonor
dishonored. to A. This A
forge the signature of C relative to the check by both the drawee and the drawer,
be held liable
is aSUGGESTED
case of an to C?
incomplete instrument but
indorsement in favor of D. As between C and can F hold
ANSWER:
F who are both innocent parties, it is C a) Yes.
delivered Theitany
as
of B, C and
instrument
was entrusted wasto Dpayable
liable to bearer
B, the
secondarily
as it was on the instrument?
whose negligence is the proximate cause of secretary of aA.bearer
Moreover, instrument.
under the It could
doctrine be
the loss. Hence C should suffer the loss. negotiated by mere
of comparative negligence, as between Adelivery despite the
Negotiable Instruments; incomplete and andpresence of specialparties,
C, both innocent indorsements.
it was the The
undelivered instruments; holder in due course forged signature
negligence is unnecessary
of A in entrusting the check to presume
to B
(2000)
PN makes a promissory note for P5,000.00, Negotiable
the is
which Instruments;
juridical
the kindscause
relation
proximate of negotiable
between of theor among
loss. the
but leaves the name of the payee in blank instrument;
partieswordspriorofto negotiability
the forgery (2002)and the parties
because he wanted to verify its correct A. Define the following:
after the forgery. The only (1) a negotiable
party who can
spelling first. He mindlessly left the note on promissory
raise the note,defense (2) ofa bill of exchange
forgery against a and holder
top of his desk at the end of the workday. (3)ina check. (3%)
due course is the person whose signature
When he returned the following morning, the b)
B. You Only
are B
is forged. and C
Pedro can Draft
Cruz. be held theliable by F. The
appropriate
note was missing. It turned up later when X instrument
contract language at the fortime of thenegotiable
(1) your forgery was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: payable to
promissory notebearer,
and (2) being your a bearer
check, each instrument.
presented it to PN for payment. Before X, T,
a) turned
Yes. Date
out toishavenot filched
a material particular Moreover,
containing thethe instrument
essential was indorsed
elements of a in
who the note from
required by Sec 1 NIL for the negotiability blank byinstrument
negotiable C to D. D, whose (2%) signature was
PN’s office, had endorsed the note after
of an instrument. SUGGESTED
forgedANSWER:
by E cannot be held liable by F.
inserting his own name in the blank space as
b) No. The time for payment is not A. (1) A negotiable
Negotiable Instruments; promissory note is liabilities
bearer instruments; an
the payee. PN dishonored the note,
determinable in this case. The year is not unconditional promise(2001)
of maker and indorsers in writing made by
contending that he did not authorize its
stated. oneAperson
issued to another, signed
a promissory note by the maker,
payable to B or
completion
c) Yes. Sec and 9d delivery.
NIL makes But X the saidinstrument
he had
engaging
bearer.to A pay on demand
delivered the note or atto aB.fixed or
B indorsed
no payable
participation in, or knowledge
to bearer because the name of about, thethe determinable
the note to future C. C placed time, the a sum note certain
in hisin
pilferage and alteration of the note and
b) Can the payee in a promissory note be a of
payee does not purport to be the name money
drawer,to order
which orwasbearer.
stolen by the janitor X. X
therefore he enjoys the rights of a holder in
any person.
“holder in due course” within the meaning of indorsed the note to D by forging C’s
dued) Acourse
bill may under the
not be addressed Negotiable
the Negotiable Instruments Law (Actto2031)? two or (2)signature.
A bill of exchange
D indorsed is an theunconditional
note to E who in
Instruments
more your Law.
drawees Who is correct and why?
Explain answer.in(2%) the alternative or in order in writing addressed
turn delivered the note to byF,one person
a holder into
due
(3%)
succession,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:to be negotiable (Sec 128 NIL). another, signed by the person giving it,
course, without indorsement. Discuss the
a) PN
To dois so
right.
makes Thetheinstrument is incomplete
order conditional. requiring
SUGGESTED the person toto
ANSWER: whom it is
individual liabilities F of A, B and C. (5%)
andNegotiable Instruments;
undelivered. It did Bearer
not Instrument
create any A is liable
addressed to topay F. on
As demand
the maker or of
at the
a fixed or
(1998)
Richard
contract that Clinton makes
would bind PNatopromissory
an obligation note (3) A check is future
promissory
determinable anote,
bill of exchange
Atime
is directly drawn on
or primarily
a sum certain in a
payable
to pay to bearer
the amount and delivers the same to
thereof. bank
money payable
liable toto onor
F, who
order demand.
is
to abearer.
holder in due course.
b) A payee inPage.
Aurora a promissory
Aurora note cannot
Page, be a
however, Despite the presence of the special
“holder in due course”
“Payable within
to
endorses it to X in this manner: X. the
Signed: meaning
Aurora of B. (1) Negotiableon the note, these do not
indorsements
the Negotiable Instruments Page.” Law, because a promissory
detract from notethe - fact that a bearer
Later,
payee X, without
is an immediate endorsing
party inthe promissory
relation to instrument, like the promissory note in
thenote,
maker. transfers
The payee and deliverstothe
is subject same to
whatever question, is always negotiable by mere
Napoleon.
defenses, real of The note available
personal, is subsequently
to the B, as a general
delivery, until itindorser,
is indorsed is liable to F
restrictively
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: by secondarily,
dishonored
maker of the promissory Richard
note. Clinton. May “For Depositand Only.”warrants that the
b) A payee can
Napoleon be a “holder
proceed against in due course.”
Richard Clinton instrument is genuine and in all respects
A holder
for theisnote?
SUGGESTED defined
ANSWER:
(5%) as the payee or indorsee what it purports to be; that he has good title
Yes.instrument
of the Richard Clintonwho is is liable to Napoleon
in possession of it. to it; that all prior parties had capacity to
under
Every the is
holder promissory
deemed prima note. facie
The note
to be made
a contract; that he has no knowledge of any
by Richard
holder Clinton is a bearer instrument.
in due course. fact which would impair the validity of the
Negotiable Instruments;
Despite special indorsement Incomplete
made by Aurora instrument or render it valueless; that at the
DeliveredInstruments;
Page thereon, the note Comparative
remained a bearer time of his indorsement, the instrument is
Negligence (1997) and can be negotiated by mere
instrument valid and subsisting; and that on due
delivery. When X delivered and transferred presentment, it shall be accepted or paid, or
the note to Napoleon, the both, according to its tenor, and that if it be
dishonored and the necessary proceedings
on dishonor
 Mercantile
Mercantile Law Bar Examination Page 88 of 103
Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006)
Q & A (1990-2006) YES! 87 of 103
PageDagul is an
2. If Pedro pays the said P20,000 to Y, Pedro accommodation
Commercial Banking party
Co. Thebecause
By-laws ofinSaad therequires
case at that
canNegotiable
recoverInstruments;
the amount Requisites
from X. X is the bar,checks
he isissued
essentially,
by it must be a signed
person who
by the signsand
President as the
(1996)
What are the party
accommodated requisitesor the ofparty
a negotiable
ultimately maker without
Treasurer receiving any
or the Vice-President. Sinceconsideration,
the Treasurer was
SUGGESTED
instrument?
liable for the ANSWER:instrument. Pedro is only an absent,
signs as C anrequested the Vice-President
accommodation party to co-sign
merely the for
check,
The requisitesparty.
accommodation of a negotiable
Otherwise, instrument
it would thewhich
purposethe latter
ofreluctantly
lendingdid. the Thecredit
check was delivered
of his name. to B.
are as follows: a) It must
be unjust enrichment on the part of X if he is be in writing and And The
as check
an was dishonored
accommodation upon presentment
party he on due
cannot date for
notdrawer;
signed
Parties; byb)theIt must
to payAccommodation
Pedro. maker contain
orParty an unconditional setinsufficiency
up lack of of funds. a) Is Saad liable
consideration on the check
against any as an
promise
(2003)
Susan Kawada or order borrowed P500,000 from XYZ accommodation
holder, even asparty? to one b) If who
it is not,
iswhonotthen, under theinabove
a holder
to pay a sum
Bank which required certain her,in together
money; c)with It must
Rosebe Parties;
duefacts, Holder
is/are the
course. in accommodation
Due Course party?
payable
Reyes who to did order or to bearer;
not receive any amountand d) Wherefrom (1993)
Larry issued a negotiable promissory note to
thethe instrument
bank, to execute is addressed to a drawee,
a promissory notehe Evelyn and authorized the latter to fill up the
payable mustto thebe named bank, or or otherwise
its order on indicated
stated therein SUGGESTED
amount ANSWER:
in blank with his loan account in the
reasonable
with certainty.
maturities. The note was executed as so (Sec 1 sum of P1,000.not
a.) Saad is liable on
However, the check
Evelyn inserted as an
NIL)
agreed. What kind of liability was incurred accommodation party.
P5,000 in violation of the instruction. She The act of the
Notice Dishonor corporation
negotiated the in note accommodating
to Julie who had a friend of
by Rose, that of an accommodation party or
(1996)
When
SUGGESTED is notice
ANSWER: of dishonor not required to the President, is ultra
knowledge of the infirmity. Julie in turn vires (Crisologo-Jose v
that of a solidary debtor? Explain. (4%)
(per
beDondee)
given toRose may be held liable. Rose is
the drawer? CA GR 80599, 15Sep1989).
negotiated said note to Devi for value and While it may be
an SUGGESTED ANSWER:
accommodation party. Absence of who legally
had no possible
knowledge for the corporation,
of the infirmity. whose 1)
Notice of dishonor
consideration is inis not the required
nature to of be an business is to provide financial
given to the drawer in any of of the following Can Devi enforce the note against Larry and
accommodation. Defense absence of accommodations
if she can, for how much? in the Explain.
ordinary2) course of
cases: a) Where the drawer
consideration cannot be validly interposed by and drawee are business,Devi such as one given by atofinancing
the same person; b)against
When the draweeinisdue a Supposing endorses the note Baby
accommodation party a holder SUGGESTED
for company
value
ANSWER:
but towhobe an has accommodation
knowledge of party, this
the
not
Parties;
course. having
fictitious capacity
Accommodation
person or atoperson
contract; c) When the
Party b) Considering
1) Yes, Devi can that is
enforce boththe the President
negotiable and
situation,
infirmity, can however,
theagainst
latter not
enforce the case
the in
note the bar
drawer
(2003)
Juan Sy is the personfrom
purchased to whom “A” the Appliance Vice-President
promissory note were signatories
Larry in the to the
amount
problem.
against Larry?
instrument
Center one generator is presented set onfor payment; with
installment d) accommodation,
of P5,000. Devi is a they holder themselves
in due course can be
Where the drawer has
chattel mortgage in favor of the vendor. no right to expect or andsubject
the breach to theofliabilities
trust committed of accommodationby Evelyn
that thehold
require
After getting drawee of the or generator
acceptor will set,honor
Juan the cannotparties be to settheup instrument
by Larry against in their Devipersonal
instrument; e) Where
Sy immediately sold it without consent of the drawer has capacity
because it is(Crisologo-Jose
a personal defense. As a holder
v CA 15Sep1989)
thecountermanded
vendor. Juan Sy payment
was criminally(Sec charged Parties;
in due Accommodation
course, Devi is not Partysubject to such
To 114
settle
with estafa. theNIL)case extra judicially, Juan Sy 2) (1996)
Yes.
Nora Baby
applied
personal defense. is notfor a aholder
loan ofinP100th
due course with BUR
paid the sum of P20,000 and for the balance because
Bank. she By way has knowledge
of accommodation, of the breach Nora’sof
Parties; Accommodation
of P5,000.00 he executed Partya promissory note trust
sister,
committed
Vilma, executed
by Evelynaagainst promissory Larrynote in
(1990)
To accommodate
for said amount with Ben Lopez Carmen, maker
as an of a which
favor is of
just BUR a personal
Bank. When defense. NoraBut defaulted,
having
promissory note,
accommodation party. JorgeJuansigned
Sy failed as indorser
to pay taken
BUR the Bankinstrument
sued Vilma, fromdespiteDevi, aits holder in
thethereon,
balance.and 1) What the instrument
is the liability wasof negotiated
Ben dueknowledge
course, Baby thathas Vilmaall thereceivedrightsno of part
a of
to Raffy, a holder for
Lopez as an accommodation party? Explain. value. At the time Raffy SUGGESTED ANSWER:
holder
the loan.
in due May course.
