MERC Abq

S U G GE ST E D
AN SW E R S T O B AR E X AM I N AT I O N Q UE ST I O N S
MERCANTILE LAW
-Arranged by Topic-
Sources:
THE UP LAW COMPLEX (2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010)
THE UP BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE (2012, 2013, 2014)
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2007, 2008)
Edited and Arranged by:
Piadina III
(in collaboration with Panacea, Probatio Viva & Iligan2013-2014 )
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY- COLLEGE OF LAW
DISCLAIMER:
EXCEPT FOR SOME OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE
TOPICS, NO PART OF THIS MATERIAL BELONGS TO
(OR HAS BEEN SUPPLIED PERSONALLY BY) THE
EDITOR AND/OR THE COMPILERS. ALL THE ANSWERS
TO THE BAR QUESTIONS WERE STRICTLY DERIVED
FROM THE SOURCES CITED.
AS THE RE-UPDATING OF THE ORIGINAL BAR Q & A
(ARRANGED BY TOPIC) IS QUITE A TEDIOUS TASK,
THE USER MAY FIND THIS MATERIAL FRAUGHT WITH
MANY TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. ALSO, SOME
QUESTIONS MAY BE IMPROPERLY CLASSIFIED.
THE EDITOR, THEREFORE, SEEKS THE KIND
INDULGENCE OF THE USER.
FURTHER, THE EDITOR IS LIKEWISE NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISAPPLICATION OR ABUSE
OF THIS MATERIAL. NOR DOES THE EDITOR TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE RESULTING FROM
ITS USE OR MISUSE.
FINALLY, WHILE IT IS HOPED THAT THIS MATERIAL
WILL BENEFIT LAW STUDENTS AND BAR REVIEWEES,
USING IT WITHOUT AN EXTENSIVE STUDY AND
MASTERY OF THE SUBJECT MATTER IS HIGHLY
DISCOURAGED. INDEED, THERE CAN NEVER BE ANY
SUBSTITUTE FOR READING THE TEXTBOOKS.
2 of 91
TABLE OF CONTENTS1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Joint Account (2000)...
Joint Account vs. Partnership (2000).
Presumption: Habitually Engaging in Commerce (2009)
10
11
11
LETTERS OF CREDIT
Letters of Credit; Nature (2012)
Letters of Credit; Three Distinct Contract Relationships (2002)
Independence Principle (2010)
Letters of CreditLetters of Credit; Liability of a Notifying Bank (2003)
Letters of Credit; Liabilities of a Confirming and Notifying Bank (2008).
Letters of Credit; Mortgagor as Issuing Bank (2005).
11
11
11
11
11
12
TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

Trust Receipts (2007)..
Trust Receipts; Obligations o an Entrustee (2012)
Trust Receipt; Security for a Loan (2008).
Trust Receipts vs. Simple Loan (2013)..
Trusts Receipts; Defenses Against Criminal Liability (2003)
12
12
13
13
13
WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LAW

Warehousemans Lien; Lost Upon Surrender of Possession Over the Goods (2009)
Warehouseman; Validity of Stipulations Excusing Him from Negligence (2000).
Warehouseman; Obligations; Delivery of Goods (2007) .
Warehouse Receipts; Who Has Right to the Goods (2005)
14
14
14
14
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW

Negotiable Instruments; Kinds of Negotiable Instrument; Words of Negotiability (2002)..
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability (2002) .
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Requisites (2000) ..
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Requirements (2013)
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Promissory Note (2012) ..
Negotiable Instrument: Negotiable Document vs. Negotiable Instrument (2005).
Negotiable Instrument vs. Negotiable Document; Negotiability (2005)
Negotiable Instruments; Illicit/Illegal Consideration (2007) .
Negotiable Instruments; Illicit/Illegal Consideration; Lawful Dishonor (2009).
Negotiable Instruments: Subject to a Term (2009)
Incomplete & Delivered (2004)
15
15
15
16
16
7
17
17
17
18
18
Heavily relied on the Original Compilers: Atty. Janette Laggui-Icao and Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao (2005 Edition Updated by Romualdo
L. Seeris II, LLB. in April 19, 2007; Further re-updated by alias "Dondee the Retaker 2007all of SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
OF LAW; recently re-updated by alias Rollan, Faith Chareen Pet2x D. Salise, Hector Christopher Jay-Arh Jr. M.all of
University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law; The arrangement & most of the categories, however, for Mercantile Law is according to
the 2015 Mercantile Bar Exam Syllabus.
1
3 of 91
Incomplete and Delivered (2005)

Incomplete, Delivered; Doctrine: Comparative Negligence (2008) ..
Incomplete Instruments; Incomplete Delivered Instruments vs. Incomplete Undelivered Instrument (2006).
Incomplete and Undelivered Instruments; Holder in Due Course (2000)
Forgery; Defenses (2004) .
Checks: Crossed Checks (2005)
Checks: Crossed Checks vs. Cancelled Checks (2004) ..
Checks; Liability; Drawee Bank (1995) .
Checks; Presentment (2003) ...
Checks; Validity; Waiver of Banks liability for negligence (1991) ..
Checks; Other Functions/Purposes (2014) .
Checks; Notice of Dishonor (2009)
Promissory Note; Place of Payment (2000) .
Promissory Note; Joint Liability (2001)
Parties; Bearer Instruments; Liabilities of Maker and Indorsers (2001)
Parties; Drawers Liability to the Holder in Due Course (2012) .
Parties; Drawer; Drawee Bank; Liability (2010) ..
Parties; Drawee Bank; Liability; Forgery (2008)
Parties; Drawee Bank; Liability for Forgery (2009) ...
Parties; Accommodation Party (2003) ..
Parties; Holder in Due Course; Indorsement in blank (2002) .
Parties; Accommodation Party; Liability (2014)
Parties; Subsequent Party; Liability (2008) .
Parties; Holder in Due Course; Shelter Princple (2008) .
Parties; Indorser: Irregular Indorser vs. General Indorser (2005) .
Discharge by Novation (2014) .
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
INSURANCE CODE
Perfection of Insurance Contracts (2003) ....
Perfection of Insurance Contracts (2009) .
Bond: Cash Bond vs. Surety Bond (2004) ...
Beneficiary: Effects: Irrevocable Beneficiary (2005).
Beneficiary: Rights; Irrevocable Beneficiary (2005)..
Beneficiary; Designation Thereof; Incontestability Clause (2014).
Beneficiary; Death of Insured Due to Beneficiary (2008).
Insurable Interest: Public Enemy (2000) .
Insurable Interest; Life vs. Property Insurance (2000).
Insurable Interest; Life vs. Property Insurance (2002)..
Insurable Interest; Property Insurance (2001).
Insurable Interest; Building Destroyed by Fire (2010)..
Insurable Interest; Assignment Thereof (2009)..
Insurable Interest; Void Marriage (2014) .
Double Insurance (2005)
Double Insurance; Several Insurers (2005)..
Double Insurance (2008) ...
Double Insurance (2012) .
Co-Insurance vs. Re-Insurance (1994) ...
Mutual Insurance Company; Nature & Definition (2006)..
Premiums; Late Payment (2010)
Premiums; Payment by Check (2007) ...
Premiums; Payment by Check (2014) .
Premiums; Payment by Installment (2006) .
Premiums; Payment by Credit (2013) ...
Premiums; Return of Premiums (2000) ....
Rescission of Insurance Contract; Concealment; Material Concealment (2001)..
Rescission of Insurance Contract; Concealment (2013)
Claims; Loss of Property Insured; Theft Clause; What Constitutes Theft (2014).
Claims; In Case of Loss of Property Insured; Theft Clause vs. Malicious Damage Clause (2014)
4 of 91
25
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
33
Claims; Loss of Property Insured; Authorized Driver Clause (2003)...

Claims; Accident Policy (2004)
Claims; Improper in Case Insured Violated the Terms (2014)
Insurer; 3rd Party Liability (2000)
Insurer; Group Insurance; Employer-Policy Holder (2000)..
Insurer; Right of Subrogation (2014)..
Cash & Carry Basis (2003). .
Marine Insurance; Implied Warranties (2000) .
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
TRANSPORTATION LAWS
Common Carrier; Breach of Contract; Damages (2003)...
Common Carrier; Defenses (2002) ....
Common Carrier; Defenses; Limitation of Liability (2001) ..
Common vs. Private Carrier; Defenses (2002) ..
Kabit System (2005) ...
Kabit System; Agent of the Registered Owner (2005) ..
Boundary System (2005) ..
Contract of Carriage; Prohibited & Valid Stipulations (2002) ...
Contract of Carriage; Breach of Contract (2008) ...
Contract of Carriage; Breach of Contract; Defenses (2009) .
Causes of Action (2013) ...
35
35
35
36
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
MARITIME COMMERCE
Averages: Types (2010) ....
Average; Particular Average vs. General Average (2003) .
Barratry (2010) .
Bareboat (2003) ...
Charter Party (2004) ...
Carriage of Goods: Deviation: Liability (2005) ...
Carriage of Goods; Exercise Extraordinary Diligence (2005) ...
Carriage of Goods; Deviation; When Proper (2005) .
Carriage of Goods; Deviation; Liability (2009) ...
Carriage of Goods; Implied Warranty; Liability (2010) ...
Carriage of Goods; Indemnity; Jettisoned Goods (2010) ...
COGSA; Applicability (2014) ...
COGSA; Prescription of Claims (2000) .
COGSA: Prescription of Claims/Actions (2004) .
COGSA; Prescription of Claims/Action (2010) ...
Liability for Loss; Fortuitous Event (2008) ..
Liability for Loss; Constructive Total Loss (2005) ....
Limited Liability Rule (2000) ....
Limited Liability Rule; Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault (1991) ..
Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss (2000) ..
Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss (2000) ..
Maritime Protest (2007) .
38
38
38
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
43
CORPORATION CODE
Public utilities (2000) .
Doctrine of Separate Juridical Personality (2000) .
Doctrine of Separate Juridical Personality (2000) .
Corporation; Creation of a Private Corporation (2008) .
Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil (2001) .
5 of 91
44
45
45
45
46
46
46
46
46
Commencement; Corporate Existence (2003) .

Corporation; Classes; Sole Proprietorship (2004) ...
Corporation; Classes; Corporation Sole (2004) .
Corporation; Classes; Sole Proprietorship (2010) ....
Corporation; Classes: De facto Corporation vs. Corporation by Estoppel (2004) ...
Corporation; Classes: Stock vs. Non-Stock Corporation (2004) ..
Corporation; Classes; Private vs. Public Corporation (2004)
Corporation; Classes; Conversion from Stock to Non-stock Corporation (2001)
Foreign Corporation; Doing Business in the Philippines; Acts or Activities (2002)
Foreign Corporation; Doing Business in the Philippines; Test (2002)
Articles of Incorporation; To Whom Binding (2009) .
Incorporation; Requirements (2006) .
Incorporation; Residency Requirements (2006) ....
Incorporation; Requisites (2002) ....
Incorporation; Qualifications of Incorporators, BOD Members & Corporate Officers (2012)
Incorporation; Qualifications of Incorporators & BOD Members (2014)..
By-laws (2001) .
By-Laws; Validity; limiting qualifications of BOD members (2000)...
Intra-Corporate Controversy (2006) ..
Intra-corporate Controversy; Relationship Test; Nature of Controvery Test (2014).
Corporate Powers; Validity of Corporate Acts (2002) .
Corporate Powers; Who are Liable for Contracts Entered Into (2012)
Corporate Powers; Power to Increase of Capital Stock (2001)..
Corporate Powers; Power to Acquire Own Shares in Relation to Trust Fund Doctrine (2005).
Corporate Powers; Trust Fund Doctrine (2007) .
Dividends; Sources of Dividends in Relation to Trust Fund Doctrine (2005).
Dividends; Dividends vs. Profit; Cash Dividend vs. Stock Dividend (2005)..
Dividends; Declaration of Dividends (2001) ...
Dividends: Declaration of Dividends (2005) ...
BOD; Manner of Filling Vacancies (2013) ....
BOD: Election of Aliens as members (2005) ...
BOD; Contracts by Self-dealing Directors w/ the Corporation; Requirements for Validity (2008)
BOD; Officers; Removal of Officers (2001) .
Executive Committee; Creation Thereof & Validity of Corporate Acts (2014)
Stockholders; Proprietary Rights; Pre-emptive Right (2001)..
Stockholders: Proprietary Rights; Pre-emptive Right (2004)..
Stockholders; Proprietary Rights; Appraisal Right (2003)..
Stockholders; Proprietary Rights; Appraisal Right (2007)..
Stockholders; Meeting; Quorum (2009) ..
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit; Minority Stockholder (2003).
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit: Requisites (2004).
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit (2005)
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit; Jurisdiction (2009)..
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit (2013)
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit; When Improper (2014)
Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity (2005) ...
Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity (2005) ...
Capital Structure; Stocks; Sale, Transfer of Certificates of Stock (2001)
Capital Structure; Stocks; Sale, Transfer of Certificates of Stock (2004)..
Capital Structure; Stock and Transfer Book (2009)...
Capital Structure; Shares of Stock; Issuance Thereof to Pay for Services (2005)
Capital Structure; Shares of Stock; Preferred Shares (2013)..
Dissolution & Dissolution; Expiration of Corporate Term (2004)...
Dissolution & Liquidation; Voluntary Dissolution (2002).
Dissolution & Liquidation (2012) ..
Dissolution &Liquidation; Methods of Liquidation (2001)
6 of 91
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
61
61
BULK SALES LAW

Bulk Sales Law (2005)
Bulk Sales Law; Covered Transactions (2000)
Bulk Sales Law; Obligation of the Vendor (2001)...
Bulk Sales Law; Covered Transactions (2010) ......
Bulk Sales Law; Validity (2009) ...............................
61
62
62
62
63
63
63
64
INSOLVENCY & CORPORATE rEHABILITATION

Insolvency: Voluntary Insolvency (2005) ...............
Insolvency; Fraudulent Payment (2002) .................
Insolvency; Preferred Claims (2007) .......................
Law on Corporate Recovery (2003) ........................
Corporate Rehabilitation; Stay Order (2006) ...
Corporate Rehabilitation; Power of the Court to Stay Enforcement Claims (2012)..
Corporate Rehabilitation; Power of the Court to Stay Enforcement Claims (2014)..
Suspension of Payments; Remedies (2003)
64
64
65
65
65
66
66
66
SECURITIES & REGULATIONS CODE

Howey Test (2009)...
Insider Trading (2004) .......
Manipulative Practices; Wash Sale (2001) ..
Investment Contract; Procedure (2010) ...
Margin Trading Rule (2009) ..
Securities; Exempt Securities (2009)
Securities; Selling of Securities (2002)
Tender Offer (2002) ............
Tender Offer (2010) .............
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
68
68
68
69
70
BANKING LAWS
Banks; Insolvency; Prohibited Transactions (2000) .
Banks; Insolvency; Actions of the Monetary Board (2009)
Banks; Insolvency; Claims (2010) .
Banks; Receivership (2007) ....
Banks; Receivership; Prohibited Transaction (2009) .
Banks; Conservator vs. Receiver (2006) .
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Exceptions (2004)
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposit; Exceptions (2006) ..
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits (2000)
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits (2009) .
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Garnishment (2001)..
Banks: Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Garnishment (2004)..
Truth in Lending Act (2000) .
Truth in Lending Act (2009) .
Legal Tender (2000)
Banks; Restrictions on Loan Accommodations (2002)
7 of 91
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
73

General Banking Law of 2000; Classifications of Banks (2002)
General Banking Law of 2000; Types of Banks (2010).
General Banking Law of 2000; Single Borrowers Limit; Collateral Security (2008)..
Banks; Deposit: Safety Deposit Box; Relationship with Banks (2010).
Banks; Deposits; Safety Deposit Box; Liability..
Banks; Deposits vs. Deposit Substitutes (2010)
Banks; Mortgage; Redemption (2007) ..
Banks: Collateral Security (2002)
Banks: Applicability: Foreign Currency Deposit Act & Secrecy of Bank Deposits (2005)..
74
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
76
77
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE

Patent; Non-Patentable Inventions (2006) ...
Patents: Gas-Saving Device: first to file rule (2005) .
Patent: Method of Diagnosis & Treatment; Non-Patentable (2010)
Patent; When Importation of Patented Product Constitutes Infringement (2010).
Trademark; Dominancy Test; Holistic Test (2014)
Trademark; Unfair Competition (2010) .
Trademark; Petition to Cancel Registration (2014)
Tradename; International Affiliation (2005) .
Copyright; Commissioned Artist (2008) ..
Copyright; Commissioned Artist (2004) ...
Copyright; Commissioned Work (2008) ...
Copyright; Painting (2013) ...
Copyright; Infringement (2006) ..
Copyright; Denicola Test (2009) .
Infringement; Jurisdiction (2003) ...
Infringement; Claims (2010) .
Infringement; Trademark, Copyright (2009)
Technology Transfer Agreements; Important Stipulations & Prohibitions (2010)
Article of Commerce; As Trademark, Patent & Copyright (2010) ..
77
77
78
78
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
81
81
81
82
82
82
82
83
83
84
OTHER SPECIAL LAWS

CHATTEL MORTGAGE
Chattel Mortgage vs. Levy (2003) ..
Chattel Mortgage; Remedies (2003) ..
Chattel Mortgage; Foreclosure (2008) ..
Chattel Mortgage; Foreclosure (2009) ..
84
84
84
85
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

Real Estate Mortgage; Extrajudicial Foreclose (2006)
Real Estate Mortgage; Foreclosure (2003) ..
Real Estate Mortgage; Foreclosure of Improvements (1999) .
Real Estate Mortgage; Redemption Period; Foreclosed Property (2002) ...
Real Estate Mortgage; Extrajudicial Foreclosure (2012) .
Real Estate Mortgage; Dragnet Clause (2012)
Remedies; Available to Mortgagee-Creditor (2001) ..
8 of 91
85
85
86
86
87
87
87
88
88
89
89
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT

Anti-Money Laundering (2006)
Anti-Money Laundering: Predicate Crimes (2007)
Anti-Money Laundering; Authority to Inquire Into Bank Deposits; Freeze Order (2013)
89
89
90
MISCELLANEOUS
Energy Regulatory Commission: Jurisdiction & Power (2004)
Government Deregulation vs. Privatization of an Industry (2004).
Power of the State: Regulating of Domestic Trade (2004)
Tariff and Customs Code: Violation of Customs Laws (2004).
Four ACID Problems of Philippine Judiciary (2006)
9 of 91
90
90
90
91
91
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
LETTERS OF CREDIT
Joint Account (2000)

What is a joint account? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A joint account is a transaction of merchants where other
merchants agree to contribute the amount of capital
agreed upon, and participating in the favorable or
unfavorable results thereof in the proportion they may
determine.
Letters of Credit; Nature (2012)

b. Explain the nature of Letters of Credit as a
financial devise. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b)
A letter of credit is a financial device
developed by merchants as a convenient and
relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to
satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a
seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he
is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of
the goods before paying.
To break the impasse, the buyer may be
required to contract a bank to issue a letter of credit
in favor of the seller so that, by virtue of the letter of
credit, the issuing bank Can authorize the seller to
draw drafts and engage to pay them upon their
presentment simultaneously with the tender of
documents required by the letter of credit. The buyer
and the seller agree on what documents are to be
presented for payment, but ordinarily they are
documents of title evidencing or attesting to the
shipment of the goods to the buyer. Once the credit
is established, the seller ships the goods to the
buyer and in the process secures the required
shipping documents or documents of title.
To get paid, the seller executes a draft and
presents it together with the required documents to
the issuing bank. The issuing bank redeems the draft
and pays cash to the seller if it finds that the
documents submitted by the seller conform with
what the letter of credit requires. The bank then
obtains possession of the documents upon paying
the seller.
The transaction is completed when the
buyer reimburses the issuing bank and acquires the
documents entitling him to the goods. Under this
arrangement, the seller gets paid only if he delivers
the documents of title over the goods, while the
buyer acquires the said documents and control over
the goods only after reimbursing the bank. (Bank of
America NT & SA v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 105395,
December 10, 1993)
However, letters of credit are also used in
non-sale settings where they serve to reduce the risk
of nonperformance. Generally, letters of credit in
non-sale settings have come to be known as standby
letters of credit. (Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon
Hydro Corporation, of al., G.R. No. 146717, November
22, 2004)
Joint Account vs. Partnership (2000)

Distinguish joint account from partnership. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the distinctions between joint account
and partnership:
(1) A partnership has a firm name while a joint account
has none and is conducted in the name of the ostensible
partner.
(2) While a partnership has juridical personality and may
sue or be sued under its firm name, a joint account has
no juridical personality and can sue or be sued only in
the name of the ostensible partner.
(3) While a partnership has a common fund, a joint
account has none.
(4) While in a partnership, all general partners have the
right of management, in a joint account, the ostensible
partner manages its business operations.
(5) While liquidations of a partnership may, by
agreement, be entrusted to a partner or partners, in a
joint account liquidation thereof can only be done by the
ostensible partner
Presumption: Habitually Engaging in Commerce
(2009)
Cecilio is planning to put up a grocery store in the
subdivision where he and his family reside. To promote
this proposed business venture, he told his wife and
three children to send out promotional text messages to
all the residents in the subdivision. Cecilios family
members did as instructed, and succeeded in reaching,
through text messages, more than 80% of the residents
in the subdivision.
Is Cecilio habitually engaged in commerce
even if the grocery store has yet to be established?
Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Even if the grocery store has yet to be
established, Cecilio already habitually engaged in
commerce, when per his instruction the members of
his family contacted more than 80% the residents of
the subdivision where they reside. According to
Article 3 of the Code of Commerce, legal
presumption of habitually engaging in commerce
shall exist from the moment the person who intends
to engage therein announces through circulars,
newspapers, handbills, posters exhibited to the
public, or in any other manner whatsoever
anestablishment which has for its object some
commercial operation. Text messages may qualify
to be equivalent to electronic documents.
(Note: In respect of Question (a), it is recommended

that examinees be given full credit for whatever
answer they gave because the matter involved in
Question (a) is outside the scope of the 2012 Bar
Examination in Mercantile Law. Both the Supreme
Court Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation
(2008) and the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency
Act (FRIA) of 2010 (RA 10142) are not included in
the 2012 Syllabus for the Bar Examination in
Mercantile Law. Neither is the matter referred to in
10 of 91
any of the topics under Letters of Credits and the

Corporation Code in the aforementioned Syllabus. In
any case, our suggested answers to both Questions
(a) and (b) are herein set out.
Letters of Credit; Three Distinct Contract
Relationships (2002)
Explain the three (3) distinct but intertwined contract
relationships that are indispensable in a letter of credit
transaction.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three (3) distinct but intertwined contract
relationships that are indispensable in a letter of
credit transaction are:
1. Between the applicant/buyer/importer and
the
beneficiary/seller/exporter
The
applicant/buyer/importer is the one who
procures the letter of credit and obliges
himself to reimburse the issuing bank upon
receipt of the documents of title, while the
beneficiary/seller/exporter is the one who in
compliance with the contract of sale ships
the goods to the buyer and delivers the
documents of title and draft to the issuing
bank to recover payment for the goods.
Their relationship is governed by the
contract of sale.
2. Between the issuing bank and the
beneficiary/seller/exporter The issuing
bank is the one that issues the letter of
credit and undertakes to pay the seller upon
receipt of the draft and proper documents of
title and to surrender the documents to the
buyer
upon
reimbursement.
Their
relationship is governed by the terms of the
letter of credit issued by the bank.
3. Between the issuing bank and the
applicant/buyer/importer
Their
relationship is governed by the terms of the
application and agreement for the issuance
of the letter of credit by the bank.
Letter of Credit; Independence Principle (2010)
The Supreme Court has held that fraud is an exception to
the independence principle governing letters of credit.
Explain this principle and give an example of how fraud
can be an exception. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The independence principle posits that the
obligations of the parties to a letter of credit are
independent of the obligations of the parties to
theunderlying transaction. Thus, the beneficiary of
the letter of credit, which is able to comply with the
documentary requirements under the letter of credit,
must be paid by the issuing or confirming bank,
notwithstanding the existence of a dispute between
the parties to the underlying transaction, say a
contract of sale of goods where the buyer is not
satisfied with the quality of the goods delivered by
the seller. The Supreme Court in Transfield
Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, 443
SCRA 307 (2004) for the first time declared that fraud
is an exception to the independence principle. For
instance, if the beneficiary fraudulently presents to

the issuing or confirming bank documents that
contain material facts that, to his knowledge, are
untrue, then payment under the letter of credit may
be prevented through a court injunction.
Letters of Credit; Liability of a Notifying Bank (2003)
a) What liability, if any is incurred by an advising or
notifying bank in a letter of credit transaction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Bravo Bank received from Cisco Bank by registered

mail an irrevocable letter of credit issued by Delta Bank
for the account of Y Company in the amount of
US$10,000,000 to cover the sale of canned fruit juices.
The beneficiary of the letter of credit was X Corporation
which later on partially availed itself of the letter of credit
by submitting to Bravo Bank all documents relative to the
shipment of the cans of fruit juices. Bravo Bank paid X
Corporation for its partial availment. Later, however, it
refused further availment because of suspicions of fraud
being practiced upon it and, instead , sued X Corporation
to recover what it had paid the latter. How would you rule
if you were the judge to decide the controversy? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Letter of Credit; Liabilities of a Confirming and

Notifying Bank (2008)
X Corporation entered into a contract with PT
Construction Corp. for the latter to construct and build a
sugar mill with six (6) months. They agreed that in case
of delay, PT Construction Corp. will pay X Corporation
P100,000 for every day of delay. To ensure payment of
the agreed amount of damages, PT Construction Corp.
secured from Atlantic Bank a confirmed and irrevocable
letter of credit which was accepted by X Corporation in
due time. One week before the expiration of the six (6)
month period, PT Construction Corp. requested for an
extension of time to deliver claiming that the delay was
due to the fault of X Corporation. A controversy as to the
cause of the delay which involved the workmanship of
the building ensued. The controversy remained
unresolved. Despite the controversy, X Corporation
presented a claim against Atlantic Bank by executing a
11 of 91
draft against the letter of credit.

(A) Can Atlantic Bank refuse payment due to the
unresolved controversy? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Atlantic Bank cannot refuse payment to the
unresolved controversy between the two companies.
The Bank is solidarily liable to pay based on the
terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit. In FEATI
Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.94209, 30 April
1991, the Court held that an irrevocable letter of
credit is independent of the contract between the
buyer-applicant and the seller-beneficiary.
(B) Can X Corporation claim directly from PT
Construction Corp.? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, X Corporation can claim directly from PT
Construction Corp. The irrevocable letter of credit
was merely a security arrangement that did not
replace the main contract between the two
companies. In FEATI Bank c. CA, G.R. No. 94209, 30
April 1991, opening a letter of credit does not involve
a specific appropriation of money in favor of the
beneficiary. It only signifies that the beneficiary may
draw funds up to the designated amount. It does not
mean that a particular sum of money has been
specifically reserved of held in trust.
Letters of Credit; Mortgagor as Issuing Bank (2005)
Ricardo mortgaged his fishpond to AC Bank to secure a
P1 Million loan. In a separate transaction, he opened a
letter of credit with the same bank for $500,000.00 in
favor of HS Bank, a foreign bank, to purchase outboard
motors. Likewise, Ricardo executed a Surety Agreement
in favor of AC Bank. The outboard motors arrived and
were delivered to Ricardo, but he was not able to pay the
purchase price thereof.
a) Can AC Bank take possession of the outboard
motors? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, for AC Bank has no legal standing, much less
a lien, on the outboard motors. Insofar as AC Bank is
concerned, it has privity with the person of Ricardo
under the Surety Agreement, and a lien on the
fishpond based on the real estate mortgage
constituted therein.
b) Can AC Bank also foreclose the mortgage over the
fishpond? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Yes, but only to enforce payment of the principal
loan of P1million secured by the real estate mortgage
on the fishpond
TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

Trust Receipts (2007)
C contracted D to renovate his commercial building. D
ordered construction materials from E and received
delivery thereof. The following day, C went to F Bank to
apply for loan to pay for the construction materials. As
security for the loan, C was made to execute a trust
receipt. One year later, after C failed to pay the balance
of the loan, F Bank charged him with violation of the
Trust Receipts Law. (5%)
(A) What is a Trust Receipt?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A Trust Receipt is a written or printed document
signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster
containing terms and conditions substantially
complying with the provision of the Trust Receipts
Law, whereby the bank as entruster releases the
goods to the possession of the entrustee but retains
ownership thereof while the entrustee may sell the
goods and apply the proceeds for the full payment of
his liability to the bank (Section 3(j), Trust Receipts
Law).
(B) Will the case against C prosper? Reason briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the case against C will not prosper, Since C
received the Construction material from E Before the
trust receipt transaction was a simple loan, with the
trust receipt merely as a collateral or security for the
loan. This is inconsistent with a trust receipt
transaction where the title to the goods remains with
the bank and the goods are released to the entrustee
before the loan is granted (Consolidated Bank and
Trust Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 356 SCRA 671
[2001].
Trust Receipts; Obligations o an Entrustee (2012)
CCC Car, inc. obtained a loan from BBB Bank, which
fund was used to import ten (10) units of Mercedes Benz
S class vehicles. Upon arrival of the vehicles and before
release of said vehicles to CCC Car, Inc.; X and Y, the
President and Treasurer, respectively, of CCC Car, Inc.
signed the Trust Receipt to cover the value of the ten
(10) units of Mercedes Benz S class vehicles after which,
the vehicles were all delivered to the Car display room of
CCC Car, Inc. Sales of the vehicles were slow, and it
rook a month to dispose of the ten (10) units. CCC Car,
Inc. wanted to be in business and to save on various
documentations required by the bank; decided that
instead of turning over the proceeds of the sales, CCC
Car, Inc. used the proceeds to buy another ten (10) units
of BMW 3 series.
a. Is the action of CCC Car, Inc. legally justified? Explain
your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(a) No. It is the obligation of CCC Car, Inc., as
entrustee, to receive the proceeds of the sale of the
Mercedes Benz S class vehicles in trust for BBB
Bank, as entruster, and turn over the same to BBB
Bank to the extent of the amount owing to the latter
12 of 91
or as appears in the trust receipt (Sec. 9(2), Trust

Receipts Law).
Trust Receipt; Security for a Loan (2008)
Tom Cruz obtained a loan of P1 Million from XYZ Bank to
finance his purchase of 5,000 bags of fertilizer. He
executed a trust receipt in favor of XYZ Bank over the
5,000 bags of fertilizer. Tom Cruz withdrew the 5,000
bags from the warehouse to be transported to Lucena
City where his store was located. On the way, armed
robbers took from Tom Cruz the 5,000 bags of fertilizer.
Tom Cruz now claims that his obligation to pay the loan
to XYZ Bank is extinguished because the loss was not
due to his fault. Is Tom Cruz correct? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Tom Cruzs obligation to pay the loan covered by
the trust receipts to XYZ
Bank remains, A Trust receipt is merely a collateral
agreement which serves as security for a loan, with
the Bank appearing as the owner of the goods. The
Bank cannot dispose of the goods in any manner it
chooses, because it is not the true owner thereof
(Rosario Textile Miss v. Home Bankers, G.R. No.
137232, 29 June 2005, citing Sia v. People, G.R. No.
30896, 28 April 1983, Abad v. CA, G.R. No. 42735, 22
January 1990, and PNB v. Pineda, G.R. No. 46658, 13
May 1991). The loss of the goods covered by the
trust receipts cannot extinguish the principal
obligation of the borrower to pay the bank (Landl&
Company [Phil.] v. Metropolitan Bank, G.R. 159622,
30 July 2004).
acquired
ownership
to
the
goods,
the
transaction does not involve a trust receipt
but a simple loan even though the parties
denominated the transaction as one of trust
receipt (Colinares vs. Court of Appeals, 339
SCRA 609, 2000; Consolidated Bank and Trust
Corporation v. CA, 356 SCRA 671, 2001).
Trusts Receipts; Defenses Against Criminal Liability
(2003)
PB & Co., Inc., a manufacturer of steel and steel
products, imported certain raw materials for use by it in
the manufacture of its products. The importation was
effected through a trust receipt arrangement with AB
Banking corporation. When it applied for the issuance by
AB Banking Corporation of a letter of credit, PB & Co.,
Inc., did not make any representation to the bank that it
would be selling what it had imported. It failed to pay the
bank. When demand was made upon it to account for the
importation, to return the articles, or to turn-over the
proceeds of the sale thereof to the bank, PB & Co., Inc.,
also failed. The bank sued PB & Co.s President who
was the signatory of the trust receipt for estafa. The
President put up the defense that he could not be made
liable because there was no deceit resulting in the
violation of the trust receipt. He also submitted that there
was no violation of the trust receipt because the raw
materials were not sold but used by the corporation in the
manufacture of its products. Would those defenses be
sustainable? Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trust Receipts vs. Simple Loan (2013)

