Mayor Pink is eyeing re-election in the next mayoralty race.

It was common
knowledge in the town that Mayor Pink will run for re-election in the coming
elections. The deadline for filing of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) is on March 23
and the campaign period commences the following day. One month before the
deadline, Pink has yet to file her CoC, but she has been going around town giving
away sacks of rice with the words "Mahal Tayo ni Mayor Pink" printed on them,
holding public gatherings and speaking about how good the town is doing, giving
away pink t-shirts with "Kay Mayor Pink Ako" printed on them. Mr. Green is the
political opponent of Mayor Pink. In April, noticing that Mayor Pink had gained
advantage over him because of her activities before the campaign period, he filed a
petition to disqualify Mayor Pink for engaging in an election campaign outside the
designated period. 1. Which is the correct body to rule on the matter? Comelec en
banc, or Comelec division? Answer with reasons. (2%) 2. Rule on the petition.
(5%) (2012 BAR EXAMS

COMELEC en banc is the correct body to rule on the petition to disqualify

Mayor Pink for engaging in an election campaign outside the designated period.
Under the law, COMELEC en banc has administrative power over the conduct of
elections. This includes the determination of the existence of violations of the
election conduct as prescribed by the law. In the case at bar, the determination of
whether not Mr. Pink violated the election rules by engaging in an election
campaign outside the designated period is within the administrative function of the
COMELEC en banc. Hence, COMELEC en banc is the correct body to rule on the
petition to disqualify Mayor Pink.

The petition should be denied. Under the omnibus election code, to be liable
for premature campaigning, one must be a candidate. In the case at bar, Mayor
Pink has yet to file her certificate of candidacy when she performed acts which
allegedly have constituted premature campaigning. Hence, the petition should be
denied.
 Santorini Corporation (Santorini) was in dire straits. In order to firm
up its financial standing, it agreed to entertain the merger and takeover offer
of Proficient Corporation (Proficient), the leading company in their line of
business. Erica, the major stockholder of Santorini, strongly opposed the
merger and takeover. The matter of the merger and takeover by Proficient
was included in the agenda of the next meeting of Santorini's Board of
Directors. However, owing to Erica's serious illness that required her to seek
urgent medical treatment and care in Singapore, she failed to attend the
meeting and as consequently unable to cast her vote. The Board of Directors
approved the merger and takeover. At the time of the meeting, Santorini had
been in the red for a number of years owing to its recurring business losses
and reverses. Erica seeks your legal advice regarding her right as a stockholde
opposed to the corporate action. Explain your answer. (4%) (2017 BAR)

Erica may exercise her right of appraisal to oppose the corporate

corporation action. Under the corporate law, right of appraisal is the right of
the stockholder to demand the fair value of his shares after dissenting from a
corporate act as provided by law. Merger is one of those. Erica must, however,
attend the stockholder’s meeting or file her written dissent, otherwise she may
not exercise such right.

The partnership has different juridical personality with that of

individual partners. All partners, including industrial partners are liable pro
rata with all their personal assets but only after the partnership property are
exhausted.
Moreover, a lessee, under the New Civil Code, suspend the payment of
rentals if the lessor fails to make necessary repairs or maintain the lessee in a
peaceful and adequate manner.

The claim of Mr. A that he is entitled, as a builder in good faith, to

compel the landowner to sell to him the land is not correct. Under the law,
when both the landowner and builder are in good faith and the value of the
improvement is considerably higher than the value of the land, it is the
landowner who has the right to compel the builder in good faith to buy the
land. In this case, since both the landowner and builder acted in good faith,
Mr. P, as the landowner, has the right to choose whether or not to oblige Mr. A
to buy the land. The latter has no right to compel Mr. P to sell it to him.
Hence, the claim of Mr. A is not correct.

Just causes means that the employee has committed acts or omissions
which are inimical to the interest of the employer which justifies the
termination of the employer-employee relationship. These causes include
serious misconduct, gross insubordination, fraud or loss of trust or confidence,
gross and habitual neglect, commission of crime against the family members
of employer, and other analogous causes. Payment of separation pay is not
mandated by law.

Termination based on authorized causes means that there exist a cause

which is authorized by law to be invoked as ground for termination of the
employment without the employee committing any wrongful act. This includes
installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment, closure not
due to serious business losses, and diseases.

Yes. M, as the secondary beneficiary of X, may file death benefit claims

with SSS. Under the SSS Law, in the absence of primary beneficiaries, the
secondary beneficiaries of the deceased my file death benefit claim with SSS.
In this case, since X died without spouse and or children, M, the mother of X,
may file claim for death benefit.