VilmaBaby be held did not liable? Explain.
took the instrument, Yes, Vilma in may be heldofliable. trust Vilma is an
SUGGESTED
2) What ANSWER:
is the liability ofhe knew
Juan Sy? Jorge to be an participate the breach committed
1) Ben Lopez, as an
accomodation party only. When the accommodation party, is accommodation party. As such, she is liable
by Evelyn who filled the blank but filled up
liable as maker to the
promissory note was not paid, and Raffyholder up to the sum on the instrument to a holder for value such
the instrument with P5,000 instead of
of discovered
P5,000 even if he did not
that Carmen had no funds, he receive any as
Parties;BUR
Holder Bank.
in Due This
Courseis true even if BUR Bank
P1,000 as instructed by Larry (Sec 58 NIL)
consideration
sued Jorge. for Jorge thepleadspromissory
in defense note. the This
fact wasconstitutes
(1996)
What aware at the time itintook
a holder duethe instrument
is that
the nature
he had endorsed of accommodation. the instrument But without
Ben that Vilma
SUGGESTED
course? ANSWER: is merely an accommodation party
Lopez can ask
receiving valuefor therefor,
reimbursement and thefrom furtherJuan fact A holder in due course
and received no partisofone thewho loanhas (Seetaken
Sec 29,
Sy,that
the accommodation
Raffy knew that party.
at the time he took the the instrument under the following
NIL; Eulalio Prudencio v CA GR L-34539, Jul 14,
2) Juan
SUGGESTEDSy isANSWER:
liable to the extent of P5,000 in 1 Parties;
conditions:
86 143 ThatAccommodation
s 7)it is complete Partyand regular upon
instrument
Yes. Jorge is Jorge
liable. hadSec not29 received
of the NILany value (1998)
the hands of a holder in due course (Sec 14 For
its face; the purpose of lending his name without
or consideration
provides that an of any kind for his
accommodation party is
NIL). If Ben Lopez paid the promissory note, 2 receiving value therefore,
That he became holder of it before Pedro makes it a
indorsement.
liable on the Is Jorge liable?
instrument to a Discuss.
holder for
Juan Sy has the obligation to reimburse Ben was overdue and without notice that it had X
note for P20,000 payable to the order of
value,
Lopez fornotwithstanding
the amount paid. theIfholder
Juan Sy at thepays beenwho in turn negotiates
previously dishonored, it to if Y,
suchthewaslatter the
time of
directly to taking
the holder said of instrument
the promissory knew him note, to 1.
knowing
fact; May that Y recoverPedrofrom is not Pedro
a party if the
forlatter
value.
be only
or he pays an Ben accommodation
Lopez for the reimbursement party. This is the 3 interposes
“September
That he took the15,
itabsence
in2002good of consideration?
faith and for
of nature
the payment or the essenceby the latter of accommodation.
to the holder, value; (3%)
Parties; Accommodation
Parties; Accommodation Party Party “For
the instrument is discharged. 4 2. value Supposing
Thatreceived,
at the under I hereby
time itthewas same
promise facts,
negotiated toPedro
pay
to
(1991)
On June
(2005)
Dagul has1, 1990,
a A obtained a loan
business of P100th from B,with
arrangement payable Juan Santos
pays or
the order
said the
P20,000 sum of
may TEN
he recover
him, he
SUGGESTED
had no
ANSWER:
notice of any infirmity in the
not later than
Facundo. The 20Dec1990.
latter Bwould required lend
A to issue him a check
money to THOUSAND the same PESOS amount (P10,000)
from X?thirty
(2%) (30)
instrument
1. Yes. Y or
can defect
recover in thefrom title of
Pedro. thePedro is an
for that amount to be dated
another, through Dagul, whose name would 20Dec1990. Since he does not days from date hereof.
person negotiating party.
accommodation it. (Sec 52, NIL)of
Absence
have any
appear in checking
the promissoryaccount, A, with note the knowledge of B,
as the lender.
requested
Dagul would his friend,
thenC, immediately
President of Saad Banking
indorse Corpthe consideration
(Signed) Pedro Cruz is in the nature of an
(Saad)
note to
to accommodate
Facundo. him. C agreed,
Is he signed
Dagul a check
an for accommodation. Defense of absence of
the aforesaid
SUGGESTED ANSWER:amount dated
accommodation party? Explain. (2%) 20Dec 1990, drawn against Saad’s to: consideration
Philippine cannot be validly interposed by
account with the ABC accommodation
National Bank party against a holder in due
course.
Escolta, Manila
Branch”
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) PagePage92
90 91 89
93
of 103of 103 who
A connives
gave
course
passenger,
hadhim aof certificate
with
the
herPietro.
note
B
work by The in
which
ofthe payment
public
heirs
plans
A of of
Port
legislative
important
her
The
number
Areafunds
reorganized
tofranchise,
ofunder
Calamba,
fromdemand the business
the
ifdrawee
Laguna.
letters
it meets
circumstances
activity
bank.
sent
To
allcarry
the
toThus,
ofGrace,
other
WWW
out in all will
when convenience
for
WIC.
Pietro
offertwo By sued
forcavans
herself
sale
toYellow
operate
some
ofand rice.
Cab thru
ofauto-trucks
AB
his
Company
associates,
therefore
securities with
forpaidshe
and GH
requirements.
determining
faithfully
MTthem
Communications
of Investment
itsunanswered,
obligation
his Therecourse
presented
Inc.
is Dizon
nothing
of
would
EOL, action
the
subcontracted
through
not
incheck
in
the
bethe law
considered
aforlight
Makati B
fixed
will
P1,00
purchased
damages,
routes
buyon themthe
from
but
DOP same
atthe
certain
astocks
certain
latter
date. towns
available
refused
Onfixed September
inprice,
Bulacan
to
at paythe withthe
stock
15,
norlaw
of
withpayment,
a the
such
public
Enrico firm,
Constitution,
factors
utility
Reyes
the filed drawee
requiring
thea
aswhich
complaint
delivery
the
bank a
indicates
degree
franchise
dishonored
of 400for that sacks
collection
ofor it.aits the
andexchange
2002,
heirs,
understanding
RizalEF insisting
to Manila
discovered
priced that
that
at
and P20
italthough
that
within
is per
nottheshare.
liable
Manila.
note
there because
of
WhenAB was
legislative
specificity,
of the
Later
certificate
against Soya on, franchise
Grace
the
bean
when
orextent any
meal.
with
MT other
is Investment
necessary
of
the
Aside its
form
Regional
difference
from ofor sued
authorization
therequired
Trial her,
fromCourt
Eva would
Firstly,
not
WIC's
Baldo be
inheishis
tender
anclaimed
not possession
apparent
itsoffer
employee.
that was
sale,
the
and announced,
ordinance
Ahe will
Resolve
went retain towas
with
DOP
AB.
the It
forof
information
driver,
raised
from
anMakati.
entity
three
thethegovernment.
to
male
generally
defense
Grace,operate
employees
through
ofas available
absence
Itsupplier
owns of
her Reyes
of
the
lawyer,
previously,
offacilities,
rode filed a nullSUGGESTED
beneficial
was
stocks
reasons.
andthen void ANSWER:
jumped
ownership
(2%)
that
because,EFto P30 found
thereof.
amongper out share.
a)
other
that
Is the AB
Thus
things,
had OBit
electric
and
on consideration,
but
motion
theitsdoes
truck
nature
powertonot with
dismiss
and
and
operate
thereliability.
light
on
check
cargo.the
them.
to its ground
having
While
(Sec.
factory the
30c,
been
thatandtruck
RSA)
EOL
issued
its (a) Yellowamends
arrangement
in effect
already
earned Cab
amade Company
sizable
lawful? payment
hisprofit. (3%) shall
certificate on
Is
b) OB beof
the
If the liable
liable
note.
public
salefor with EF
Can
3c. Revocation
The
employees
was merely
was on its person
doing
as
wayofsecurity
living Certificate
tomay
business
within
Laguna befortheliable
the
two in tothe
compound.
ring 1)
strangers
that aPhilippines
fine
she could of Baldo,
materializes,
convenience,
still
breach claim on
and apayment
asolidary
whatmisuse
thing is itwhich
of basis,
from
called?
confidential
AB?
onlyfor(2%) the Public
Why?
the death
or(3%)
insiderof
Certificate
not SUGGESTED
(1993)
1)
suddenly
not Robert
less
without sell.ofstopped
than Public
ANSWER:
a is
Does P5thaConvenience;
license holder
Evathenor have
and of was
more
truck ainseparability
a certificate
andthan
valid P500th
therefore
hijacked
defense? of thepublic
or
barred passenger
SUGGESTED
Service
information ANSWER:
B. As Commission
a sequel Pietro. to the
gained Baldo
can fromsame is
do her an
facts
under employee
narrated
employment?
Sec of
16 (m) Is
No. Evaand does not have aa valid defense. First, a) No.
Yellow The Cabarrangement
under the is not
boundary lawful. system.It is
of
2)certificate
convenience
imprisonment
cargo.
Explain.
from Investigation
bringing vessel to (1992)
ofoperate
not
suit
by the less
and taxicab
than
police (b)7disclosed service
years
violated nor in
the above,
of the
she Public
also EF, out
liable
Service of
forpity Act.for
damages UnderABto whosaid had
sellers or As
section,
MT
Antonio
Manila Investment
was granted is a a holder
Certificate in of due
Public course an artificial
such,
already the manipulation
paid death of
P1,000.00 passenger ofto the
GH, price
Pietro
decided ofis to is
more
that than
Securities
one ofand21
theyears, suburbs.
Regulation
hijackers 3) or Onewasboth evening,
Code such
armed by with oneand
fine
selling aof his or thebuyers
Commission with whom is empowered she traded? to amend,
If so, what
and,
Convenience
taxicab
imprisonment as such,
units (CPC) holds
was in the
1986
boarded postdated
to by operate
three check
a
robbers free securities.
SUGGESTED
breach
forgive of
ABThis
ANSWER:
and is
contract prohibited
instead of carriage,
go by
after the making
CD who both
bladed
offering weapon toinwhile the
selldiscretion
the other of
securities was the court. the
within modify,
the measure
or revoke of asuch
certificatedamages? of publicExplain
If from
the
ferry
as any
person
between
they defect
escaped is a after
Mindoro of title
corporation,
and of
staging prior
Batangas parties
partnership,
a the
hold-up.using and OB
the is
(Hernandez
Securities
indorsed anRegulation
common insider
the v. carrier
Dolor,
note (as in defined
G.R,
Code.
Yellow
blank No.b)to in
160286,
CabIfhim.Subsection
the and July
sale
Is its
CD 30, still
unarmed.
Philippines For failure
without toregistering
deliver the 400 securities convenience
briefly.
2004) (5%) after notice and hearing.
the from
association
motor
Because defenses
vessel
of or said other
“MV availablejuridical
Lotus.”
incident, the toLTFRB
He prior revoked
entity,
stopped parties
the 3.8(3)
materializes,
employee,
liable of
to the
EF it Securities
is
Baldo,
by called
virtue a
solidarilyof Regulation
wash
the sale
liable.
indorsement or Code) in
sacks,
withFairgoodsthe Philippine sued Dizon SEC for anddamages.thus came to Secondly,
Carriage; he
Breachcontended
ofemployee
Contract; that even if the
Presumption
among
penalty
operations
the shall
certificate themselves.
in be
1988 imposed
of due
public to Eva
upon can
the
unserviceability
convenience invoke
officers of of
of the since she
SUGGESTED
simulated
blank? sale.
Why? is an
ANSWER:
(2%) of the Bank, the
Dizon
court in turn “with setuncleanup a 3rdhands.” party complaint EOL opposed ordinance
of
A.Negligence
Securities was
No.Regulation
EF valid,
(1990)
cannot Code; it Purpose
claim is only the from AB.
the defense
corporation,
vessel.