Delano Cruz is in default in the payment of his
existing loan from BDP Bank. To extend and restructure
this loan, Delano agreed to execute a trust receipt in the
bank's favor covering the iron pellets Delano imported
from China one year earlier. Delano subsequently
succeeded in selling the iron pellets to a smelting plant,
but the proceeds went to the payment of the separation
benefits of his employees who were laid off as he
reduced his operations.
When the extended loan period expired without
any significant payment from Delano (not even to the
extent of the proceeds of the sale of the iron pellets),BDP
Bank consulted you on how to proceed against Delano.
The bank is contemplating the filing of estafa pursuant to
the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 115 (Trust Receipts
Law) to force Delano to tum in at least the proceeds of
the sale of the iron pellets.
Would you, as bank counsel and as an officer
of the court, advise the bank to proceed with its
contemplated action? (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will not advise BDP Bank to file a criminal case
for estafa against Delano. Delano received the iron
pellets he imported one year before the trust
receipt was executed. As held by the Supreme
Court, where the execution of trust receipt
agreement was made after the goods covered byit
had been purchased by and delivered to the
entrustee and the latter as a consequence
13 of 91
WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LAW

Warehousemans Lien; Lost Upon Surrender of
Possession Over the Goods (2009)
TRUE OR FALSE. (B) Under the Warehouse Receipts
Law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon the goods
when he surrenders possession thereof.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True. A lien is dependent on possession. When a
warehouseman surrenders possession, he thereby
loses his lien on the goods over which hi no longer
has possession (Sec.29 (a), Warehouse Receipts
Law).
Warehouseman; Validity of Stipulations Excusing
Him from Negligence (2000)
S stored hardware materials in the bonded warehouse of
W, a licensed warehouseman under the General Bonded
Warehouse Law (Act 3893 as amended). W issued the
corresponding warehouse receipt in the form he
ordinarily uses for such purpose in the course of his
business. All the essential terms required under Section
2 of the Warehouse Receipts Law (Act 2137 as
amended) are embodied in the form. In addition, the
receipt issued to S contains a stipulation that W would
not be responsible for the loss of all or any portion of the
hardware materials covered by the receipt even if such
loss is caused by the negligence of W or his
representatives or employees. S endorsed and
negotiated the warehouse receipt to B, who demanded
delivery of the goods. W could not deliver because the
goods were nowhere to be found in his warehouse. He
claims he is not liable because of the free-from-liability
clause stipulated in the receipt. Do you agree with Ws
contention? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. I do not agree with the contention of W. The
stipulation that W would not be responsible for the
loss of all or any portion of the hardware materials
covered by the receipt even if such loss is caused by
the negligence of W or his representative or
employees is void. The law requires that a
warehouseman should exercise due diligence in the
care and custody of the things deposited in his
warehouse.
Warehouseman; Obligations; Delivery of Goods
(2007)
Alex deposited goods for which Billy, a warehousemen,
issued a negotiable warehouse receipt wherein the good
were deliverable to Alex or order. Alex negotiated the
receipt TC Caloy. Thereafter, Dario a creditor, secured
notice of levy over the goods on the warehouseman.
(A) To whom would the warehousemen deliver the goods
upon demand? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The warehouseman should deliver the goods upon
demand to Caloy who is a holder of the receipt in
good faith and for value. The goods cannot be levied
upon by the creditor of Alex after it was negotiated to
Caloy (Section 25, Negotiable Instruments Law).
(B) Would your answer be the same if the

warehouseman issued a non-negotiable warehouse
receipt? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, my answer would not be the same if the
warehousemen issued a non-negotiable warehouse
receipt. In such case. The warehouseman should
deliverthe goods to Datio, if the notice of levy was
served on the warehouseman priorto the notification
of the warehouseman by Alex or Caloy of the transfer
of thenon-negotiable receipt. In such case, the title of
Caloy would be defeated by the notice of levy by
Dario (Section 42, Warehouse Receipts Law).
Warehouse Receipts; Who Has Right to the Goods
(2005)
Jojo deposited several cartons of goods with SN
Warehouse Corporation. The corresponding warehouse
receipt was issued
to the order of Jojo. He endorsed the warehouse receipt
to EJ who paid the value of the goods deposited. Before
EJ could withdraw the goods, Melchor informed SN
Warehouse Corporation that the goods belonged to him
and were taken by Jojo without his consent. Melchor
wants to get the goods, but EJ also wants to withdraw
the same. (5%)
a. Who has a better right to the goods? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
EJ has a better right to the goods, being covered by
a negotiable document of title, namely the
warehouse receipts issued to the "order of Jojo."
Under the Sales provisions of the Civil Code on
negotiable documents of title, and under the
provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law, when
goods deposited with the bailee are covered by a
negotiable document of title, the endorsement and
delivery of the document transfers ownership of the
goods to the transferee. By operation of law, the
transferee obtains the direct obligation of the bailee
to hold the goods in his name." (Art. 1513, Civil
Code; Section 41, Warehouse Receipts Law) Since
EJ is the holder of the warehouse receipt, he has the
better right to the goods. SN Warehouse is obliged to
hold the goods in his name.
b. If SN Warehouse Corporation is uncertain as to who is
entitled to the property, what is the proper recourse of the
corporation? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SN Warehouse can file an INTERPLEADER to compel
EJ and Melchor to litigate against each other for the
ownership of the goods. Sec. 17 of the Warehouse
Receipts Law states, "If more than one person claims
the title or possession of the goods, the warehouse
may, either as a defense to an action brought against
him for non-delivery of the goods or as an original
suit, whichever is appropriate, require all known
claimants to interplead."
14 of 91
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW

Negotiable Instruments; Kinds of Negotiable
Instrument; Words of Negotiability (2002)
A. Define the following:
(1) a negotiable promissory note,
(2) a bill of exchange and
(3) a check. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.
(1) A negotiable promissory note is an unconditional
promise in writing made by one person to another,
signed by the maker, engaging to pay on demand or
at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain
in money to order or bearer.
(2) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in
writing addressed by one person to another, signed
by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom
it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or
determinable future time a sum certain in money to
order or to bearer.
(3) A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank
payable on demand.
B. You are Pedro Cruz. Draft the appropriate contract
language for (1) your negotiable promissory note and (2)
your check, each containing the essential elements of a
negotiable instrument (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Negotiable promissory note
a) The date of the PN is February 30, 2002.

b) The PN bears interest payable on the last day of each
calendar quarter at a rate equal to five percent (5%)
above the then prevailing 91-day Treasury Bill rate as
published at the beginning of such calendar quarter.
c) The PN gives the maker the option to make payment
either in money or in quantity of palay or equivalent
value.
d) The PN gives the holder the option either to require
payment in money or to require the maker to serve as the
bodyguard or escort of the holder for 30 days.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Paragraph 1 negotiability is NOT AFFECTED. The
date is not one of the requirements for negotiability.
b) Paragraph 2 negotiability is NOT AFFECTED.
The interest is to be computed at a particular time
and is determinable. It does not make the sum
uncertain or the promise conditional.
c) Paragraph 3 negotiability is AFFECTED. Giving
the maker the option renders the promise conditional
d) Paragraph 4 negotiability is NOT AFFECTED.
Giving the option to the holder does not make the
promise conditional.
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Requisites
(2000)
a) MP bought a used cell phone from JR. JR preferred
cash but MP is a friend so JR accepted MRs promissory
note for P10,000. JR thought of converting the note into
cash by endorsing it to his brother KR. The promissory
note is a piece of paper with the following hand-printed
notation:
September 15,
2002
For value received, I hereby promise to pay
Juan Santos or order the sum of TEN THOUSAND
PESOS (P10,000) thirty (30) days from date hereof.
(Signed) Pedro Cruz
(2) Check
September 15, 2002
Pay to the order of Juan Santos the sum of
TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), Philippine
Currency.
MP WILL PAY JR TEN THOUSAND PESOS IN

PAYMENT FOR HIS CELLPHONE 1 WEEK FROM
TODAY.
Below this notation MPs signature with 8/1/00 next to it,
indicating the date of the promissory note. When JR
presented MPs note to KR, the latter said it was not a
negotiable instrument under the law and so could not be
a valid substitute for cash. JR took the opposite view,
insisting on the notes negotiability. You are asked to
referee. Which of the opposing views is correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) KR is right. The promissory note is not negotiable.
It is not issued to order or bearer. There is no word
of negotiability containing therein. It is not issued in
accordance with Section 1 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law.
(Signed) Pedro Cruz

To: Philippine National Bank
Escolta, Manila Branch
b) TH is an indorsee of a promissory note that simply

states:
PAY TO JUAN TAN OR ORDER 400 PESOS
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability (2002)

Which of the following stipulations or features of a
promissory note (PN) affect or do not affect its
negotiability, assuming that the PN is otherwise
negotiable? Indicate your answer by writing the
paragraph number of the stipulation or feature of the PN
as shown below and your corresponding answer, either
Affected or Not affected. Explain (5%).
The note has no date, no place of payment and no

consideration mentioned. It was signed by MK and
written under his letterhead specifying the address, which
happens to be his residence. TH accepted the
promissory note as payment for services rendered to SH,
who in turn received the note from Juan Tan as payment
for a prepaid cell phone card worth 450 pesos. The
15 of 91
payee acknowledged having received the note on August

1, 2000. A Bar reviewee had told TH, who happens to be
your friend, that TH is not a holder in due course under
Article 52 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act 2031)
and therefore does not enjoy the rights and protection
under the statute. TH asks for our advice specifically in
connection with the note being undated and not
mentioning a place of payment and any consideration.
What would your advice be? (2%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The fact that the instrument is undated and does
not mention the place of payment does not militate
against its being negotiable. The date and place of
payment are not material particulars required to
make an instrument negotiable. The fact that no
mention is made of any consideration is not material.
Consideration is presumed.
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Requirements
(2013)
Antonio issued the following instrument:
August 10,2013
Makati City
P100, 000.00
Sixty days after date, I promise to pay Bobby or his
designated .representative the sum of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS(P 100,000.00) from my BPI Acct.
No. 1234 if, by this due date, the sun still sets in the west
to usher in the evening and rises in the east the following
morning to welcome the day.
(Sgd.) Antonio Reyes
Explain each requirement of negotiability present or
absent in the instrument. (8%)
SUGGEST ED ANSWER:
1. The instrument contains a promise to pay and
was signed by themaker, Antonio Reyes
(Section ((a) of Negotiable Instruments Law).
2. The promise to pay is unconditional insofar as
the reference to the setting of the sun in the
west in the evening and its rising in the east in
the morning are concerned. These are certain to
happen (Section 4(c) of Negotiable Instruments
Law). The promise to pay is conditional, because
the money will be taken from a particular fund.
BPI Account No. 1234 (Section 3 of Negotiable
Instruments Law).
3. The instrument contains a promise to pay a sum
certain in money, P100, 000.00(Section (b) of
Negotiable Instruments Law)
4. The money is payable at a determinable future
time, six, days after August 10, 2013 (Section
4(a) of Negotiable Instruments Law).
5. The instrument is not payable to order or to
bearer (Section 1(d) of Negotiable Instruments
Law).
Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Promissory Note

(2012)
Indicate and explain whether the promissory note is
negotiable or non-negotiable.
a. I promise to pay A or bearer Php100, 000.00 from my
inheritance which I will get after the death of my father.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(a) Not negotiable. There is no unconditional
promise to pay a sum certain in money (Sec. 1(b),
NIL) as the promise is to pay the amount out of a
particular fund, i.e., the inheritance from the father of
the promisor (Sec. 3, NIL).
b. I promise to pay A or bearer Php100, 000 plus the
interest rate of ninety (90) day treasury bills. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(b) Not negotiable. There is no unconditional
promise to pay a sum certain in money. The promise
to pay "the interest rate of ninety (90)-day treasury
bills" is vague because, first, there are no 90-day
treasury bills (although there are 91- day, 182-day,
and 364-day bills); second, the promise does not
specify whether the so-called "interest rate" is that
established at the primary market (where now T-bills
are sold for the first time by the Bureau of
Treasury) or at the secondary market (where Tbills can be bought and sold after they have
been issued in the primary market),; and third,
T- bills are conventionally quoted in terms of
their discount rate, rather than their interest
rate They do not pay any interest directly;
instead, they are sold at a discount of their
face value and thus "earn" by selling at f ace
val u e up on mat ur i t y. ( S ee, a mon g ot h er s,
( www.treasury.qov.ph/govsec/aboutsec.htm)
(Note: In respect of Question (b), it is recommended that
examinees be given full credit for whatever answer they
gave on account of its vagueness, as explained more
fully in the suggested answer to Question (b).)
c. I promise to pay A or bearer the sum of Php100, 000 if
A passes the 2012 bar exams. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(c) Not negotiable. The promise to pay is
subject to a condition, i.e., that A will pass the
2012 Liar exams (Sec. 1[b], NIL).
d. I promise to pay A or bearer the sum of Php100.000
on or before December 30, 2012. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(d) Negotiable. It conforms fully with the
requirements of negotiability under Section 1,
NIL.
e. I promise to pay A or bearer the sum of Php100, 000.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(e) Negotiable. It conforms fully with the
requirements of negotiability under Section 1,
NIL. It is payable on demand because the note
16 of 91
does not express a time for its payment (Sec.

7[b], NIL).
Negotiable Instrument: Negotiable Document vs.
Negotiable Instrument (2005)
Distinguish a negotiable document from a negotiable
instrument. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Negotiable Instrument have requisites of Sec. 1 of
the NIL, a holder of this instrument have right of
recourse against intermediate parties who are
secondarily liable, Holder in due course may have
rights better than transferor, its subject is money and
the Instrument itself is property of value. On the
other hand, negotiable document does not contain
requisites of Sec. 1 of NIL, it has no secondary
liability of intermediate parties, transferee merely
steps into the shoes of the transferor, its subject are
goods and the instrument is merely evidence of title;
thing of value are the goods mentioned in the
document.
Negotiable Instrument vs. Negotiable Document;
Negotiability (2005)
State and explain whether the following are negotiable
instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Law: (5%)
1) Postal Money Order;
2) A certificate of time deposit which states
This is to certify that bearer has deposited in
this bank the sum of FOUR THOUSAND
PESOS (P4,000.00) only, repayable to the
depositor 200 days after date.
3) Letters of credit;
4) Warehouse receipts;
5) Treasury warrants payable from a specific fund.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Postal Money Order Non-Negotiable as it
is governed by postal rules and regulation
which may be inconsistent with the NIL and
it can only be negotiated once.
2) A certificate of time deposit which states
This is to certify that bearer has deposited
in this bank the sum of FOUR THOUSAND
PESOS (P4,000.00) only, repayable to the
depositor 200 days after date. NonNegotiable as it does not comply with the
requisites of Sec. 1 of NIL
3) Letters of credit - Non-Negotiable
4) Warehouse receipts - Non-Negotiable for the
same as Bill of Lading it merely represents
good, not money.
5) Treasury warrants payable from a specific
fund - Non-Negotiable being payable out of
a particular fund.
Negotiable Instruments; Illicit/Illegal Consideration
(2007)
R issued a check for P1m which he used to pay S for
killing his political enemy. (10%)
(A) Can be the check be considered a negotiable
instrument?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the check can be considered a negotiable

instrument even if it was issued to pay S to kill his
political enemy. The validity of the consideration is
not one of the requisites of a negotiable instruments
(Section 1, Negotiable Instruments Law.) it merely
constitute a defect of title (Section 55, Negotiable
Instruments Law).
(B) Does S have a cause of action against R in case of
dishonor by the drawee bank?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, s does not have a cause of action against R in
case of dishonor of the check by the drawee bank. S
is not a holder in due course, thus, R can raise the
defense that the check was issued for an illegal
consideration (Section 58, Negotiable Instruments
Law).
(C) It S negotiated the check to T, who accepted it in
good faith and for value, may R be held secondarily liable
by T? Reason Briefly in (a), (b) and (c).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, R may be held secondarily liable by T who took
the check in good faith and for value. T is a holder in
due course. R cannot raise the defense of illegality of
the considerarion, because T took the check fre from
the defect of title of S (Section 57, Negotiable
Instrumets Law).
Negotiable Instruments; Illicit/Illegal Consideration;
Lawful Dishonor (2009)
Lorenzo drew a bill of exchange in the amount of P100,
000.00 payable to Barbara or order, with his wife, Diana,
as drawee. At the time the bill was drawn. Diana was
unaware that Barbara is Lorenzos paramour.
Barbara then negotiated the bill to her sister,
Elena, who paid for it for value, and who did not know
who Lorenzo was. On due date, Elena presented the bill
to Diana for payment, but the latter promptly dishonored
the instrument because, by then, Diana had already
learned of her husbands dalliance.
(A) Was the bill lawfully dishonored by Diana? Explain.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the bill was not lawfully dishonored by Diana.
Elena, to whom the instrument was negotiated, was a
holder in due course inasmuch as she paid value
therefore in good faith.
(B) Does the illicit cause or consideration adversely affect
the negotiability of the bill? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the illicit cause or consideration does not
adversely affect the negotiability of the bill,
especially in the hands of a holder in due course.
Under Sec. 1 of the Negotiable Instruments law, the
bill of exchange is a negotiable instrument. Every
negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
been issued for valuable consideration, and every
person whose signature appears thereon is deemed
to have become a party thereto for value (Sec. 24,
Negotiable Instruments Law).
17 of 91
Negotiable Instruments: Subject to a Term (2009)

TRUE OR FALSE. (D) A document, dated July 15, 2009
that reads:
Pay to X or order the sum of5,000.00 five days after his
pet dog, Sparky, dies. Signed Y.
is a negotiable instrument.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True. The document is subject to a term and not a
condition. The dying of the dog is a day which is
certain to come. Therefore, the order to pay is
unconditional, in compliance with Section 1 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL).
(Note: This answers presumes that there is a drawee)
Incomplete & Delivered (2004)
AX, a businessman, was preparing for a business trip
abroad. As he usually did in the past, he signed several
checks in blank and entrusted them to his secretary with
instruction to safeguard them and fill them out only when
required to pay accounts during his absence. OB, his
secretary, filled out one of the checks by placing her
name as the payee. She filled out the amount, endorsed
and delivered the check to KC, who accepted it in good
faith for payment of gems that KC sold to OB. Later, OB
told AX of what she did with regrets. AX timely directed
the bank to dishonor the check. Could AX be held liable
to KC? Answer and reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. AX could be held liable to KC. This is a case of
an incomplete check, which has been delivered.
Under Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law,
KC, as a holder in due course, can enforce payment
of the check as if it had been filled up strictly in
accordance with the authority given by AX to OB and
within a reasonable time.
Incomplete and Delivered (2005)
Brad was in desperate need of money to pay his debt to
Pete, a loan shark. Pete threatened to take Brads life if
he failed to pay. Brad and Pete went to see Seorita
Isobel, Brads rich cousin, and asked her if she could
sign a promissory note in his favor in the amount of
P10,000.00 to pay Pete. Fearing that Pete would kill
Brad, Seorita Isobel acceded to the request. She affixed
her signature on a piece of paper with the assurance of
Brad that he will just fill it up later. Brad then filled up the
blank paper, making a promissory note for the amount of
P100,000.00. He then indorsed and delivered the same
to Pete, who accepted the note as payment of the debt.
What defense or defenses can Seorita Isobel set up
against Pete? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense (personal defense) which Seorita
Isobel can set up against Pete is that the amount of
P100,000.00 is not in accordance with the authority
given to her to Brad (in the presence of Pete) and
that Pete was not a holder in due course for acting in
bad faith when accepted the note as payment despite
his knowledge that it was only 10,000.00 that was
allowed by Seorita Isobel during their meeting with

Brad.
Incomplete,
Delivered;
Doctrine:
Comparative
Negligence (2008)
AB Corporation drew a check for payment to XY Bank.
The check was given to an officer of AB Corporation who
was instructed deliver it to XY Bank. Instead , the officer
intending to defraud the Corporation, filled up the check
by making himself as the payee and delivered it to XY
Bank for deposit to his personal account. XY Bank
debited AB Corporations account. AB Corporation came
to know of the officers fraudulent act after he absconded.
AB Corporation asked XY Bank to recredit its amount.
XY Bank refused.
(A) If you were the judge, what issues would you
consider relevant to resolve the case? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The filling up by the officer of his name as payee
does not constitute forgery, and contemplates a
mechanically incomplete but delivered instrument.
Under Sec. 14 of the NIL, in order to enforce an
incomplete but delivered instrument against a prior
party, it must be filled-up strictly in accordance with
the authority given. The doctrine of comparative
negligence provides that AB Corp. is deemed
negligent for having issued the check with a blank
payee section that facilitated the fraud; it should be
AB Corp. that must bear the loss, and not XY Bank.
(B) How would you decide the case? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would fin AB Corp. liable for its negligence in
delivering an incomplete instrument to XY Bank (Sec.
14, NIL).
Incomplete Instruments; Incomplete Delivered
Instruments vs. Incomplete Undelivered Instrument
(2006)
Jun was about to leave for a business trip. As his usual
practice, he signed several blank checks. He instructed
Ruth, his secretary, to fill them as payment for his
obligations. Ruth filled one check with her name as
payee, placed P30,000.00 thereon, endorsed and
delivered it to Marie. She accepted the check in good
faith as payment for goods she delivered to Ruth.
Eventually, Ruth regretted what she did and apologized
to Jun. Immediately he directed the drawee bank to
dishonor the check. When Marie encashed the check, it
was dishonored.
1. Is Jun liable to Marie? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. This covers the delivery of an incomplete
instrument, under Section 14 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law, which provides that there was
prima facie authority on the part of Ruth to fill-up any
of the material particulars thereof. Having done so,
and when it is first completed before it is negotiated
to a holder in due course like Marie, it is valid for all
purposes, and Marie may enforce it within a
reasonable time, as if it had been filled up strictly in
accordance with the authority given.
18 of 91
2. Supposing the check was stolen while in Ruth's

possession and a thief filled the blank check, endorsed
and delivered it to Marie in payment for the goods he
purchased from her, is Jun liable to Marie if the check is
dishonored? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Even though Marie is a holder in due course, this
is an incomplete and undelivered instrument,
covered by Section 15 of the Negotiable Instruments
Law. Where an incomplete instrument has not been
delivered, it will not, if completed and negotiated
without authority, be a valid contract in the hands of
any holder, as against any person, including Jun,
whose signature was placed thereon before delivery.
Such defense is a real defense even against a holder
in due course, available to a party like Jun whose
signature appeared prior to delivery.
Incomplete and Undelivered Instruments; Holder in
Due Course (2000)
PN makes a promissory note for P5,000.00, but leaves
the name of the payee in blank because he wanted to
verify its correct spelling first. He mindlessly left the note
on top of his desk at the end of the workday. When he
returned the following morning, the note was missing. It
turned up later when X presented it to PN for payment.
Before X, T, who turned out to have filched the note from
PNs office, had endorsed the note after inserting his own
name in the blank space as the payee. PN dishonored
the note, contending that he did not authorize its
completion and delivery. But X said he had no
participation in, or knowledge about, the pilferage and
alteration of the note and therefore he enjoys the rights of
a holder in due course under the Negotiable Instruments
Law.
a) Who is correct and why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) PN is right. The instrument is incomplete and
undelivered. It did not create any contract that would
bind PN to an obligation to pay the amount thereof.
b) Can the payee in a promissory note be a holder in
due course within the meaning of the Negotiable
Instruments Law (Act 2031)? Explain your answer. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) A payee in a promissory note cannot be a holder
in due course within the meaning of the Negotiable
Instruments Law, because a payee is an immediate
party in relation to the maker. The payee is subject to
whatever defenses, real of personal, available to the
maker of the promissory note.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
b) A payee can be a holder in due course. A
holder is defined as the payee or indorsee of the
instrument who is in possession of it. Every holder is
deemed prima facie to be a holder in due course.
Forgery; Defenses (2004)
CX maintained a checking account with UBANK, Makati
Branch. One of his checks in a stub of fifty was missing.
Later, he discovered that Ms. DY forged his signature
and succeeded to encash P15,000 from another branch

of the bank. DY was able to encash the check when ET,
a friend, guaranteed due execution, saying that she was
a holder in due course. Can CX recover the money from
the bank? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, CX can recover from the bank. Under Section 23
of the Negotiable Instruments Law, forgery is a real
defense. The forged check is wholly inoperative in
relation to CX. CX cannot be held liable thereon by
anyone, not even by a holder in due course. Under a
forged signature of the drawer, there is no valid
instrument that would give rise to a contract which
can be the basis or source of liability on the part of
the drawer. The drawee bank has no right or
authority to touch the drawer's funds deposited with
the drawee bank.
Checks: Crossed Checks (2005)
What is a crossed check? What are the effects of
crossing a check? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A Crossed Check under accepted banking practice,
crossing a check is done by writing two parallel lines
diagonally on the left top portion of the checks. The
crossing is special where the name of the bank or a
business institution is written between the two
parallel lines, which mean that the drawee should
pay only with the intervention of that company.
Effects of Crossed Checks:
1) The check may not be encashed but only
deposited in the bank.
2) The check may be negotiated only onceto
one who has an account with a bank.
3) The act of crossing the check serves as a
warning to the holder that the check has
been issued for a definite purpose, so that
he must inquire if he has received the check
pursuant to that purpose; otherwise, he is
not a holder in due course.
Checks: Crossed Checks vs. Cancelled Checks
(2004)
Distinguish clearly (1) crossed checks from cancelled
checks;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A crossed check is one with two parallel lines drawn
diagonally across its face or across a corner thereof.
On the other hand, a cancelled check is one marked
or stamped "paid" and/or "cancelled" by or on behalf
of a drawee bank to indicate payment thereof.
Checks; Forged Check; Effects (2006)
Discuss the legal consequences when a bank honors a
forged check. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A bank, which honors a check wherein the drawers
signature was forged, must bear the loss, because it
has legal duty to ascertain that the drawers
signature is genuine before encashing a check. The
liability chain ends with the drawee bank.
19 of 91
On the other hand, if the drawee bank pays

under forged indorsement, the drawee bank is still
liable the payee as it has guaranteed the
genuineness of all prior indorsements. However, the
drawee bank may generally pass liability back
through the collection chain to the party who
obtained the check from the forger and from the
forger himself. (Associated Bank v. Court of Appeals,
252 SCRA 620, 631-632 [1992])
Checks; Liability; Drawee Bank (1995)
Mario Guzman issued to Honesto Santos a check for
P50th as payment for a 2nd hand car. Without the
knowledge of Mario, Honesto changed the amount to
P150th which alteration could not be detected by the
naked eye. Honesto deposited the altered check with
Shure Bank which forwarded the same to Progressive
Bank for payment. Progressive Bank without noticing the
alteration paid the check, debiting P150th from the
account of Mario. Honesto withdrew the amount of P15th
from Shure Bank and disappeared. After receiving his
bank statement, Mario discovered the alteration and
demanded restitution from Progressive Bank. Discuss
fully the rights and the liabilities of the parties concerned.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The demand of Mario for restitution of the amount of
P150,000 to his account is tenable. Progressive Bank
has no right to deduct said amount from Marios
account since the order of Mario is different.
Moreover, Progressive Bank is liable for the
negligence of its employees in not noticing the
alteration which, though it cannot be detected by the
naked eye, could be detected by a magnifying
instrument used by tellers. As between Progressive
Bank and Shure Bank, it is the former that should
bear the loss. Progressive Bank failed to notify Shure
Bank that there was something wrong with the check
within the clearing hour rule of 24 hours.
Checks; Presentment (2003)
A bank issues its own check. May the holder hold the
bank liable thereunder if he fails to
prove presentment for payment, or
present the bill to the drawee for acceptance? Explain
your answers. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Checks; Validity; Waiver of Banks liability for

negligence (1991)
Mr. Lim issued a check drawn against BPI Bank in favor
of Mr Yu as payment of certain shares of stock which he
purchased. On the same day that he issued the check to
Yu, Lim ordered BPI to stop payment. Per standard
banking practice, Lim was made to sign a waiver of BPIs

liability in the event that it should pay Yu through
oversight or inadvertence. Despite the stop order by Lim,
BPI nevertheless paid Yu upon presentation of the
check. Lim sued BPI for paying against his order. Decide
the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the event that Mr. Lim, in fact, had sufficient legal
reasons to issue the stop payment order, he may sue
BPI for paying against his order. The waiver
executed by Mr. Lim did not mean that it need not
exercise due diligence to protect the interest of its
account holder. It is not amiss to state that the
drawee, unless the instrument has earlier been
accepted by it, is not bound to honor payment to the
holder of the check that thereby excludes it from any
liability if it were to comply with its stop payment
order (Sec 61 NIL)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
1991 6b) BPI would not be liable to Mr Lim. Mr Lim
and BPI are governed by their own agreement. The
waiver executed by Mr Lim, neither being one of
future fraud or gross negligence, would be valid. The
problem does not indicate the existence of fraud or
gross negligence on the part of BPI so as to warrant
liability on its part.
Checks; Other Functions/Purposes (2014)
Paul George Pua (Pua) filed a complaint for a sum of
money against the spouses Benito and Caroline James
(Spouses James). In the complaint, Pua prayed that the
defendants pay Pua the amount of P8, 500,000.00,
covered by a check. Pua asserts that defendants owed
him a sum of money way back in 1988 for which the
Spouses James gave him several checks. These checks,
however, had all been dishonored and Pua has not been
paid the amount of the loan plus the agreed interest. In
1996, the Spouses James approached Pua to get the
computation of their liability including the 2%
compounded interest. After bargaining to lower the
amount of their liability, the Spouses James gave Pua
postdated check bearing the discounted amount of P8,
500,000.00. Like the 1988 checks, the drawee bank
likewise dishonored this check. To prove his allegations,
Pua submitted the original copies of the 17 checks
issued by Caroline in 1988 and the check issued in 1996,
Manila trust Check No. 750. The Spouses James, on the
other hand, completely denied the existence of the debt
asserting that they had never approached Pua to borrow
money in 1988 or in 1996. They assert, instead, that Pua
is simply acting at the instance of his sister, Lilian, to file
a false charge against them using a check left to fund a
gambling business previously operated by Lilian and
Caroline. Decide. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will decide in favor of Pua and against the
Spouses James.
A check is evidence of indebtedness and
proof of an obligation. It can be used in lieu of and
for the same purpose as a promissory note. In other
words, a check functions more that a promissory
note since it only contains an undertaking to pay an
amount of money but is an order addressed to a
20 of 91
bank and partakes of a representation that the

drawer has funds on deposit against which the check
is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment upon its
presentation to the bank. A check, the entries of
which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction.
Thus, under the Negotiable Instruments Law, every
negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have
been issued for a valuable consideration, and every
person whose signature appears thereon to have
become a party for value. ( Pua v. Spouses Benito
Tiong, G.R. 198660, October 23, 2013).
Checks; Notice of Dishonor (2009)
Gaudencio, a store owner, obtained a P1-million loan
from Bathala Financing Corporation (BFC). As security,
Gaudencioexecuted a Deed of Assignment of
Receivables. Assigning fifteen checks received from
various customers who bought merchandise from his
store. The checks were duly indorsed by Gaudencios
customers.
The Deed of Assignment contains the ff. stipulation:
If, for any reason, the receivables or anypart thereof
cannot be paid by the obligors,
the ASSIGNOR unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to
pay the same, assuming the liability to pay by way of
penalty, three percent of the total amount unpaid, for the
period of delay until the same is fully paid.
When the checks became due, BFC deposited them for
collection, but the drawee banks dishonored all the
checks for one of the ff. reasons: account closed,
payment stopped, account under garnishment, or
insufficiency of funds.
BFC wrote Gaudencio notifying him of the
dishonored checks, and demanding payment of the loan.
Because Gaudencio did not pay, BFC filed a collection
suit.
In his defense, Gaudencio contended that (a)
BFC did not give timely notice of dishonor (of the
checks); and (b) considering that the checks were duly
indorsed, BfC should proceed against the drawers and
the indorsers of the checks. Are Gaudencios defenses
tenable? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Gaudencios defenses are untenable. The cause
of action of BFC was really on the contract of loan,
with the checks merely serving as collateral to
secure the payment of the loan. By virtue of the Deed
of
Assignment
which
he
signed,Gaudencio
undertook to pay for the receivables if for any reason
they cannot be paid by the obligors (Velasquez v.
Solidbank Corporation, 550 SCRA 119 (2008)).
Promissory Note; Place of Payment (2000)
PN is the holder of a negotiable promissory note within
the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Law (Act
2031). The note was originally issued by RP to XL as
payee. XL indorsed the note to PN for goods bought by
XL. The note mentions the place of payment on the
specified maturity date as the office of the corporate

secretary of PX Bank during banking hours. ON maturity
date, RP was at the aforesaid office ready to pay the
note but PN did not show up. What PN later did was to
sue XL for the face value of the note, plus interest and
costs. Will the suit prosper? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The suit will prosper as far as the face value of
the note is concerned, but not with respect to the
interest due subsequent to the maturity of the note
and the costs of collection. RP was ready and willing
to pay the note at the specified place of payment on
the specified maturity date, but PN did not show up.
PN lost his right to recover the interest due
subsequent to the maturity of the note and the costs
of collection.
Promissory Note; Joint Liability (2001)
X, Y and Z signed a promissory note in favor of A stating:
We promise to pay A on December 31, 2001 the sum of
P5,000.00
When the note fell due, A sued X and Y who put up the
defense that A should have impleaded Z. Is the defense
valid? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense is not valid. The liability of X, Y, and Z
under the promissory note is joint. Such being the
case, Z is not an indispensable party. The fact that A
did not implead Z will not prevent A from collecting
the proportionate share of X and Y in the payment of
the loan. (Observation: Even if the liability of X, Y,
and Z is solidary, the defense would still not be valid)
Parties; Bearer Instruments; Liabilities of Maker and
Indorsers (2001)
A issued a promissory note payable to B or bearer. A
delivered the note to B. B indorsed the note to C. C
placed the note in his drawer, which was stolen by the
janitor X. X indorsed the note to D by forging Cs
signature. D indorsed the note to E who in turn delivered
the note to F, a holder in due course, without
indorsement. Discuss the individual liabilities to F of A, B
and C. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is liable to F. As the maker of the
promissory note, A is directly or primarily liable to F,
who is a holder in due course. Despite the presence
of the special indorsements on the note, these do not
detract from the fact that a bearer instrument, like the
promissory note in question, is always negotiable by
mere delivery, until it is indorsed restrictively For
Deposit Only.
B, as a general indorser, is liable to F
secondarily, and warrants that the instrument is
genuine and in all respects what it purports to be;
that he has good title to it; that all prior parties had
capacity to contract; that he has no knowledge of
any fact which would impair the validity of the
instrument or render it valueless; that at the time of
his indorsement, the instrument is valid and
subsisting; and that on due presentment, it shall be
21 of 91
accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, and

that if it be dishonored and the necessary
proceedings on dishonor be duly taken, he will pay
the amount thereof to the holder, or to any
subsequent indorser who may be compelled to pay.
C is not liable to F since the latter cannot
trace his title to the former. The signature of C in the
supposed indorsement by him to D was forged by X.
C can raise the defense of forgery since it was his
signature that was forged.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As a general endorser, B is secondarily liable to F. C
is liable to F since it is due to the negligence of C in
placing the note in his drawer that enabled X to steal
the same and forge the signature of C relative to the
indorsement in favor of D. As between C and F who
are both innocent parties, it is C whose negligence is
the proximate cause of the loss. Hence C should
suffer the loss.
Parties; Drawers Liability to the Holder in Due
Course (2012)
X borrowed money from Y in the amount of Php1Million
and as payment, issued a check. Y then indorsed the
check to his sister Z for no consideration. When Z
deposited the check to her account, the check was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
a. Is Z a holder in due course? Explain your answer.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Z is not a holder in due course. She did not give
any valuable consideration for the check. To be a
holder in clue course, the holder must have taken the
check in good faith and for value (Sec. 52[c],
Negotiable Instruments Law).
b. Who is liable on the check? The drawer or the
indorser? Explain your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
b) X. the drawer, will be liable. As drawer, X engaged
that on due presentment the check would be paid
according to its tenor and that if it is dishonored and
he is given notice of dishonor, he will pay the
amount to the holder (Sec. 61, NIL). No notice of
dishonor need be given to X if he is aware that he
has insufficient funds in his account. Under Section
114(d) of the Negotiable Instruments Law, notice of
dishonor is not required to be given to the drawer
where he has no right to expect that the drawee will
honor the instrument.
Z cannot hold Y, the endorser, liable as the
tatter can raise the defense that there was no valuable
consideration for the endorsement of the check (Sec.
58, NIL).
Parties; Drawer; Drawee Bank; Liability (2010)
Marlon deposited with LYRIC Bank a money market
placement of P1 million for tern of 31 days. On Maturity
date, one claiming to be Marlon called up the LYRIC
Bank account officer and instructed him to give the
managers check representing the proceeds of the
money market placement to Marlons girlfriend Ingrid.
The check, which bore the forged signature of

Marlon, was deposited in Ingrids account with YAMAHA
Bank. YAMAHA Bank stamped a guaranty on the check
reading: All prior endorsements and/or lack of
endorsement guaranteed.
Upon presentment of the check, LYRIC Bank
funds the check. Days later, Marlon goes to LYRIC Bank
to collect his money market placement and discovers the
foregoing transactions.
Marlon thereupon sues LYRIC Bank which in
turn files a third-party complaint against YAMAHA Bank.
Discuss the respective rights and liabilities of the banks.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the money market placement of Marlon is in
the nature of a loan to Lyric Bank, and since he did
not authorize the release of the money market
placement to Ingrid, the obligation of Lyric Bank to
him has not been paid. Lyric Bank still has the
obligation to pay him.
Since Yamaha Bank indorsed the check
bearing the forged indorsement of Marlon and
guaranteed all indorsements, including the forged
indorsement, when it presented the check to Lyric
Bank, it should be held liable to it.
However, since the issuance of the check
was attended with the negligence of Lyric Bank, it
should share the loss with Yamaha Bank on a fifty
percent basis (Allied Banking Corporation v. Lim Sio
Wan, 549 SCRA 504 (2008)).
Parties; Drawee Bank; Liability; Forgery (2008)
Pancho drew a check to Bong and Gerard jointly, Bong
indorsed the check and also forged Gerards
indorsement . The payor bank paid the check and
chargedPanchos account for the amount of the
check. Gerard received nothing from the payment.
(A) Pancho asked the payor bank to recredit his account.
Should the bank comply? Explain fully. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Sec. 41 of the NIL provides that all payees or
indorsees who are not partners must indorse jointly,
unless the one indorsing has authority to endorse for
the others. Since the signature of Gerard was forged,
then the endorsement by Bong was wholly
inoperative. The Bank is under strict liability to pay
to the order of payee. Payment under a forged
endorsement is not to the drawers order, and
consequently, the drawee bank must bear the loss as
against the drawer (Associated Bank v. CA, G.R. Nos.
107382 and 107612, 31 January 1996).
(B) Based on the facts, was Pancho as drawer
discharged on the instrument? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The payee Gerard can recover as he still retains
his claim on the debt of Pancho.
Parties; Drawee Bank; Liability for Forgery (2009)
(E) A bank is bound to know itsdepositors signature
is an inflexible rule in determining the liability of a bank in
forgery cases.
22 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. In cases of forgery, the forger may not
necessarily be a depositor of the bank, especially in
the case of a drawee bank. Yet in many cases of
forgery, it is the drawee that is held liable for the
loss.
Parties; Accommodation Party (2003)
Susan Kawada borrowed P500,000 from XYZ Bank
which required her, together with Rose Reyes who did
not receive any amount from the bank, to execute a
promissory note payable to the bank, or its order on
stated maturities. The note was executed as so agreed.
What kind of liability was incurred by Rose, that of an
accommodation party or that of a solidary debtor?
Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Juan Sy purchased from A Appliance Center one
generator set on installment with chattel mortgage in
favor of the vendor. After getting hold of the generator
set, Juan Sy immediately sold it without consent of the
vendor. Juan Sy was criminally charged with estafa. To
settle the case extra judicially, Juan Sy paid the sum of
P20,000 and for the balance of P5,000.00 he executed a
promissory note for said amount with Ben Lopez as an
accommodation party. Juan Sy failed to pay the balance.
1) What is the liability of Ben Lopez as an
accommodation party? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) What is the liability of Juan Sy?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dagul has a business arrangement with Facundo. The

latter would lend money to another, through Dagul,
whose name would appear in the promissory note as the
lender. Dagul would then immediately indorse the note to
Facundo. Is Dagul an accommodation party? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
YES! Dagul is an accommodation party because in
the case at bar, he is essentially, a person who signs
as maker without receiving any consideration, signs
as an accommodation party merely for the purpose
of lending the credit of his name. And as an
accommodation party he cannot set up lack of
consideration against any holder, even as to one
who is not a holder in due course.
Parties; Holder in Due Course; Indorsement in blank
(2002)
A. AB issued a promissory note for P1,000 payable to
CD or his order on September 15, 2002. CD indorsed the
note in blank and delivered the same to EF. GH stole the
note from EF and on September 14, 2002 presented it to
AB for payment. When asked by AB, GH said CD gave
him the note in payment for two cavans of rice. AB
therefore paid GH P1,00 on the same date. On
September 15, 2002, EF discovered that the note of AB
was not in his possession and he went to AB. It was then
that EF found out that AB had already made payment on
the note. Can EF still claim payment from AB? Why?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No. EF cannot claim payment from AB. EF is not a
holder of the promissory note. To make the
presentment for payment, it is necessary to exhibit
the instrument, which EF cannot do because he is
not in possession thereof.
B. As a sequel to the same facts narrated above, EF, out
of pity for AB who had already paid P1,000.00 to GH,
decided to forgive AB and instead go after CD who
indorsed the note in blank to him. Is CD still liable to EF
by virtue of the indorsement in blank? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. No, because CD negotiated the instrument by
delivery.
Parties; Accommodation Party; Liability (2014)
A criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 was filed by
Foton Motors (Foton), an entity engaged in the business
of car dealership, against Pura Felipe (Pura) with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The Office
found probable cause to indict Pura and filed an
information before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Quezon City, for her issuance of a postdated check in the
amount of P1, 020,000.00 which was subsequently
dishonored upon presentment due to "Stop Payment."
Pura issued the check because her son,
Freddie, attracted by a huge discount of P220,000.00,
purchased a Foton Blizzard 4x2 from Foton. The term of
the transaction was Cash-on-Delivery and no down
payment was required. The car was delivered on May 14,
1997, but Freddie failed to pay upon delivery. Despite
non-payment, Freddie took possession of the vehicle.
23 of 91
Pura was eventually acquitted of the charge of

violating B.P. 22 but was found civilly liable for the
amount of the check plus legal interest. Pura appealed
the decision as regards the civil liability, claiming that
there was no privity of contract between Foton and Pura.
No civil liability could be adjudged against her because of
her acquittal from the criminal charge. It was Freddie who
was civilly liable to Foton, Pura claimed. Pura added that
she could not be an accommodation party either because
she only came in after Freddie failed to pay the purchase
price, or six (6) months after the execution of the contract
between Foton and Freddie. Her liability was limited to
her act of issuing a worthless check, but by her acquittal
in the criminal charge, there was no more basis for her to
be held civilly liable to Foton. Puras act of issuing the
subject check did not, by itself, assume the obligation of
Freddie to Foton or automatically make her a party to the
contract. Is Pura liable? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pura is liable for Foton Motors because it
sold a car to her son and was a holder for value of
the check issued in its favor by Pura. Any person
criminally liable for felony is also civilly liable. Thus,
her acquittal in the criminal charge does not carry
with its extinction of her civil liability unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the civil might
arise did not exist. (People v. Maniego, G.R. L-30910,
February 27, 1987).
More specifically, Pura is liable as an
accommodation party. Under Section 29 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law, an accommodation
party is one who has signed the instrument as
maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without
receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of
lending his name to some other person. Such a
person is liable on the instrument to a holder for
value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of
taking the instrument, knew him to be only an
accommodation party.
Puras liability existed although Pura issued
the check after the delivery of the car. Under Section
25 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an antecedent
or pre-existing debt constitutes value and is deemed
such whether the instrument is payable on demand
or at a future time.
Parties; Subsequent Party; Liability (2008)
(A) As a rule under the Negotiable Instruments Law, a
subsequent party may hold a prior party liable but not
vice versa. Give two (2) instances where a prior party
may hold a subsequent party liable. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the following cases, a prior party may hold a
subsequent party liable: (1) where an instrument is
negotiated back to a prior party, and he reissues and
further negotiates the same, he is entitled to en force
payment against a subsequent party who qualifies as
an intervening party to whom the prior party is not
personally liable; and (2) in the case of an
accommodation party arrangement, where the
accommodation party may recover from the party
accommodated, even when the latter is a subsequent
party (Sec. 29, NIL).

Parties; Holder in Due Course; Shelter Princple
(2008)
(B) How does the shelter principle embodied in the
Negotiable Instruments Law operate to give the rights of
a holder-in-dine course to a holder who does not have
the status of a holder-in-due course? Briefly explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The shelter principle provides that a holder who is
not himself a holder in due course but is not a party
to any fraud or illegality affecting the instrument, and
who derives his title from a holder in due course,
acquires the rights of a holder in due course (Sec.
58, NIL).
Parties; Indorser: Irregular Indorser vs. General
Indorser (2005)
Distinguish an irregular indorser from a general indorser.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Irregular Indorser is not a party to the instrument but
he places his signature in blank before delivery. He
is not a party but he becomes one because of his
signature in the
instrument. Because his signature he is considered
an indorser and he is liable to the parties in the
instrument. While, a General Indorser warrants that
the instrument is genuine, that he has a good title to
it, that all prior parties had capacity to contract; that
the instrument at the time of the indorsement is valid
and subsisting; and that on due presentment, the
instrument will be accepted or paid or both accepted
and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is
dishonored, he will pay if the necessary proceedings
for dishonor are made.
Discharge by Novation (2014)
Bong bought 300 bags of rice from Ben for P300,000.00.
As payment, Bong indorsed to Bena Bank of the
Philippine Islands (BPI) check issued by Baby in the
amount of P300,000.00. Upon presentment for payment,
the BPI check was dishonored because Babys account
from which it was drawn has been closed. To replace the
dishonored check, Bong indorsed a crossed
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) check issued
also by Baby for P300, 000.00. Again, the check was
dishonored because of insufficient funds. Ben sued Bong
and Baby on the dishonored BPI check. Bong interposed
the defense that the BPI check was discharged by
novation when Ben accepted the crossed DBP check as
replacement for the BPI check. Bong cited Section 119 of
the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that a
negotiable instrument is discharged "by any other act
which will discharge a simple contractfor the payment of
money." Is Bong correct? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bong is not correct. His claim that the BPI check
was discharged by novation when Ben accepted the
crossed DBP check as replacement for the BPI check
is unmeritorious.
24 of 91
Bens acceptance of the DBP check, which

replaced the dishonored BPI check, did not result in
novation as there was no express agreement to
establish that Bong was already discharged from his
liability to pay Ben the amount of P300, 000.00as
payment for the 300 bags of rice. Novation is never
presumed. There must be an express intention to
novate. In fact, when the DBP check was delivered
to Ben, the same was also indorsed by Bong which
shows Bongs recognition of the existing obligation
to Ben to pay P214,000.00 subject of the replaced BPI
check.
Moreover, Bens acceptance of DBP check
did not result in any incompatibility, since two
checks BPI and DBP checks were precisely for
the purpose of paying the amount of P214,000.00,
i.e., the credit obtained from the purchase of the 300
bags of rice from Ben.
Indeed, there was no
substantial change in the object or principal
condition of the obligation of Bong as the indorser of
the check to pay the amount of P214,000.00. It would
appear that Ben accepted the DBP check to give
Bong the chance to pay his obligation. (Salazar v.
J.Y. Brothers Marketing Corporation, G.R. 171998,
dated October 20,2010).
INSURANCE CODE
Perfection of Insurance Contracts (2003)
Josie Gatbonton obtained from Warranty Insurance
Corporation a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance to
cover her brand new automobile. She paid, and the
insurer accepted payment in check. Before the check
could be encashed, Josie was involved in a motor vehicle
accident where her car became a total wreck. She
sought payment from the insurer. Could the insurer be
made liable under the insurance coverage? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(per Dondee) Yes, because there was a perfected
contract of insurance the moment there is a meeting of
the minds with respect to the object and the cause of
payment. The payment of check is a valid payment
unless upon encashment the check bounced.
Perfection of Insurance Contracts (2009)
Antarctica Life Assurance Corporation (ALAC) publicly
offered a specially designed insurance policy covering
persons between the ages of 50 to 75 who may be
afflicted with serious and debilitating illnesses. Quirico
applied for insurance coverage, stating that he was
already 80 years old. Nonetheless, ALAC approved his
application.Quirico then requested ALAC for the issuance
of a cover note while he was trying to raise funds to pay
the insurance premium. ALAC granted the request. Ten
days after he received the cover note, Quirico had a
heart seizure and had to be hospitalized. He then filed a
claim on the policy.
(A) Can ALAC validly deny the claim on the ground that
the insurance coverage, as publicly offered, was
available only to persons 50 to 75 years of age? Why or
why not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. By approving the application of Quirino who
disclosed that he was already 80 years old, ALAC
waived the age requirement. ALAC is now stopped
from raising such defense of age of the insured.
(B) Did ALACs issuance of a cover note result in the
perfection of an insurance contract between Quirico and
ALAC? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The issuance of a cover note by ALAC resulted in the
perfection of the contract of insurance. In that case,
it is only because there is delay in the issuance of
the policy that the cover notes was issued.
The cover note is a receipt whereby the
company agrees to insure the insured for 60 days
pending the issuance of a regular policy. No separate
premium is to be paid on a cover note. It is not a
separate policy but is integrated in the regular policy
to be subsequently issued.
Bond: Cash Bond vs. Surety Bond (2004)
Distinguish clearly cash bond from surety bond.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A SURETY BOND is issued by a surety or insurance
company in favor of a designated beneficiary,
25 of 91
pursuant to which such company acts as a surety to

the debtor or obligor of such beneficiary. A CASH
BOND is a security in the form of cash established
by a guarantor or surety to secure the obligation of
another.
Beneficiary: Effects: Irrevocable Beneficiary (2005)

What are the effects of an irrevocable designation of a
beneficiary under the Insurance Code? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The irrevocable designation gives the beneficiary a
vested right over Life Insurance. The Insured cannot
act to divest the irrevocable beneficiary, in whole or
in part, without the beneficiary's consent. To be
specific:
(1) The beneficiary designated in a life
insurance contract cannot be changed
without the consent of the beneficiary
because he has a vested interest in the
policy (Philamlife v. Pineda, G.R. No. 54216,
July 19, 1989, citing Gcrcio v. Sun Life, G.R.
No. 23703, September 28, 1925; and Go v.
Redfern, G.R. No. 47705, April 25, 1841);
(2) Neither can the Insured take the cash
surrender value, assign or even borrow on
said policy without the beneficiary's
consent (Nario v. Philamlife, G.R. No. 22796,
June 26, 1967);
(3) The Insured cannot add another beneficiary
because that would reduce the amount
which the first beneficiary may recover and
therefore adversely affect his vested right
(Go v. Redfem, G.R. No. 47705, April 25,
1941);
(4) Unless the policy allows, the Insured cannot
even designate another beneficiary should
the original beneficiary predecease him. His
estate acquires the beneficiary's vested
right upon his death; and
(5) The Insured cannot allow his creditors to
attach or execute on the policy. (Philamlife
v. Pineda, G.R. No. 54216, July 19, 1989)
Beneficiary: Rights; Irrevocable Beneficiary (2005)
Jacob obtained a life insurance policy for P1 Million
designating irrevocably Diwata, a friend, as his
beneficiary. Jacob, however, changed his mind and
wants Yob and Jojo, his other friends, to be included as
beneficiaries considering that the proceeds of the policy
are sufficient for the three friends. Can Jacob still add
Yob and Jojo as his beneficiaries? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Jacob can no longer add Yob and Jojo as his
beneficiaries in addition to Diwata. As the irrevocable
beneficiary, Diwata has acquired a-vested right over
Jacob's life insurance policy. Any additional
beneficiaries will reduce the amount which Diwata,
as the first beneficiary, may recover, which will
adversely affect her vested right. (Go v. Redfern, G.R.
No. 47705, April 25, 1941)
Beneficiary; Designation Thereof; Incontestability

Clause (2014)
On July 3, 1993, Delia Sotero (Sotero) took out a life
insurance policy from Ilocos Bankers Life Insurance
Corporation
(Ilocos
Life)
designating
Creencia
Aban(Aban), her niece, as her beneficiary. Ilocos Life
issued Policy No. 747, with a face value of P100,000.00,
in Soteros favor on August 30, 1993, after the requisite
medical examination and payment of the premium.
On April 10, 1996, Sotero died. Aban filed a
claim for the insurance proceeds on July 9, 1996. Ilocos
Life conducted an investigation into the claim and came
out withthe following findings:
1. Sotero did not personally apply for insurance
coverage, as she was illiterate.
2. Sotero was sickly since 1990.
3. Sotero did not have the financial capability to
pay the premium on the policy.
4. Sotero did not sign the application for
insurance.
5. Aban was the one who filed the insurance
application and designated herself as the
beneficiary.
For the above reasons and claiming fraud,
Ilocos Life denied Abans claim on April 16, 1997, but
refunded the premium paid on the policy. (6%)
(A) May Sotero validly designate her niece
beneficiary?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Sotero may validly designate her niece
beneficiary. The same is not prohibited under
Insurance Code or any other law pertinent to
problem.
as
as
the
the
(B) May the incontestability period set in even in cases of

fraud as alleged in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the incontestability period applies even in
cases of fraud as claimed in this problem. Note that
the findings are those of the insurer and these were
made in an investigation conducted unilaterally by
the insurer more than 3 years after the policy was
taken out by Sotero. These finding may very well be
dismissed
as
self-serving
considering
the
incontestability clause set out in Section 48 of the
Insurance Code.
Section 48 regulates both the actions of the
insurers and prospective takers of life insurance. It
gives insurers enough time to inquire whether the
policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or
misrepresentation; on the other hand, it forewarns
scheming individuals that their attempts at insurance
fraud would be timely uncovered thus deterring
them from venturing into such nefarious enterprise.
At the same time, legitimate policy holders are
absolutely protected from unwarranted denial of their
claims or delay in the collection of insurance
proceeds occasioned by allegations of fraud,
concealment, or misrepresentation by insurers,
claims which may no longer be set up after the twoyear period expires as ordained under the law.
26 of 91
Thus, the self-regulating feature of Section

48 lies in the fact that both the insurer and the
insured are given the assurance that any dishonest
scheme to obtain life insurance would be exposed,
and attempts at unduly denying a claim would be
struck down. Life insurance policies that pass the
statutory two-year period are essentially treated as
legitimate and beyond question, and the individuals
who wield them are made secure by the thought that
they will be paid promptly upon claim. In this
manner, Section 48 contributes to the stability of the
insurance industry.
Section 48 prevents a situation where the
insurer knowingly continues to accept annual
premium payments on life insurance, only to later on
deny a claim on the policy on specious claims of
fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, such
as what obtains in the instant case. Thus, instead of
conducting at the first instance an investigation into
the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the
insurance policy which would have timely exposed
the supposed flaws and irregularities attending it as
it now professes, Ilocos Life appears to have turned
a blind eye and opted instead to continue collecting
the premiums on the policy. For nearly three years,
petitioner collected the premiums and devoted the
same to its own profit. It cannot now deny the claim
when it is called to account. Section 48 must be
applied to it with full force and effect.
Insurers may not be allowed to delay the
payment of claims by filing frivolous cases in court,
hoping that the inevitable may be put off for years
or even decades by the pendency of these
unnecessary court cases. In the meantime, they
benefit from collecting the interest and/or returns on
both the premiums previously paid by the insured
and the insurance proceeds which should otherwise
go to their beneficiaries. The business of insurance
is a highly regulated commercial activity in the
country, and is imbued with public interest. An
insurance contract is a contract of adhesion that
must be construed liberally in favor of the insured
and strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard
the [formers] interest. (Manila Bankers Life
Insurance Corp. vs. Aban, G. R. 175666, July 29,
2013)
(C) Is Aban entitled to claim the proceeds under the
policy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Aban is entitled to claim the proceeds under the
policy as beneficiary for the same reasons adduced
in (B) above.
Beneficiary; Death of Insured Due to Beneficiary
(2008)
On January 1, 2000, Antonio Rivera secured a life
insurance from SOS Insurance Corp. for P1 Million with
Gemma Rivera, his adopted daughter, as the beneficiary.
Antonio Rivera died on March 4, 2005 and in the police
investigation, it was ascertained that Gemma Rivera
participated as an accessory in the killing of Antonio
Rivera. Can SOS Insurance Corp. avoid liability by
setting up as a defense the participation of Gemma

Rivera in the killing of Antonio Rivera? Discuss with
reasons.(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Sec. 12 of the Insurance Code. The interest of
a beneficiary shall be forfeited when the beneficiary
is the principal, accomplice, or accessory in willfully
bringing about the death of the insured. In which
event, the nearest relative of the insured shall
receive the proceeds of said insurance, if not
otherwise disqualified. Thus, the insurance company
must still pay out the proceed of the life insurance
policy to the nearest qualified relative of the insured.
Insurable Interest: Public Enemy (2000)
May a member of the MILF or its breakaway group, the
Abu Sayyaf, be insured with a company licensed to do
business under the Insurance Code of the Phils (PD
1460)? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A member of the MILF or the Abu Sayyaf may be
insured with a company licensed to do business
under the Insurance Code of the Phils. What is
prohibited to be insured is a public enemy. A public
enemy is a citizen or national of a country with which
the Philippines is at war. Such member of the MILF
or the Abu Sayyaf is not a citizen or national of
another country, but of the
Philippines.
Insurable Interest; Life vs. Property Insurance (2000)
IS, an elderly bachelor with no known relatives, obtained
life insurance coverage for P250,000.00 from Starbrite
Insurance Corporation, an entity licensed to engage in
the insurable business under the Insurance Code of the
Philippines (PD1460). He also insured his residential
house for twice that amount within the same corporation.
He immediately assigned all his rights to the insurance
proceeds to BX, a friend-companion living with him.
Three years later, IS died in a fire that gutted his insured
house two days after he had sold it. There is no evidence
of suicide or arson or involvement of BX in these events.
BX demanded payment of the insurance proceeds from
the two policies, the premiums for which IS had been
faithfully paying during all the time he was alive. Starbrite
refused payment, contending that BX had no insurable
interest and therefore was not entitled to receive the
proceeds from ISs insurance coverage on his life and
also on his property. Is Starbrites contention valid?
Explain? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Starbrite is correct with respect to the insurance
coverage on the property of IS. The beneficiary in the
property insurance policy or the assignee thereof
must have insurable interest in the property insured.
BX, a mere friend-companion of IS, has no insurable
interest in the residential house of IS. BX is not
entitled to receive the proceeds from ISs insurance
on his property. As to the insurance coverage on the
life of IS, BX is entitled to receive the proceeds.
There is no requirement that BX should have
insurable interest in the life of IS. It was IS himself
who took the insurance on his own life.
27 of 91
Insurable Interest; Life vs. Property Insurance (2002)

Distinguish insurable interest in property insurance from
insurable interest in life insurance. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) In property insurance, the expectation of
benefit must have a legal basis. In life
insurance, the expectation of benefit to be
derived from the continued existence of a
life need not have any legal basis.
b) In property insurance, the actual value of
the interest therein is the limit of the
insurance that can validly be placed
thereon. In life insurance, there is no limit to
the amount of insurance that may be taken
upon life.
(1) In property insurance, an interest insured
must exist when the insurance takes effect
and when the loss occurs but need not exist
in the meantime. In life insurance, it is
enough that insurable interest exists at the
time when the contract is made but it need
not exist at the time of loss.
Insurable Interest; Property Insurance (2001)
JQ, owner of a condominium unit, insured the same
against fire with the XYZ Insurance Co., and made the
loss payable to his brother, MLQ. In case of loss by fire
of the said condominium unit, who may recover on the
fire insurance policy? State the reason(s) for your
answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
JQ can recover on the fire insurance policy for the
loss of said condominium unit. He has the insurable
interest as owner-insured. As beneficiary in the fire
insurance policy, MLQ cannot recover on the fire
insurance policy. For the beneficiary to recover on
the fire or property insurance policy, it is required
that he must have insurable interest in the property
insured. In this case, MLQ does not have insurable
interest in the condominium unit.
Insurable Interest; Building Destroyed by Fire (2010)
To secure a loan of P10 million, Mario mortgaged his
building to Armando. In accordance with the loan
arrangements, Mario had the building insured with First
Insurance Company for P10 million, designating
Armando as the beneficiary.
Armando also took an insurance of the building
upon his own interest with Second Insurance Company
for P5 million.
The building was totally destroyed by fire, a
peril insured against under both insurance policies. It was
subsequent determined that the fire had been
intentionally started by Mario and that in violation of the
loan agreement, he had been storing inflammable
materials in the building.
(A) How much, if any, can Armando recover from either
or both insurance companies? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Armando can receive P5 million from Second
Insurance Company. As mortgagee, he had an
insurable interest in the building (Panlileo v. Cosio,

97 Phil. 919 (1955)). Armando cannot collect anything
from First Insurance Company. First Insurance
Company is not liable for the loss of the building.
First, it was due to a willful act of Mario, who
committed arson (Section 87 of the Insurance Code;
East Furnitures, Inc. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire
Insurance Company, 57 Phil. 576 (1932)). Second, fire
insurance policies contain a warranty that the
insured will not store hazardous materials within the
insured premises. Mario breached this warranty
when he stored inflammable materials in the
building. (Young v. Midland Textile Insurance
Company, 30 Phil. 617 (1915)).These two factors
exonerate First Insurance Company from liability to
Armando as mortgagee even though it was Mario
who committed them (Section 8 of the Insurance
Code).
(B) What happens to the P10 million debt of Mario to
Armando? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since Armando would have collected P5 million from
Second Insurance Company, this amount should be
considered as partial payment of the loan. Armando
can only collect the balance of P5 million (Panlileo v.
Cosio, supra). Second Insurance Company can
recover from Mario the amount of P5 million it paid,
because it became subrogated to the rights of
Armando (Panlileo v. Cosio, supra).
Insurable Interest; Assignment Thereof (2009)

Ciriaco leased a commercial apartment from Supreme
Building Corporation (SBC). One of the provisions of the
one-year lease contract states:
18.xxx The LESSEE shall not insureagainst fire the
chattels, merchandise, textiles, goods and effects placed
at any stall or store or space in the leased premises
without first obtaining the written consent of the
LESSOR. If the LESSEE obtains fire insurance coverage
without the consent of the LESSOR, the insurance policy
is deemed assigned and transferred to the LESSOR for
the latters benefit.
Notwithstanding the stipulation in the contract, without
the consent of SBC, Ciriaco insured the merchandise
inside the leased premises against loss by fire in the
amount of P500, 000 with First United Insurance
Corporation (FUIC).
A day before the lease contract expired, fire
broke out inside the leased premises, damaging Ciriacos
merchandise. Having learned of the insurance earlier
procured by Ciriaco, SBC demanded from FUIC that the
proceeds of the insurance policy be paid directly to it, as
provided in the lease contract.
Who is legally entitled to receive the insurance
proceeds? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ciriaco is entitled to receive the proceeds of the
insurance policy. The stipulation that the policy is
deemed assigned and transferred to SBC is void,
because SBC has no insurable interest in the
28 of 91
merchandise of Ciriaco (Cha v. Court of Appeals, 277

SCRA 690 (1997))
proportion to the amount for which he is liable under

his contract. (Sec. 94, Insurance Code)
Insurable Interest; Void Marriage (2014)

Carlo and Bianca met in the La Boracay festivities.
Immediately, they fell in love with each other and got
married soon after. They have been cohabiting blissfully
as husband and wife, but they did not have any offspring.
As the years passed by, Carlo decided to take out an
insurance on Biancas life for P1, 000,000.00 with him
(Carlo) as sole beneficiary, given that he did not have a
steady source of income and he always depended on
Bianca both emotionally and financially. During the term
of the insurance, Bianca died of what appeared to be a
mysterious cause so that Carlo immediately requested
for an autopsy to be conducted. It was established that
Bianca died of a natural cause. More than that, it was
also established that Bianca was a transgender all along
a fact unknown to Carlo. Can Carlo claim the insurance
benefit? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Carlo can claim the insurance benefit. He had
insurable interest on Biancas life under Section 10
[b] of the Insurance Code as the problem states that
Carlo always depended on Bianca both emotionally
and financially. The insurable interest upon the life
of another under the aforesaid provision need not be
based on kinship or legal obligation to give support
(see Alvendiam, The Law of Insurance in the
Philippines, 1968 ed., p. 42; Martin, Commentaries
and Jurisprudence on the Philippine Commercial
Laws, vol. 2, 1986 ed., p.21). The fact that their
marriage may be void is irrelevant.