Robert on ofthe
In absence
1989, etc.
ground ofthat consideration
responsible
Basilio was said granted for
operator aagainst
the financial adviser of DOPpayment, and this
against
the motion
Reyes to
which dismiss, the latter
contending registered that on
it had Commission
Peter
(1998)
WhatEF is
is so
the
not which
hailed
principal
a holder a can
taxicab require
purpose
of the ownedofcompliance
promissory laws and andnote. To
SUGGESTED
MT
violation. ANSWER:
Investment
And ifthe
suchonly if the latter was privy to relationship gives her access to material
CPC
thefailed
No. neverfor the
ground
The
to
hijacking
same
render
established
that route.
in
safe,a an
loss
this
officer
After
proper
physical
was
case duea and
fewis force
presence
cannot to an
months,
adequate
be
alien,in the with its
operated
regulations
make provisions
the by Jimmy
governing
presentment under Cheng Sec
securities
for 17
and (j)
payment,in of said
driven
the it byisthe
he the shall,
discovered
service purpose in that
as required for
addition
Carlos which
under to
was the
Secthe checks
operating
19a penalties
of on
the were information about the issuer (DOP) and
majeure.
Philippines,
considered Did the
force andhijacking
majeure. that all
constitute
Only ofone the of force
activities
the Act and
SUGGESTED
Hermie
Philippines?
necessary since
ANSWER:
Cortez.the
(2%)
to implementation
Peter
exhibit theasked Cortez
instrument, of theto take
which
issued
prescribed,
hisrelated
routeto
Public and,
under
Service be therefore,
deported
Antonio’s
Act.Reyes a) not
CPC.
Was without
the a holder
Because
revocationfurther in due
of latter's securities (shares), which
majeure
two hijackers to
exculpate
plaintiffs
was armed trading
with from in U.S.
any securities ordinance
The him principal
to his was without
purpose
office ofsanction
ingenerally
Malate. laws
he isOn and orthe approval
waytotothe
SUGGESTED
course.
proceedings
Basilio
the filed
certificate
ANSWER:
Second,
aaftercomplaint
of it isfor
service
public not aa bladed
ofillegal ground
sentence.
convenience operations offor the
(Sec EF cannot
information do isbecause
not not in
available
liability
all
The
weapon.
Insider transpired
to
grounds
As
Trading;Dizon?
against outside
ofDiscuss
the
the
Manipulative 4 the
fully.
motion
male Philippines.
to
employees
Practices dismiss If
of you
are of
(j) the
regulations
Malate, Commission,
possession
of the governing
the
Public taxicab
thereof.
Service its enforcement
securities
collided
Act it is within
only was
the
a the
56
withdischarge
RSA)the
Robert Maritime of theIndustry
justified? postdated
Explain. check
Authority,
b)motion
Whenbusiness as against
can the in Philippines public. Accordingly, OB is guilty of insider
are the judge, decide isthe to dismiss unauthorized
B. No, because and
is jeepney,
to illegal.
protect
CDcan asthe 1)
negotiated May
public the reliance
against
both
Reyes,
(1994)
1) SUGGESTED
Give
a
Antonio
2auntenable.
holder
Commission
hijackers,
andcase ANSWER:
in
Carlos where
due
(Board)
EOL
with
course
jointly
only
a person not
filed
exercise
one
that doing
who
an
of
itsit isthem
not
was
power
an
issued
to
passenger
Commissioner
trading under which Section a of thethe
result
require
27 ofSecurities
which
by
1a)
the
being
issuing ruling
No.
armed on
A single
Philippines,
corporation, with theahold-up
andrespective
bladed
director incident
it only
did
weapon, contentions
not which
or officer violate
cannot does of of
the X
OB on
instrument
the compliance
Peter Section
nefarious
is wasalsowith 16
practices
liable
by the
injured, (m)
for
delivery. of
i.e., of
provisions the
damageshe Public
unscrupulous
fractured
oftothe Service
sellers his or left
merely
application
suspend as for
or security.
sale
revoke and The transfer
certificate groundsAntonio’s
ofofpublic for the Regulation Code, which requires disclosure
be the
not
Securites
considered
thereof, parties
linkor Robert’s
a Act,
personforceonbecause the
taxicab
majeure.
controlling, basis
cannot
it Thewas be the selling
not
hijackers
controlled facts Act
brokersbe sustained?
buyers
SUGGESTED
leg.
ordinance? and with
ANSWER:
Peter salesmen
sued
Explain. whom Explain.
Jimmy in selling
she for 2)damages,
traded. Was X correct
securities.
Under based
CPC discharge
and substitution
convenience? of negotiable of the vessel instruments
“MV that are when
Securities; trading in securities.
didpresented
by construed
securities
not
or act
under with above.
that
in
common the he
grave (10%)
rendered
country.
or irresistible
control withaof service
the threat,
issuing is in his
1) Place
No.
upon ofaDefinition
contention
The
Subsection Payment
power
contract 63.1 that
vested
of under
thein
of carriage, Section
the
Securities Public
and 17 won.
Regulation
Peter
those
Lotus”
Carriage; with set
Liability; forth
another Lost in
Baggage Sec
owned 119
orbyActs Carlos.
of the NIL and
Should (1996)
Define securities
The
unsafe,
SUGGESTED
violence
corporation, contention
inadequate
ANSWER:
or those
force.
isCarlos’
also of EOLand
considered is correct,
improper because
(Manzanal
an “insider.” it (2000)
PN
Service
Code, is the
Commission
the holder
damages
Jimmy wanted to challenge the decision of a
under negotiable
awarded Sec 16m
could promissory
isbe an
none of
Antonio’s
Passengers and
(1997) grounds joint are available
application beto Eva. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The
2) never
v
In joint
Ausejo did
Securities 164any
application s business
Law,36) of
what in
Antonio the Philippines.
and
is a “shortswing” Carlos All note
subordinate
amount
before within not
the SC to the
the
exceedingmeaning
authority
on the of
triple
ground thatof the
the
the Negotiable
City
theof
amount trialof
The
approved?
Parties;
1b) latter
Under Giver
Holder Sec may your
in
19a not
Duereasons.
of unilaterally
Course
the Public Servicedischarge Act, Stocks, bonds notes, convertible debentures,
1997
for its
the (15)
transaction. sale Antonio,
transactions
and transfer
3) In “insider a paying of
in passenger,
Antonio’s
trading,” question CPC
what were
ismere
a Instruments
Manila
the
court under
transaction
erred Sec Law
in not 18
plus(Act
(hh) 2031).
actual
making an of its The
revised
damages.
express note was
finding
herself
(1998)
X
the
boarded makes
Commission
a from
bus a her
promissory
bound (Board)
for liabilitycan
Batangas note byfor
suspendCity. the P10,000
Heor warrants
SUGGESTED or other
ANSWER: documents that represent
and consummated
substitution
SUGGESTED
“fact ANSWER:
of special of outside
of the
significance”? vesselthe Philippines.
MV Lotus originally
charter
Exemplary
as to to issued
superintend,
whether damagesor by
not RP to
regulate
may
Jimmy XL
also was asor
be payee.
control
awarded
responsible XL in
expediency withdrawing her funds from a
1) Tender
It another
chose
with may
payable
revoke a seat at aOffer
abecertificate
to vessel case
A,
the where
afrontminor,
ownedof row,public
by ato person,
near
the help
convenience
the
transferee whose
him
bus buy theshare
IXL.
will
indorsed
for The
streets
case the
in a
counsel
note
of company
the
of collision
bad the Jimmy
mentions
note
faith, city
and, toofor
fraud,
to
PN athedebt
desist
forplace
Manila.
hence,
owned
from
goods
malevolence (Lagman
civilly ofboughtby va by
payment
or to
liable
the
(2002)
2002
relationship drawee
(6) or bank.
former (State Investments
relationship to v for
CA company
challenging or government
thes decision. entity. The Evidences
action of of
Peter
school
when
driver,
should and
not thebooks.
be operator
told theA bus
approved. endorses
fails
driver
The the
thatnote
to certificate
provide heahad of the
to
serviceB City on ofthe Manila
wantonness
Peter. specified
He went 17
in the tomaturity
579) 2)
violation
see you No.date
forof The as powers
the
advice. the office
Securities
What
GR
A.
issuer
value,
that 101163,
What
gives who
isitems isor
safe, ain Jan
tender
gave
turn
proper 11, 93
offer?
him
endorses
or 217s32).
access
adequate, the to a fact
note
and to C.
refusesof C obligations
being
of the based to
corporate pay on money
culpa
secretary or of
contractual, rights
of PX to
the
Bankrules.
valuable
public convenience in hisand hand MV carried
Lotus bag
are conferred
Regulation
will you bytell lawCode
him? upon or theimplementing
its
Explain. Public Service
B.
special
knows
to
which Insignificance
render
inseparable. he Awhat
then isany
The aplacedinstances
minor.
service about C the
Ifwhich
beside
unserviceability is
sues
the adriver’s
can Xoftender
issuer on
bethe or the
the offer participate
note, carrier’s
during
Commission in
banking earnings
negligence
were hours.
not
The court is also authorized to award
and
is ON
designed distribution
presumed maturity
to denyupon oftheRP
date,
or
required
security Xthatsettois be not made?generally available, he or and a corporate
breach
was at the assets.
of contract.
aforesaid Instruments Theoffice burden giving
ready of to
proof
toof their
pay
canNot
reasonably
seat.
vessel coveredhaving up
demanded
by the
slept
the defenses
forand 24 hours,
certificate ofhad
furnished. minority supersede
attorney's thefees regulatory
not exceeding power of
30% local thethe
Revocation
SUGGESTED
person,
lack of
requested
likewise who oflearns
Certificate
ANSWER:
consideration?
the
rendered driver such
to keep
ineffective a fact
(3%) an
theeye from on any
certificate the of legalnote holders
instead
Insider
(Lagman
governments but v would
Trading
City
PN rights
over oflie
did to
notonmoney
Manila
motor Jimmy
show 17 up.
traffic sor toin other
establish
What PN later
the streets that
Yes.
A. Tender
C is not offer a holder
is a publicly
in due course.
announced The award.
(1993)
Pepay,
the insiders, a holder
hewith of a
knowledge certificate that of public
the legally
person property;
579) despite
(1995)
Under
did was they
an
theto Secsueare
exercise
Revised therefore
XLoffor of utmost
Securities instruments
diligence
Act, it is the
bag
itself,should
and the
promissory
intention
doze
holder
of Convenience;
note
a
off
person
duringmay
thereof
isthe acting
not
the not trip.
ato
While subject to their
(Note: control.
2a thethe face value
Revised Securities of the
Certificate
fromconvenience,
Antonio
transfer whom of Public
was
the he
asleep,
same failed
learns
to anotherto
another. Requirements
register
fact,
passenger
(Cohon isalonenegotiable
the
such
v CA took
or
an in Public
whichnote,utilities
have
collision
SUGGESTED
unlawful
Actplus intrinsic
could
ANSWER:
for
does
annot
interest
not
value
insider
really
have
anddefine to and
been
costs.sell are
the
avoided.
or buy
Will term theasuit
2) instrument
concert
Abag
SUGGESTED
(1995)
What “shortswing” with
ANSWER:
requirements asotherit is doespersons
ofa
must notSecurities
transaction
be contain
to before
acquire any
where equity
word
a Carriage;
Yes.
(2000)
WWW
recognized TheBreachsuit
Communications
and ofissuer
will
used Contract;
prosper
as Inc. such Presumption
as
isin far
anthe as athe
e-commercefactface
regular
the
188 complete
insider (Sec
away30,
sOrdinarily,
719). number
and par (b)
alighted units
Rev atmetrequired
Calamba, by a her
Act) security
prosper?
of
of the
Explain.
‘securities.’)