Terrazas de Patio Verde, a condominium building, has a
value of P50 Million. The owner insured the building
against fire with three (3) insurance companies for the
following amounts:

When does double insurance exist? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 93 of the Insurance Code, there is
double insurance when there is over-insurance with
two or more companies, covering the same property,
the same insurable interest and the same risk.
Double insurance exists where the same person is
insured by several insurers separately in respect of
the same subject matter and interests. (Geagonia v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114427, February 6, 1995)
Double Insurance; Several Insurers (2005)
What is the nature of the liability of the several insurers in
double insurance? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The nature of the liability of the several insurers in
double insurance is that each insurer is bound to the
contribute ratably to the loss in proportion to the
amount for which he is liable under his contract as
provided for by Sec 94 of ICP par. The ratable
contribution of each of each insurer will be
determined based on the following formula:
AMOUNT OF POLICY divided by TOTAL INSURANCE
TAKEN multiplied by LOSS = LIABILITY OF THE
INSURER.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Each insurer is bound, as between himself and other
insurers, to contribute ratably to the loss in
Northern Insurance Corp. P20 Million

Southern Insurance Corp. P30 Million
Eastern Insurance Corp. P50 Million
(A) Is the owners taking of insurance for the building with
three (3) insurers valid? Discuss. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Taking out insurance covering the same property,
same insurable interest and same risk with three
insurance companies is double insurance,
recognized under Sec. 93 of the Insurance Code.
However, in American Home Assurance Co. v, Chua,
G.R. No. 130421, 28 June 1999, the court referred to
the common inclusion of the other insurance
clause in fire insurance policies, requiring
disclosure of co-insurance of the same property with
other insurers.
(B) The Building was totally razed by fire. If the owner
decides to claim from Eastern Insurance Corp. only P50
Million, will the claim prosper? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Insured can recover from Eastern Insurance Corp. up
to the extent of his loss. However, Eastern may
refuse to pay if the policy contains an other
insurance clause stipulating that non-disclosure of
double insurance will avoid the policy (Geagonia v.
Country Bankers Insurance, G.R. No. 114427, 06
February 1995.) As there is no indication of a
contractual prohibition on double or other insurance,
all insurance contracts over the building are deemed
valid and enforceable.
The law prohibits double or over-recovery,
not double insurance. Since Eastern insured the
property up 50% of the total coverage, it is liable for
only 50% of the total actual loss. Easterninsurance
Corp. is liable to the extent of its coverage but may
recover one-half of the total indemnity from the coinsurers in the proportion of 60% (Southern
Insurance) 40% (Northern Insurance).
X borrowed from CCC Bank. She mortgaged her house
and lot in favor of the bank. X insured her house. Tt1e
bank also got the house insured.
a. Is this double insurance? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a. No, there is no double insurance. Double
insurance existswhere the same person is insured by
several insurers separately with respect to the same
subject and interest. (Sec. 93, Insurance Code)
b. Is this legally valid? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
29 of 91
b. Yes, X and CCC Bank can both insure the house

as they have different insurable interests therein. X,
the borrower-mortgagor, has an insurable interest in
the house being the owner thereof while CCC Bank,
the lender, also has an insurable interest in the
house as mortgagee thereof.
c. In case of damage, can X and CCC Bank separately
claim for the insurance proceeds? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
c. Yes. If X obtained an open policy then she could
claim an amount corresponding to the extent of the
damage based on the value of the house determined
as of the date the damage occurred, but not to
exceed the face value of the insurance policy;
however, if she obtained a valued policy then she
could claim an amount corresponding to the extent
of the damage based on the agreed upon valuation of
the house.
As for CCC Bank, it could claim an amount
corresponding to the extent of the damage but not to
exceed the amount of the loan it extended to X or so
much thereof as may remain unpaid.
Co-Insurance vs. Re-Insurance (1994)
Distinguish co-insurance from re-insurance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CO-INSURANCE is the percentage in the value of the
insured property which the insured himself assumes
or undertakes to act as insurer to the extent of the
deficiency in the insurance of the insured property.
In case of loss or damage, the insurer will be liable
only for such proportion of the loss or damage as the
amount of insurance bears to the designated
percentage of the full value of the property insured.
REINSURANCE is where the insurer procures a third
party, called the reinsurer, to insure him against
liability by reason of such original insurance.
Basically, a reinsurance is an insurance against
liability which the original insurer may incur in favor
of the original insured.
Mutual Insurance Company; Nature & Definition
(2006)
What is a mutual insurance company or association?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A mutual life insurance corporation is a cooperative
that promotes the welfare of its own members, with
the money collected from among themselves and
solely for their own protection and not for profit.
Members are both the insurer and insured. A mutual
life insurance company has no capital stock and
relies solely upon its contributions or premiums to
meet unexpected losses, contingencies and
expenses (Republic v. Sunlife, G.R. No 158085, October
14, 2005).
Premiums; Late Payment (2010)
Enrique obtained from Seguro Insurance Company a
comprehensive motor vehicle insurance to cover his top
of the line Aston martin. The policy was issued on March
31, 2010 and, on even date, Enrique paid the premium
with a personal check postdated April 6, 2010.

On April 5, 2010, the car was involved in an
accident that resulted in its total loss.
On April 10, 2010, the drawee bank returned
Enriques check with the notation Insurance funds.
Upon
notification,Enrique
immediately
deposited
additional funds with the bank and asked the insurer to
redeposit the check.
Enrique thereupon claimed indemnity from the
insurer. Is the insurer liable under the insurance
coverage? Why or why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The insurer is not liable under the insurance policy.
Under Article 1249 of the Civil Code, the delivery of a
check produces the effect of payment only when it is
encashed. The loss occurred on April 5, 2010. When
the check was deposited, it was returned on April 10,
2010, for insufficiency of funds. The check was
honored only after Enrique deposited additional
funds with the bank. Hence, it did not produce the
effect of payment (Vitug, Commercial Laws and
Jurisprudence, Vol. I, p.250).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The insurer is liable. The insurance policy was
issued. In effect, there was a grant of credit for the
payment of the premium. The insurer can deduct
theamount of the check from the proceeds of the
insurance.
Premiums; Payment by Check (2007)
Alfredo took out a policy to insure this commercial
building fire. The broker for the insurance company
agreed to give a 15-day credit within which pay the
insurance premium. Upon delivery of the policy on May
15, 2006, Alfredo issued a postdated check payable on
May 30, 2006. On May 28, 2006, a fire broke out and
destroyed the building owned by Alfredo. (10%)
(A) May Alfredo recover on the insurance policy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alfredo may recover on the policy. It is valid to
stipulate that the insured will be granted credit term
for payment of premium. Payment by means of a
check which was accepted by the insurer, bearing a
date prior to the loss, would be sufficient. The
subsequent effects of encashment retroact to the
date of the check (UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
v. MasaganaTelamart, Inc., 356 SCRA 307 [2001]).
(B) Would your answer in (a) be the same if it was found
that the proximate cause of the fire was an explosion and
that fire was but the immediate cause of loss and there is
no excepted peril under the policy?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, recovery under the insurance contract is
allowed if the cause of the loss was either the
proximate or the immediate cause as long as an
excepted peril, if any was not the proximate cause of
the loss (Section 86, Insurance Code of the
Philippines).
(C) If the fire was found to have been caused by
Alfredos own negligence, can he still recover on the
30 of 91
policy? Reason briefly in (a), (b) and (c).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, mere negligence on the part of the insured will
not prevent recovery under the insurance policy. The
law merely prevents recovery when the cause of loss
is the willful act of the insured, alone or in
connivance with others (Section 87, Insurance Code
of The Philippines).
Premiums; Payment by Check (2014)
On September 25, 2013, Danny Marcial (Danny)
procured an insurance on his life with a face value ofP5,
000,000.00 from RN Insurance Company (RN), with his
wife Tina Marcial (Tina) as sole beneficiary. On the same
day, Danny issued an undated check to RN for the full
amount of the premium. On October 1, 2013, RN issued
the policy covering Dannys life insurance. On October 5,
2013, Danny met a tragic accident and died. Tina
claimed the insurance benefit, but RN was quick to deny
the claim because at the time of Dannys death, the
check was not yet encashed and therefore the premium
remained unpaid.
Is RN correct? Will your answer be the same if
the check is dated October 15, 2013? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
To the first question (Is RN correct?)
RN Insurance is not correct. The facts of the
case show that Danny procured insurance on his life
on September 25, 2013, with his wife Tina as
beneficiary, and that on the same day, i.e.,
September 25, 2013, he issued an undated check to
RN for the full amount of the premium. Since the
undated check was issued to RN for the full amount
of the premium. Since the undated check was issued
to RN on September 25, 2013, it will be considered
dated as of the same day, i.e., September 25, 2013
pursuant to Section 17(c) of the Negotiable
Instruments Law. The facts also show that RN
Insurance issued the policy on Dannys life on
October 1, 2013 and that Danny died in an accident
on October 5, 2013.
RN Insurance denied the claim of Tina
because at the time of Dannys death, the check was
not yet encashed and, therefore, the premium
remained unpaid. Presumably, RN Insurance is
relying on the second paragraph of Article 1249 of
the Civil Code which states that the delivery of
promissory notes payable to order, or bills of
exchange or other mercantile documents shall
produce the effect of payment only when they have
been cashed, or when through the fault of the
creditor they have been impaired.
Whose fault was it that the check was not
encashed? Certainly not Danny or Tina. RN
Insurance had the check as early as September 25,
2013 and could have encashed the check before the
death of Danny on October 5, 2013. The problem did
not indicate that there was any problem with the
check, e.g., that it was not adequately funded. RN
Insurance was at fault and Tina should not be denied
the proceeds of the policy. (See the case of Malayan
Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Arnaldo, et al., G.R. L-67835,
October 12, 1987, where the Court held that the
insurer could no longer claim forfeiture of the

insureds rights because it held the check used to
pay the premium on a fire insurance policy for an
unreasonable time; see a;so the comments of
Justice Jose C. Vitug (ret.) in his book, Commercial
Laws and Jurisprudence, 2006, Vol. I, p. 250, that
[p]ayment x x x by means of a check or note,
accepted by the insurer, bearing a date prior ro the
loss, assuming an availability of funds thereof, would
be sufficient even if it remains uncashed at the time
of the loss. The subsequent effects of encashment
(or impairment by the fault of the creditor) or of legal
compensation under Articles 1278-1279, in relation to
Article 1249 of the Civil Code, would retroact to the
date of the mercantile instrument and its acceptance
by the creditor.]
To the second question (Will your answer be the same if
the check is dated October 15, 2013).
My answer would not be the same if the
check were dated October 15, 2013. This answer
assumes that Danny was the one who dated the
check and, therefore, what he issued was a
postdated check. The payment of a promissory note
or a postdated check at a stated maturity subsequent
to the loss, assuming that there was no estoppel
(e.g., written acknowledgment of the receipt of
premium), is insufficient to put the insurance into
effect. (Vitug, Commercial Laws and Jurisprudence,
2006, Vol. I, p. 250)
If it were RN Insurance who dated the check
October 15, 2013, then my answer would be the same
as my answer to the first question.
Premiums; Payment by Installment (2006)
The Peninsula Insurance Company offered to insure
Francis' brand new car against all risks in the sum of PI
Million for 1 year. The policy was issued with the
premium fixed at 160,000.00 payable in 6 months.
Francis only paid the first two months installments.
Despite demands, he failed to pay the subsequent
installments. Five months after the issuance of the policy,
the vehicle was carnapped. Francis filed with the
insurance company a claim for its value. However, the
company denied his claim on the ground that he failed to
pay the premium resulting in the cancellation of the
policy. Can Francis recover from the Peninsula Insurance
Company? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, when insured and insurer have agreed to the
payment of premium by installments and partial
payment has been made at the time of loss, then the
insurer becomes liable. When the car loss happened
on the 5th month, the six months agreed period of
payment had not yet elapsed (UCPB General
Insurance v. Masagana Telamart, G.R. No. 137172,
April 4, 2001). Francis can recover from Peninsula
Insurance Company, but the latter has the right to
deduct the amount of unpaid premium from the
insurance proceeds.
31 of 91
Premiums; Payment by Credit (2013)

Stable Insurance Co. (SIC) and St. Peter Manufacturing
Co. (SPMC) have had a long-standing insurance
relationship with each other; SPMC secures the
comprehensive fire insurance on its plant and facilities
from SIC. The standing business practice between them
has been to allow SPMC a credit period of 90 days from
the renewal of the policy within which to pay the
premium.
Soon after the new policy was issued and
before premium payments could be made, a fire gutted
the covered plant and facilities to the ground. The day
after the fire, SPMC issued a manager's check to SIC for
the fire insurance premium, for which it was issued a
receipt; a week later SPMC issued its notice of loss.
SIC responded by issuing its own manager's
check for the amount of the premiums SPMC had paid,
and denied SPMC's claim on the ground that under the
"cash and carry" principle governing fire insurance, no
coverage existed at the time the fire occurred because
the insurance premium had not been paid.
Is SPMC entitled to recover for the loss from
SIC? (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
St. Peter Manufacturing Company is entitled
to recover for the loss from Stable Insurance
Company. Stable Insurance Company granted a
credit term to pay the premiums. This is not against
the law, because the standing business practice of
allowing St. Peter Manufacturing Company to pay the
premiums after 60 or 90 days was relied upon in
good faith by SPMC. Stable Insurance Company is in
estoppel (UCPB General Insurance Company, Inc. v.
MasaganaTelemart, Inc., 356 SCRA 307, 2001).
Premiums; Return of Premiums (2000)
Name at least three instances when an insured is entitled
to a return of the premium paid.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Three instances when an insured is entitled to a
return of premium paid are:
1 To the WHOLE PREMIUM, if no part of his interest
in the thing insured be exposed to any of the perils
insured against.
2 Where the insurance is made for a definite period
of time and the insured surrenders his policy, to
such portion of the premium as corresponds with the
unexpired time at a pro rata rate, unless a short
period rate has been agreed upon and appears on
the face of the policy, after deducting from the whole
premium any claim for loss or damage under the
policy which has previously accrued.
3 When the contract is voidable on account of the
fraud or misrepresentation of the insurer or of his
agent or on account of facts the existence of which
the insured was ignorant without his fault; or when,
by any default of the insured other than actual fraud,
the insurer never incurred any liability under the
policy.
ALTERNATIVE INSTANCE:
In case of an over insurance by several insurers, the
insured is entitled to a ratable return of the premium,
proportioned to the amount by which the aggregate
sum insured in all the policies exceeds the insurable

value of the thing at risk.
Rescission of Insurance Contract; Concealment;
Material Concealment (2001)
A applied for a non-medical life insurance. The insured
did not inform the insurer that one week prior to his
application for insurance, he was examined and confined
at St. Lukes Hospital where he was diagnosed for lung
cancer. The insured soon thereafter died in a plane
crash. Is the insurer liable considering that the fact
concealed had no bearing with the cause of death of the
insured? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The concealed fact is material to the approval
and issuance of the insurance policy. It is well
settled that the insured need not die of the disease
he failed to disclose to the insurer. It is sufficient that
his nondisclosure misled the insurer in forming his
estimate of the risks of the proposed insurance
policy or in making inquiries.
Rescission of Insurance Contract; Concealment
(2013)
Benny applied for life insurance for Php 1.5 Million. The
insurance company approved his application and issued
an insurance policy effective Nov. 6, 2008. Benny named
his children as his beneficiaries. On April 6, 2010, Benny
died of hepatoma, a liver ailment.
The insurance company denied the children's claim for
the proceeds of the insurance policy on the ground that
Benny failed to disclose in his application two previous
consultations with his doctors for diabetes and
hypertension, and that he had been diagnosed to be
suffering from hepatoma. The insurance company also
rescinded the policy and refunded the premiums paid.
Was the insurance company correct? (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The insurance company correctly rescinded the
policy because of concealment (Section 27 of
Insurance Code). Benny did not disclose that he
w.as suffering from diabetes, hypertension, and
hepatoma. The concealment is material, because
these are serious ailments (Florendo v. Philam
Plans, Inc., 666 SCRA 618, 2012). Benny died less
than two years from the date of the issuance of
the policy (Section 48 of Insurance Code).
Claims; Loss of Property Insured; Theft Clause;
What Constitutes Theft (2014)
On May 26, 2014, Jess insured with Jack Insurance
(Jack) his 2014 Toyota Corolla sedan under a
comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy for one
year. On July 1, 2014, Jess car was unlawfully taken.
Hence, he immediately reported the theft to the Traffic
Management Command (TMC) of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), which made Jess accomplish a complaint
sheet as part of its procedure. In the complaint sheet,
Jess alleged that a certain Ric Silat(Silat) took
possession of the subject vehicle to add accessories and
improvements thereon. However, Silat failed to return the
subject vehicle within the agreed 3-day period. As a
result, Jess notified Jack of his claim for reimbursement
32 of 91
of the value of the lost vehicle under the insurance policy.

Jack refused to pay claiming that there is no theft as Jess
gave Silat lawful possession of the car. Is Jack correct?
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jack Insurance is not correct. Ric Silat was
merely given physical possession of the car. He did
not have juridical possession over the same. It is
also apparent that the taking by Silat of the car of
Jess is without the consent or authority of the latter.
Thus, the act of Silat in depriving Jess of his car,
soon after the transfer of physical possession of the
same to him, constitutes theft under the insurance
policy that is compensable. (Paramount Insurance v.
Spouses Remondeulaz, G.R. 173773, November
28,2012).
Claims; In Case of Loss of Property Insured; Theft
Clause vs. Malicious Damage Clause (2014)
On February 21, 2013, Barrack entered into a contract of
insurance with Matino Insurance Company (Matino)
involving a motor vehicle. The policy obligates Matino to
pay Barrack the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P600,000.00) in case of loss or damage to said vehicle
during the period covered, which is from February 26,
2013 to February 26, 2014.
On April 16, 2013, at about 9:00 a.m., Barrack
instructed his driver, JJ, to bring the motor vehicle to a
nearby auto shop for tune-up. However, JJno longer
returned and despite diligent efforts to locate the said
vehicle, the efforts proved futile. Resultantly, Barrack
promptly notified Matino of the said loss and demanded
payment of the insurance proceeds of P600,000.00.
In a letter dated July 5, 2013. Matino denied the
claim, reasoning as stated in the contract that "the
company shall not be liable for any malicious damage
caused by the insured, any member of his family or by a
person in the insureds service. Is Matino correct in
denying the claim? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Matino Insurance is not correct in denying the claim.
The loss of the motor vehicle is not excluded under
the insurance policy as the loss was due to theft, not
malicious damage. The malicious damage clause
under the policy is not applicable but rather the
theft clause. Thus, the provision under the policy
that the company shall not be liable for any
malicious damage caused by the insured, any
member of his family or by a person in the insureds
service is not applicable. (Alpha Insurance and
Surety Co. v. Castor, G.R. 198174, September 2,
2003).
Claims; Loss of Property Insured; Authorized Driver
Clause (2003)
Rick de la Cruz insured his passenger jeepney with
Asiatic Insurers, Inc. The policy provided that the
authorized driver of the vehicle should have a valid and
existing drivers license. The passenger jeepney of Rick
de la Cruz which was at the time driven by Jay Cruz,
figured in an accident resulting in the death of a
passenger. At the time of the accident, Jay Cruz was
licensed to drive but it was confiscated by an LTO agent
who issued him a Traffic Violation Report (TVR) just

minutes before the accident. Could Asiatic Insurers, Inc.,
be made liable under its policy? Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Asiatic Insurers, Inc., should be made liable under
the policy. The fact that the driver was merely
holding a TVR does not violate the condition that the
driver should have a valid and existing drivers
license. Besides, such a condition should be
disregarded because what is involved is a passenger
jeepney, and what is involved here is not own
damage insurance but third party liability where the
injured party is a third party not privy to the contract
of insurance.
Claims; Accident Policy (2004)
CNI insure SAM under a homeowner's policy against
claims for accidental injuries by neighbors. SAM's minor
son, BOY, injured 3 children of POS, a neighbor, who
sued SAM for damages. SAM's lawyer was ATT, who
was paid for his services by the insurer for reporting
periodically on the case to CNI. In one report, ATT
disclosed to CNI that after his investigations, he found
the injuries to the 3 children not accidental but
intentional. SAM lost the case in court, and POS was
awarded one million pesos in damages which he sought
to collect from the insurer. But CNI used ATTs report to
deny the claim on the ground that the injuries to POS's 3
children were intentional, hence excluded from the
policy's coverage. POS countered that CNI was
estopped from using ATTs report because it was
unethical for ATT to provide prejudicial information
against his client to the insurer, CNI. Who should prevail:
the claimant, POS; or the insurer, CNI? Decide with
reasons briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CNI is not estopped from using ATT's report,
because CNI, in the first place, commissioned it and
paid ATT for it. On the other hand, ATT has no
conflict of interest because SAM and CNI are on the
same side their interests being congruent with
each other, namely, to oppose POS's claim. It cannot
be said that ATT has used the information to the
disadvantage or prejudice of SAM. However, in
Finman General Assurance Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, 213 SCRA 493 (1992), it was explained that
there is no "accident" in the context of an accident
policy, if it is the natural result of the insured's
voluntary
act,
unaccompanied
by
anything
unforeseen except the injury. There is no accident
when a deliberate act is performed, unless some
additional and unforeseen happening occurs that
brings about the injury.
This element of deliberateness is not clearly
shown from the facts of the case, especially
considering the fact that BOY is a minor, and the
injured parties are also children. Accordingly, it is
possible that CNI may not prosper. ATT's report is
not conclusive on POS or the court.
Claims; Improper in Case Insured Violated the Terms
(2014)
33 of 91
On May 13, 1996, PAM, Inc. obtained a P15, 000,000.00

fire insurance policy from Ilocano Insurance covering its
machineries and equipment effective for one (1) yearor
until May 14, 1997. The policy expressly stated that the
insured properties were located at "Sanyo Precision
Phils. Building, Phase III, Lots 4 and 6, Block 15, PEZA,
Rosario, Cavite." Before its expiration, the policy was
renewed on "as is" basis for another year or until May 13,
1998. The subject properties were later transferred to
Pace Factory also in PEZA. On October 12, 1997, during
the effectivity of the renewed policy, a fire broke out at
the Pace Factory which totally burned the insured
properties.
The policy forbade the removal of the insured
properties unless sanctioned by Ilocano. Condition 9(c)
of the policy provides that "the insurance ceases to
attach as regards the property affected unless the
insured, before the occurrence of any loss or damage,
obtains the sanction of the company signified by
endorsement upon the policy x x x (c) if the property
insured is removed to any building or place other than in
that which is herein stated to be insured." PAM claims
that it has substantially complied with notifying Ilocano
through its sister company, the RBC, which, in fact,
referred PAM to Ilocano for the insurance coverage. Is
Ilocano liable under the policy? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ilocano Insurance is not liable under the
policy. By the clear and express condition in the
renewal policy, the removal of the insured property
to any building or place required the consent of
Ilocano. Any transfer effected by PAM, Inc. without
Ilocanos consent (as is the case here) would free the
latter from any liability. (Malayan Insurance
Company, Inc. v. PAPCO, Ltd., G.R. 200784, August
7, 2013).
Insurer; 3rd Party Liability (2000)
X was riding a suburban utility vehicle (SUV) covered by
a comprehensive motor vehicle liability insurance
(CMVLI) underwritten by FastPay Insurance Company
when it collided with a speeding bus owned by RM Travel
Inc. The collision resulted in serious injuries to X; Y, a
passenger of the bus; and Z, a pedestrian waiting for a
ride at the scene of the collision. The police report
established that the bus was the offending vehicle. The
bus had CMVLI policy issued by Dragon Ins Co. X, Y,
and Z jointly sued RM Travel and Dragon Ins for
indemnity under the Insurance Code of the Phils
(PD1460). The lower court applied the no fault
indemnity policy of the statute, dismissed the suit against
RM Travel, and ordered Dragon Ins to pay indemnity to
all three plaintiffs. Do you agree with the courts
judgment? Explain (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The cause of action of Y is based on the contract
of carriage, while that of X and Z is based on torts.
The court should not have dismissed the suit against
RM Travel. The court should have ordered Dragon
Ins to pay each of X, Y and Z to the extent of the
insurance coverage, but whatever amount is agreed
upon in the policy should be answered first by RM
Travel and the succeeding amount should be paid by
Dragon Insurance up to the amount of the insurance

coverage. The excess of the claims of X, Y, and Z,
over and above such insurance coverage, if any,
should be answered or paid by RM Travel.
Insurer; Group Insurance; Employer-Policy Holder
(2000)
X company procured a group accident insurance policy
for its construction employees variously assigned to its
provincial infrastructure projects. Y Insurance Company
underwrote the coverage, the premiums of which were
paid for entirely by X Company without any employee
contributions. While the policy was in effect, five of the
covered employees perished at sea on their way to their
provincial assignments. Their wives sued Y Insurance
Company for payment of death benefits under the policy.
While the suit was pending, the wives signed a power of
attorney designating X Company executive, PJ, as their
authorized representative to enter into a settlement with
the insurance company. When a settlement was
reached, PJ instructed the insurance company to issue
the settlement check to the order of X Company, which
will undertake the payment to the individual claimants of
their respective shares. PJ misappropriated the
settlement amount and the wives pursued their case
against Y Insurance Co. Will the suit prosper? Explain
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The suit will prosper. Y Ins Co is liable. X Co,
through its executive, PJ, acted as agent of Y Ins Co.
The latter is thus bound by the misconduct of its
agent. It is the usual practice in the group insurance
business that the employer-policy holder is the agent
of the insurer.
Insurer; Right of Subrogation (2014)
ELP Insurance, Inc. issued Marine Policy No. 888 in
favor of FCL Corp. to insure the shipment of 132 bundles
of electric copper cathodes against all risks.
Subsequently, the cargoes were shipped on board the
vessel "M/V Menchu" from Leyte to Pier 10, North
Harbor, Manila.
Upon arrival, FCL Corp. engaged the services
of CGM, Inc. for the release and withdrawal of the
cargoes from the pier and the subsequent delivery to its
warehouses/plants in Valenzuela City. The goods were
loaded on board twelve (12) trucks owned by CGM, Inc.,
driven by its employed drivers and accompanied by its
employed truck helpers. Of the twelve (12) trucks en
routeto Valenzuela City, only eleven (11) reached the
destination. One (1) truck, loaded with eleven (11)
bundles of copper cathodes, failed to deliver its cargo.
Because of this incident, FCL Corp. filed with ELP
Insurance, Inc. a claim for insurance indemnity in the
amount of P1, 500,000.00. After the requisite
investigation and adjustment, ELP Insurance, Inc. paid
FCL Corp. the amount of P1, 350,000.00 as insurance
indemnity.
ELP Insurance, Inc., thereafter, filed a
complaint for damages against CGM, Inc. before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking reimbursement of
the amount it had paid to FCL Corp. for the loss of the
subject cargo. CGM, Inc. denied the claim on the basis
34 of 91
that it is not privy to the contract entered into by and

between FCL Corp. and ELP Insurance, Inc., and hence,
it is not liable therefor. If you are the judge, how will you
decide the case? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will decide the case in favor of ELP
Insurance. Even if CGM, Inc. is not privy to the
contract between FCL Corp. and ELP Insurance, it is
still liable for the loss of the subject cargo. Article
2207 of the Civil Code states that if the plaintiffs
property has been insured and he has received
indemnity from the insurance company for injury or
loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract
complained of, the insurance company shall be
subrogated to the rights of the insured against the
wrong-doer or the person who has violated the
contract, which in this case is CGM. Since ELP
Insurance is subrogated to the rights of FCL Corp. to
the extent of the amount it paid to the latter under the
marine insurance contract, it has the right to seek
reimbursement from CGM, Inc., for breach of
contract and/or tort (Loadmasters Customs Services,
Inc. v. Glodel Brokerage Corporation and R & B
Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 179446, January 10,
2011).
TRANSPORTATION LAWS
Common Carrier; Breach of Contract; Damages
(2003)
Vivian Martin was booked by PAL, which acted as a
ticketing agent of Far East Airlines, for a round trip flight
on the latters aircraft, from Manila-Hongkong-Manila.
The ticket was cut by an employee of PAL. The ticket
showed that Vivian was scheduled to leave Manila at
5:30 p.m. on 05 January 2002 aboard Far Easts Flight
F007. Vivian arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport an hour before the time scheduled in her ticket,
but was told that Far Easts Flight F007 had left at 12:10
p.m. It turned out that the ticket was inadvertently cut and
wrongly worded. PAL employees manning the airports
ground services nevertheless scheduled her to fly two
hours later aboard their plane. She agreed and arrived in
Hongkong safely. The aircraft used by Far East Airlines
developed engine trouble, and did not make it to
Hongkong but returned to Manila. Vivian sued both
airlines, PAL and Far East, for damages because of her
having unable to take the Far East flight. Could either or
both airlines be held liable to Vivian? Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cash & Carry Basis (2003)

What is meant by cash and carry in the business of
insurance?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Marine Insurance; Implied Warranties (2000)

What warranties are implied in marine insurance?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following warranties are implied in marine
insurance:
1) That the ship is seaworthy to make the
voyage and/or to take in certain cargoes
2) That the ship shall not deviate from the
voyage insured;
3) That the ship shall carry the necessary
documents to show nationality or neutrality
and that it will not carry any document
which will cast reasonable suspicion
thereon;
4) That the ship shall not carry contraband,
especially if it is making a voyage through
belligerent waters.
Common Carrier; Defenses (2002)

Why is the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of an employee not available to a common
carrier? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of an employee is not available to a
common carrier because the degree of diligence
required of a common carrier is not the diligence of a
good father of a family but extraordinary diligence,
i.e., diligence of the greatest skill and utmost
foresight.
Common Carrier; Defenses; Limitation of Liability
(2001)
Suppose A was riding on an airplane of a common
carrier when the accident happened and A suffered
serious injuries. In an action by A against the common
carrier, the latter claimed that
1) there was a stipulation in the ticket issued to A
absolutely exempting the carrier from liability from the
passengers death or injuries ad notices were posted by
the common carrier dispensing with the extraordinary
diligence of the carrier, and
2) A was given a discount on his plane fare thereby
reducing the liability of the common carrier with respect
to A in particular.
35 of 91
a)Are those valid defenses? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. These are not valid defenses because they are
contrary to law as they are in violation of the
extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.
(Article 1757, 1758 New Civil Code)
b) What are the defenses available to any common
carrier to limit or exempt it from liability? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The defenses available to any common carrier to
limit or exempt it from liability are:
1 observance of extraordinary diligence,
2 or the proximate cause of the incident is a
fortuitous event or force majeure,
3 act or omission of the shipper or owner of the
goods,
4 the character of the goods or defects in the
packing or in the containers, and
5 order or act of competent public authority, without
the common carrier being guilty of even simple
negligence (Article 1734, NCC).
Common vs. Private Carrier; Defenses (2002)
Name two (2) characteristics which differentiate a
common carrier from a private carrier. (3%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Two (2) characteristics that differentiate a common
carrier from a private carrier are:
1 A common carrier offers its service to the public; a
private carrier does not.
2 A common carrier is required to observe
extraordinary diligence; a private carrier is not so
required.
Kabit System (2005)
Discuss the kabit system in land transportation and its
legal consequences. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The kabit system is an arrangement where a person
granted a certificate of public convenience allows
other persons to operate their motor vehicles under
his license, for a fee or percentage of their earnings
(Lim v. Court of Appeals and Gonzalez, G.R, No.
125817, January 16, 2002, citing Baliwag Trannit v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57493, January 7, 1987)
The law enjoining the kabit system aims to identify
the person responsible for an accident in order to
protect the riding public. The policy has no force
when the public at large is neither deceived nor
involved. The law does not penalize the parties to a
kabit agreement. But the kabit system is contrary to
public policy and therefore void and inexistent. (Art.
1409[1], Civil Code)
Kabit System; Agent of the Registered Owner (2005)
Procopio purchased an Isuzu passenger jeepney from
Enteng, a holder of a certificate of public convenience for
the operation of public utility vehicle plying the CalambaLos Baos route. While Procopio continued offering the
jeepney for public transport services, he did not have the
registration of the vehicle transferred in his name. Neither
did he secure for himself a certificate of public
convenience for its operation. Thus, per the records of

the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
Board, Enteng remained its registered owner and
operator. One day, while the jeepney was traveling
southbound, it collided with a ten-wheeler truck owned by
Emmanuel. The driver of the truck admitted responsibility
for the accident, explaining that the truck lost its brakes.
Procopio sued Emmanuel for damages, but the latter
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Procopio is
not the real party in interest since he is not the registered
owner of the jeepney. Resolve the motion with reasons.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss should be denied because
Procopio, as the real owner of the jeepney, is the real
party in interest. Procopio falls under the Kabit
system. However, the legal restriction as regards the
Kabit system does not apply in this case because the
public at large is not deceived nor involved. (Lim v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002,
citing Baliwag Transit v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
57493, January 7, 1987) In any event, Procoprio is
deemed to be "the agent" of the registered owner.
(First Malayan Leasing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
91378, June 9,1992; and "F" Transit Co., Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. Nos, 88195-96, January 27, 1994)
Prior Operator Rule (2003)
Bayan Bus Lines had been operating satisfactorily a bus
service over the route Manila to Tarlac and vice versa via
the McArthur Highway. With the upgrading of the new
North Expressway, Bayan Bus Lines service became
seemingly inadequate despite its efforts of improving the
same. Pasok Transportation, Inc., now applies for the
issuance to it by the Land Transportation Franchising
and Regulatory Board of a certificate of public
convenience for the same Manila-Tarlac-Manila route.
Could Bayan Bus Lines, Inc., invoke the prior operator
rules against Pasok Transportation, Inc.? Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Boundary System (2005)