Negligence (1997)
(5%) if he knows of
Yes.of
securities
person
certificatenegotiability,
buys
certificate. of of the
securities
public a
However, common
public
that and
convenienceis,
she carrier
company.
order
sells
tried or
may
to or is
It not
bear,
may
disposes
be
justify also
such or value
channels
company
special of
of the
whose note
commerce.
significance present is concerned,
withbusinessrespect but
activity
to not
the with
is
Laguna. Could the common carrier be held Securities;
In a court Selling caseof Securities;
involving Meaning
claims
liable
of bethefor
words
granted
failure
liable
defined
by
acts
same
underof the
by
Antonio
of
similar
as
the other
within aPublic
accidents
for the
passengers.
method
meaning
a loss? period
Service
that ofallegedly
ortaking
Act?But
ofimport.
six theover
(6)Not
befell a respect
limited
issuer
(2002)
2002 (18) toor tothe thesecurity
providing
Equity
interest
Online its clients due
that
Corporation not for
issubsequent
with damages
all(EOL),
types
generally to of
a
common
ALTERNATIVE
being
company
SUGGESTED
months. carrier
aANSWER:
holder
ANSWER: by cannot
askingin
her, claiming that she was so shocked and due relieve
stockholders
course, itself
C istofrom
to sellsubject
their arising
the
information maturity
available, from death
of
technology the
without disclosing and
note injury
and
hardware. of
the
such bus
costs
It plans of
fact totothe
2) Itfollowing
is if a the purchase by any New York corporation, has a securities
Theshares
liability
such
burdened personal
at by are
acommon the
price
thedefenses requirements
carrier’s
higher
successive of person employees
minority
than
accidents for
the for the
and the
current
and lack passengers,
collection.
re-focus
other its party. RP
corporatecounsel
3.a)was What ready for
directiondoesthe
and bus
the willing
of operator
gradually
term to pay
ALTERNATIVE
B.
issuer
granting Instances
or ofany a ANSWER: where
person
certificate tender
controlling,
of public offer is required
controlled brokerage
to be files a service
demurrer onto the
evidenceInternet after
arguing that the
could
of
market have prevented
consideration.
price and on
C the
isa act
particular
a mereor omission
assignee
date. by who the
converting note
“insider” at
itself the specified
into a full place
convergence of payment
by,
misfortunes
X
made:
or cannot
convenience,a)
under set
The
common
to
that
up
wit:
she defense
the
persona)
did not know
control
The intendswith
applicant of the
to
the
what minority
acquire
issuer,
must
she
15% obtaining
or complaint allmeanrequisite
should
as used
be U.S. in
dismissed
the Revised
licenses and
because the
exercising
is subject due toshe diligence.
all wasdefenses. In this and case,thrown the on the specified
organization.
Securities Towards
act? maturity
3.b) this date,
objective, butthe PN did
or
be
was
of
aaa A. doing,
more Defense
the
corporation,
purchase
citizen of the of
equity
confused
minority
share
co-partnership
subject
Philippines, to the is of
oravailable
or
control a public
of to
the
off
the permits
company plaintiffs to do did so.not EOL ’sWhen
submit website any
is a fact
evidence that
passenger
tangentonly. asked
momentarily, the driver to keepshe
although analways
eye not show
company
considered hasup. toPN
been lost
beaggressively
“of his right
special to recover the
acquiring
significance”
(www.eonline..com), which is hosted by a
on minor
issuer
the
had bag
the
towhich
orpursuant
association anyanSuch
money
agreement
organized
such
was
and
defense
placed under
person,
financial
is
made not
besidethe
resulting
ability
available
between
laws
the to
ofinor
buy
to among the
interestoperator
telecommunications
under the due same or its
subsequent
Act? employees
businesses
3.c) toWhatthe were
and maturity
are theto of
broadcast
X.the Philippines
beneficial person
the
ownership and and one
ofat theor
least
more more 60%
than sellers.
of10%the of server
SUGGESTEDin
negligent. Florida,
ANSWER:
If ayou enables
were Internet
the judge, would users you
driver’s seat. Ifand the driver exercised due mediathe note and
enterprises,
liabilities of the
person costs
and whoof collection.
consolidatingviolates their
the
new
Xstock
Carriage;cannot
anySUGGESTED
class
diligence,
trucks
b)Prohibited
of
ofhe
set
Theup
paid-up
ANSWER:
shares
could
repair
& Valid the
person
capital
(Sec
have
defense
Stipulations
32 of
R
prevented
destroyed
intends which
Sec againstto
Act) must
the
one.
C. Lack
acquire
loss 30%trade No.on-line
orSUGGESTED
dismiss
corporate
Public Service Law
In theANSWER:
the
carriage
in
structures.
securities
complaint?
of passengers,
The
listed in thethe
ultimate
3) Are
of
In
(2002)
No.
Discuss
belong
the
consideration
“insider
The
more reasons
the
whether equity
reasons
to ofcitizens orgiven
trading,”isshares
given
not ofa the
the
by
personal Pepay
afollowing
by of“fact
a public
Pepay
Philippines.
sufficient
defense
of
arespecial
company
not(Secwhich within pertinent
failure
various
3a. of
stock
“Insider” provisions
the common
exchanges
means ofin
1) the
carrier
the Revised
theissuer,
U.S.to plan
bring
EOL isthe
2) a buys
to
of the
grounds bag. to excuse her from completing have only
Securities
Certificate twoof organizations:
Act
public regarding
Convenience theone to
unfair own use theof
is16a,only
significance”
b) sufficient
stipulations TheCA aavailable
period
applicant
grounds
in
146, ais, of
as 12
contract between
in tomonths.
must
amended) addition
ofprove
excuse immediate
carriageher to
publicfrom
of a parties anddirector
being passengers
sells U.S. safelysecurities
or listed
officer to
of,their or a persondestination
for thecontrolling,
units?
or against
c)
c) completing
1 The
a Explain.
stipulationparties
The
applicant who
person
limiting
must areintends
prove
the notsum holders
that tothat
the in due
acquire
may facilities
inside
(1998)
The
immediately
be accounts of the
information?
Batong
of itsby, combined
Bakal
raises
clients Corporation
the
all over businesses
presumption filed
the world, andwith
that to
who the
necessity.
material,
common such
carrier fact
her are as
units. would
valid: The likely,
same on
could being
be controlled or under common control
course. C’s knowledge that A is a minor does develop
the convey Board
such and
of
failure produce
Energy is an content
attributable application materials,
to the for a and
carrier’s
operation
recovered
made equity
undertaken ofby
generally shares
thethe bypublic
shipper
her of
available, a or
service
children public
owner company
proposed
to
or by toother
affect 90%the that
of with,their buy and
the issuer, 3) sell
a person instructions whose to EOL
another
Certificate to operateoforPublic theEOL facilities
Convenience and at provide
for
andnot
value
market theof
authorizedprevent
wouldauthorization
the goods
price ofC afrom
result inin
representatives case
to
security being
ownership
doofbusiness
loss aadue
to(Sec holder
of more
will
toPub
significant
16n inthan
theft. due through fault or
relationshipthe negligence.
Internet. former In the
hascase
relationshipno offices, to the
bar, the
the
course.
promote
2 50%
aor C took
ofHalili
stipulation
the the a
public saidthe promissory
shares. note from a mass fact
employees media
purpose of of
death
or and commercial
supplying
and
representativesinjury electric
of the power
outside bus and
the
extent,
Serv Act; which vinterest
that
reasonable
Herras in the in asevent
10 proper
769)of would
person and
loss, issuer gives or gave him access to a fact of
telecommunications
lights
Parties; tosignificance
Holder
passengers the
in Due factory
raises Courseservices.
the and itsthe
presumption WWW
employees living
d) holder
suitable
destruction
consider The for
manner.
as applicant
or value, B.must
deterioration
especially (Sec 16a beoffinancially
CA
important 146
goods as
under on account the U.S. The
special website has icons
about for many issueroforfault the
Parties;
capable
amended)
of the of
defectiveTransportation
Securities
Holder
undertaking Law
Regulation
in Due
condition
circumstances in determining his course of
Course;
the of proposed
the Indorsement
vehicle service in
used in Communications
1996within
(1996)
or
countries,2.2)
negligencethe
Eva compound.
includingissued will
on the
anbe
to
security that is not generally available, or
the
The
Imelda
part
icon flagship
ofapplication
“For a
the check entity
carrier.
Filipino in wasThe 4)
andblank
the
action meeting
contract (2002) of
in the the responsibilities
carriage,
light of the
such carrier’sincident
factors as to
liability the is which
theopposed
Traders”
a
willcontaining
amount
carrier
person
own
by
mustof
who
the
the
P50th
rebut
learns
facilities
Bulacan
post-dated
thesuch day’s
such
ofprices
Electric
a
the
presumption.Sepfrom
fact Corporation
30,
of U.S. any of
Insider
its A. AB
operation.
limited
degree to issued
ofthe itsvalue
a promissory
of the goods
specificity, the
note
appearing for P1,000 conglomerate
in the listed contending
1995, as
Otherwise, security
securities and
that
the provide
forthe
conclusion
expressed Batong
a diamond content
in can Bakal
U.S. ringbe toproperly
to
dollars the beother
and
(2004)
Ms.ofOB
Boundary
payable
Powers the was
to
Public employed
CD System or
Service his in
Commission MASextent
order onInvestment of its
September new
sold
the
3b.on
made
foregoing
Carriage;
corporation
It
Corporation is Fortuitous
one
commission.
that the
insiders
which,
has Event
which,not
carrier On in in
with
turn,
addition
secured
Sep
failed 15,
knowledge
a
towillto
1995, operate
being
franchise
exercise
that
to
bill of
difference lading unless
from the shipper
information or owner
generally theirthe Philippine
SUGGESTEDperson from
ANSWER: peso whomequivalent. he learns Grace the fact is
Bank.
(2005)
Baldo
15,
Manipulative
(1993)
The City 2002. WIC,
is Manila
of a
CD adriver
medical
indorsed
Practices
passed of drug Yellow
the
an company,
note
ordinanceCabin Company
blank and those(1995)
M. Dizon
facilities
material,
operate
Imelda and
negotiated
extraordinary Trucking
would and
maintainbe
the
diligence entered
providelikely
check an the
asto to into
services.
affect
electric MT
required a hauling
the
plant.by WWWIs
law. the
declares
available a previously,
higher valueand (5%) its nature and Gonzales,
such an a
No. A certificate resident
insider (Sec of
of publicMakati,
30b, RSA) is
convenience a regular may
retained
under
delivered
(2001)
Suppose
banning the
A the
is
provincialthe the Bank
boundary
sameowner totoassess
buses system.
EF.
of
from GH whether
several
the While
stole inactive
city. it
the
The isnote
cruising contract
Communications
market
opposition’s
investment with
price Fairgoods
of seeks
a
contention securityyour Co whereby
professional
to
correct? a significant
(5%) the
reliability (Sec 30 paractender RSecAct) customer
be granted ofwhich
the towebsitepaid the
Batong and
Bakal amount
has been of P40th
Corporation,
desirable
along
from EF
securities.
ordinance the
was toand
To make
South
create
challenged onExpressway,
September offer for
anas appearance
invalid DOP
Baldo’s
14,
under of cab purchasing
2002 former
advice
extent
SUGGESTED
to her. Eva bound
onANSWER:
whether
on being
failed itself
or
tomade sell tothe
not haul
itsring,
generally the
reorganizedsolatter’s
she 2000
available, or
though notand selling
possessing securities
a through
company,
figured
thepresented
activePublic trading in aa
Service drug
itforcollision,
to such
AB manufacturer.
Actfor by killing
payment.
securities,
X his OB
When asked sacks
business
one
returned of
which Soya
activity
it to aImelda bean
would
reasonable onmeal be
Sep from
considered
person
19, Manila
1995.would a public
EOL with the use of her American Express
overheard
by AB, GH in said theCD utility requiring
consider
Unable especially
to retrieve a franchise
her never check, or certificate
Eva withdrew or
credit card. Grace has traveled outside
any other form of authorization
the Philippines. After a series of erroneous from the
government.
stock picks, she What hadwill be youra advice?
incurred net
Explain (5%)
indebtedness of US$30,000. with EOL, at
which time she cancelled her American
Express credit card. After a
 Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006) Page 95 of 103 X did not 94 of 103
Pagedeclare a greater
turned out that the ticket was inadvertently 1 value Thedespite the fact
stipulation is that the clerk had
considered
cut and wrongly worded. PAL employees called his attention
unreasonable, unjust and to the stipulation
contrary to public in the
manning the airport’s ground services ticket.
policy under DecideArticlethe1745
case of (5%)
the Civil Code.
nevertheless scheduled her to fly two hours 2 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The stipulation limiting the carrier’s
later aboard their plane. She agreed and liability to thedid
Even if he valuenotof signthethegoodsticket, X is bound
appearing
arrived in Hongkong safely. The aircraft used by the stipulation that any
in the bill of lading unless the shipper or claim for loss
by Far East Airlines developed engine cannot
owner exceed
declares P250 for
a higher eachisluggage.
value, expressly He
trouble, and did not make it to Hongkong did not declare
recognized in Article a higher
1749 of value. X is entitled
the Civil Code.
but returned to Manila. Vivian sued both to P500 for the two luggages lost.
CommonValuation
Carriage; Carrier; Defenses;
of Damaged Limitation
Cargoof Liability
airlines, PAL and Far East, for damages
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2001)
Supposethirteen
(1993)
A shipped A was ridingpieceson ofan airplane
luggage of a
through
because of her having unable to take the Far
(per dondee) No, there was breach of LGcommon
Airlinescarrier from when Teheran the accident
to Manila as
East flight. Could either or both airlines be
contract and that she was accommodated happened
evidenced byandLG A Air suffered
Waybillserious injuries. In
which disclosed
held liable to Vivian? Why? (6%)
well with the assistance of PAL employees an action by A against the
that the actual gross weight of the luggage common carrier,
to take the flight without undue delay. the latter claimed that
was 180 kg. Z did not declare an inventory 1) there was a of
Common Carrier; Defenses stipulation in the ticket issued
the contents or the value of the 13 pieces of to A
(2002)
Why is the defense of due diligence in the absolutely
luggage. After exempting
the saidthe carrier
pieces of from
luggage
selection and supervision of an employee liability from the passenger’s
arrived in Manila, the consignee was able death or to
not available to a common carrier? (2%) injuries
claim fromad the notices
cargo were broker posted
only by12 thepieces,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
common
with a total carrier
weightdispensing
of 174 kg. with the
X advised the
The defense of due diligence in the selection
extraordinary
airline of the lossdiligenceof one of of the
the 13 carrier,
pieces and of
and supervision of an employee is not
2) A was
luggage andgiven
of the a discount
contentson his plane
thereof. fare
Efforts
available to a common carrier because the
degree of diligence required of a common of thereby
the airline reducing
to trace the theliability
missingof theluggage
common
carrier
were with respect
fruitless. Since to theA in particular.
airline faileda)to Are
carrier is not the diligence of a good father
thosewith
comply
SUGGESTED valid thedefenses?
ANSWER: demand(1%) of X b) to What
produce are the
the
of a family but extraordinary diligence, i.e.,
defenses
missing
a) No.luggage, available
These are X filed
not to valid
any common
an action
defenses forcarrier
breach
because to
diligence of the greatest skill and utmost
Common Carrier; Defenses; Fortuitous Events limit
of they or
contract exempt
are contrary it
with to from
damagesliability?
law as they (4%)
against
are in LG
foresight.
(1994)
Marites, a paying bus passenger, was hit Airlines.
violation In ofitstheanswer, LG Airlines
extraordinary diligencealleged
above her left eye by a stone hurled at the that the Warsaw
required of commonConvention carriers.which limits1757,
(Article the
bus by an unidentified bystander as the bus liability
1758 of New theCivil
carrier,
Code) if any, with respect to
was speeding through the National Highway. b) The
cargo to adefenses
sum of $20 available
per kiloto any common
or $9.07 per
The bus owner’s personnel lost no time in carrier
pound, to limit
unless or exempt
a higher value it from liabilityin
is declared
bringing Marites to the provincial hospital are:1 ANSWER:
advance
SUGGESTED and observance
additional charges of extraordinary
are paid by
where she was confined and treated. Yes. diligence,
Unless
the passenger theand contents of a cargo
the conditions of arethe
Marites wants to sue the bus company for declared
contract 2 or or
as thesetthe proximate
contents
forth inofthe acause
lost of
air luggagethe
waybill,
damages and seeks your advice whether she are
expresslyincident
proved byis athe
subject fortuitous
satisfactory
the event or
contract force
evidence
of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: majeure,
can legally hold the bus company liable. other
carriage than the self-serving
of cargo to the Warsaw declaration
Convention. of
Marites can not legally hold the bus 3 act or omission of the shipper or
What will you advise her? one
May party,
the the contract
allegation ofshould
LG be enforced
Airlines be
company liable. There is no showing that owner of the goods,
as it is the only
sustained? Explain.reasonable basis to arrive at
any such incident previously happened so as
a just 4award.the The character
passenger of the or goods
shipper or is
to impose an obligation on part of the defects in the packing or in the
bound by the terms of the passenger ticket
personnel of the bus company to warn the Common Carrier
or the containers,
waybill. and v Rapadas 209 s 67)
(Panama
passengers and to take the necessary (1996)
Define5a common ordercarrier?
or act of competent public
precaution. Such hurling of a stone SUGGESTED ANSWER:
authority, without the common carrier
constitutes fortuitous event in this case. The A common beingcarrier
guilty of iseven
a person,
simplecorporation,
negligence
Common Carrier; is
Defenses;
not an Limitation
insurer. of Liabilityv CA firm or(Article
association
bus company
(1998)
X took a plane from Manila
(Pilapil
bound for Davao 1734, NCC). in the business
engaged
180 s 346) of carrying or transporting passengers or
via Cebu where there was a change of goods or both, by land, water or air for
planes. X arrived in Davao safely but to his compensation, offering its services to the
dismay, his two suitcases were left behind in public (Art 1732, Civil Code)
Cebu. The airline company assured X that Common Carrier; Breach of Contract; Damages
the suitcases would come in the next flight (2003)
Vivian Martin was booked by PAL, which
but they never did. X claimed P2,000 for the acted as a ticketing agent of Far East
loss of both suitcases, but the airline was Airlines, for a round trip flight on the
willing to pay only P500 because the airline latter’s aircraft, from Manila-Hongkong-
ticket stipulated that unless a higher value Manila. The ticket was cut by an employee
was declared, any claim for loss cannot p.m.
of PAL.on The05 January 2002 aboard
ticket showed Far East’s
that Vivian was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Flight F007. Vivian arrived at the Ninoy
exceed P250 for each piece of luggage. X scheduled to leave Manila at 5:30
reasoned out that he did not sign the Aquino International Airport an hour before
stipulation and in fact had not even read it. the time scheduled in her ticket, but was
told that Far East’s Flight F007 had left at
12:10 p.m. It
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 96 of 103 On one occasion, Reynaldo
person
sardineswho wantsand kidnapped
to ride thethe samedriver and his contracted AM to transport for a fee, 100
to signal
hishelper,
intention releasing
to board. them
A publicin Cebu bus,only 2 sacks of rice from Manila to Tarlac.
utilityCity
once
daysit stops,
later. is in effect making a However, AM failed to deliver the cargo,
Pedro Rabor
continuous offersought
to bus to recover
riders. from
It is the duty because its truck was hijacked when the
Alejandrocarriers
of common the value of the sardines.
of passengers The
to stop driver stopped in Bulacan to visit his
latter
their contends that
conveyances for ahe is not liable
reasonable length of a)
girlfriend. May Reynaldo hold AM liable as a
therefore
time in orderbecauseto affordhe is not a common
passengers an carrier?
common
carrier under
opportunity to boardthe Civil Code and,
and enter, even are
and they b) May AM set up the hijacking as a
granting
liable for the
for injuries sake of by
suffered argument
boarding that he is, defeat
defense to Reynaldo’s claim?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
he is not resulting
passengers liable for from the occurrence
the suddenof the
loss as a) Reynaldo may hold AM Trucking liable as
starting upit orwas due toofatheir
jerking cause beyond his
conveyances
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
control. If you were a common carrier. The facts that AM
while
If I they
were are the doing
Judge, so.theI
judge, would
Santiago,
would
you
by Alejandro
hold
(Dangwa
sustainand Trans Co v CAon95582
thestanding
contention of Oct 7,91of the
Alejandro? Trucking operates only two trucks for hire
stepping
as having engaged as the
a platform
common carrier. A
202s574) on a selective basis, caters only to a few
bus, is already
person who considered hisaBaggages;
passenger andcarry
Common Carrier; Dutyoffers
to Examine services to customers, does not make regular or
is entitled
passengers to all the rights and protection
Railway and Airlineor goods
(1992) for a fee is a common scheduled trips, and does not have a
pertaining
carrier to a contractof of carriage. he has a the law does not distinguishare between
Marino wasregardless
a passenger onwhether a train. Another •certificate of public convenience of no
certificate
passenger, of public
Juancho, had takenconvenience
a gallon of or not, one whose
moment as principal business activity is the
whether
gasoline placedit is inhisa main
plastic business
bag intoorthe incidental carrying of persons or goods or both and
to such
same coachbusiness,
where Marino whether wasitriding.
is scheduled
The or anyone who does such carrying only as an
unscheduled
gasoline ignited service,
and exploded and whether
causing he offers
injury ancillary activity,
his services to the general
to Marino who filed a civil suit for damages public or to a • the law avoids making any distinction
I will however, sustain the contention of between a person or enterprise offering
limited few
against the railway company claiming that
(De Guzman v CA GR 47822
Alejandro that he is not liable for the loss of transportation service on a regular or
27Dec1988)
Juancho should have been subjected to
the goods. A common carrier is not an scheduled basis and one offering such
inspection by its conductor. The railway
insurer of the cargo. If it can be established service on an occasional, episodic or
company disclaimed liability resulting from
that the loss, despite the exercise of unscheduled basis, and
the explosion contending that it was
extraordinary diligence, could not have been • the law refrains from making a
unaware of the contents of the plastic bag
avoided, liability does not ensue against the distinction between a carrier offering its
and invoking the right of Juancho to privacy.
carrier. The hijacking by 3 armed men of the services to the general public and one who
a) Should the railway company be held liable
truck used by Alejandro is one of such cases offers services or solicits business only from
for damages?
Common vs. b) If it were an airline
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(De Guzman vPrivate
CA GR 47822Carrier; Defenses
27Dec1988). (Pedro de Guzmanthe v CA L-47822 Dec 22,88
company
(2002)
Name involved,
two would
(2)
a) No. The railway company is not your answer
characteristics liablebeforwhich a narrow segment of168s612)
the general population
same?
damages. Explain
differentiate briefly.