Baldo is a driver of Yellow Cab Company under the
boundary system. While cruising along the South
Expressway, Baldos cab figured in a collision, killing his
passenger, Pietro. The heirs of Pietro sued Yellow Cab
Company for damages, but the latter refused to pay the
heirs, insisting that it is not liable because Baldo is not its
employee. Resolve with reasons. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yellow Cab Company shall be liable with Baldo, on a
solidary basis, for the death of passenger Pietro.
Baldo is an employee of Yellow Cab under the
boundary system. As such, the death of passenger
36 of 91
Pietro is breach of contract of carriage, making both

the common carrier Yellow Cab and its employee,
Baldo, solidarily liable. (Hernandez v. Dolor, G.R, No.
160286, July 30, 2004)
Contract of Carriage; Prohibited & Valid Stipulations
(2002)
Discuss whether or not the following stipulations in a
contract of carriage of a common carrier are valid:
1 a stipulation limiting the sum that may be recovered by
the shipper or owner to 90% of the value of the goods in
case of loss due to theft.
2 a stipulation that in the event of loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods on account of the defective
condition of the vehicle used in the contract of carriage,
the carriers liability is limited to the value of the goods
appearing in the bill of lading unless the shipper or owner
declares a higher value (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 The stipulation is considered unreasonable,
unjust and contrary to public policy under Article 1745 of
the Civil Code.
2 The stipulation limiting the carriers liability to the value
of the goods appearing in the bill of lading unless the
shipper or owner declares a higher value, is expressly
recognized in Article 1749 of the Civil Code.
Contract of Carriage; Breach of Contract (2008)
City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train service, for a fee,
to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna.
Commuter are required to purchase tickets and then
proceed to designated loading and unloading facilities to
board the train. Ricardo Santos purchased a ticket for
Calamba and entered the station. While waiting, he had
an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading to a
fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train
was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was run over by
the train. He died.
In the action for damages filed by the heirs of
Ricardo Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action,
contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo
Santos boarded thetrain and that it was not guilty of
negligence. Decide. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRI is liable for death of Ricardo Santos because it
failed to exercise extraordinary diligence (LRTA v.
Navidad G.R. No. 145804, 06 February 2003). The
contract of carriage began when the passenger
purchased his ticket and proceeded to the
designated loading facilities to board the train
(Dangwa Transp. Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 95582, 07 October 1991), CRI is also liable for all
persons in its employ (Caltex Philippines, Inc. v.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 131166, 30 September
1999).
Contract of Carriage; Breach of Contract; Defenses
(2009)
One of the passenger buses owned by Continental
Transit Corporation (CTC), plying its usual route figured
in a collision with another bus owned by Universal
Transport, Inc. (UTI). Among those injured inside the
CTC bus were: Romeo, a stow away: Samuel, a
pickpocket then in the act of robbing his seatmate when

the collision occurred; Teresita, the bus drivers mistress
who usually accompanied the driver on his trips for free;
and Uriel, holder of a free riding pass he won in a raffle
held by CTC.
(A) Will a suit for breach of contract of carriage filed by
Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel against CTC
prosper? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Romeo cannot sue for breach of contract of carriage.
A stowaway like Romeo, Who secures passage by
fraud, is not a passenger (Vda. De nueca v. Manial
Railroad Company, 13 C.A. R. 49(1968)).
Samuel and Teresita cannot sue for breach of
contract of carriage. The Elements in the definition of
a passenger are: an undertaking of a person to travel
in the conveyance provided by the carrier and an
acceptance by the carrier of the person as a
passenger. (14 Am Jur 2d, Carriers, So. 714,p. 164).
Samuel did not board the bus to be transported but
to commit robbery. Teresita did not board the bus to
be transported but to accompany the driver while he
was performing his work.
Uriel can sue for breach of contract. He was a
passenger although he was being transported
gratuitously, because he won a free riding pass in a
raffle held by CTC (Article 1753, New Civil Code).
(B) Do Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel have a
cause of action for damages against UTI? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Romeo, Samuel, Teresita and Uriel may sue UtI on
the basis of quasi-delict since they have no preexisting contractual relationship with UTI. They may
allege that the collision was due to the negligence of
driver of UTI and UTI was negligent in the selection
and supervision of its driver (Articles 2176 and 2180,
New Civil Code).
(C) What, if any, are the valid defenses that CTC and
UTI can raise in the respective actions against them?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
With respect to Romeo, Samuel and Teresita, since
there was no pre-existing contractual relationship
between them and CTC, CTC can raise the defense
that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of
a family in the selection and supervision of its driver
(Article 2180, New Civil Code).
It can raise the same defense against Uriel if
there is a stipulation that exempts it from liability for
simple negligence, but not for willful acts or gross
negligence (Article 1758, New Civil Code).
CTC can also raise against all the plaintiffs
the defense that the collision was due exclusively to
the negligence of the driver of UTI, and this
constitutes a fortuitous event, because there was no
concurrent negligence on the part of its own driver
(Ampangv.Guinoo Transportation Company, G.R. No.
L-5044, April 30, 1953).
37 of 91
CTC can also raise against Samuel the

defense that he was engaged in a seriously illegal act
at the time of the collision, which can render him
liable for damages on the basis of quasi-delict
(Dobbs, the Law of Torts, pp.524-525).
Since UTI had no pre-existing contractual
relationship with any of the plaintiffs, it can raise the
defense that it exercised due diligence in the
selection and supervision of its driver that the
collision was due exclusively to the negligence of the
driver of CTC, and that Samuel was committing a
serious illegal act at the time of the collision.
Causes of Action (2013)
Fil-Asia Air Flight 9 I 6 was on a scheduled passenger
flight from Manila when it crashed as it landed at the
Cagayan de Oro airport; the pilot miscalculated the
plane's approach and undershot the runway. Of the I 50
people on board, ten (10) passengers died at the crash
scene.
Of the ten who died, one was a passenger who
managed to leave the plane but was run over by an
ambulance coming to the rescue. Another was an airline
employee who hitched a free ride to Cagayan de Oro and
who was not in the pass enger manifest.
It appears from the Civil Aeronautics Authority
investigation that the co-pilot who had control of the
plane's landing had less than the required flying and
landing time experience, and should not have been in
control of the plane at the time. He was allowed to fly as
a co-pilot because of the scarcity of pilots - Philippine
pilots have been recruited by foreign airlines under vastly
improved flying terms and wages so that newer and less
trained pilots are being locally deployed. The main pilot,
on the other hand, had a very high level of blood alcohol
at the time of the crash.
You are part of the team that the victims hired
to handle the case for them as a group. In your case
conference, the following questions came up:
(A)
Explain the causes of action legally possible
under the given facts against the airline and the pilots;
whom will you specifically implead in these causes of
action? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complaint for breach of contract of carriage can be
filed against Fil-Asia Air for failure to exercise
extraordinary
diligence
in
transporting
the
passengers safely from their point of embarkation to
the, destination (Article 1755, Civil Code).
A complaint based on a quasi-delict can be
filed against the pilots because of their fault and
negligence (Article 2176, Civil Code). Fil-Asia Air can
be included for negligence in the selection and
supervision of the pilots (Article 2180, Civil Code).
A third cause of action may be a criminal
prosecution for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide against two pilots. The airline will be
subsidiarily liable for the civil liability only after the
pilots are convictedand found to be insolvent.
(B)
How will you handle the cases of the passenger
run over by the ambulance and the airline employee
allowed to hitch a free ride to Cagayan de Oro? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is the driver of the ambulance and his employer
who should be held liable for damages, because a
passenger was run over. This is in accordance with
Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. There could
also be a criminal prosecution for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide against the
ambulance driver and the consequent civil liability.
Since the airline employee was being
transported gratuitously, Fil-Asia Air was not
required to exercise extraordinary diligence for his
safety and only ordinary care. (Lara v. Valencia, 104
Phil. 65, 1958)
Maritime Commerce
Averages: Types (2010)
(B) What are the types of averages in marine commerce
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The types of average are particular and general
(Article 808 of the Code of Commerce). Particular
averages include all expenses and damages caused
to the vessel or to the cargo which did not inure to
the common benefit and profit of all the persons
interested in the vessel and the cargo (Article 809 of
the Code of Commerce). General averages include all
damages and expenses which are deliberately
caused to save the vessel, its cargo, or both at the
same time, from a real and known risk (Article 811 of
the Code of Commerce).
Average; Particular Average vs. General Average
(2003)
M/V Ilog de Manila with a cargo of 500 tons of iron ore
left the Port of Zamboanga City bound for Manila. For
one reason or another, M/V Ilog de Manila hit a
submerged obstacle causing it to sink along with its
cargo. A salvor, Salvador, Inc., was contracted to refloat
the vessel for P1 Million. What kind of average was the
refloating fee of P1 million, and for whose account should
it be? Why? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Barratry (2010)
(B) What is barratry in marine insurance? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Barratry is any willfull misconduct in the part of the
master or crew in pursuance of some unlawful or
fraudulent purpose without the consent of the owner
and to the prejudice of the interest of the owner
38 of 91
(Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra).

Bareboat (2003)
For the transportation of its cargo from the Port of Manila
to the Port of Kobe, Japan Osawa & Co., chartered
bareboat M/V Ilog of Karagatan Corporation. M/V Ilog
met a sea accident resulting in the loss of the cargo and
the death of some of the seamen manning the vessel.
Who should bear the loss of the cargo and the death of
the seamen? Why? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charter Party (2004)

Under a charter party, XXO Trading Company shipped
sugar to Coca-Cola Company through SS Negros
Shipping Corp., insured by Capitol Insurance Company.
The cargo arrived but with shortages. Coca-Cola
demanded from Capitol Insurance Co. P500.000 in
settlement for XXO Trading. The MM Regional Trial
Court, where the civil suit was filed, "absolved the
insurance company, declaring that under the Code of
Commerce, the shipping agent is civilly liable for
damages in favor of third persons due to the conduct of
the carrier's captain, and the stipulation in the charter
party exempting the owner from liability is not against
public policy. Coca-Cola appealed. Will its appeal
prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The appeal of Coca-Cola will not prosper. Under
Article 587 of the Code of Commerce, the shipping
agent is civilly liable for damages in favor of third
persons due to the conduct of the carrier's captain,
and the shipping agent can exempt himself
therefrom only by abandoning the vessel with all his
equipment and the freight he may have earned
during the voyage. On the other hand, assuming
there is bareboat charter, the stipulation in the
charter party exempting the owner from liability is
not against public policy because the public at large
is not involved (Home Insurance Co. v. American
Steamship Agencies, Inc., 23 SCRA25 (1968).
Carriage of Goods: Deviation: Liability (2005)
On a clear weather, M/V Sundo, carrying insured cargo,
left the port of Manila bound for Cebu. While at sea, the
vessel encountered a strong typhoon forcing the captain
to steer the vessel to the nearest island where it stayed
for seven days. The vessel ran out of provisions for its
passengers. Consequently, the vessel proceeded to
Leyte to replenish its supplies.
Assuming that the cargo was damaged
because of such deviation, who between the insurance
company and the owner of the cargo bears the loss?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The insurance company should bear the loss to the
cargo because the deviation of the vessel was proper
in order to avoid a peril, which was the strong
typhoon. The running out of provisions was a direct
consequence of the proper deviation in order to
avoid the peril of the typhoon.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The owner of the cargo bears the loss because in the
case at bar, they stayed too long at the island,
making it an improper deviation. Every deviation not
specified in Sec. 124 is improper. (Sec. 125,
Insurance Code)
Carriage of Goods; Exercise Extraordinary Diligence
(2005)
Star Shipping Lines accepted 100 cartons of sardines
from Master to be delivered to 555 Company in Manila.
Only 88 cartons were delivered, however, these were in
bad condition. 555 Company claimed from Star Shipping
Lines the value of the missing goods, as well as the
damaged goods. Star Shipping Lines refused because
the former failed to present a bill of lading. Resolve with
reasons the claim of 555 Company. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim of 555 Company is meritorious, even if it
fails to present a bill of lading. Although a bill of
lading is the best evidence of the contract of carriage
for cargo, nevertheless such contract can exist even
without a bill of lading. Like any other contract, a
contract of carriage is a meeting of minds that gives
rise to an obligation on the part of the carrier to
transport the goods. Jurisprudence has held that the
moment the carrier receives the cargo for transport,
then its duty to exercise extraordinary diligence
arises. (Cia. Maritima v. Insurance Co. of North
America, G.R. No. L-18965, October 30, 1964; Negre
v. Cabahug Shipping & Co., G.R. No. L-19609, April
29, 1966)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Star Shipping Lines can refuse to honor 555
Company's claim for the missing and damaged
goods. The Bill of Lading is the document of title that
legally establishes the ownership of 555 Company
over said goods. 555 needs to present the Bill of
Lading to legally claim said goods. (National Union
Fire Insurance of Pittsburg v. Stolt-Nielaen, G.R. No.
87958, April 26, 1990)
Carriage of Goods; Deviation; When Proper (2005)
Under what circumstances can a vessel properly proceed
to a port other than its port of destination? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Deviation is proper:
a) when caused by circumstances over which neither
the master nor the owner of the ship has any control;
b) when necessary to comply with a warranty or
avoid a peril, whether or not the peril is insured
against;
c) when made in good faith, and upon reasonable
grounds of belief in its necessity to avoid a peril; or
39 of 91
d) when in good faith, for the purpose of saving

human life, or relieving another vessel in distress.
(Sec. 124, Insurance Code)
Carriage of Goods; Deviation; Liability (2009)
Global Transport Services, Inc. (GTSI) operates a fleet of
cargo vessels plying interisland routes. One of its
vessels, MV Dona Juana, left the port of Manila for Cebu
laden with,among other goods, 10,000 television sets
consigned to Romualdo, a TV retailer in Cebu.
When the vessel was about ten nautical miles away from
Manila, the ship captain heard on the radio that a
typhoon which, as announced by PAG-ASA, was on its
way out of the country, had suddenly veered back into
Philippine territory, the captain realized that MV Dona
Juana would traverse the storms path, but decided to
proceed with the voyage. True enough, the vessel sailed
into the storm. The captain ordered the jettison of the 10,
000 television sets, along with some other cargo, in order
to lighten the vessel and make it easier to steer the
vessel out of the path of the typhoon. Eventually, the
vessel, with its crew intact, arrived safely in Cebu.
(A) Will you characterize the jettison of Romualdos
TV sets as an average? If so, what kind of an average,
and why? If not, why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The jettison of Romualdos TV sets resulted in a
general average loss, whichentitles him to
compensation or indemnification from the shipowner
and the owners of the cargoes saved by the jettison.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The jettison resulted to a particular average loss
because the damage was due to the fault of the
captain.
(B) Against whom does Romualdo have a cause of
action for indemnity of his lost TV sets? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER;
Romualdo has a cause of action for his lost TV sets
against the shipowner and the owners of the cargoes
saved by the jettison. The jettison of the TV sets
resulted in a general average loss, entitling
Romualdo to indemnity for the lost TV sets.
Carriage of Goods; Implied Warranty; Liability
(2010)
Paulo, the owner of an ocean-going vessel, offered to
transport the logs of Constantinofrom Manila to Nagoya.
Constantino accepted the offer, not knowing that the
vessel was manned by an irresponsible crew with deepseated resentments against Paolo, their employer.
Constantino insured the cargo of logs against
both perils of the sea and barratry. The logs were
improperly loaded on one side, thereby causing the
vessel to tilt on one side. On the way to Nagoya, the
crew unbolted the sea valves of the vessel causing water
to flood the ship hold. The vessel sank.
Constantino tried to collect from the insurance
company which denied liability, given the unworthiness of
both the vessel and its crew.
Constantino countered that he was not the
owner of the vessel and he could therefore not be

responsible for conditions about which he was innocent.
(A) Is the insurance company liable? Why or why not?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The insurance company is not liable, because there
is an implied warranty in every marine insurance that
the ship is seaworthy whoever is insuring the cargo,
whether it be the ship-owner or not. There was a
breach of warranty, because the logs were
improperly loaded and the crew was irresponsible. It
is the obligation of the owner of the cargo to look for
a reliable common carrier which keeps its vessel in
seaworthy condition (Roque v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 139 SCRA 596 [1985]).
Carriage of Goods; Indemnity; Jettisoned Goods
(2010)
An importer of Christmas toys loaded 100 boxes of Santa
Claus talking dolls aboard a ship in Korea bound for
Manila. With the intention of smuggling one-half of his
cargo, he took a bill of lading for only 50 boxes. On the
voyage to Manila, 50 boxes were jettisoned to save the
more precious cargo.
(A) Is the importer entitled to receive any indemnity for
average? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The importer is not entitled to receive any indemnity
for average. In order that the goods jettisoned may
be included in the general average and the owner be
entitled to indemnity, it is necessary that their
existence on board be proven by means of the bill of
lading (Article 816 of the Code of Commerce).
COGSA; Applicability (2014)
On December 1, 2010, Kore A Corporation shipped from
South Korea to LT Corporation in Manila some 300,000
sheets of high-grade special steel. The shipment was
insured against all risks by NA Insurance(NA). The
carrying vessel arrived at the Portof Manila on January
10, 2011. When the shipment was discharged, it was
noted that 25,000 sheets were damaged and in bad
order. The entire shipment was turned over to the
custody of ATI, the arrastre operator, on January 21,
2011 for storage and safekeeping, pending its withdrawal
by the consignees authorized customs broker, RVM.
On January 26 and 29, 2011, the subject
shipment was withdrawn by RVM from the custody of
ATI. On January 29, 2011, prior to the withdrawal of the
last batch of the shipment, a joint inspection of the cargo
was conducted per the Request for Bad Order Survey
(RBO) dated January 28, 2011. The examination report
showed that 30,000 sheets of steel were damaged and in
bad order.
NA Insurance paid LT Corporation the amount
of P30,000,000.00 for the 30,000 sheets that were
damaged, as shown in the Subrogation Receipt dated
January 13, 2013. Thereafter, NA Insurance demanded
reparation against ATI for the goods damaged in its
custody, in the amount of P5, 000,000.00. ATI refused to
pay claiming that the claim was already barred by the
statute of limitations. ATI alleged that the Carriage of
40 of 91
Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) applies in this case since

the goods were shipped from a foreign port to the
Philippines. NA Insurance claims that the COGSA does
not apply, since ATIis not a shipper or carrier. Who is
correct? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NA Insurance is correct. The Carriage of
Good by Sea Act (Act No. 521) applies only to
carriers or ships. A carrier, under Section 1 (a) of
the COGSA, includes the owner or the charterer
who enters into a contract of carriage with a
shipper, while a ship is defined under Section 1
(d) as any vessel used for the carriage of goods by
sea. The COGSA does not apply to ATI as it is
neither a carrier nor a ship, much less a
shipper. It is simply an arrastre operator.
Moreover, The COGSA does not mention that an
arrastre operator may invoke the prescriptive period
of one year; hence, it does not cover the arrastre
operator. (Insurance Co. of North America v. Asian
Terminals, Inc., G.R. 180784, February 15, 2012;
Insurance co. of North America v. Phil. Ports
Terminal, G.R. L-6420, July 18, 1955).
COGSA; Prescription of Claims (2000)
RC imported computer motherboards from the United
States and had them shipped to Manila aboard an
oceangoing cargo ship owned by BC Shipping Company.
When the cargo arrived at Manila seaport and delivered
to RC, the crate appeared intact; but upon inspection of
the contents, RC discovered that the items inside had all
been badly damaged. He did not file any notice of
damage or anything with anyone, least of all with BC
Shipping Company. What he did was to proceed directly
to your office to consult you about whether he should
have given a notice of damage and how long a time he
had to initiate a suit under the provisions of the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act (CA 65). What would your advice
be? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
My advice would be that RC should give notice of the
damage sustained by the cargo within 3 days and
that he has to file the suit to recover the damage
sustained by the cargo within one year from the date
of the delivery of the cargo to him.
COGSA: Prescription of Claims/Actions (2004)
AA entered into a contract with BB thru CC to transport
ladies' wear from Manila to France with transhipment at
Taiwan. Somehow the goods were not loaded at Taiwan
on time. Hence, when the goods arrived in France, they
arrived "off-season" and AA was paid only for one-half
the value by the buyer. AA claimed damages from the
shipping company and its agent. The defense of the
respondents was prescription. Considering that the
ladies' wear suffered "loss of value," as claimed by AA,
should the prescriptive period be one year under the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, or ten years under the
Civil Code? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The applicable prescriptive period is ten years under
the Civil Code. The one-year prescriptive period
under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies in
cases of loss or damages to the cargo. The term

"loss" as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Mitsui
O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 366
(1998), contemplates a situation where no delivery at
all was made by the carrier of the goods because the
same had perished or gone out of commerce
deteriorated or decayed while in transit. In the
present case, the shipment of ladies' wear was
actually delivered. The "loss of value" is not the total
loss contemplated by the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act.
COGSA; Prescription of Claims/Action (2010)
AA entered into a contract with BB for the latter to
transport ladies wear from Manila to France with
transshipment via Taiwan. Somehow the goods were not
loaded in Taiwan on time, hence, these arrived in France
off-season. AA was only paid for one half the value by
the buyer.
AA claimed damages from BB. BB invoked
prescription as a defense under the Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act Considering the loss of value of the ladies
wear as claimed by AA, is BBs defense tenable?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense of BB is not tenable. The one-year
prescriptive period in the Carriage of Goods Sea Act
applies only in case the goods were not delivered or
were delivered in a damaged or deteriorated
condition. It does not apply to damages as a result of
delay in the delivery of the goods. The prescription
of the action is governed by Article 1144 of the Civil
Code, which provides for a prescriptive period of ten
years in case of actions based on a written contract
(Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 287
SCRA 366 (1998)).
Liability for Loss; Fortuitous Event (2008)
On October 30, 2007, M/V Pacific, a Philippine registered
vessel owned by Cebu Shipping Company (CSC), sank
on her voyage from Hong Kong to Manila. Empire
Assurance Company (Emprie) is the insurer of the lost
cargoes loaded on board the vessel which were
consigned to Debenhams Company. After it indemnified
Debenhams, Empire as subrogee filed an action for
damages against CSC.
(A) Assume that the vessel was seaworthy. Before
departing, the vessel was advised by theJapanese
Meteorological Center that it was safe to travel to its
destination. But while at sea, the vessel received a report
of a typhoon moving within its general path. To avoid the
typhoon, the vessel changed its course. However, it was
still at the fringe of the typhoon when it was repeatedly hit
by huge waves, were saved three (3) who perished. Is
CSC liable to empire? What principle of maritime law is
applicable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The common carrier incurs no liability for the loss of
the cargo during a fortuitous event, because the
following circumstances were present:
(1) the typhoon was the cause of the cargo loss;
(2) the carrier did not contribute to the loss; and
41 of 91
(3) the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence in

order tominimize the attendant damage before,
during and after the typhoon (See Fortune Express v.
CA, Caorong. G.R. No. 119756, 18 March 1999;
Yobido v. CA, G.R. No. 113003, 17 October 1997;
Gathalian v. Delim, G.R. No. L-56487, 21 October
1991).
Under Art. 587 of Code of Commerce, in case of
maritime transactions, the liability of the owner of the
vessel is limited to the vessel itself. Since the vessel
of CSC was seaworthy at the time it sank, the CSC is
not liable to Empire under the maritime principle that
the obligations of the owner of a vessel are
hypothecary in nature.
(B) Assume the vessel was not seaworthy as in fact its
hull had leaked, causing flooding in the vessel. Will you
answer be the same? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When the vessel is not seaworthy, it is an exception
to the hypothecary principle in maritime commerce.
To limit its liability to the amount of the insurance
proceeds, the carrier has the burden of proving that
the unseaworthiness of its vessel was not due to its
fault or negligence. The failure to discharge such a
heavy burden precludes application of the limited
liability rule and the carrier is liable tothe full extent
of the claims of the cargo owners (Aboitiz Shipping
v. New India Assurance Company, G.R. No. 156978,
02 May 2006).
(C) Assume the facts in question (b). Can the heirs of the
three (3) crew members who perished recover from
CSC? Explain fully. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the crew members died while
performing their assigned duties, aggravated by the
failure of the ship owner to ensure that the vessel is
seaworthy. Workmens compensation has been
classified by jurisprudence as an exception to the
hypothecary nature of maritime commerce, Abueg v.
San Diego, 77 Phil. 730 (1948), especially in this case
where the vessel was not seaworthy at the time it
sank.
Liability for Loss; Constructive Total Loss (2005)
M/V Pearly Shells, a passenger and cargo vessel, was
insured for P40,000,000.00 against constructive total
loss. Due to a typhoon, it sank near Palawan. Luckily,
there were no casualties, only injured passengers. The
ship owner sent a notice of abandonment of his interest
over the vessel to the insurance company which then
hired professionals to afloat the vessel for P900,000.00.
When re-floated, the vessel needed repairs estimated at
P2,000,000.00. The insurance company refused to pay
the claim of the ship owner, stating that there was no
constructive total loss.
a) Was there constructive total loss to entitle the ship
owner to recover from the insurance company? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was constructive loss. When the vessel sank,
it was likely that it would be totally lost because of
improbability of recovery. (Arnolds Law of Marine

Insurance and Average, 16th ed., Vol. II, pp.954-955)
ALTENATIVE ANSWER:
There was no constructive total loss. The loss is not
more than the value of the vessel which was
insured for P40million. The cost of refloating is
P900,000.00 and the needed repairs amount to
P2million, or a total of only P2,900,000.00 which does
not constitute the value of the vessel.
b) Was it proper for the ship owner to send a notice of
abandonment to the insurance company? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It was proper for the shipowner to send a notice of
abandonment to the insurance company, because
there was reliable information of the loss of the
vessel (Sec. 141, Insurance Code).
Limited Liability Rule (2000)
MV Mariposa, one of five passenger ships owned by
Marina Navigation Co, sank off the coast of Mindoro
while en route to Iloilo City. More than 200 passengers
perished in the disaster. Evidence showed that the ship
captain ignored typhoon bulletins issued by Pag-asa
during the 24-hour period immediately prior to the
vessels departure from Manila. The bulletins warned all
types of sea crafts to avoid the typhoons expected path
near Mindoro. To make matters worse, he took more
load than was allowed for the ships rated capacity. Sued
for damages by the victims surviving relatives, Marina
Nav Co contended:
1) that its liability, if any, had been extinguished with the
sinking of MV Mariposa; and
2) that assuming it had not been so extinguished, such
liability should be limited to the loss of the cargo. Are
these contentions meritorious in the context of applicable
provisions of the Code of Commerce? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The contentions of Marina Nav Co are
meritorious. The captain of MV Mariposa is guilty of
negligence in ignoring the typhoon bulletins issued
by PAGASA and in overloading the vessel. But only
the captain of the vessel
MV Mariposa is guilty of negligence. The ship owner
is not. Therefore, the ship owner can invoke the
doctrine of limited liability.
Limited Liability Rule; Doctrine of Inscrutable Fault
(1991)
In a collision between M/T Manila, a tanker, and M/V Don
Claro, an inter-island vessel, Don Claro sank and many
of its passengers drowned and died. All its cargoes were
lost. The collision occurred at nighttime but the sea was
calm, the weather fair and visibility was good. Prior to the
collision and while still 4 nautical miles apart, Don Claro
already sighted Manila on its radar screen. Manila had no
radar equipment. As for speed, Don Claro was twice as
fast as Manila. At the time of the collision, Manila failed to
follow Rule 19 of the International Rules of the Road
which requires 2 vessels meeting head on to change
their course by each vessel steering to starboard (right)
so that each vessel may pass on the port side (left) of the
other. Manila signaled that it would turn to the port side
42 of 91
and steered accordingly, thus resulting in the collision.