In overland a commontransportation,carrierthefrom a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
privatecarrier ANSWER: (3%).
carrier.
common is not bound nor empowered b) AM Trucking may not set up the hijacking
Two (2)
to make characteristics
an examination on thethatcontents
differentiate
of a as a defense to defeat Reynaldo’s claim as
common
packages orcarrier from a private
bags, particularly thosecarrier are: the facts given do not indicate that the same
1 A common carrier offers its service to the
handcarried by passengers. was attended by the use of grave or
public;
b) If it were a private
an airline carrier
company, does the
not.common
irresistible threat, violence, or force. It
2
carrier A common
should be made carrier
liable. is In
required
case ofto airobserve would appear that the truck was left
extraordinary
carriers, it is not diligence;
lawful to carry a private carrier is not so
flammable unattended by its driver and was taken
required.
materials in passenger aircrafts, and airline while he was visiting his girlfriend. ( Pedro de
companies may open and investigate Common
Guzman vCarriers;
CA L-47822 Liability for Loss
Dec 22,88 168 scra 612 ).
suspicious packages and cargoes (RA 6235) (1991)
Alejandor Camaling of Alegria, Cebu, is
Common Carrier; Test CommoninCarrier;
engaged buying Duration
copra, of charcoal,
Liability firewood,
(1996)
What is the test for determining whether or (1996)
A bus of GL Transit
and used bottles and in resellingon its way to Davao them in
not one is a common carrier? Cebustopped
City. Heto enable
uses 2 abig passenger
Isuzu trucks to alight.
for theAt
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that moment,
purpose; however, Santiago,
he haswho no had been of
certificate
The test for determining whether or not one waiting
public for a ride, boarded
convenience or franchisethe bus. to do
is a common carrier is whether the person business as a common carrier. Ontothe
However, the bus driver failed notice
return
or entity, for some business purpose and Santiago who was still
trips to Alegria, he loads his trucks standing on thewith
bus
with general or limited clientele, offers the platform, and stepped on
various merchandise of other merchants in the accelerator.
service of carrying or transporting Because
Alegria and ofthethe sudden motion,
neighboring Santiago of
municipalities
passengers or goods or both for slipped
Badian and fell
andANSWER: down suffering
Ginatilan. He charges serious them
Common Carriers; Defenses SUGGESTED
compensation. injuries.
freight ratesMay Santiago
much lower holdthanGL Transit
the liable
regular
(1996)
1) AM Trucking, a small company, operates Santiago may hold GL Transit liable for
for
rates. breach
In one of contract
of the return of carriage?
trips,Itwhich Explain.
left
two trucks for hire on selective basis. It breach of contract of carriage. was the
caters only to a few customers, and its CebudutyCity
of at
the 8:30
driver, p.m.
when 1 hecargo
stopped truckthe was
bus,
trucks do not make regular or scheduled loaded
to do with
no several
act that boxes
would of
have sardines,
the valued
effect of
trips. It does not even have a certificate of at P100th,
increasing belonging
the periltotoone of his customers,
a passenger such as
public convenience. Pedro Rabor. While passing
Santiago while he was attempting the zigzag road
to board
between Carcar and Barili, Cebu,
the same. When a bus is not in motion there which is
midway between
is no necessity for aCebu City and Alegria, the
truck was hijacked by 3 armed men who took
all the boxes of
Mercantile
Mercantile
LawLaw
Bar Bar
Examination
Examination
Q &QA&
(1990-2006)
A (1990-2006) Page 98 97
Page of 103of 103 “received
policy and forPage 99 of 103
shipment”
therefore void
and and
seemingly inadequate despite its efforts of Trusts
contained
inexistent. Receipt
an entry Law
(Art. 1409[1],
indicating Civil
transshipment
Code)
Trust Receipts
improving the same. Law; Pasok LiabilityTransportation,
for estafa (2003)
in Hongkong.
PB & Co., Inc., The President
a manufacturer of JRT of steel and
(1991)
Mr.
Inc., Noble,
now applies as forthe the President
issuance ofto ABCit byTrading
the personally
steel products,received and signed thecertain
imported bill of raw
IncTransportation
Land executed a trust receipt inand
Franchising favor of BPI lading Kabit
materials
andSystem; forAgent
despite usethe byofentries,
itthein Registered
thehemanufacture Owner
delivered of
Bank toBoard
Regulatory secure of a the importation
certificate of public by his the(2005) Procopio
corresponding
its products. purchased
The check inanpayment
importation Isuzu was ofpassenger
the
effected
company of
convenience forcertain
the same goods. After release and freight.
Manila-Tarlac- jeepney
through from
Theashipment
trust receiptEnteng,
was arrangement a holder
delivered at the withof ABa
sale route.
Manila of theCould imported Bayangoods, Bus Lines, the Inc.,
proceeds port certificate
of discharge
Banking of but
corporation. public theWhen convenience
buyer itrefused
appliedto for the
for the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: operation of public utility vehicle
fromthe
invoke the“prior
sale operator”
were not rules turned over to BPI. accept
against issuancethe anahaw by AB fans Banking because thereplying
Corporation was ofthe a
(per Dondee)
SUGGESTED No,be Bayan
ANSWER: Bus Lines, Inc., Calamba-Los Baños
Would
Pasok BPI
Transportation, justified
Inc.? in Why? filing(6%) a case for no letter on-board bill of
of credit, PB & route.
lading, Co.,andInc., While
there did was Procopio
not make
BPI
cannot would
invoke be Noble?
the justified
“prior operator” in filingrules a case for continued offering
estafa against transshipment
any representation since the tothe thejeepney
goods bankwere that forit would
public
estafaPasok
against under PD 115 againstInc.
Transportation, Noble.because The fact transport services, he did
transferred
be sellinginwhat Hongkong it had from
imported.MVnot Ithave
Pacific,failedthe to
that
such the trust
“Prior or OldreceiptOperator wasRule” issued in favor
under the of registration ofWhen
theMV vehicle transferred
thepay
feederthe vessel,
bank. to demand
Oriental, was made in
a mother uponhis
a bank,
Public Service instead
Act only of applies
a seller,asto secureofthe
a policy name. Neither did he secure for to himself
vessel.
it to JRT argued
account for thatthe the same cannot
importation, bereturna
theimportation
law of the Public of theService goods Commission
did not preclude to certificate ofor public convenience for its
considered
the articles,transshipment to turn-over because the both proceeds of
thea application
issue certificate ofofpublic the Trust
convenience Receipt to Law.
a operation. Thus, per thebank, records of Co.,
the Land
vessels
the sale belong thereofto the to same
the shipping PB & Inc.,
(PD operator
second 115) Under whenthe priorlaw, any officer
operator is or Transportation Franchising andPBRegulatory
company.
also failed. 1) WasThe there bank
transshipment?
sued & Co.’s
employee
rendering of a corporation
sufficient, adequate and responsible for Board, Enteng remained its registered
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Explain
President 2) JRT who further
was the argued that assuming
signatory of theowner trust
the violation
satisfactory service, of a and trust who receipt
in all is subject to
things and operator. One day,
The filing of a case for estafa under the that receipt
there was
for estafa.
transshipment, The while itthe
President cannotjeepney
putbe up wasthe
andthe penal liability
respects is complying thereunder
with the(Sia rulev andPeople traveling southbound, it collided with a ten-
penal provisions of the RPC would not be deemed
defense to have
that agreed
he could thereto not even
be if
made it liable
166s655)
regulation of the Commission. In the facts of wheeler truck owned by Emmanuel. The
justified. It has been held in Sia v People signed
because
Procopiothe bill there
sued of lading
was
Emmanuel nocontaining
deceit resulting
for damages, such in but the
the case at bar, Bayan Bus Lines service driver of the truck admitted responsibility
(161 s 655) that corporate officers and entry because
violation
SUGGESTED
the latterANSWER: ofit was
the made
trust
moved to dismiss the case on theknown
receipt. to theHe also
became seemingly inadequate despite its for
directors are not criminally liable for a shipping No, the
submitted
SUGGESTED
ground lines
the accident,
ANSWER: that
from
defenses
that there
Procopio the explaining
are start
was
is not
not that
nothe that the oftruck
violation
sustainable.
real partyThe the
in
efforts of improving the same. Hence, in the lost its brakes.
Registered
violation Owner; of Conclusive
said Code. Presumption2 conditions are transshipment trust
1) Yes.
lack
interest receipt
Transshipment
of was
deceit
since because
he prohibited
is is
should
not the
the
the raw
act
notunderof be
registered the
materials
taking were
sustained
owner
interest of providing efficient public
(1990)
Johnny ownsbefore
required a Saraoa jeepney. corporate Heofficer
asked his may be letter not
cargo
of of
sold
out
because
the credit but
oftheone
jeepney. andused
ship
mere that,
Resolveby
and
failuretherefore,
the thecorporation
loadingtomotion ititinhad
account with no
in the
for the
transport
1 Van services,
There the
must use be ofa the 'priorprovision of intention
specific
neighbor
criminally if he could
liable for anoperate
offense the said
committed manufacture
by another. It
importation,
SUGGESTED
reasons. (3%)tois allow oftransshipment
immaterial
ANSWER: or its products.
whether
return of
or
the the
Would
not the those
articles
operator' and the 'priority of filing' rules
the law
jeepney mandating
under
corporation; Van’sviz: a corporation
certificate to act or not to subject
of public sameTheperson,
defenses motion
cargo.
constitutes befirm,
Is
theto ordismiss
sustainable?
the argument
abuse entity ofWhy?should
owns tenable?
(6%)
the
confidence be
twodenied
in the
shall isact;
untenable n this case.
andVan agreed and, accordingly, because
convenience. Reason.
vessels.
crime of Procopio,
(Magellan estafa. v CA as201
The thefacts real
102)that ownerthe of the
goods
Johnny2registered Therehis must be anunder
jeepney explicit Van statement in 2) No. JRTsold
jeepney,
aren’t is isbound
but the byreal
are the terms
used party
in the of manufacture
the bill
in interest.
name. the law itself
On June that, in
10, 1990, one caseof theof such violation by of lading
of its when
Procopio it accepted
falls
products under
is immaterial the
thebillKabit of because
lading system. a
a corporation,
passenger jeepneys operated the officers by Vanand bumped
directors with full
However, knowledge
the legal of its contents
restriction
violation of the trust receipts law happened as which
regards the
Tomas.thereof
Tomas are wastoinjuredbe personally
and in due andtime,criminally included when transshipment
Kabit system
it failed does to account in Hongkong.
not apply
for the in this
goods caseor
he filedliable therefore.
a complaint for damages against Van Acceptance
because under
the publicUsury Law
such
return them to the Bank upon demand. atcircumstances
large is not deceived
and his driver for the injuries he suffered. makes
nor the bill of (Lim
involved. ladingv.aCourt binding of contract.
Appeals, G.R.
Usury Law
The court rendered judgment in favor of
These conditions are not met in the penal
(Magellan
No.
(199)
Borrower
In
Trust Receipts Law
any event,
v Ca 201January
125817, obtained
s 102) 16, 2002, citing
Procoprio a loan isofdeemed from toa be money
Tomas and ordered Van and his driver, jointly Baliwag Transit v. Court Appeals, G.R."theNo.
provisions of the RPC on trust receipts. lending
agent" enterprise
of the for
registered which owner. (Firsta
he issued
and severally, to pay Tomas actual and moral 57493,
Trust Receipts January
Law; Acts7, & 1987)
Omissions; Covered
The Sheriff levied on the jeepney belonging promissory
Malayan Leasing note undertaking
v. Court of Appeals, to pay atG.R. the
damages,
Trust attorney’s
Receipts Law; fees, andfor
Liability costs.
Estafa (2006)
Whatend acts
of a or omissions
period of 30 are
days penalized
the principal plus
to Johnny but registered in the name of Van. No. 91378, June 9,1992; and "F" Transit Co.,
(1997)
A buys
Johnny filedgoods
a 3rdfrom party a foreign
claim with the using his under
supplier Inc. the
interest
SUGGESTED
Trust
at the Receipts
v. NLRC, rate 5.5%Law?
ANSWER:G.R. Nos, 88195-96, January
per month (2.5%) plus 2%
credit
Sheriff line with
alleging a bank of
ownership tothe payjeepney
for the goods. per annum
Maritime
27, 1994) as
Commerce;service charge.
Bareboat
TheOn Trust Receipts Lawloan, (P.D. borrower
No. 115) failed to
Upon
levied uponarrival
and of the goods
stating that the at the pier, the
jeepney wasbank declares For maturity
(2003) thethe
of the
transportation
failure to turn of
over its goods
cargoor from the
requiresinAthe
registered to name
sign aoftrust receipt to
Van merely before A is pay
Port theManila
of principal to the debt Port as ofwell Kobe, as Japan,
the
proceeds
stipulated realized from sale
interest and thereof,
service as acharge.
allowed to take
enable Johnny to make use of Van’s delivery of the goods. The Osawaoffense & Co.,under chartered “bareboat” M/V Ilog
Kabit System criminal
Hence,1 he How would
wasCorporation.
sued. Art. you 315(l)(b)
dispose of
ofmetthe a sea
trust receipt
certificate of public contains
convenience.the usual May language.
the A of Karagatan M/V Ilog
(2005)
Discuss thethe “kabit system” in land Revised Penalraised
issues Code.by The law is violated
SUGGESTED
disposes
Sheriff
ANSWER:
proceed of withgoods the publicand receives
auction ofpayment whenever accident theresulting
entrustee inthe the borrower?
loss of to
or person the cargo and
whom
transportation
Yes, the
but doesSheriff may
not pay and its
proceed legal
the bank. with consequences.
the
The bank files a 2
thereceipts
death ofwere That some the stipulated
of thefails seamen interest
manning rate the
Johnny’s
SUGGESTED jeepney.