Don Claros captain was off-duty and was having a drink
at the ships bar at the time of the collision.
a) Who would you hold liable for the collision?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I can hold the 2 vessels liable. In the problem given,
whether on the basis of the factual settings or under
the doctrine of inscrutable fault, both vessels can be
said to have been guilty of negligence. The liability of
the 2 carriers for the death or injury of passengers
and for the loss of or damage to the goods arising
from the collision is solidary. Neither carrier may
invoke the doctrine of last clear chance which can
only be relevant, if at all, between the two vessels but
not on the claims made by passengers or shippers
(Litonjua Shipping v National Seamen Board GR
51910 10Aug1989)
b) If Don Claro was at fault, may the heirs of the
passengers who died and the owners of the cargoes
recover damages from the owner of said vessel?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, but subject to the doctrine of limited liability.
The doctrine is to the effect that the liability of the
shipowners would only be to the extent of any
remaining value of the vessel, proceeds of
insurance, if any, and earned freightage. Given the
factual settings, the shipowner himself was not guilty
of negligence and, therefore, the doctrine can well
apply (Amparo de los Santos v CA 186 s 69)
Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss (2000)
X Shipping Company spent almost a fortune in refitting
and repairing its luxury passenger vessel, the MV
Marina, which plied the inter-island routes of the
company from La Union in the north to Davao City in the
south. The MV Marina met an untimely fate during its
post-repair voyage. It sank off the coast of Zambales
while en route to La Union from Manila. The investigation
showed that the captain alone was negligent. There were
no casualties in that disaster. Faced with a claim for the
payment of the refitting and repair, X Shipping company
asserted exemption from liability on the basis of the
hypothecary or limited liability rule under Article 587 of
the Code of Commerce. Is X Shipping Companys
assertion valid? Explain (3%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The assertion of X Shipping Company is not
valid. The total destruction of the vessel does not
affect the liability of the ship owner for repairs on the
vessel completed before its loss.
Limited Liability Rule; General Average Loss (2000)
MV SuperFast, a passenger-cargo vessel owned by SF
Shipping Company plying the inter-island routes, was on
its way to Zamboanga City from the Manila port when it
accidentally, and without fault or negligence of anyone on
the ship, hit a huge floating object. The accident caused
damage to the vessel and loss of an accompanying
crated cargo of passenger PR. In order to lighten the
vessel and save it from sinking and in order to avoid risk
of damage to or loss of the rest of the shipped items
(none of which was located on the deck), some had to be

jettisoned. SF Shipping had the vessel repaired at its port
of destination. SF Shipping thereafter filed a complaint
demanding all the other cargo owners to share in the
total repair costs incurred by the company and in the
value of the lost and jettisoned cargoes. In answer to the
complaint, the shippers sole contention was that, under
the Code of Commerce, each damaged party should
bear its or his own damage and those that did not suffer
any loss or damage were not obligated to make any
contribution in favor of those who did. Is the shippers
contention valid? Explain (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The shippers contention is not valid. The owners
of the cargo jettisoned, to save the vessel from
sinking and to save the rest of the cargoes, are
entitled to contribution. The jettisoning of said
cargoes constitute general average loss which
entitles the owners thereof to contribution from the
owner of the vessel and also from the owners of the
cargoes saved. SF Shipping is not entitled to
contribution/ reimbursement for the costs of repairs
on the vessel from the shippers.
Maritime Protest (2007)
Two vessels figured in a collision along the Straits of
Guimaras resulting in considerable loss of cargo. The
damaged vessels were safely conducted to the Port of
Iloilo Passenger A failed to file a maritime protest. B, a
non-passenger but a shipper who suffered damage to his
cargo, likewise did not file a maritime protest at all. (10%)
(A) What is a maritime protest?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A maritime protest is a sworn statement made with
24 hours after a collision in which the circumstances
thereof are declared or made known before a
competent authority at the point of accident or the
first port of arrival if in the Philippines or the
Philippine consul in a foreign country (Article 835,
Code of Commerce; Goro v. William Lines, Inc., 3
CAR 1(1963)).
(B) Can A and B successfully maintain an action to
recover losses and damages arising from the collision?
Reason briefly
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, the shipper, can successfully maintain an action
to recover losses and damages arising from the
collision notwithstanding his failure to file a maritime
protest since the filing thereof is required only on the
part of A, who being a passenger of the vessel at the
time of the collision, was expected to know the
circumstances of the collision. As failure to file a
maritime protest will therefore prevent him from
successfully maintaining an action to recover his
losses and damages (Art. 836, Code of Commerce)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A can maintain an action to recover damages if he
was not in a condition to make known his wishes. B
can maintain an action to recover damages since he
was not on board the vessel (Article 836, Code of
Commerce).
43 of 91
CORPORATION CODE
Public utilities (2000)
WWW Communications Inc. is an e-commerce company
whose present business activity is limited to providing its
clients with all types of information technology hardware.
It plans to re-focus its corporate direction of gradually
converting itself into a full convergence organization.
Towards this objective, the company has been
aggressively acquiring telecommunications businesses
and broadcast media enterprises, and consolidating their
corporate structures. The ultimate plan is to have only
two organizations: one to own the facilities of the
combined businesses and to develop and produce
content materials, and another to operate the facilities
and
provide
mass
media
and
commercial
telecommunications services. WWW Communications
will be the flagship entity which will own the facilities of
the conglomerate and provide content to the other new
corporation which, in turn, will operate those facilities and
provide the services. WWW Communications seeks your
professional advice on whether or not its reorganized
business activity would be considered a public utility
requiring a franchise or certificate or any other form of
authorization from the government. What will be your
advice? Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The reorganized business activity of WWW
Communications Inc. would not be considered a
public utility requiring a franchise or certificate or
any other form of authorization from the government.
It owns the facilities, but does not operate them.
Doctrine of Separate Juridical Personality (2000)
Marulas Creative Technology Inc., an e-business
enterprise engaged in the manufacture of computer
media accessories; rents an office and store space at a
commercial building owned by X. Being a start-up
company, Marulas enjoyed some leniency in its rent
payments; but after three years, X put a stop to it and
asked Marulas president and general manager, Y, who is
a stockholder, to pay the back rentals amounting to a
hundred thousand pesos or to vacate the premises at the
end of the month. Marulas neither paid its debt nor
vacated the premises. X sued Marulas and Y for
collection of the unpaid rentals, plus interest and costs of
litigation. Will the suit prosper against X? Against Y?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the suit will prosper against Marulas. It is the
one renting the office and store space, as lessee,
from the owner of the building, X, as lessor. But the
suit against Y will not prosper. Y, as president and
general manager, and also stockholder of Marulas
Creative Technology, Inc., has a legal personality
separate and distinct from that of the corporation.
The liability of the corporation is that of the
corporation and not that of its officers and
stockholders who are not liable for corporate
liabilities.
Doctrine of Separate Juridical Personality (2000)

Nine individuals formed a private corporation pursuant to
the provisions of the Corporation Code of the Page 32 of
103 Philippines (BP 68). Incorporator S was elected
director and president general manager. Part of his
emolument is a Ford Expedition, which the corporation
owns. After a few years, S lost his corporate positions but
he refused to return the motor vehicle claiming that as a
stockholder with a substantial equity share, he owns that
portion of the corporate assets now in his possession. Is
the contention of S valid? Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The contention of S is not valid. The Ford
Expedition is owned by the corporation. The
corporation has a legal personality separate and
distinct from that of its stockholder. What the
corporation owns is its own property and not the
property of any stockholder even how substantial the
equity share that stockholder owns.
Corporation; Creation of a Private Corporation (2008)
(A) Since February 8, 1935, the legislature has not
passed even a single law creating a private corporation.
What provision of the Constitution precludes the passage
of such a law? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Sec. 16, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution,
Congress cannot, except by general law, provide for
the formation, organization, or regulation of private
corporations. It is only government owned or
controlled corporations that may be created or
established through special charters. Consequently,
it has been held that a private corporation created
pursuant to a special law is a nullity, and such
special law is void for being in violation of the
Constitution (NDC v. Phil. Veterans Bank, G.R. Nos.
84132-33, 10 December 1990).
(B) May the composition of the board of directors of the
National Power Corporation (NPC) be validly reduced to
three (3)? Explain your answer fully. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The NPC Board may be reduced to only three (3)
members, but this would have to be affected by
legislative amendment of its charter. The National
Power Corporation (NPC is a chartered government
corporation, not governed by the general provisions
of the Corporation Code which requires that Boards
of Directors of private corporations shall not have
less than 5 members. The provisions of the
Corporation Code are applicable to government
corporations only in a suppletory manner.
Doctrine of Piercing the Corporate Veil (2001)
Plaintiffs filed a collection action against X Corporation.
Upon execution of the courts decision, X Corporation
was found to be without assets. Thereafter plaintiffs filed
an action against its present and past stockholder Y
Corporation which owned substantially all of the stocks of
X Corporation. The two corporations have the same
board of directors and Y Corporation financed the
operations of X Corporation. May Y Corporation be held
liable for the debts of X Corporation? Why? (5%)
44 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Y Corporation may be held liable for the debts
of X Corporation. The doctrine of piercing the veil of
corporation fiction applies to this case. The two
corporations have the same board of directors and Y
Corporation owned substantially all of the stocks of
X Corporation, which facts justify the conclusion that
the latter is merely an extension of the personality of
the former, and that the former controls the policies
of the latter. Added to this is the fact that Y
Corporation controls the finances of X Corporation
which is merely an adjunct, business conduit or alter
ego of Y Corporation (CIR v Norton & Harrison Co 11
S 714 (1964))
How does one pierce the veil of corporate fiction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The veil of corporate fiction may be pierced by
proving in court that the notion of legal entity is
being used to defeat public convenience, justify
wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime or the entity is
just an instrument or alter ego or adjunct of another
entity or person.
1. What is the doctrine of "piercing the veil of corporate
entity?" Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of "piercing the veil of corporate entity,"
is the doctrine that allows the courts to look behind
the separate juridical personality of a corporation
and treat the corporation as an association of
persons and thereby make the individual actors
personally liable for corporate liabilities. The fiction
of corporate identity is disregarded and the
individuals comprising it can be treated identically.
The stockholders can be held directly liable for
corporate obligations, even to the extent of their
personal assets (Concept Builders v. NLRC, Marabe,
et al, G.R. No. 108734, May 29, 1996).
2. To what circumstances will the doctrine apply? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine is applicable when the notion of legal
entity is used to:
1) Defeat public convenience.
2) Justify wrong.
3) Protect fraud.
4) Defend crime (PNB v. Andrada Electric, G.R. No.
142936, April 17, 2002).
5) Shield a violation of the proscription against forum
shopping (First Philippine International Bank v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 137537, January 24, 1996).
6) Work inequities among members of the
corporation internally, involving no rights of the
public or third persons (Secosa v. Heirs of Erwin
Suarez Francisco, G.R. No. 156104, June 29, 2004).
7) Evade the lawful obligations of the corporation like
a judgment credit (Sibagat Timber Corp. v. Garcia,
G.R. No. 112546, December 11, 1992).
8) Escape liability arising from a debt (Arcilla v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 88113, October 23, 1992).
9) Avoid inclusion of corporate assets as part of the

estate of the decedent (Cease v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-35861, October 18, 1979).
10) To promote or to shield unfair objectives
(Villanueva v. Adre, G.R. No. 80863, April 27, 1989).
Nelson owned and controlled Sonnel Construction
Company. Acting for the company, Nelson contracted the
construction of a building. Without first installing a
protective net atop the sidewalks adjoining the
construction site, the company proceeded with the
construction work. One day a heavy piece of lumber fell
from the building. It smashed a taxicab which at that time
had gone offroad and onto the sidewalk in order to avoid
traffic. The taxicab passenger died as a result.
(A) Assume that the company had no more account and
property in its name. As counsel for the heirs of the
victim, whom will you sue for damages, and what theory
will you adopt? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would sue Nelson, as the person who owned and
controlled SonnelContruction Company, under the
doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction.
Although a corporation has a juridical personality
separate and distinct from that of its stockholders,
when the corporation is used merely as an alter ego
or controlled for the benefit of a stockholder, or
when it is necessary to render justice, then the
courts have the right to pierce the veil of corporate
fiction to hold the controlling stockholder-officer
personally liable for the corporate tort or wrong
committed.
The contractor should also be held liable, since
being an independent contractor it is liable for the
fault or negligence of its people.
(B) If you were the counsel for Sonnel Construction, how
would you defend your client? What would be your
theory? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would use the theory that the company cannot be
held liable for damages because there was no fraud
or negligence by its officers in undertaking the
project for the construction of the building or the
selection of a construction company. Since a
contractor is not an agent of Sonnel Construction,
the latter cannot be held liable for the contractors
negligence. I would also argue that piercing the veil
of corporate fiction is a remedy of last resort and
cannot be availed of without clear evidence showing
fraud or disrespect of the separate juridical
personality of the corporation. Mere control of equity
has not been considered as sufficient basis for
piercing the veil.
(C) Could the heirs hold the taxicab owner and driver
liable? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the taxicab company can be liable for damages
because it failed to comply with its obligation as a
45 of 91
common carrier to use extraordinary diligence in

transporting the passenger, and because at the time
of death of the passenger, the cab driver was
violating a traffic regulation. Under Art. 2185 of Civil
Code, it is presumed that a person driving a motor
vehicle has been negligent if at time of mishap he
was violating a traffic regulation, such as when he
was driving on the wrong side of the road (Mallari,
Sr. v. CA, G.R. No. 128607, 31 January 2000).
In an action for collection of a sum of money, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City issued a
decision finding D-Securities, Inc. liable to Rehouse
Corporation for P10, 000,000.00. Subsequently, the writ
of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied because
D-Securities had no more assets to satisfy the judgment.
Rehouse moved for an Alias Writ of Execution against
Fairfield Bank (FB), the parent company of D-Securities.
FB opposed the motion on the grounds that it is a
separate entity and that it was never made a party to the
case. The RTC granted the motion and issued the Alias
Writ of Execution. In its Resolution, the RTC relied on the
following facts: 499,995 out of the 500,000 outstanding
shares of stocks of D-Securities are owned by FB; FB
had actual knowledge of the subject matter of litigation as
the lawyers who represented D-Securities are also the
lawyers of FB. As an alter ego, there is no need for a
finding of fraud or illegality before the doctrine of piercing
the veil of corporate fiction can be applied. The RTC
ratiocinated that being one and the same entity in the
eyes of the law, the service of summons upon DSecurities has bestowed jurisdiction over both the parent
and wholly-owned subsidiary. Is the RTC correct? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The RTC is not correct. As FB is a separate
entity and was never made a party to the case, the
judgment sought to be enforced against D-Securities
cannot be made against its parent company, FB.
Piercing the corporate veil based on the
alter ego theory requires the concurrence of three
elements: (1) control; of the corporation by the
stockholder or parent corporation, (2) fraud or
fundamental unfairness imposed on the plaintiff, and
(3) harm or damage caused to the plaintiff by the
fraudulent or unfair act of the corporation. The
absence of all these elements in the problem
prevents the piercing of the corporate veil.
The absence of any one of these elements
prevents piercing the corporate veil. In applying the
instrumentality or alter ego doctrine, the courts are
concerned with reality and not form, with how the
corporation operated and the individual defendants
relationship to that operation. Hence, all three
elements should concur for the alter ego doctrine to
be applicable.
Mere ownership by a single stockholder or
by another corporation of all or nearly all of the
capital stock of a corporation is not of itself
sufficient ground for disregarding the separate
corporate personality. Neither is the existence of
interlocking directors, corporate fiction in the
absence of fraud or other public policy

considerations.
To justify treating the sole stockholder or
holding company as responsible, it is not enough
that the subsidiary is so organized and controlled as
to make it merely an instrumentality, conduit or
adjunct of its stockholders. It must further appear
that to recognize their separate entities would aid in
the consummation of a wrong.
Control, by itself, does not mean that the
controlled corporation is a mere instrumentally or a
business conduit of the mother company. Even
control over the financial and operational concerns
of a subsidiary company does not by itself call for
disregarding its corporate fiction. There must be a
perpetuation of fraud behind the control or at least a
fraudulent or illegal purpose behind the control in
order to justify piercing the veil of corporate fiction.
Such fraudulent intent is lacking in this case. (Pacific
Rehouse Corporation v. CA, et al., G.R. 199687,
March 24, 2014).
Commencement; Corporate Existence (2003)
1. When does a corporation acquire corporate existence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. CBY & Co., Inc., registered with the Securities and

Exchange Commission its articles of incorporation. It
failed, however, for one reason or another, to have its bylaws filed with, and registered by, the Commission. It
nevertheless transacted and did business as a
corporation for some time. A suit was commenced by its
minority stockholders assailing the continued existence
of CBY & Co., Inc., because of the non-adoption and
registration of its by-laws. Would the action prosper?
Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Corporation; Classes; Sole Proprietorship (2004)

YKS Trading filed a complaint for specific performance
with damages against PWC Corporation for failure to
deliver cement ordered by plaintiff. In its answer, PWC
denied liability on the ground, inter alia, that YKS has no
personality to sue, not being incorporated, and that the
President of PWC was not authorized to enter into a
46 of 91
contract with plaintiff by the PWC Board of Directors,

hence the contract is ultra vires. YKS Trading replied that
it is a sole proprietorship owned by YKS, and that the
President of PWC had made it appear in several letters
presented in evidence that he had authority to sign
contracts on behalf of the Board of Directors of PWC.
Will the suit prosper or not? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes the suit will prosper. As a sole proprietorship,
the proprietor of YKS Trading has the capacity to act
and the personality to sue PWC. It is not necessary
for YKS Trading to be incorporated before it can sue.
On the other hand, PWC is estopped from asserting
that its President had no authority to enter into the
contract, considering that, in several of PWC's
letters, it had clothed its President with apparent
authority to deal with YKS Trading.
Corporation; Classes; Corporation Sole (2004)
What is a corporation sole?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 110 of the Corporation Code defines a
"corporation sole" as one formed for the purpose of
administering and managing, as trustee, the affairs,
property and temporalities of any religious denomination,
sect or church. It is formed by the chief archbishop,
bishop, priest, minister, rabbi or other presiding elder of
such religious denomination, sect or church.
Corporation; Classes; Sole Proprietorship (2010)
Your client Dianne approaches you for legal advice on
putting up a medium-sized restaurant business that will
specialize in a novel type of cuisine. As Dianne feels that
the business is a little risky, she wonders whether she
should use a corporation as the business vehicle, or just
run it as a single proprietorship. She already has an
existing corporation that is producing meat products
profitably and is also considering the alternative of simply
setting up the restaurant as a branch office of the existing
corporation.
(A) Briefly explain to your client what you see as the legal
advantages and disadvantages of using a separate
corporation, a single proprietorship, or a branch of an
existing corporation for the proposed restaurant
business. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Dianne will set up a separate corporation, her
liability for its obligations and losses will be limited
to the amount of her subscription in the absence of
showing that there is a ground to disregard its
separate juridical personality. If she were to operate
a single proprietorship, her liability for its debts and
losses will be unlimited.
The formation and the operation of a
corporation require a great deal of paper work and
record-keeping. This is not the situation in the case
of a single proprietorship.
If Dianne will form a separate corporation, it
can raise more funds for the business than if she
were to set up a single proprietorship.
If she were to set up the restaurant as a branch office
an existing corporation, the corporation will have
more funds ascapital than if she were to form a

separate corporation. However, all the assets of the
existing corporation will be liable for the debts and
losses of the restaurant business.
(B) If you advise your client to use a corporation, what
officer positions must the corporation at least have?(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The corporation must have at least five directors
(Section 14 of the Corporation Code). It Must also
have a president, a treasure, and secretary (Section
25 of the Corporation Code).
(C) What particular qualifications, if any, are these
officers legally required to possess under the Corporation
Code? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Every director must own at least one share of the
capital stock of the corporation, which must be
recorded in his name on the books of the
corporation, and a majority of the directors must be
residents of the Philippines (Section 25 of the
Corporation Code).
The president must also be a director. The
secretary must be a resident and citizen of the
Philippines (Section 25 of the Corporation Code).
Corporation; Classes: De facto Corporation vs.
Corporation by Estoppel (2004)
Is there a difference between a de facto corporation and
a corporation by estoppel? Explain briefly. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
(3) actual use or exercise in good faith of corporate
powers conferred upon it by law.
A CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL exists when
persons assume to act as a corporation 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 their actions.
Corporation;
Classes:
Stock
vs.
Non-Stock
Corporation (2004)
Distinguish clearly a stock corporation from a non-stock
corporation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A stock corporation is one that has capital 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.
47 of 91
Corporation; Classes; Private vs. Public Corporation

(2004)
Distinguish clearly a private corporation from a public
corporation
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 special
legislation or act of Congress. A private corporation
must be organized under the Corporation Code.
Corporation; Classes; Conversion from Stock to
Non-stock Corporation (2001)
X company is a stock corporation composed of the
Reyes family engaged in the real estate business.
Because of the regional crisis, the stockholders decided
to convert their stock corporation into a charitable nonstock and non-profit association by amending the articles
of incorporation.
a) Could this be legally done? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, it can be legally done. In converting the stock
corporation to a non-stock corporation by a mere
amendment of the articles of incorporation, the stock
corporation is not distributing any of its assets to the
stockholders. On the contrary, the stockholders are
deemed to have waived their right to share in the
profits of the corporation which is a gain not a loss
to the corporation.
b) Would your answer be the same if at the inception, X
Company is a non-stock corporation? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) No, my answer will not be the same. In a non-stock
corporation, the members are not entitled to share in
the profits of the corporation because all present and
future profits belong to the corporation. In
converting the non-stock corporation to a stock
corporation by a mere amendment of the Articles of
Incorporation, the non-stock corporation is deemed
to have distributed an asset of the corporation i.e.
its profits, among its members, without a prior
dissolution of the corporation. Under Sec 122, the
non-stock corporation must be dissolved first.
(Observation: The question is rather vague more
particularly question 1b. The question does not specify
that the conversion is from a non-stock corporation to a
stock corporation. The candidate is likely to be confused
because of the words if at the inception, X Co is a
nonstick corporation. Hence, any answer along the
same line should be treated with liberality)
Foreign Corporation; Doing Business in the

Philippines; Acts or Activities (2002)
Give at least three (3) examples of the acts or activities
that are specifically identified under our foreign
investment laws as constituting doing business in the
Philippines (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any three (3) of the following acts or activities
constitute
doing business in the Philippines under our
foreign investment laws:
1. Soliciting orders
2. Opening offices by whatever name
3. Participating in the management, supervision or
control of any domestic entity
4. Entering into service contracts
5. Appointing representatives or distributors,
operating under the control of the foreign entity, who
is domiciled in the Philippines or who stays in the
country for a period or periods totaling at least 180
days in any calendar year.
Foreign Corporation; Doing Business in the
Philippines; Test (2002)
What is the legal test for determining if an unlicensed
foreign corporation is doing business in the Philippines?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The test is whether or not the unlicensed foreign
corporation has performed an act or acts that imply a
continuity of commercial dealings or arrangements,
and contemplate to that extent the performance of
acts or works, or the exercise of some of the
functions normally incident to, and in progressive
prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose
and object of the business corporation.
Articles of Incorporation; To Whom Binding (2009)
Triple a Corporation (Triple A) was incorporated in 1960,
with 500 founders shares and 78 common shares as its
initial capital stock subscription. However, Triple A
registered its stock and transfer book only in 1978, and
recorded merely 33 common shares as the corporations
issued and outstanding shares.
(A) In 1982, Juancho, the sole heir of one of the original
incorporators filed a petition with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) for the registration of his
property rights over 120 founders shares and 12
common shares. The petition was supported by a copy of
the Articles of Incorporation indicating the incorporators
initial capital stock subscription. Will the petition be
granted? Why or why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The articles of Incorporation define the charter
of the corporation and the contractual relationship
between the State and the Corporation, the State and
the stockholders, and between the corporation and
the stockholders. Its contents are thus binding upon
both the corporation and the stockholders,
conferring on Juancho a clear right to have his
stockholding recorded (Lanuza v. Court of Appeals,
454 SCRA 54 (2005)).
48 of 91
Incorporation; Requirements (2006)

What is the minimum and maximum number of
incorporators required to incorporate a stock
corporation? Is this also the same minimum and
maximum number of directors required in a stock
corporation? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Incorporation; Residency Requirements (2006)
Must all incorporators and directors be residents of the
Philippines? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Not all directors and incorporators need to be
residents of the Philippines. Under Section 10 of the
Corporation Code, only a majority of the
incorporators need to be residents of the Philippines.
As provided in Section 23 of the same Code, only a
majority of the members of the Board of Directors
need to be residents of the Philippines.
Incorporation; Requisites (2002)
You have been asked to incorporate a new company to
be called FSB Savings & Mortgage Bank, Inc. List the
documents that you must submit to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to obtain a certificate of
incorporation for FSB Savings & Mortgage Bank, Inc.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The documents to be submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to incorporate a new
company to be called FSB Savings & Mortgage Bank,
Inc., to obtain the certificate of incorporation for said
company, are:
1) Articles of Incorporation
2) Treasurers Affidavit;
3) Certificate of Authority from the Monetary Board of
the BSP;
4) Verification slip from the records of the SEC
whether or not the proposed name has already been
adopted by another corporation, partnership or
association;
5) Letter undertaking to change the proposed name if
already adopted by another corporation, partnership
or association;
6) Bank certificate of deposit concerning the
paid-up capital;
7) Letter authorizing the SEC or Monetary Board or
its duly authorized representative to examine the
bank records regarding the deposit of the paid-up
capital;
8) Registration Sheet;
Incorporation; Qualifications of Incorporators, BOD

Members & Corporate Officers (2012)
X is a Filipino immigrant residing in Sacramento,
California. Y is a Filipino residing in Quezon City,
Philippines. Z is a resident alien residing in Makati City.
GGG Corporation is a domestic corporation - 40% owned
by foreigners and 60% owned by Filipinos, with T as
authorized representative. CCC Corporation is a foreign
corporation registered with the Philippine Securities and
Exchange Commission. KKK Corporation is a domestic
corporation (100%) Filipino owned. S is a Filipino, 16
years of age, arid the daughter of Y.
a. Who can be incorporators? Who can be subscribers?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. X, Y, Z, and T could all be incorporators and
subscribers. Note, however, that Sec. 10 of the
Corporation Code requires that there must be at least
five but not more than fifteen incorporators (who
most all be natural persons) and that a majority of
the incorporators most be residents of the
Philippines. S, being a minor, could neither be an
incorporator nor a subscriber. GGG Corporation,
CCC Corporation, and KICK Corporation could not
be incorporators as they are not natural persons.
However, they could be subscribers.
b. What are the differences between an incorporator and
a subscriber, if there are any? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. Some of the differences are as follows: first, all the
incorporators are required to sign and acknowledge
the Articles of Incorporation while the subscribers,
as such, are not subject to the same requirement;
second, the incorporators are all required to be
natural persons while the subscribers could be either
natural or juridical persons; and third, the number of
incorporators cannot exceed fifteen while the
number of subscribers could be more than fifteen
(subject to compliance, in the appropriate cases,
with the requirements of the Securities Regulation
Code).
c. Who are qualified to become members of the board of
directors of the corporation? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c. X, Y, Z, and T could be directors (subject to the
residency requirement mentioned in (a) above and
any nationality requirement under the law governing
the business of the corporation) but not GGG
Corporation, CCC Corporation, and KKK Corporation
as they are not natural persons. However, the
aforementioned corporations could have their
respective representatives nominated and possibly
elected as directors by the stockholders. Each
director must own at least one share of the capital
stock of the corporation (Sec. 23, Corporation Code).
d. Who are qualified to act as Treasurer of the company?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d. The Corporation Code does not impose any
nationality or residency requirement in respect of the
49 of 91
Treasurer. Any such requirement or any other

reasonable requirement may be adopted by the
corporation and reflected in its by-laws, or required
by the law(s) governing the business of the
corporation or a law of general application (e.g., the
Anti-Dummy Law which applies to all nationalized
businesses). Accordingly, anybody with the
qualifications required under the by-laws of the
corporation or under the law(s) governing the
business of the corporation, could be elected
Treasurer by the Board of Directors. Note, however,
that the Treasurer could not be the President at the
same time (Sec. 25, Corporation Code).
e. Who can be appointed Corporate Secretary? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
e. The Secretary is required to be both a resident and
acitizen of the Philippines (Sec. 10, Corporation
Code).
[Note: The problem does not state what kind of business
the corporation would engage in. Neither does it state
whether X, Y, Z, and T are all of legal age and otherwise
have the capacity to enter into contracts. Accordingly, the
suggested answers set out below assume that the
corporation would not be engaging in a nationalized
activity and that X, Y, Z, and T are all of legal age and
otherwise have the capacity to enter into contracts.]
Incorporation; Qualifications of Incorporators & BOD
Members (2014)
Guetze and his wife have three (3) children: Neymar, 25,
who is now based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Muelter, 23,
who has migrated to Munich, Germany; and James, 21,
who resides in Bogota, Colombia. Neymar and Muelter
have since renounced their Philippine citizenship in favor
of their country of residence. Nearing 70 years old,
Guetze decided to incorporate his business in Binondo,
Manila. He asked his wife and three (3) children to act as
incorporators with one (1) share of stock each, while he
owned 999,996 shares of the 1,000,000 shares of the
capital stock. (6%)
a. Assuming all other requirements are met, should the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accept or
reject the Articles of Incorporation? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
should reject the Articles of Incorporation. Only two
of the incorporators are resident of the Philippines.
Section 10 of the Corporation Code requires that a
majority of the incorporators be residents of the
Philippines.
b. Being the control freak and micro-manager that he is,
Guetze asked you his astute legal adviser if he can
serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, as
President, and as General Manager of the corporation,
all at the same time. Please advise Guetze.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Guetze can serve as Chairman of the Board of
Directors, and President and General Manager of the
corporation, all at the same time. This is allowed by,
and is not covered by the prohibition in, Section 25

of the Corporation Code.
c. Assuming the corporation has been properly
registered, may the Articles of Incorporation now
beamended to reduce the number of directors to two (2)
Guetze and his wife to reflect the real owners of the
shares of stock?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Articles of Incorporation may not be amended to
reduce the number of directors to two. Under Section
14 of the Corporation Code, the number of directors
shall not be less than five.
By-laws (2001)
Suppose that the by-laws of X Corp, a mining firm
provides that The directors shall be relieved from all
liability for any contract entered into by the corporation
with any firm in which the directors may be interested.
Thus, director A acquired claims which overlapped with
Xs claims and were necessary for the development and
operation of Xs mining properties.
a) Is the by-law provision valid? Why? (3%)
b) What happens if director A is able to consummate his
mining claims over and above that of the corporations
claims? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. It is in violation of Section 32 of the Corp
Code.
b) A should account to the corporation for the profits
which he realized from the transaction. He grabbed
the business opportunity from the corporation.
(Section 34, Corp Code)
By-Laws; Validity; limiting qualifications of BOD
members (2000)
At the annual stockholders meeting of MS Corporation,
the stockholders unanimously passed a resolution
authorizing the Board of Directors to amend the
corporate by-laws so as to disqualify any stockholder
who is also a director or stockholder of a competing
business from being elected to the Board of Directors of
MS Corporation. The by-laws were accordingly
amended. GK, a stockholder of MS Corporation and a
majority stockholder of a competitor, sought election to
the Board of Directors of MS Corporation. His nomination
was denied on the ground that he was ineligible to run for
the position. Seeking a nullification of the offending
disqualification provision, GK consults you about its
validity under the Corporation Code
of the Phils. What would your legal advice be? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The provision in the amended by-laws disqualifying
any stockholder who is also a director or stockholder
of a competing business from being elected to the
Board of Directors of MS Corp is valid. The
corporation is empowered to adopt a code of by-laws
for its government not inconsistent with the Corp
Code. Such disqualifying provision is not
inconsistent with the Corp Code.
members (2001)
50 of 91
Is a by-law provision of X Corporation rendering

ineligible or if elected, subject to removal, a director if he
is also a director in a corporation whose business is in
competition with or is antagonistic to said corporation
valid and legal? State your reasons. (5%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the by-law provision is valid. It is the right of a
corporation to protect itself against possible harm
and prejudice that may be caused by its competitors.
The position of director is highly sensitive and
confidential. To say the least, to allow a person, who
is a director in a corporation whose business is in
competition with or is antagonistic to X Corporation,
to become also a director in X Corporation would be
harboring a conflict of interest which is harmful to
the latter (Gokongwei Jr v SEC 89 S 336 (1979); 97 S
78 (1980)).
members (2003)
To prevent the entry of Marlo Enriquez, whom it
considered as one antagonistic to its interests, into its
Board of Directors, Bayan Corporation amended its
articles of incorporation and by-laws to add certain
qualifications of stockholders to be elected as members
of its Board of Directors. When presented for approval at
a meeting of its stockholders duly called for the purpose,
the amendments were overwhelmingly ratified. Marlo
Enriquez brought suits against Bayan Corporation to
question the amendments. Would the action prosper?
Why? (4%)
Intra-Corporate Controversy (2006)
What is an intra-corporate controversy? (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An intra-corporate controversy is a conflict between
stockholders, members or partners and the
corporation, association or partnership regarding the
regulation of the corporation. The controversy must
arise out of intra-corporate or partnership relations
of the parties; or between such corporation,
partnership or association and the State insofar as it
concerns their individual franchises. It is further
required that the dispute be intrinsically connected
with the regulation of the corporation (Speed
Distributing Corp., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al,
G.R. No. 149351, March 17, 2004; Intestate Estate of
Alexander T.Tyv. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112872,
April 19, 2001).
Is the Securities and Exchange Commission the venue
for actions involving intra-corporate controversies? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, pursuant to Subsection 5.2 of the Securities
Regulation Code, the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission to hear
corporate
cases,
including
intra-corporate
controversies, under Section 5 of Pres. Decree No.
902-A, has been expressly transferred to the
designated Regional Trial Court. Pursuant to a
memorandum circular issued by the Supreme Court,
only particularly designated RTC special commercial
courts in each judicial region have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over such cases (See Intestate

Estate of Alexander T. Ty v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 112872, April 19, 2001).
Intra-corporate Controversy; Relationship Test;
Nature of Controvery Test (2014)
DC is a unit owner of Medici Condominium located in
Pasig City. On September 7, 2011, Medici Condominium
Corp. (Medici) demanded from DC payment for alleged
unpaid association dues and assessments amounting
toP195,000.00. DC disputed the claim, saying that he
paid all dues as shown by the fact that he was previously
elected as Director and President of Medici. Medici, on
the other hand, claimed that DCs obligation was a carryover of his obligations to the condominium developer,
Medici Construction Corporation. Consequently, DCwas
prevented from exercising his right to vote and be voted
for during the 2011 election of Medicis Board of
Directors. This prompted DC to file a complaint for
damages before the Special Commercial Court of Pasig
City. Medici filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
the court has no jurisdiction over the intra-corporate
dispute which the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) has exclusive jurisdiction over. Is Medici
correct? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Medici is correct. Using the relationship test and the
nature of the controversy test, it is indubitable that
the controversy involves intra-corporate issues. The
facts of the problem indicate that there was a dispute
as to the liability of DC for condominium dues, as
well as the right of DC to to vote and be voted for
during the 2011 election of Medicis Board of
Directors. Accordingly, jurisdiction is with the
Special Commercial Court of Pasig City, not with the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (Medical
Plaza Makati Condominium Corp. v. Cullen, G.R.
181416, November 11, 2013).
Corporate Powers; Validity of Corporate Acts (2002)
Which of the following corporate acts are valid, void, or
voidable? Indicate your answer by writing the paragraph
number of the query, followed by your corresponding
answer as Valid, Void, or Voidable, as the case
may be. If your answer is Void, explain your answer.
In case of a Voidable answer, specify what conditions
must be
present or complied with to make the corporate act valid.
(5%)
1) XL Foods Corporation, which is engaged in the
fastfood business, entered into a contract with its
President Jose Cruz, whereby the latter would supply the
corporation with its meat and poultry requirements.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Voidable A contract of the corporation with one or
more of its directors or trustees or officers is
voidable, at the option of such corporation (Sec 32,
Corporation Code).
2) The Board of Directors of XL Foods Corporation
declared and paid cash dividends without approval of the
stockholders.
51 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Valid 3) XL Foods Corporation guaranteed the loan of
its sister company XL Meat Products, Inc.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Void This is an ultra vires act on part of XL Foods
Corporation, and is not one of the powers provided
for in Sec. 36 of the Corporation Code.
Corporate Powers; Ultra Vires Acts (2009)
When is there an ultra vires act on the part of (a) the
corporation; (b) the board ofdirectors; and (c) the
corporate officers? (3%)
(A) the corporation;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 45 of the Corporation Code, no
corporation shall possess or exercise any corporate
power except those conferred by the Code or by its
articles of incorporation and except such as are
necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers
so conferred. When a corporation does an act or
engages in an activity which is outside of its
express, implied or incidental powers set out in its
articles of incorporation, the act is deemed to be
ultra vires.
(B) the board of directors;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When the Board engages in an activity or enters into
a contract without the ratificatory vote of the
stockholders in those instances where the
Corporation Code so Requires such ratificatory vote,
such as when the corporation is made to invest in
another corporation or engage in a business which is
not in pursuit of its primary purpose, the board
resolution not ratified by stockholders owning or
representing at least two-thirds of the outstanding
capital stock would make the transaction void, as
being ultravires.
(C) the corporate officers
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When a corporate officer enters into a contract on
behalf of the corporation without having been so
expressly or impliedly authorized by the Board of
Directors, even when the act or contract falls within
the corporations express, implied or incidental
power, then the unauthorized act of the corporate
officer is deemed to be ultra vires.
Corporate Powers; Who are Liable for Contracts
Entered Into (2012)
A, B, C, D, E are all duly elected members of the Board
of Directors of XYZ Corporation. F, the general manager,
entered into a supply contract with an American firm. The
contract was duly approved by the Board of Directors.
However, with the knowledge and consent of F, no
deliveries were made to the American firm. As a result of
the non-delivery of the promised supplies, the American
firm incurred damages. The American firm would like to
file a suit for damages. Can the American firm sue:
a. The members of the Board of Directors

individually, because they approved the transaction?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a.) No. In approving the transaction, the directors
were not acting in their personal capacities but
rather in behalf of XYZ Corporation exercising the
powers of the corporation and conducting its
business (Sec. 23, Corporation Code). The problem
contains no facts that would indicate that the
directors acted otherwise.
b. The corporation? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Yes. The Board approved the supply contract and
the General Manager entered into the contract, both
of them acting on behalf of the XYZ Corporation.
c. F, the general manager, personally, because the
non-delivery was with his knowledge and consent?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Yes, F could be sued in his personal capacity
because he knowingly consented to the non-delivery
of the promised supplies contrary to the contract
that was duly approved by the Board of Directors.
The problem does indicate any circumstance that
could excuse or favorably explain the action of F.
d. Explain the rules on liabilities of a corporation for
the act of its corporate officers and the liabilities of
the corporate officers and Board of Directors of a
corporation acting in behalf of the corporation. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
d) A corporation would be liable for the acts of its
Board of Directors and officers if the said acts were
performed by them in accordance with the powers
granted to them under the Corporation Code, the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of the
corporation, the laws and regulations governing the
business of, or otherwise applicable to, the
corporation, and, in the case of officers, the
resolutions approved by the Board of Directors.
As the directors have a personality separate from
that of the corporation, they would be personally
liable only if they acted willfully and knowingly vote
for or assent to a patently unlawful act of the
corporation, or when they are guilty of gross
negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the
corporation, or when they acquire any personal or
pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as
directors, which acts result in damages to the
corporation, its stockholders or other persons, when
they agree to hold themselves personally and
solidarily liable with the corporation, or when they
are made, by a specific provision of law, to
personally answer for the corporate action. (Sec. 31,
Corporation Code).
Corporate Powers; Power to Increase of Capital
Stock (2001)
52 of 91
Suppose X Corporation has an authorized capital stock

of P1M divided into 100,000 shares of stock with par
value of P10 each.
a) Give two ways whereby said authorized capital stock
may be increased to about P1.5M. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Two ways of increasing the Authorized Capital
Stock of X corporation to P1.5M are:
1) Increase the number of shares from 100,000
to 150,000 shares with the same par value of
P10.00 each.
2) Increase par value of 100,000 shares to
P15.00 each.
b) Give three practical reasons for a corporation to
increase its capital stock (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Three practical reasons for a corporation to
increase its capital stock are:
1) to generate more working capital;
2) to have more shares with which to pay for
the acquisition of more assets like
acquisition of company car, stocks, house,
machinery or business; and
3) to have extra share with which to cover or
meet the requirement for declaration of
stock dividend.
Corporate Powers; Power to Acquire Own Shares in
Relation to Trust Fund Doctrine (2005)
Under what conditions may a stock corporation acquire
its own shares? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. The
purpose of the repurchase of shares must be a
legitimate business purpose of the corporation, such
as to:
1. ELIMINATE fractional shares arising out of
stock dividends;
2. COLLECT from or COMPROMISE an
indebtedness with the corporation arising
out of unpaid subscription in a delinquency
sale;
3. PURCHASE delinquent shares sold during
the sale; and
4. PAY
dissenting
or
withdrawing
stockholders entitled to such payment
under the Corporation Code. (Sees. 41 and
82, Corporation Code)
Corporate Powers; Trust Fund Doctrine (2007)
Discuss the trust fund doctrine. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trust fund doctrine means that the capital stock,
properties and other assets of a corporation are
regarded as equity in trust for the payment of
corporate creditors. Stated simply, the trust fund
doctrine states that all funds received by the

corporation in payment of the shares of stock shall
be held in trust for the corporate creditors and other
stockholders of the corporation. Under such
doctrine, no fund shall be used to buy back the
issued shares of stock except only in instances
specifically allowed by the Corporation Code (Boman
Environmental Development Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 167 SCRA 540 [1988]).
Dividends; Sources of Dividends in Relation to Trust
Fund Doctrine (2005)
From what funds are cash and stock dividends sourced?
Explain why. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All cash and stock dividends are always paid 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)
Dividends; Dividends vs. Profit; Cash Dividend vs.
Stock Dividend (2005)
Distinguish dividend from profit; cash dividend from stock
dividend. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 can be declared.
CASH DIVIDENDS represent an actual 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 resolution. STOCK
DIVIDENDS are simply transfers of 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.
Dividends; Declaration of Dividends (2001)
For the past three years of its commercial operation, X,
an oil company, has been earning tremendously in
excess of 100% of the corporations paid-in capital. All of
the stockholders have been claiming that they share in
the profits of the corporation by way of dividends but the
Board of Directors failed to lift its finger. a) Is Corporation
53 of 91
X guilty of violating a law? If in the affirmative, state the

basis (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Corporation X is guilty of violating Section 43 of the
Corp Code. This provision prohibits stock
corporations from retaining surplus profits in excess
of 100% of their paid-in capital.
b) Are there instances when a corporation shall not be
held liable for not declaring dividends? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The instances when a corporation shall not be held
liable for not declaring dividends are:
Dividends: Declaration of Dividends (2005)
Under what circumstances may a corporation declare
dividends? (2%)'
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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-thirds (2/8) of the outstanding capital stock
of the corporation, obtained in a meeting duly called
for the purpose. (Sec. 43, Corporation Code)
TRUE OR FALSE.
(D) Dividends on shares of stocks can only be declared
out of unrestricted retained earnings of the corporation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True. Dividends on shares of stock of a corporation,
whether cash dividend or stock dividend, can be
validly declared only out of unrestricted retained
earnings (Sec. 43, Corporation Code). It cannot be
declared out of the capital. Otherwise, such
declaration of dividend will violate the trust fund
doctrine.
Ace Cruz subscribed to 100,000 shares of stock of JP
Development Corporation, which ahs a par value of P1
per share. He paid P25,000 and promised to pay the
balance before December 31, 2008. JP Development
Corporation declared a cash dividend on October 15,
2008, payable on December 1, 2008
(A) For how many shares is Ace Cruz entitled to be paid
cash dividends? Expalin. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ace Cruz is entitled to be paid each cash dividends
to the entire 100,1000 shares subscribed, and not
only to the paid-up portion thereof. The legal
character of being a stockholder, and therefore the
entitlement to all the rights of a stockholder, are
determined from the time of subscription and not
from payment of the subscription.

Under Sec. 43 of the Corporation Code, a stock
corporation may declare dividends out of the
unrestricted retained earnings which shall be
payable in cash, in property, or in stock to all stockholders on the basis of outstanding stock held by
them on not on the basis on what stocks have been
paid.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under Sec. 71, only when a stockholder has been
declared delinquent do his rights as stockholder
become suspended. It means therefore that a
stockholder who has not paid the full subscription,
provided he is not declared delinquent has complete
exercise of all of his rights, including the right to
receive dividends. But any cash dividends due on
delinquent stock shall first be applied to the unpaid
balance of the subscription (Sec. 43, Corporation
Code).
(B) On December 1, 2008, can Ace Cruz compel JP
Development Corporation to issue to him the stock
certificate corresponding to the P25,000 paid by him?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ace Cruz cannot compel JP Development
Corporation to issue him the stock certificate for the
P 25,000.00. No Certificate of Stock can be issued to
a subscriber until the full amount of his subscription
together with interest and expense, if any is due, has
been paid. A Subscription is one, entire and
indivisible whole contract which cannot be divided
into portions. The stockholder is not entitled to a
Certificate of Stock until he has remitted the full
amount of his subscription (Sec. 64, Corporation
Code; SEC Opinion [January 6, 1989]).
On September 15, 2007, XYZ Corporation issued to
Paterno eight hundred preferred shares with the ff. terms:
The Preferred Shares shall have theff. rights,
preferences, qualifications, and limitations, to wit:
(1) The right to receive a quarterly dividend of
One per Centum cumulative and participating;
(2) These shares may be redeemed, by
drawing of lots, at any time after two years from date of
issue, at the option of the Corporation; xxx
Today, Paterno sues XYZ Corporation for specific
performance, for the payment of dividends on, and to
compel the redemption of , the preferred shares, under
the terms and conditions provided in the stock
certificates. Will the suit prosper? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the suit will not prosper. Paterno cannot compel
XYZ Corporation to pay dividends, which have to be
declared by the Board of Directors and the latter
cannot do so, unless there are sufficient unrestricted
retained earnings. Otherwise, the corporation will be
forced to use its capital to make said payments in
violation of the trust fund doctrine. Likewise,
54 of 91
redemption of shares cannot be compelled. While the

certificate allows such redemption, the option and
discretion to do so are clearly vested in the
corporation (Republic Planters Bank v. Agana, 269
SCRA 1 [1997]).
BOD; Manner of Filling Vacancies (2013)
In the November 2010 stockholders meeting of
Greenville Corporation, eight (8) directors were elected to
the board. The directors assumed their posts in January
20 ll. Since no stockholders' meeting was held in
November 2011, the eight directors served in a holdover
capacity and thus continued discharging their powers.
In June 2012, two (2) of Greenville Corporation's
directors- Director A and Director B -resigned from the
board. Relying on Section 29 of the Corporation Code,
the remaining six (6) directors elected two (2) new
directors to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation
of Directors A and B.
Stockholder X questioned the election of the
new directors, initially, through a letter-complaint
addressed to the board, and later (when his lettercomplaint went unheeded), through a derivative suit filed
with the court. He claimed that the vacancy in the board
should be filled up by the vote of the stockholders of
Greenville Corporation. Greenville Corporation's directors
defended the legality of their action, claiming as well that
Stockholder X's derivative suit was improper. Rule on the
issues raised. (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The remaining directors cannot elect new
directors to fill in the two vacancies. The board of
directors may fill up vacancy only if the ground isnot
due to expiration of term, removal or increase in the
number of board seats. In this case, the term of the
two directors expired after one year. They remained
in office in a hold-over capacity only until their
resignation. The hold-over period is not part of their
term. The vacancies should be filled up by election
by the stockholders (Valle Verde Country Club, Inc.
v. Africa, 598 SCRA 202, 2009).
The derivative suit was improper. xxx
BOD: Election of Aliens as members (2005)
A Korean national joined a corporation which is engaged
in the furniture manufacturing business. He was elected
to the Board of Directors. To complement its furniture
manufacturing business, the corporation also engaged in
the logging business. With the additional logging activity,
can the Korean national still be a member of the Board of
Directors? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, just as long as sixty percent (60%) of the Board
of Directors are Filipinos. Corporations that are sixty
percent (60%) owned by Filipinos can engage in the
business of exploration, development and utilization
of natural resources. (Art. XII, Sec. 2, 1987
Constitution) The election of aliens as members of
the Board Of Directors engaging in partiallynationalized activities is allowed in proportion to
their allowable participation or share in the capital of
such entities. (Sec. 2-A, Anti-Dummy Law) Nothing in
the facts shows that more than forty percent (40%) of

the Board of Directors are foreigners.
BOD; Contracts by Self-dealing Directors w/ the
Corporation; Requirements for Validity (2008)
Pedro was 70% of the subscribed capital stock of a
company which owns an office building. Paolo and Juan
own the remaining stock equally between them. Paolo
also owns a security agency, a janitorial company and a
catering business. In behalf of the office building
company, Paolo engaged his companies to render their
services to the office building. Are the service contracts
valid? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contracts of Paolo, who owns 15% of the
Outstanding Capital Stock of the office building
company is not valid if they were not approved by
the Board of Directors and Paolo was not designated
to execute them on behalf of said company.
On the other hand, if the contracts were
duly approved by the Board of Directors of the office
building company with Paolo duly designated as
company representative, they would nevertheless be
voided at the option of the company under Sec. 32 of
the Corporation Code.
A contract of the corporation with one or
more of its directors or trustees or officers is
voidable at the option of such corporation, unless all
the following conditions are present, (a) if Paolo as
a director in the board meeting in which the
contracts were approved was not necessary to
constitute a quorum for such meeting; (b) Paolos
vote at such meeting was not necessary for the
approval of the contracts; (c) Each of the contract
are fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
If condition (a) or (b) is absent, Sec. 32
requires that the contracts must be ratified by the
shareholders representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of
outstanding capital stock, provided that there wasfull
disclosure of the adverse interest of Paolo to Pedro.
BOD; Officers; Removal of Officers (2001)
In 1999, Corporation A passed a board resolution
removing X from his position as manager of said
corporation. The by-laws of A corporation provides that
the officers are the president, vice-president, treasurer
and secretary. Upon complaint filed with the SEC, it held
that a manager could be removed by mere resolution of
the board of directors. On motion for reconsideration, X
alleged that he could only be removed by the affirmative
vote of the stockholders representing 2/3 of the
outstanding capital stock. Is Xs contention legally
tenable. Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Stockholders approval is necessary only for the
removal of the members of the BOD. For the removal of
a corporate officer or employee, the vote of the BOD is
sufficient for the purpose.
Executive Committee; Creation Thereof & Validity of
Corporate Acts (2014)
Pursuant to its By-Laws, Soei Corporations Board of
Directors created an Executive Committee to manage the
55 of 91
affairs of the corporation in between board meetings. The

Board of Directors appointed the following members of
the Executive Committee: the President, Sarah L; the
Vice President, Jane L; and, a third member from the
board, Juan Riles. On December 1, 2013, the Executive
Committee, with Sarah L and Jane L present, met and
decided on the following matters:
1. Purchase of a delivery van for use in the
corporations retail business;
2. Declaration and approval of the 13th month
bonus;
3. Purchase of an office condominium unit at the
Fort; and
4. Declaration of P10.00 per share cash dividend.
Are the actions of the Executive Committee valid? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All the actions taken by the Executive
Committee in the problem are not valid. The
Executive Committee was not a properly created and,
therefore, its acts are invalid. Section 35 of the
Corporation Code requires that at least three
members of an executive Committee be directors of
the corporation. In the problem, only Member Sarah
L (who is a director as she is the President) and
Member Juan Riles (who is clearly identified in the
problem as a director) are directors of Soei
Corporation. Member Jane L is not identified as a
director. As the Executive Committee in the problem
was not properly created it could not act at all as the
minimum quorum would be three. As stated earlier,
the Executive Committee lacks one qualified
member.
If the Executive Committee were properly
organized and a quorum were presented, all the
actions taken by the Executive Committee in the
problem, except the declaration of P10.00 per share
cash dividend, would have been valid. The
distribution of cash dividends to the shareholders
may not be delegated by the Board of Directors to
the Executive Committee pursuant to Section 35 of
the Corporation Code.
Stockholders; Proprietary Rights; Pre-emptive Right
(2001)
Suppose that X Corporation has already issued the 1000
originally authorized shares of the corporation so that its
BOD and stockholders wish to increase Xs authorized
capital stock. After complying with the requirements of
the law on increase of capital stock, X issued an
additional 1000 shares of the same value. a) Assume
that the stockholder A presently holds 200 out of the
1000 original shares.
a) Would A have a pre-emptive right to 200 of the new
issue of 1000 shares? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, A would have a pre-emptive right to 200 of the
new issue of 1000 shares. A is a stockholder of
record holding 200 shares in X Corpo. According to
the Corp Code, each stockholder has the pre-emptive
right to all issues of shares made by the corporation
in proportion to the number of shares he holds on
record in the corporation.
b) When should stockholder A exercise the pre-emptive

right? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Pre-emptive right must be exercised in
accordance with the Articles of Incorporation or the
By-Laws. When the Articles of Incorporation and the
By-Laws are silent, the BOD may fix a reasonable
time within which the stockholders may exercise the
right.
Stockholders: Proprietary Rights; Pre-emptive Right
(2004)
The Board of Directors of ABC, Inc., a domestic
corporation, passed a resolution authorizing additional
issuance of shares of stocks without notice nor approval
of the stockholders. DX, a stockholder, objected to the
issuance, contending that it violated his right of
preemption to the unissued shares. Is his contention
tenable? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. DX's contention is tenable. Under Section 39 of
the Corporation Code, all stockholders of ABC, Inc.
enjoy preemptive right to subscribe to all issues of
shares of any class, including the reissuance of
treasury shares in proportion to their respective
shareholdings.
Stockholders; Proprietary Rights; Appraisal Right
(2003)
In what instances may the right of appraisal be availed of
under the Corporation Code?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SECTION 81. Instances of Appraisal Right. Any
stockholder of a corporation shall have the right to
dissent and demand payment of the fair value of his
shares in the following instances:
1.
In case any amendment to the articles of
incorporation has the effect of changing or
restricting the rights of any stockholders or
class of shares, or of authorizing
preferences in any respect superior to those
of outstanding shares of any class, or of
extending or shortening the term of
corporate existence;
2. In case of sale, lease, exchange, transfer,
mortgage, pledge or other disposition of all
or substantially all of the corporate property
and assets as provided in the Code; and
3. In case of merger or consolidation.
Stockholders; Proprietary Rights; Appraisal Right
(2007)
In a stockholders meeting, S dissented from the
corporate act converting preferred voting shares to nonvoting shares. Thereafter, S submitted his certificates of
stock for notation that his shares are dissenting. The next
day, S transferred his shares are dissenting. The next
day, S transferred his shares to T to whom new
certificates were issued. Now, T demands from the
corporation the payment of the value of his shares. (10%)
(A) What is the meaning of a stockholders appraisal
right?
56 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Appraisal right is the right of stockholder, who
dissents from a fundamental or extraordinary
corporate action, to demand payment of the fair
value of his shares. It is the right of a stockholder to
withdraw from the corporation and demand payment
of the fair value of his shares after dissenting form
certain corporate acts involving fundamental
changes in the corporate structure (Section 81,
Corporation Code).
(B) Can T exercise the right of appraisal? Reason
briefly?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, T cannot exercise the right of appraisal in this
case. When S transferred his shares to T and T was
issued new stock certificates, the appraisal right of S
ceased, and T acquired all the rights of a regular
stockholder. The transfer of shares from S to T
constitutes an abandonment of the appraisal right of
S. All the T acquired from the issuance of new stock
certificated was the rights of a regular stockholders
(Section 86, Corporation Code).
Stockholders; Meeting; Quorum (2009)
Triple a Corporation (Triple A) was incorporated in 1960,
with 500 founders shares and 78 common shares as its
initial capital stock subscription. However, Triple A
registered its stock and transfer book only in 1978, and
recorded merely 33 common shares as the corporations
issued and outstanding shares.
(B) On May 6, 1992, a special stockholders meeting was
held. At this meeting, what would have constituted a
quorum? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A quorum consists of the majority of the totality of
the shares which gave been subscribed and issued.
Thus the quorum for such meeting would be 289
shares or a majority of the 576 shares issued and
outstanding as indicated in the article of
incorporation. This includes the 33 common shares
reflected in the stock and transfer book, there being
no mention or showing of any transaction effected
from the time of Triple As incorporation in 1960up to
the said meeting (Section 52 in Relation to Section
137 of corporation Code; Lanuza v. court of Appeals,
454 SCRA 54 (2005)).
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit;
Minority Stockholder (2003)
Gina Sevilla, a minority stockholder of Bayan
Corporation, felt that various investments of the
companys capital were ultra vires if not, indeed, made in
violation of law. She filed a derivative suit seeking to
nullify the questioned investments. Would her action
prosper? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, she is already a stockholder at the time the
alleged misappropriation of corporate funds. And
that filing such action as a derivative suit even by a
lone stockholder is one of the protections extended
by law to minority stockholders against abuses of
the majority. Nevertheless, Gina must first exhaust

any administrative remedies before her suit be
consider in court.
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit:
Requisites (2004)
AA, a minority stockholder, filed a suit against BB, CC,
DD, and EE, the holders of majority shares of MOP
Corporation, for alleged misappropriation of corporate
funds. The complaint averred, inter alia, that MOP
Corporation is the corporation in whose behalf and for
whose benefit the derivative suit is brought. In their
capacity as members of the Board of Directors, the
majority stockholders adopted a resolution authorizing
MOP Corporation to withdraw the suit. Pursuant to said
resolution, the corporate counsel filed a Motion to
Dismiss in the name of the MOP Corporation. Should the
motion be granted or denied? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. All the requisites for a valid derivative suit exist
in this case. First, AA was exempt from exhausting
his remedies within the corporation, and did not have
to make a demand on the Board of Directors for the
latter to sue. Here, such a demand would be futile,
since the directors who comprise the majority
(namely, BB, CC, DD and EE) are the ones guilty of
the wrong complained of. Second, AA appears to be
stockholder at the time the alleged misappropriation
of corporate funds. Third, the suit is brought on
behalf and for the benefit of MOP Corporation. In this
connection, it was held in Conmart (Phils.) Inc. v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 198 SCRA 73
(1991) that to grant to the corporation concerned the
right of withdrawing or dismissing the suit, at the
instance of the majority stockholders and directors
who themselves are the persons alleged to have
committed the breach of trust against the interests of
the corporation would be to emasculate the right of
minority stockholders to seek redress for the
corporation. Filing such action as a derivative suit
even by a lone stockholder is one of the protections
extended by law to minority stockholders against
abuses of the majority.
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit
(2005)
Sometime in April 2004, Malyn learned about Fort Patio
Cafe located in Taguig City and that its development was
undertaken by a new corporation known as Fort Patio,
Inc., where both Schiera and Jaz are directors. Malyn
also found that Schiera and Jaz, on behalf of Patio
Investments, had obtained a loan of P500,000.00 from
PBCom Bank, for the purpose of opening Fort Patio
Cafe. This loan was secured by the assets of Patio
Investments and personally guaranteed by Schiera and
Jaz. Malyn then filed a corporate derivative action before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City against Schiera
and Jaz, alleging that the two directors had breached
their fiduciary duties by misappropriating money and
assets of Patio Investments in the operation of Fort Patio
Cafe. (5%)
57 of 91
2) Was it proper for Malyn to file a derivative suit with a

prayer for injunctive relief? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although it is a close corporation, nevertheless the
principles of separate juridical personality still apply.
The business of the corporation is still separate and
distinct
from the proprietary interests of its stockholders and
directors. Consequently, since the business
opportunity and the resource's used pertain to the
close corporation, the standing to sue and to recover
remains with the close corporation and not with
Malyn. Therefore, it is still necessary to file a
derivative suit on behalf of the close corporation,
although the proceedings would be governed under
the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra Corporate
Disputes.
3) Assuming that a derivative suit is proper; may the
action continue if the corporation is dissolved during the
pendency of the suit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, for in spite of the dissolution of any corporation,
it remains a juridical person for purpose of
dissolution for three years from the date of
dissolution, precisely one of the purposes is to allow
the winding-up of its affairs, including the
termination of pending suits.
Jurisdiction (2009)
Atlantis Realty Corporation (ARC), a local firm engaged
in real estate development, plans to sell one of its prime
assetsa three-hectare land valued at about P100million. For this purpose, the board of directors of ARC
unanimously passed a resolution approving the sale of
the property for P75-million to Shangrila Real Estate
Ventures (SREV) a rival realty firm. The resolution also
called for a special stockholders meeting at which the
proposed sale would be up for ratification.
Atty. Edric, a stockholder who owns only one
(1) share in ARC, wants to stop the sale. He then
commences a derivative suit for and in behalf of the
corporation, to enjoin the board of directors and the
stockholders from approving the sale.
(A) Can Atty. Edric, who owns only one share in the
company, initiate a derivative suit? Why or why not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, Atty. Edric can initiate a derivative suit,
otherwise known as the minority stockholders suit.
It is allowed by law to enable the minority
stockholder/s to protect the interest of the
corporation against illegal or disadvantageous act/s
of its officers or directors, the people who are
supposed to protect the corporation (Pascual v. Del
Zaz Orozco, 19 Phil. 82 (1991)).
(B) If such a suit is commenced, would it constitute an
intra-corporate dispute? If so, why and where would such
a suit be filed? If not, why not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, such suit would constitute an entra-corporate
dispute as it is a suit initiated by a stockholder

against other stockholders who are officers and
directors of the same corporation (P.D. No. 902-A,
Sec. 5(b)). Such suit should be filed in the Regional
Trial Court designated by the Supreme Court as a
corporate or commercial court.
(C) Will the suit prosper? Why or why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The suit will not prosper. There is no requisite
demand on the officers and directors concerned.
There is, therefore, no exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
Stockholders; Remedial Rights; Derivative Suit
(2013)
In the November 2010 stockholders meeting of
Greenville Corporation, eight (8) directors were elected to
the board. The directors assumed their posts in January
20 ll. Since no stockholders' meeting was held in
November 2011, the eight directors served in a holdover
capacity and thus continued discharging their powers.
In June 2012, two (2) of Greenville Corporation's
directors- Director A and Director B -resigned from the
board. Relying on Section 29 of the Corporation Code,
the remaining six (6) directors elected two (2) new
directors to fill in the vacancy caused by the resignation
of Directors A and B.
Stockholder X questioned the election of the
new directors, initially, through a letter-complaint
addressed to the board, and later (when his lettercomplaint went unheeded), through a derivative suit filed
with the court. He claimed that the vacancy in the board
should be filled up by the vote of the stockholders of
Greenville Corporation. Greenville Corporation's directors
defended the legality of their action, claiming as well that
Stockholder X's derivative suit was improper. Rule on the
issues raised. (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The remaining directors cannot elect new directors
to fill in the two vacancies. xxx
The derivative suit was improper. In a
derivative suit, the corporation, not the
individual stockholder, must be the aggrieved
party and that the stockholder is suing on behalf
of the corporation. What stockholder X is
asserting is his individual right as a stockholder to
elect the two directors. The case partakes more of
an election contest under the rules on intracorporate controversy (Legaspi Towers 300, Inc. v.
Muer, 673 SCRA 453,2012).
When Improper (2014)
A, B, C, D, and Ewere members of the 2003-2004 Board
of Directors of FLP Corporation. At the election for the
2004-2005 Board of Directors, not one of them was
elected. They filed in court a derivative suit on behalf of
FLP Corporation against the newly-elected members of
the Board of Directors. They questioned the validity of
the election as it was allegedly marred by lack of quorum,
and prayed for the nullification of the said election. The
2004-2005 Board of Directorsmoved to dismiss the
58 of 91
complaint because the derivative suit is not proper.