ANSWER: Discuss with reasons. trust issued to: (a) return
(2%)
auction
criminalsale of Johnny’s jeepney. In is excessive and unconscionable? (3%)
The kabitaction
contemplation system
of law
against
isasan A for violation
arrangement
regards thethat publicwhere of the
a vessel.
(Metropolitan
theSUGGESTED
goods Who
3thecovered
Bank should
Is the
ANSWER:
v.byTonda,
the
interest
bear trusttheNo.
G.R. loss
ratereceipts;
of the
134436,
usurious?
cargo
orAugust
Trust Receipts Law. A asserts the trust 16, and
2000). death of the seamen? Why? (4%)
andperson grantedtheavehicle
third persons,
receipt is only to secure
certificate
is considered
his
of public
debttoand
(b)(per
that a Is lack
return the proceeds
Dondee)
(3%) Osawa of and theCo. saleshall of said bear the
convenience allows other persons operate goods of intent to defraud a bar to the
thecriminal
propertyaction of thecannot registered operator
lie against him because loss because under a demise or bareboat
theirv motor vehicles prosecution of these acts or omissions?
Trans-Shipment;
SUGGESTED
(Santos
that Sibug
would
Bill
ANSWER:
104
be
of S 520)under
Lading;
violative
binding his
of his
license,
contract for a
constitutional charter,ANSWER:
SUGGESTED the charterer (Osawa & Co.) mans
JRTNo.
IncViolation
fee
(1993) or percentage
entered of a atrust
into receipt
of their
contract is C
earnings
with criminal of as
Co(Lim v. (2.5%)
right against “imprisonment for nonpayment No. the
The vessel
Trust with
Receiptshis own Lawpeople is violated and becomes,
it istopunished
Court
Japan of Appeals
export as and
anahaw estafa fans under
Gonzalez, valued Artat
G.R, 315125817,
No. of the in
whenever effect, the the owner
entrustee for failsthe voyage
to: (1) turnor service
of
RPC.a debt.”
There Isishe correct?
a public policy involved
January
$23,000. As16,payment
2002, citing Baliwag
thereof, Trannit
a letter of v.which
Court
overstipulated,
the proceeds subject of the tosale liability
of thefor goods,damages
is to
of
credit assure
Appeals,
was issued theNo.
G.R. toentruster
57493,
JRT by the thebuyer.
January The The
reimbursement
7, 1987) caused by negligence.
or (2) return the goods covered by the trust
lawof
of
letter theenjoining
amount
credit requiredthe kabit
advancedthe issuance system
or the ofaims
balance
an to Prior ifOperator
receipts the goodsRule are not sold. The mere
identify
thereof the
for the person
goods
on-board bill of lading and prohibited the responsible
subject of for
the an
trust (2003)
Bayan
failure to account Bus Lines or return hadgives been rise to operating
the
accident
receipt.
transshipment. Thein order
execution
The to
President of protect
the of trust
JRT the
receipt
then ridingor satisfactorily
crime which is a
malum bus service
prohibitum. over There the isroute
The law does not penalize the parties to a
public.
the use
contracted The
thereof policy
a shipping But promoteshas
agent nothe force
to ship smooth when flow theof Manila to Tarlac and vice versa via the
kabit agreement. the kabitthe system is no requirement to prove intent to defraud
public
commerce
anahaw at large
as
fanstothrough it helpsis neither
the importer deceived or nor
buyer McArthur Highway. With the upgrading of
contrary public O Containers Lines, (Ching v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317,
involved.
of the goods covered thereby.
specifying the requirements of the letter of the new North Expressway,
February 6, 2006; Colinares v. Court of Appeals, Bayan Bus Lines
credit. However, the bill of lading issued by G.R.service
No. 90828, became September 5, 2000; Ong v. Court
the shipping lines bore the notation of Appeals, G.R. No. 119858, April 29, 2003).
Mercantile Law Bar Examination Q & A (1990-2006)
b. The interest cannot be considered
usurious. The Usury Law has been
suspended in its application, and the
interest rates are made “floating.”

Warehouse Receipts Law

Bill of Lading
(1998)
1. What do you understand by a “bill of
2. Explain
lading?” the two-fold character of a “bill of
(2%)
lading.” (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A bill of lading may be defined as a written
acknowledgement of the receipt of goods and
an agreement to transport and to deliver them
at a specified place to a person named therein
or on his order.
2. A bill of lading has a two-fold character,
namely, a) it is a receipt of the goods to be
transported; and b) it constitutes a contract of
carriage of the goods.
Delivery of Goods; Requisites
(1998)
Luzon Warehousing Co received from Pedro
200 cavans of rice for deposit in its
warehouse for which a negotiable receipt
was issued. While the goods were stored in
said warehouse, Cicero obtained a judgment
against Pedro for the recover of a sum of
money. The sheriff proceeded to levy upon
the goods on a writ of execution and
directed the warehouseman to deliver the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
goods. Is the warehouseman under
No. There was a valid negotiable receipt as
obligation to comply with the sheriffs order?
there was a valid delivery of 200 cavans of
(5%)
rice for deposit. In such case, the
warehouseman (LWC) is not obliged to
deliver the 200 cavans of rice deposited to
any person, except to the one who can
1
comply surrender
with sec 8 theof
receipt
the ofWarehouse
which he is a
holder;
Receipts Law, namely:
2 willing to sign a receipt for the
delivery of the goods; and
3 pays the warehouseman’s liens that is,
his fees and advances, if any.
The sheriff cannot comply with these
requisites especially the first, as he is not
the holder of the receipt.
Delivery of the Goods
(1991)
When is a warehouseman bound to deliver
the goods, upon a demand made either by Recommendation: Since the subject matter
the holder of a receipt for the goods or by of these two (2) questions is not included
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the depositor? within the scope of the Bar Questions in
The warehouseman is bound to deliver the Mercantile Law, it is suggested that
goods upon demand made either by the whatever answer is given by the examinee,
holder of the receipt for the goods or by the or the lack of answer should be given full
SUGGESTED
credit.ANSWER:
If the examinee gives a good answer,
depositor if the demand is accompanied by
1 an offer to satisfy the warehouseman’s a. The rate of
he should beinterest of 5.5%credit.
given additional per month is
lien, excessive and unconscionable.
2 an offer to surrender the receipt, if
negotiable, with such indorsements as would be
necessary for the negotiation thereof,
 Page 100 of 103
3. and readiness and willingness to sign
when the goods are delivered if so requested
by the warehouseman (Sec 8 Warehouse
Receipts Law).
Garnishment or Attachment of Goods
(1999)
A Warehouse Company received for
safekeeping 1000 bags of rice from a
merchant. To evidence the transaction, the
Warehouse Company issued a receipt
expressly providing that the goods be
delivered to the order of said merchant. A
month after, a creditor obtained judgment
against the said merchant for a sum of
money. The sheriff proceeded to levy on the
rice and directed the Warehouse Company to
1
deliver What
to himadvice will you give
the deposited rice.the
Warehouse Company? Explain (2%)
2 Assuming that a week prior to the
levy, the receipt was sold to a rice mill on
the basis of which it filed a claim with the
sheriff. Would the rice mill have better
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rights to the rice than the creditor? Explain
1 The 1000
your answer. (2%)bags of rice were delivered
to the Warehouse Company by a merchant,
and a negotiable receipt was issued therefor.
The rice cannot thereafter, while in the
possession of the Warehouse Company, be
attached by garnishment or otherwise, or be
levied upon under an execution unless the
receipt be first surrendered to the
warehouseman, or its negotiation enjoined.
The Warehouse Company cannot be
compelled to deliver the actual possession of
the rice until the receipt is surrendered to it
or impounded by the court.
2 Yes. The rice mill, as a holder for
value of the receipt, has a better right to the
rice than the creditor. It is the rice mill that
can surrender the receipt which is in its
possession and can comply with the other
requirements which will oblige the
warehouseman to deliver the rice, namely, to
sign a receipt for the delivery of the rice, and
to pay the warehouseman’s liens and fees
and other charges.
 Mercantile Q
Mercantile Law Bar Examination Law
& ABar Examination Q & A (1990-2006)Page
(1990-2006) 101 of Page
103 103 102 of 103
SN Warehouse
equal protection canof file
law an clause
this additional
There was noduty, misdelivery
the current by low theprice carrier of 2. of
INTERPLEADER
The the Chief
Constitution. Justice to Fourth,
compel
also said EJ
thereand isMelchor
that no the
since the
sugar in the cargo world wasmarketconsidered will surelyconsigned pull to to litigate
impairment
judiciary must against
of"safeguard
dueeach process other
the herefor because
the and
liberty"
the domestic Miscellaneous
Sugar central priceper to levels
the “Shipper’s
lower than Order”
the ownership
violators
"nurture theofof the the law goods.
prosperity" will be Sec.
ofpunished
17
ourof people.
theonly
(Eastern
cost to producer
Shipping domestic
Lines v CA sugar 190– sa 512) Warehouse
after
Explain "proper
this Receipts
trial." Fifth,
philosophy. Law
Cite states,
the issue
Decisions "If of
more
of"just
the
ALTERNATIVE
situation that ANSWER: could spell the demise of the than one
compensation"
Supreme Courtperson does
claims
implementing notthe arise,title
each because
orof these the
Energy
There Regulatory
was Commission:
misdelivery. Jurisdiction
ThetheB/L &was ofa SUGGESTED
possession
property ANSWER:
ofofof
Mrs. theBC goods,is not the beingwarehouse
Phil sugar industry. a) Discuss validity twin beacons the Chief Justice. (2.5%) may,
Power (2004)
negotiable document of title because it was Theexpropriated.
ChiefasJustice's
either a defense On philosophy
the tocontrary,
an action "Safeguarding
asbrought
a citizen of
this proposal to impose an additional levy on
CG,to acustomer,
the “Shipper’s sued MERALCO
Order.” Hence, in the
the MM
common Liberty,
against
LVM, Nurturing
Mrs.himBC Prosperity"
forisnon-delivery
freely allowed ofembodies
the goodsthe
to engage or
in
imported sugar (3%) b) Would the proposal
Regional
carrier Trial
should Court have to disclose the basis of to Supreme Court's approach in decision-making
be consistent with thedelivered
tenets of the the cargo
World as an original
domestic timber suit,tradewhichever
in LVM.is appropriate,
thethe computation
Central only of uponthe purchased
surrender of power
the B/L. in Tariff
the exercise
require and Customs
all known ofCode:
itsclaimants
constitutional
Violation oftoCustoms power of
interplead."
Trade Organization (WTO)? (3%)
adjustment
The non-surrender (PPA). Theoftrial
Recommendation: the Sincecourt
B/L will theruled make it it
subject judicial
Unpaid(2004)
Laws review
Seller; which of provides:
Negotiation the Receipt In cases
hadliable
no jurisdiction
tomatter
holders of over
these
in due the
two case because, isasnot
(2) questions
course. (1993)
involving
A purchased
The liberty,
Collector ofthe
from Sscales
Customs150 cavans of justice
ordered of the should
palay on
Ownership
contended byof the
included Goods
within
defendant,Stored
the scope the customer of the Bar weight
credit.
seizure heavily
Aand deposited against
forfeiture theof government
palay
new in W’s and in
electronic
(1992)
To guarantee
Questions
not only demanded a breakdown the payment
in Mercantile of a loan Law, obtained
it
of is favor of theshipped
warehouse.
appliances W poor,
issued bythe
toTONA aoppressed,
negotiable
Corp. from the
from a suggested
MERALCO's bank, billRaul pledged
that
with whatever
respect 500to bales
answer PPAof isbut
given marginalized,
warehouse for
Hongkong theviolation
receipt dispossessed
in the ofname
customsand of the
A.
laws weak;
tobaccobydeposited
questioned asthe wellexaminee,
theinimposition or the lack
a warehouse of the toofsaid
answer
PPA, andbecausethat they
Thereafter, laws andfalsely
A negotiated
were action the that as
receipt
declared restrict
toused
B who
should be given full credit.
bank and
a matter toendorsed
be decided in blank by the BoardIf ofthe
the warehouse fundamental
purchased
office equipment rights
the said come
and receiptto the
then for court
value "with
undervalued andfor ina
receipt. examinee gives a good answer, he loan,
should
Energy,
SUGGESTED theBefore
regulatory
ANSWER: Raul couldagency pay for the
which should heavy
good faith.presumption
1) Who has
purposes of customs duties. TON filed a a against
better right to their
the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the be
tobacco given additional
disappeared credit.
from the suit. Is
alsoa) The
have proposal
jurisdiction to over
impose the an additional
instant duty constitutional
deposit, S, before
complaint validity.
the theOn
unpaid theRegional
vendor
MM other or b, hand,Trialas a
the
Thewarehouse.
trial court's Who rulingshould is correct. As held in
the ontrialimportedcourt's sugarruling on bear top the
correct of the loss
or –not?
the
current general
purchaser
Court rule, the
of the
for replevin, Supreme
receipt
alleging Court
for that
valuemusttheand adoptin a
Customs
Manila Electric
SUGGESTED
pledgor ANSWER:
or the Company
bank?not v.
Why? Court of Appeals,
tariff briefly.
Reason rate is valid, being prohibited by
The pledgor
271SCRA 417 (5%) should the
(1997), bear Boardthe loss. of Energy In the deferential
good faith?
officials
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
orWhy?
erred respectful
in the2) When attitude
can the and
classification towards
the Constitution. It would enable producers actions taken by
warehouseman
valuation the governmental
be obliged towelldeliver agencies
the
hadpledge
the power of ato regulate warehouse
to realize reasonable profits, and would
and receiptfix power the 1) B has aof its shipment,
better right than as S. Theasright in theof
ownership
rates to be charged of theby goods franchised remain electric with thatpalay have
issuance to A? primary
of the warrant responsibility
of seizure. for the
The
allow the sugar industry of the country to the unpaid seller, S, to the goods was
depositor economic
Collector development
moved to dismissof the the country;
suit for and
lack
utilities
b) No.like
survive. Theor his transferee.
MERALCO.
proposal In fact
would notAny becontract
pursuant consistent toor Decisions
only
defeatedimplementing
SUGGESTED
when
by
ANSWER:
an
the act
act has
of Athe
been
"safeguarding
in endorsing
clearly made
the
real
with the tenets of the WTO which call not
Executive security,
Order among
No. them
478 a
(April pledge, 17, does
1998), for
of jurisdiction
of receipt
The
liberty"
Collector's
to B. include on the
motion part
those shouldof the
involving trial
be granted. theor
court.
thisamount to hasor result executed
Should with
the grave
Collector's abuse of
motion discretion
be granted doesor
thepowerliberalization been ofintrade.
an assumption
transferred However, to ofthe risk
such 2) The Section
Under
constitutionality
the Court
denied?
warehouseman
get
Reasoninvolved
602(g)ofof
briefly.in
can the
policy
(5%)
beTariff
obliged andto
Presidential
issues.
of
Energy loss
proposal by
Regulatorymay thebe creditor.
Board (now
acceptable Thethe Warehouse
Energy
within the deliver the
Proclamation
Customs palay
Code, No. the to Bureau
1017 A if (David
B negotiates
of Customs
v. Arroyo, backhas
Receipts
Regulatory
allowable Law did notunder
Commission).
period deviate Under from WTO
the this rule.
Section for G.R.the receipt
exclusive
No. 171390, to A.May
original Injurisdiction
that case, A
3, 2006); over
thebecomes
seizure
validity a
Right
43(u) to the
of the Electric Goods Power Industry Reform holder
of and
Calibrated NOTE:
again
forfeiture (This
of the
Pre-emptive question
receipt,
cases under is outside
and
Response A can
the tariff (CPR) the
and coverage of
adjustment of the local industry
Act(2005)
Jojoofdeposited
Power of 2001, the State:several
the cartons
Energy
Regulating ofofDomestic
goods
Regulatory with SN
Trade comply
andcustoms
B.P. Big. Bar
the
with Examinations.
laws.
880 Sec or8the of the ItWarehouse
Public is therefore
AssemblyrecommendedAct
Warehouse Corporation. The corresponding Validity whatever
that answer made by the candidate should
Commission
(2004)
In its exercise has of original
police power and and exclusive
business Receipts
(Bayan v.ofErmita,
stipulations
given
Law. G.R.
full
excusing
credit.)
No. 169848,warehouseman April 25,
Fourwarehouse
ACID Problems receipt of wasPhilippine Judiciary be
jurisdiction
regulation, over casesissued
thealllegislature contesting to the order of
of LVM powerState from negligence
2006); and the (2000) legality of Executive Order
(2006)
In several
Jojo. Hepolicy endorsed addresses
the warehouse extensively receipt to EJ
rates.
passed a law prohibiting aliens from No.S stored
464 and hardware materials inexercise
the President's the bonded of
covered
who paid by media the valuesince his of the appointment
goods deposited. on On the other hand, cases
engaging in domestic timber trade. Violators warehouse
Executive of W,
Privilege a (Senate relate
licensed that
warehousemanof theto
Before EJ
December 21,could
2005,withdraw
Chief Justice the goods,Artemio Melchor
V. "nurturing
under the the
General prosperity"
Bonded of the
Warehouse peopleLaw
including dummies would, after proper trial, Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April
informed vowed
Panganiban SN Warehouse
to leave a Corporation
judiciary that the include the question the constitutionality of
be
goods fined and imprisoned
belonged to him and orwere deported.
takeninbyMrs. Jojo
20,(Act
2006). 3893 as amended). W issued the
characterized by "four Ins" and to focus thecorresponding
Mining Law (La Bugal-B'Laan
warehouse receipt v. in
Ramos,
the form
BC,
without a citizen of LVM but married to ZC, an
solving thehis "four consent.
ACID"Melchor problems wants
that to get the G.R.heNo. 127882,uses
ordinarily Dec. for 1,such
2004) and theinWTO
purpose the
alien
goods,the merchant
but EJhasalsoa wantsof PNG, to withdrawfiled suit to
•
corrode Who administration better right
of to the
justice inthe our same.
goods? Government
course ofDeregulation
Agreement (Tanada
his business. vs. All
v. Angara, Privatization
theG.R. of an
118295,
essential terms
invalidate
SUGGESTED
Why? ANSWER: the law
(5%) Explain this "four Ins" and "four
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or exempt from its Industry (2004) under Section 2 of the Warehouse
country.
She contended that office,
the law is, inter alia, May 2,1997).
required
Uponcoverage
EJ has assuming
a their
better timber
his rightbusiness.
to the Chief goods, Justice
being What is the Law difference between government
ACID"
gravelyproblems. oppressive and discriminatory. It Receipts (Act 2137 as amended) are
Panganiban
covered byvowed a negotiable to lead document a judiciary of title, Negotiable
deregulation Documents
and the of Title
privatization of an
violated
characterized the Universal
by the "four DeclarationIns:"issued of Human
Integrity, embodied in the form. In addition, the
namely the warehouse receipts to the (1992)
SUGGESTED
Forreceipt
a cargo
industry? ANSWER:
Explain of to machinery
briefly. (2%) shipped from
issued S contains a stipulation
Rights (UDHR)
Independence,
"order of Jojo."
passed in 1948
Industry
Underand the Intelligence;
by the United
Sales provisions one of Government
abroad to deregulation
anot sugar central is theinfor relaxation that
Dumaguete, or
thatNations,
is morally of which
courageous LVM istoa resist member, she said,
influence, W would
removal Oriental,
of regulatory be responsible
constraints the loss
on firms oforall
the Civil Code on negotiable documents of Negros the Bill of Lading (B/L)
or any portion of the hardware
as well as indifference
interference, the reciprocity provisions
title, and under the and insolence.
provisions
of the
of He the individuals,
stipulated “to with
shipper’s a order,”
view with to materials
promoting
notice of
World Trade
envisions a judiciary Organization
that isLaw, (WTO) Agreement
impervious covered by the receipt even if such loss is
Warehouse Receipts when to goods the competition
arrival to be and market-oriented
addressed to the approaches
Central. The
of
plague 1994, of which PNG and LVM are parties. causedpricing, by the negligenceentry, of W or his other
deposited with the bailee are covered by a
of undue influence brought about toward
cargo arrived at output, destinationS and
itsemployees. and was
Aside from
kinship, denying them
relationship, equal protection, representatives or endorsed
negotiable document friendship of title, and the related
released economic
to the decisions.
Central without surrender of
according
fellowship. to
He calls BC, the law will also deprive and negotiated
Privatization ofthe antheindustry
warehouse refersreceipt to to theB,
endorsement andon the judiciary
delivery of the to battle
document thewho B/L on basis of the latter’s
theher "Four family ACID" their livelihood
problems without due
corroding transfer demanded
of ownership delivery andof the goods.
control by W the
transfers ownership of the goods toour the undertaking to hold the carrier free and
process
justice system: nor (1)just compensation. Assuming could
government not deliver
of assets, because
firms the
and goods
operationswere
transferee.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Bylimited operation access to of justice law, by the Subsequently,
SUGGESTED
harmless from
ANSWER:a Bank
anyfound to
liability. whom the central
thethat
poor;
Mrs. the
BC's (2)legal systemis of
corruption;
contention (3) LVM is similar
incompetence; to in
was nowhere
No.
an I do not
industry
indebted, to tobe
agree
private
claimedwith in his
thewarehouse.
the
investors. contention
cargo and HeW.
of
transferee obtains the not direct tenable.obligation First, the of
ours,
andUDHR would Mrs. BC's contention be tenable claims
Political
The he
Law;
stipulation is not
WTO liable
that W because
would of
not the
be free-
the(4) delay
baileedoestonot in
hold the
purport
the
(NOTA
delivery
to
goods limit
BENE: in ofhis
the quality
It right
is of
name." presented the original of the B/L stating
or not? Reason
judgments.
states The briefly.
judicial (5%)
department should thatfrom-liability
(1999)
Government
responsible
the Central plans
forclause
the
had stipulated
to loss
impose of allan
failed toorinsettle
theportion
additional
any receipt.
its
(Art. (like 1513, LVM) Civilto regulate
Code;
respectfully domestic
Section
suggested 41, trade.
discharge
Second, itsthe functions
WTO with
Agreement transparency, dutyDoon
of you
the
obligations agree
imported
hardware
with the with
sugar W’s
materials
Bank. oncontention?
top of the current
covered Explain.
by the
Warehouse Receipts that Law) all BarSince EJ involves
Candidates is the
•
accountability
internationalIf SN and Warehouse
dignity.
trade between Corporation states is
or Was (5%)
tariff rate.even
receipt
there The ifintent
misdelivery such loss is
by to isensure
the carrierthat
caused bytothe the
the
holder of the warehousereceive receipt,
a 2.5% bonus he hasforthe
uncertain
governments, as not to domestic
who is
the above entitled
trade in to the
timber
question or landed
sugar cost ofconsidering
negligence
central sugar
of W orshall notnon-surrender
his representative
the be lower than or
better right to the goods. SN Warehouse is
property, what is the properof recourse ofisthe P800
SUGGESTED per
employees
of the B/L? bag.
ANSWER:
Why? This The
is void. is the lawprice requires at which
that a
other
obligedcommodities.
SUGGESTED hold theregardless
toANSWER: Third,
goods in his the
nationality
name.answer) an
corporation? Explain.
accepted norm for making classifications that locally
warehouseman should exercise duesold in
produced sugar would be
do not run counter to the order to enable
diligence in thesugar care and producerscustodytoofrealize the
reasonable
things deposited profits. Without in his warehouse.