Decide. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The position taken by the 2004-2005 Board
of Directors is correct. The derivative suit is not
proper. The members of the 2003-2004 Board of
Directors of FLP Corporation are the injured parties,
not FLP Corporation, as their rights to vote and to be
voted upon were directly affected by the election of
the new set of directors. (Legaspi Towers 300, Inc., et
al. v. Muer, et al., G.R. 170783, June 18, 2012).
Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity (2005)
Briefly discuss the doctrine of corporate opportunity. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In brief, the doctrine disqualifies a director, trustee or
officer from appropriating for his personal benefit a
transaction or opportunity that pertains to the corporation,
and which under the duty of loyalty he should first bring
to the corporation for its use or exploitation. The doctrine
of corporate opportunity is an enforcement of the duty of
loyalty of corporate directors and officers. When a
director, trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquires,
in violation of his duty, an interest adverse to the
corporation in respect of any matter which has been
reposed in him in confidence, he shall be liable as a
trustee for the corporation and must account for the
profits which otherwise would have accrued to the
corporation. Equity imposes liability upon him not to deal
for his own benefit. (Sec. 31, Corporation Code) Under
Sec. 34 of the Corporation Code where a director, by
virtue of his office, acquires for himself a business
opportunity which should belong to the corporation,
thereby obtaining profits to the prejudice of such
corporation, he must account to the latter for all such
profits by refunding the same, unless his act has been
ratified by a vote of the stockholders owning or
representing at least two-thirds (2/8) of the outstanding
capital stock.
Doctrine of Corporate Opportunity (2005)
Malyn, Schiera and Jaz are the directors of Patio
Investments, a close corporation formed to run the Patio
Cafe, an al fresco coffee shop in Makati City. In 2000,
Patio Cafe began experiencing financial reverses,
consequently, some of the checks it issued to its
beverage distributors and employees bounced.
In October 2003, Schiera informed Malyn that
she found a location for a second cafe in Taguig City.
Malyn objected because of the dire financial condition of
the corporation.
Sometime in April 2004, Malyn learned about
Fort Patio Cafe located in Taguig City and that its
development was undertaken by a new corporation
known as Fort Patio, Inc., where both Schiera and Jaz
are directors. Malyn also found that Schiera and Jaz, on
behalf of Patio Investments, had obtained a loan of
P500,000.00 from PBCom Bank, for the purpose of
opening Fort Patio Cafe. This loan was secured by the
assets of Patio Investments and personally guaranteed
by Schiera and Jaz.
Malyn then filed a corporate derivative action
before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City against
Schiera and Jaz, alleging that the two directors had

breached their fiduciary duties by misappropriating
money and assets of Patio Investments in the operation
of Fort Patio Cafe. (5%)
1) Did Schiera and Jaz violate the principle of corporate
opportunity? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Although Malyn refused the business before,
nevertheless, using the resources and credit standing of
the company, Schiera and Jaz clearly demonstrated that
the business could have been successfully pursued in
the name of the close corporation. More importantly,
Schiera and Jaz are guilty of diverting the resources of
the close corporation to another entity, equivalent to
fraud and bad faith.
Capital Structure; Stocks; Sale, Transfer of
Certificates of Stock (2001)
A is the registered owner of Stock Certificate No.
000011. He entrusted the possession of said certificate
to his best friend B who borrowed the said endorsed
certificate to support Bs application for passport (or for a
purpose other than transfer). But B sold the certificate to
X, a bona fide purchaser who relied on the endorsed
certificates and believed him to be the owner thereof.
a) Can A claim the shares of stock from X? Explain (3%)
b) Would your answer be the same if A lost the stock
certificate in question or if it was stolen from him? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. Assuming that the shares were already transferred
to B, A cannot claim the shares of stock from X. The
certificate of stock covering said shares have been duly
endorsed by A and entrusted by him to B. By his said
acts, A is now estopped from claiming said shares from
X, a bona fide purchaser who relied on the endorsement
by A of the certificate of stock.
b) Yes. In the case where the certificate of stock was lost
or stole from A, A has a right to claim the certificate of
stock from the thief who has no right or title to the same.
One who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully
deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in
possession of the same. (Art 559 NCC)
Capital Structure; Stocks; Sale, Transfer of
Certificates of Stock (2004)
Four months before his death, PX assigned 100 shares
of stock registered in his name in favor of his wife and his
children. They then brought the deed of assignment to
the proper corporate officers for registration with the
request for the transfer in the corporation's stock and
transfer books of the assigned shares, the cancellation of
the stock certificates in PX's name, and the issuance of
new stock certificates in the names of his wife and his
children as the new owners. The officers of the
Corporation denied the request on the ground that
another heir is contesting the validity of the deed of
assignment. May the Corporation be compelled by
mandamus to register the shares of stock in the names
of the assignees? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
59 of 91
Yes. The corporation may be compelled by mandamus to

register the shares of stock in the name of the assignee.
The only legal limitation imposed by Section 63 of the
Corporation Code is when the Corporation holds any
unpaid claim against the shares intended to be
transferred. The alleged claim of another heir of PX is not
sufficient to deny the issuance of new certificates of stock
to his wife and children. It would be otherwise if the
transferee's title to the shares has no prima facie validity
or is uncertain.
Capital Structure; Stock and Transfer Book (2009)
(C) What is a stock and transfer book? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A Stock and transfer book is a book which records
all stocks in the name of the stockholders
alphabetically arranged; the installments paid or
unpaid on all stocks for which subscription has been
made and the date of payment of any installment, a
statement of every alienation, sale or transfer of
stock made, the date thereof, and by and to whom
made; and such other entries as the by-laws may
prescribe (Section 74, Corporation Code).
Capital Structure; Shares of Stock; Issuance Thereof
to Pay for Services (2005)
Janice rendered some consultancy work for XYZ
Corporation. Her compensation included shares of stock
therein. Can XYZ Corporation issue shares of stock to
pay for the services of Janice as its consultant? Discuss
your answer. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, provided the approval of stockholders representing
two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock is
obtained. Although the facts indicate that the consultancy
work has already been "rendered" constituting
"previously contracted debt," under Section 39 of the
Corporation Code, the pre-emptive rights of existing
stockholders need not be respected "in payment of a
previously contracted debt," but only with the indicated
stockholders' approval. Under Section 62 of the
Corporation Code, consideration for the issuance of
stock may include labor performed for or services
actually rendered to the corporation.
Capital Structure; Shares of Stock; Preferred Shares
(2013)
Bell Philippines, Inc. (BelPhil) is a public utility company,
duly incorporated and registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Its authorized capital stock
consists of voting common shares and non-voting
preferred shares, with equal par values of
P100.00/share. Currently, the issued and outstanding
capital stock of BelPhil consists only of common shares
shared between Bayani Cruz, a Filipino with 60% of the
issued common shares, and Bernard Fleet, a Canadian,
with 40%.
To secure additional working fund, BelPhil
issued preferred shares to Bernard Fleet equivalent to
the currently outstanding common shares. A suit was
filed questioning the corporate action on the ground that
the foreign equity holdings in the company would now
exceed the 40% foreign equity limit allowed under the

Constitution for public utilities.
Rule on the legality of Bernard Fleet's current
holdings. (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The holding of Bernard Fleet equivalent to the
outstanding common shares is illegal. His holdings
of preferred shares should not exceed 40%. Since
the constitutional requirement of 60% Filipino
ownership of the capital of public utilities applies not
only to voting control but also tobeneficial
ownership of the corporation, it should also apply to
the preferred shares. Preferred shares are also
entitled to vote in certain corporate matters.
(Gamboa v. Teves, 682 SCRA 397, 2012)The State
shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. (Article
11, Sec. 19. 1987 Constitution) The effective control
here should be mirrored across the board on all
kinds of shares.
Dissolution & Dissolution; Expiration of Corporate
Term (2004)
XYZ Corporation entered into a contract of lease with
ABC, Inc., over a piece of real estate for a term of 20
years, renewable for another 20 years, provided that
XYZ's corporate term is extended in accordance with
law. Four years after the term of XYZ Corporation
expired, but still within the period allowed by the lease
contract for the extension of the lease period, XYZ Corp.
notified ABC, Inc., that it is exercising the option to
extend the lease. ABC, Inc., objected to the proposed
extension, arguing that since the corporate life of XYZ
Corp. had expired, it could no longer opt to renew the
lease. XYZ Corp. countered that withstanding the lapse
of its corporate term it still has the right to renew the
lease because no quo warranto proceedings for
involuntary dissolution of XYZ Corp. has been instituted
by the Office of the Solicitor General. Is the contention of
XYZ Corp. meritorious? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XYZ Corporation's contention is not meritorious. Based
on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Philippine National
Bank vs. CFI of Rizal, 209 SCRA (1992). XYZ Corp. was
dissolved ipso facto upon the expiration of its original
term. It ceased to be a body corporate for the purpose of
continuing the business for which it was organized,
except only for purposes connected with its winding up or
liquidation. Extending the lease is not an act to wind up
or liquidate XYZ Corp.'s affairs. It is contrary to the idea
of winding up the affairs of the corporation.
Dissolution & Liquidation; Voluntary Dissolution
(2002)
Name three (3) methods by which a stock corporation
may be voluntarily dissolved. Explain each method. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 and
Exchange Commission.
60 of 91
2) Voluntary 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 representing at least 2/3
of the outstanding capital stock.
3) Dissolution by shortening of the corporate term. This is
done by amendment of the articles of incorporation.
Dissolution & Liquidation (2012)
AAA Corporation is a bank. The operations of AAA
Corporation as a bank was not doing well. So, to avert
any bank run, AAA Corporation, with the approval of the
Monetary Board, sold all its assets and liabilities to BBB
Banking Corporation which includes all deposit accounts.
In effect then, BBB Corporation will service all deposits of
all depositors of AAA Corporation.
a. Will the sale of all assets and liabilities of AAA
Corporation to BBB Banking Corporation automatically
dissolve or terminate the corporate existence of AAA
Corporation? Explain your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. No, the sale of all the assets and liabilities of AAA
Corporation to BBB Banking Corporation will not
result in the automatic dissolution or termination of
the existence of the former. A decision to dissolve
AAA Corporation or to terminate its corporate
existence would require a separate approval by a
majority of the Board of Directors of AAA
Corporation and its stockholders holding at least
two-thirds of the total outstanding capital stock, as
well as the separate approval by the Monetary Board.
b. What are the legal requirements in order that a
corporation may be dissolved? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. A corporation may be dissolved voluntarily under
Section 118 (where no creditors are affected) or
under Section 119 (where creditors are affected), or
by shortening of the corporate term under Section
120, or involuntarily by the SEC under Section 122,
all of the Corporation Code. Dissolution under
Sections 118, 119, and 120 require the same
corporate approvals stated in (a) above.
Note that the SEC also has the authority under
Section 6 of PD 902-A to revoke the certificate of
registration of a corporation upon any of the grounds
provided by law, including the aforementioned
Section 6-A.
Dissolution &Liquidation; Methods of Liquidation
(2001)
X Corporation shortened its corporate life by amending
its Articles of Incorporation. It has no debts but owns a
prime property located in Quezon City. How would the
said property be liquidated among the five stockholders
of said corporation? Discuss two methods of liquidation.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The prime property of X Corporation can be liquidated
among the five stockholders after the property has been
conveyed by the corporation to the five stockholders, by
dividing or partitioning it among themselves in any two of

the following ways. By:
1) PHYSICAL DIVISION or PARTITION based on the
proportion of the values of their stockholdings; or
2) SELLING THE PROPERTY to a third person and
dividing the proceeds among the five stockholders in
proportion to their stockholdings; or
3) after the determination of the value of the property, by
ASSIGNING or TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY to
one stockholder with the obligation on the part of said
stockholder to pay the other four stockholders the
amount/s in proportion to the value of the stockholding of
each.
Bulk Sales Law

Bulk Sales Law (2005)
Divine Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of
garments for export. In the course of its business, it was
able to obtain loans from individuals and financing
institutions. However, due to the drop in the demand for
garments in the international market, Divine Corporation
could not meet its obligations. It decided to sell all its
equipment such as sewing machines, perma-press
machines, high speed sewers, cutting tables, ironing
tables, etc., as well as its supplies and materials to Top
Grade Fashion Corporation, its competitor. (5%) 1) How
would you classify the transaction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The transactions would constitute a sale of "substantially
all of the assets of Divine Corporation complying with the
test under Sec. 40 of the Corporation Code, the
transactions not being "in the ordinary course of
business," and one "thereby the corporation would be
rendered incapable of continuing the business or
accomplishing the purpose for which it was
incorporated."
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It is a sale and transfer in bulk in contemplation of the
Bulk Sales Law. Under Sec. 2 of the Bulk Sales Law, a
bulk sale includes any sale, transfer, mortgage, or
assignment of all, or substantially all, of the business or
trade theretofore conducted by the vendor, mortgagor,
transferor, or assignor. This is exactly what happened in
the case at bar.
2) Can Divine Corporation sell the aforesaid items to its
competitor, Top Grade Fashion Corporation? What are
the requirements to validly sell the items? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For such a transaction to be valid, it requires not only the
favorable resolution of the Board of Directors of Divine
Corporation, but also the ratificatory vote of stockholders
representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding
capital stock, as mandated under Sec. 40 of the
Corporation Code. The sale would be void in case of
failure to meet the twin approvals. (Islamic Directorate of
the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117897,
May 14, 1997)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Divine Corporation can sell the items to its competitor,
Top Grade Fashion Corporation. However, Divine
61 of 91
Corporation must comply with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the

Bulk Sales Law, namely:
(1) deliver sworn statement of the names and
addresses of all the creditors to whom the
vendor or mortgagor may be indebted together
with the amount of indebtedness due or owing
to each of the said creditors;
(2) apply the purchase or mortgage money to the
pro-rata payment of bona fide claims of the
creditors; and
(3) make a full detailed inventory of the stock of
goods, wares, merchandise, provisions or
materials, in bulk, and notify every creditor at
least ten (10) days before transferring
possession.
3) How would you protect the interests of the creditors of
Divine Corporation?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Considering that Divine Corporation has entered a de
facto stage of dissolution with the ceasing of its
operations, I would invoke on behalf of the creditors the
protection under Sec. 122 of the Corporation Code, that
the proceeds of the sale should first be applied towards
the settlement of the obligations of the corporation,
before any amount can be paid to the stockholders.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under the Bulk Sales Law, if the proceeds are not;
applied proportionately towards the settlement of the
accounts of the corporate debts, to have the sale of the
subject matters to Top Grade Fashion Corp., as being
"fraudulent and void" and obtain satisfaction from the
properties which are deemed to still be owned by Divine
Corporation in spite of delivery to the buyer. The
creditors can collect on the credit against Divine
Corporation, and if it cannot pay, the creditors can apply
for attachment on the property fraudulently sold. (See
People v. Mapoy, G.R. No. 48836, September 21,
1942)
4) In case Divine Corporation violated the law, what
remedies are available to Top Grade Fashion
Corporation against Divine Corporation?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the sale by Divine Corporation did not obtain the
required two-thirds (2/3) vote of the outstanding capital
stock, then the transaction is void. (Islamic Directorate of
the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 117897,
May 14, 1997) Top Grade Fashion Corporation can have
the purchase declared void and recover the purchase
price paid, as well as damages against the directors and
officers who undertook the transaction in violation of the
law.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
For violation of the Bulk Sales Law, the principal officers
of the Divine Corporation can be held criminally liable. In
addition, Top Grade can sue Divine Corporation for
damages. Violation of the Bulk Sales Law would render
such a sale fraudulent and void. Since Top Grade would
be compelled to return the goods to Divine Corporation,
Top Grade can compel Divine Corporation to return the
purchase price and pay damages.

Company X, engaged in the business of manufacturing
car parts and accessories, operates a factory with
equipment, machinery and tools for this purpose. The
manufactured goods are sold wholesale to distributors
and dealers throughout the Philippines. Company X was
among the business entities adversely hit by the 1997
Asian business crisis. Its sales dropped with the decline
in car sales and its operating costs escalated, while its
creditor banks and other financial institutions tightened
their loan portfolios. Company X was faced with the
dismal choice of either suspending its operations or
selling its business. It chose the latter. Having struck a
deal with Company Z, a more viable entity engaged in
the same business, Company X sold its entire business
to the former without much fanfare or any form of
publicity. In fact, evidence exists that the transaction was
furtively entered into to avoid the prying eyes of
Company Xs creditors. The creditor banks and other
financial institutions sued Company X for violation of the
Bulk Sales Law. Decide. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Company X violated the Bulk Sales Law when it sold
its entire business to Company Z furtively to avoid
the prying eyes of its creditors. Its manufactured
goods are sold wholesale to distributors and dealers.
The sale of all or substantially all of its stocks, not in
the ordinary course of business, constitutes bulk
sale. The transaction being a
bulk sale, entering into such transaction without
complying with the requirements of the Bulk Sales
Law, Company X violated said law.
Pursuant to a writ of execution issued by the Regional
Trial Court in "Express Bank v. Don Rubio," the sheriff
levied and sold at public auction 8 photocopying
machines of Don Rubio. Is the sheriff's sale covered by
the Bulk Sales Law? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The sale by sheriff at public sale is not a sale by
a merchant. Section 8 of the Bulk Sales Law itself
provides that it has no application to executors,
administrators, receivers, assignees in insolvency,
or public officers, acting under process. The Bulk
Sales Law only applies to the sale or encumbrance of
a merchant of goods, merchandise or commodity
done "in bulk" as defined by the Law itself.
Bulk Sales Law; Obligation of the Vendor (2001)
A is a merchant engaged in the sale of a variety of goods
and merchandise. Because of the economic crisis, he
incurred indebtedness to X, Y and Z. Thereafter, A sold
to B all the stock of goods and merchandise. a) What
steps should A undertake to effect a valid sale in bulk of
his goods to B. (2%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
62 of 91
creditors that there is a proposed bulk sale in order

to enable the latter to protect their interests.
substantially all of the business of the mortgagor

(Section 2, Bulk Sales Law).
b) Suppose A submitted a false statement on the

schedule of his creditors. What is the effect of such false
statement as to Vendee B. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the vendee does not have knowledge of the falsity
of the schedule, the sale is valid. However, if the
vendee has knowledge of such falsity, the sale is
void because he is in bad faith.
(C) What are the legal consequences of a failure to

comply with the requirements of the Bulk Sales law?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Failure to comply with the requirements of the Bulk
Sales Law renders the Sale, transfer, mortgage, or
assignment fraudulent and void (Section 4, Bulk
Sales Law), and makes any person found guilty of
violating any provision of the Bulk Sales Law
punishable by 5 years, or a fine in an amount not
exceeding P5, 000, or both such imprisonment and
fine in the discretion of the court (Section 11, Bulk
Sales Law).
c) What is the right of creditors X, Y, and Z if A failed to

comply with the procedure/steps required by law under
question letter (a) hereof? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The recourse of X, Y, and Z is to question the validity
of the sale from A to B so as to recover the goods
and merchandise to satisfy their credits.
Venezia is a famous international fashion chain with
outlets in Makati, Ortigas, and Manila. It has complied
with the minimum capitalization required under the Retail
Trade Nationalization Act and carries on retail business
worth more than S3 million for each of its outlets. As its
Manila outlet is not doing very well, it decides to sell all of
its business there consisting of remaining inventory,
furniture and fixtures and other assets to its competitor.
(A) Venezias Manila outlet constitutes one-third of its
total business. Should it comply with the requirements of
the Bulk Sales Law? Why or why not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Venezia need not comply with the requirements of
the Bulk Sales Law as itsManila outlet constitutes
only one-third of its total business and, therefore, it
would not conducted by Venezia. Moreover, the
requirements of the Bulk Sales Law reflected in
Sections 3,4,5, and 9, by the express language of
said provisions, apply only to the first type of bulk
sales, i.e., to any sale, transfer, mortgage or
assignment of a stock of goods, wares, merchandise,
provisions or materials otherwise than in the
ordinary course of trade and the regular prosecution
of business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or
assignor, and not to the second type (as in the sale
described in the problem) or the third type (i.e., sale,
etc. of all or substantially all of the fixtures and
equipment used in and about the business). As the
Bulk Sales Law is penal in nature, it should be
interpreted strictly against the State (People v. Wong
Szu Tung, CA G.R. No. 9776-R, March 26, 1954;50
O.G. 4867; Section 2 of the Bulk Sales Law).
(B) If instead of selling its Manila outlet, Venezia merely
mortgages its assets there, would it need to comply with
the requirements of the Bulk Sales Law? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
For the same reasons stated in the answer to A
above, Venezia need not comply with the
requirements of the Bulk Sales Law. The second type
of bulk sales also includes the mortgage of all or

XXX Corporation (XXX) and its sister company, YYY
Corporation (YYY), are both under judicial receivership.
The receiver has the option to sell or substantially all of
the properties of YYY to XX, or simply merges the two
Corporations. Under either option, the requirements
under the Corporation Code have to be complied with.
The receiver seeks your advice on whether the
Bulk Sales law will apply to either, or both, options. What
will your advice be? Explain (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advice the receiver that the Bulk Sales law does
not apply to both options. Sect. 8 of the Bulk Sales
Law expressly provides that it will not apply
executors, administrators, receivers, and assignees
in insolvency, or public officers, acting under judicial
process. In this case, the receiver is acting under
judicial process.
Seeking to Streamline its operations and to ball out its
losing ventures, the stockholders of X corporation
unanimously adopted a proposal to sell substantially all
of the machineries and equipment used in and about its
manufacturing business and to sink the proceeds of the
sale for the expansion of its cargo transport
services.(5%)
(A) Would the transaction be covered by the provisions of
eh Bulk Sales Law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the transaction is not covered by the provisions
of the Bulk sales law, Bulk
sales law applies only to retail merchants, traders
and dealers. It does not apply to manufacturers. X
Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing
business (Development bank of the Phil. V. Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of manial86 O.G. 1137
(1987)).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
YES, the transaction is covered by the Bulk Sales
Law because it involves the sale of substantially all
the equipment used in the business of X corporation
(Sec. 2 Bulk sales law)
(B) How would X Corporation effect a valid sale?
63 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
To effect a valid sale. X corporation must prepare an
affidavit stating the names of all its creditors, their
addresses, the amount of their credits and their
maturities. X Corporation should give the affidavit to
the buyer who , in turn, should furnish a copy to
each creditor and notify the creditors of the
proposed bulk sale to enable them to protect their
interest.
Bulk Sales Law; Validity (2009)
(C) Even if the seller and the buyer in a sale in bulk
violate the Bulk Sales Law, the sale would still be valid.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. When the Bulk Sales Law is violated, the sale
is null and void. When the provisions of the said law
have not been complied with, the sale is considered
as being fraudulent and void and even when
coupled with delivery, the title over the goods does
not transfer to the buyer. However, the civil liabilities
arising from the transaction remain enforceable
between the parties thereto.
Insolvency & Corporate Rehabilitation

Insolvency: Voluntary Insolvency (2005)
Aaron, a well-known architect, is suffering from financial
reverses. He has four creditors with a total claim of P26
Million. Despite his intention to pay these obligations, his
current assets are insufficient to cover all of them. His
creditors are about to sue him. Consequently, he was
constrained to file a petition for insolvency. (5%) a) Since
Aaron was merely forced by circumstances to petition the
court to declare him insolvent, can the judge properly
treat the petition as one for involuntary insolvency?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. This is a case for voluntary insolvency because
this was filed by an insolvent debtor owing debts
exceeding the amount of P1,000.00 under Section 14
of the Insolvency
Law. Under Section 20 of the Insolvency Law, the
petition must be filed by three or more creditors. In
the case at bar, it is Aaron, the debtor, who filed the
insolvency proceedings.
b) If Aaron is declared an insolvent by the court, what
would be the effect, if any, of such declaration on his
creditors? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A declaration by the court that the petitioner is
insolvent will have the following effects:
1) The sheriff shall take possession of all assets of
the debtor until the appointment of a receiver or
assignee;
2) Payment to the debtor of any debts due to
him and the delivery to the debtor of any property
belonging to him, and the transfer of any property by
him are forbidden;
3) All civil proceedings pending against the insolvent
shall be stayed; and
4) Mortgages and pledges are not affected by
the order declaring a person insolvent. (Sec. 59,

Insolvency Law)
c) Assuming that, Aaron has guarantors for his debts, are
the guarantors released from their obligations once
Aaron is discharged from his debts? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, precisely under the principle of excussion, the
liability of the guarantors arises only after the
exhaustion of the assets of the principal obligor. The
effect of discharge merely confirms exhaustion of
the assets of the obligor available to his creditors.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Article 2076 of the Civil Code provides: The
obligation of the guarantor is extinguished at the
same time as that of the debtor, and for the same
causes as all other
obligations.
d) What remedies are available to the guarantors in case
they are made to pay the creditors? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Article 2081, the guarantor may set up against
the creditor all the defenses that pertain to the
principal debtor. The discharge obtained by Aaron
on the principal obligation can now be used as a
defense by the guarantors against the creditors. The
guarantors are also entitled to indemnity under
Article 2066 of the Civil Code.
Insolvency; Fraudulent Payment (2002)
As of June 1, 2002, Edzo Systems Corporation (Edzo)
was indebted to the following creditors:
a. Ace Equipment Supplies for various personal
computers and accessories sold to Edzo on
credit amounting to P300,000.
b. Handyman Garage for mechanical repairs
(parts and service) performed on Edzos
company car amounting to P10,000.
c. Joselyn Reyes former employee of Edzo who
sued Edzo for unlawful termination of
employment and was able to obtain a final
judgment against Edzo for P100,000.
d. Bureau of Internal Revenue for unpaid
e. value-added taxes amounting to P30,000.
f.
Integrity Bank which granted Edzo a loan in
2001 in the amount of P500,000.
The loan was not secured by any asset of Edzo, but it
was guaranteed unconditionally and solidarily by Edzos
President and controlling stockholder, Eduardo Z. Ong,
as accommodation surety. The loan due to Integrity Bank
fell due on June 15, 2002. Despite pleas for extension of
payment by Edzo, bank demanded immediate payment.
Because the bank threatened to proceed against the
surety, Eduardo Z. Ong, Edzo decided to pay up all its
obligations to Integrity Bank. On June 20, 2002, Edzo
paid to Integrity Bank the full principal amount of
P500,000, plus accrued interests amounting to P55,000.
As a result, Edzo had hardly any cash left for operations
and decided to close its business. After paying the
unpaid salaries of its employees, Edzo filed a petition for
insolvency on July 1, 2002. In the insolvency
proceedings in court, the assignee in insolvency sought
64 of 91
to invalidate the payment made by Edzo to Integrity Bank

for being a fraudulent transfer because it was made
within 30 days before the filing of the insolvency petition.
In defense, Integrity Bank asserted that the payment to it
was for a legitimate debt that was not covered by the
prohibition because it was a valuable pecuniary
consideration made in good faith, thus falling within the
exception specified in the Insolvency Law.
a. As judge in the pending insolvency case, how would
you decide the respective contentions of the assignee in
insolvency and of Integrity Bank? Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of the assignee in insolvency is
correct. The payment made by Edzo to Integrity Bank
was a fraudulent preference or payment, being made
within thirty (30) days before the filing of the
insolvency petition.
b. How would you, as judge in the insolvency
proceedings, rank the respective credits or claims of the
five (5) creditors mentioned above in terms of preference
or priority against each other? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim of Handyman Garage for P10,000 has a
specific lien on the car repaired. The remaining four
(4) claims have preference or priority against each
other in the following order:
(1) No. 4 claim of the BIR for unpaid value added
taxes
(2) No. 3 claim of Joselyn Reyes for Unlawful
termination
(3) No. 1 claim of Ace equipment Supplies as an
unpaid seller; and
(4) No. 5 claim of Integrity Bank.
Insolvency; Preferred Claims (2007)
(A) What are the preferred claims that shall be satisfied
first from the assets of an insolvent corporation? (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Insolvency law necessary funeral
expenses of the debtor is the most preferred claim.
However, this is an insolvent corporation, thus,
claims shall be paid in the ff. order:
(1) Debts due for personal services rendered the
insolvent by employees, laborers, or domestic
servants immediately preceding the commencement
of proceeding in insolvency;
(2) Compensation due the laborers or their
dependents under the provisions of act numbered
thirty-four hundred and twenty-eight, known as the
workmens
Compensation Act, as amended by Act
Numbered Thirty-eight hundred and twelve, and
under the provisions of Act Numbered Eighteen
hundred and seventy-four, known as the Employees
Liability Act, and of other laws providing for
payment of indemnity for damages in cases of labor
accidents;
(3) Legal expenses, and expenses incurred in the
administration of the insolvents estate for the
common interest of the creditors, when properly
authorized and approved by the court;
(4) Debts, taxes, and assessments due the Insular

Government;
(5) Debts, taxes, and assessments due to any
province or provinces of the Philippine Islands;
(6) Debts, taxes, and assessments due to any
municipality or municipalities of the
Philippine
Islands (Section 50, Insolvency Law).
(B) How shall the remaining non-preferred creditors
share in the estate of the insolvent corporation above?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The remaining non-preferred creditors, whose debts
are duly proved and allowed, shall be entitled to
share pro-rata in the assets, without priority or
preference whatsoever (Section 49, Insolvency Law;
Article 2251, Civil Code).
Law on Corporate Recovery (2003)
X Corporation applied for its rehabilitation and submitted
a rehabilitation plan which called for the entry by it into a
joint venture agreement with Y Corporation. Under the
agreement, Y Corporation was to lend to X Corporation
its credit facilities with certain banks to obtain funds not
only to operate X Corporation but also for a part thereof
in the amount of P1 million as initial deposit in a sinking
fund to be augmented annually in amounts equivalent to
10% of the yearly income from its operation of the
business of X Corporation. From this fund the creditors of
X Corporation were to be paid annually, starting from the
second year of operations, with the entire indebtedness
to be liquidated in 15 years. The creditors of X
Corporation objected to the plan because Y Corporation
would be taking over the business and assets of X
Corporation. Could the court approve the plan despite
the objections of the creditors of X Corporation and could
the creditors be compelled to follow the plan? Could Y
Corporation, in managing the business of X Corporation
in the meantime, be deemed to have taken-over X
Corporation itself? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Corporate Rehabilitation; Stay Order (2006)

The Blue Star Corporation filed with the Regional Trial
Court a petition for rehabilitation on the ground that it
foresaw the impossibility of paying its obligations as they
fall due. Finding the petition sufficient in form and
substance, the court issued an Order appointing a
rehabilitation receiver and staying the enforcement of all
claims against the corporation. What is the rationale for
the Stay Order? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
65 of 91
The purpose of the stay order is intended to give the

management committee or rehabilitation receiver the
leeway to make the business viable again, without
having to divert attention and resources to litigation
in various for a. (Philippine Airlines v. Spouses
Kurangking, et al, G.R. No. 146698, September 24,
2002; BF Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos.
76879 & 77143, October 3, 1990; Rubberworld [Phils.]
Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126773, April 14, 1999;
Sobrejuanite v. ASB Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 165675,
September 30, 2005). It also prevents a creditor from
obtaining an advantage or preference over another
with respect to actions against the corporation.
(Finasia Investments and Finance Corp v. Court of
Appeals, G. R. No. 107002, October 7,1994).
Corporate Rehabilitation; Power of the Court to
Stay Enforcement Claims (2012)
ABC Company filed a Petition for Rehabilitation with
the Court. An Order was issued by the Court, (1).
staying enforcement of all claims, whether money or
otherwise against ABC Company, its guarantors and
sureties not solidarity liable with the company; and
(2) prohibiting ABC Company from making payments
of its liabilities, outstanding as of the date of the filing
of the petition. XYC Company is a holder of an
irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit which was
previously procured by ABC Company in favor of
XYC Company to secure performance of certain
obligations. In the light of the Order issued by the
Court,
of fixed value plans which guaranteed the payment of a

pre-determined amount to planholders. In 1982, PA was
among the countrys top corporations. However, it
subsequently suffered financial difficulties.
On September 8, 2005, PA filed a Petition for
Corporate Rehabilitation before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati City. On October 17, 2005, ten (10) plan
holders filed an Opposition and Motion to Exclude
Planholders from Stay Order on the ground that
planholders are not creditors as they (planholders) have
a trust relationship with PA. Are the planholders correct?
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The plan holders are not correct. Section 6 of the
Supreme Court Interim Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Rehabilitation of 2000 (which was
amended and replaced by the Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Rehabilitation of 2009) do not provide that
a claim arising from a pre-need contract is an
exception to the power of the trial court to stay
enforcement of all claims if the court finds the
petition for rehabilitation to be sufficient in form and
substance. (Abrera, et al. v. Barza, et al., G.R. 171681,
Suspension of Payments; Remedies (2003)
When is the remedy of declaration in a state of
suspension of payments available to a corporation?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Can XYC Company still be able to draw on their

irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit when due?
Explain your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. As an exception to a Stay or Suspension Order
included in a Commencement Order issued pursuant
to Section 16(q) of the FRIA, Section 18(c) the said
law provides that a Stay or Suspension Order shall
not apply "to the enforcement of claims against
sureties and other persons solidarity liable with the
debtor,
and
third
party
oraccommodation
mortgagors as well as Issuers of letters of credit x
xx." Similarly, assuming that it has not been
superseded by the FRIA, Section 7(b) of the Supreme
Court
Rules
of
Procedure
on
Corporate
Rehabilitation (2008) provides that a stay order shall
not cover claims against letters of credit and similar
security arrangements issued by a third party to
secure the payment of the debtor's obligations. This
was the basis of the decision in the case of
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v.
Hon. Reynaldo B. Daway, et al. (G.R. No. 160732,
June 21, 2004).
Corporate Rehabilitation; Power of the Court to Stay
Enforcement Claims (2014)
PA Assurance (PA) was incorporated in 1980 to engage
in the sale of pre-need educational plans. It sold openended educational plans which guaranteed the payment
of tuition and other fees to planholders irrespective of the
cost at the time of availment. It also engaged in the sale
66 of 91
SECURITIES REGULATION
Howey Test (2009)
(C) The Howey Test states that there is an investment
contract when a person invests money in a common
enterprise and is led to expect profits primarily from the
efforts of others.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Howey Test requires a transaction, contract, or
scheme whereby a person makes an investment of
money in a common enterprise with the expectation
of profits to be derived solely, not primarily from the
efforts of others (Power Homes Unlimited Corp. v.
SEC, 546 SCRA 567 (2008)).
Insider Trading (2004)
Ms. OB was employed in MAS Investment Bank. WIC, a
medical drug company, retained the Bank to assess
whether it is desirable to make a tender offer for DOP
company, a drug manufacturer. OB overheard in the
course of her work the plans of WIC. By herself and thru
associates, she purchased DOP stocks available at the
stock exchange priced at P20 per share. When WIC's
tender offer was announced, DOP stocks jumped to P30
per share. Thus OB earned a sizable profit. Is OB liable
for breach and misuse of confidential or insider
information gained from her employment? Is she also
liable for damages to sellers or buyers with whom she
traded? If so, what is the measure of such damages?
Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OB is an insider (as defined in Subsection 3.8(3) of
the Securities Regulation Code) since she is an
employee of the Bank, the financial adviser of DOP,
and this relationship gives her access to material
information about the issuer (DOP) and the latter's
securities (shares), which information is not
generally available to the public. Accordingly, OB is
guilty of insider trading under Section 27 of the
Securities Regulation Code, which requires
disclosure when trading in securities.
OB is also liable for damages to sellers or
buyers with whom she traded. Under Subsection 63.1
of the Securities Regulation Code, the damages
awarded could be an amount not exceeding triple the
amount of the transaction plus actual damages.
Exemplary damages may also be awarded in case of
bad faith, fraud, malevolence or wantonness in the
violation of the Securities Regulation Code or its
implementing rules. The court is also authorized to
award attorney's fees not exceeding 30% of the
award.
Grand Gas Corporation, a publicly listed company,
discovered after extensive drilling a rich deposit of
natural gas along the coast of Antique. For five (5%)
months, the company did not disclose the discovery so
that it could quietly and cheaply acquire neighboring land
and secure mining rights to the land. Between the
discovery and its disclosure of the information to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, all the directors
and key officers of the company bought shares in the

company at very low prices. After the disclosure, the
price of the shares went up. The directors and officers
sold their shares at huge profits,
(A) What provision of the Securities Regulation Code
(SRC) did they violate, if any ? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The directors and key officers of the company
violated the prohibition against insider trading under
Sec. 27 of the Securities Regulation Code, which
declares it unlawful for an insider
(which includes directors and officers of a publicly
listed company) to sell or buy its securities, if they
know of a fact of special significance with respect to
the company or the security, that is not generally
available to the public, before such material
information made public through disclosure
proceedings. The directors and key officers are liable
to disgorge the profits earned and to pay damages.
(B) Assuming that the employees of the establishment
handling the printing work of Grand Gas Corporation saw
the exploration reports which were mistakenly sent to
their establishment together with other materials to be
printed. They too bought shares in the company at low
prices and later sold them at huge profits. Will they be
liable for violation of the SRC? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The employees are liable for violation of the
prohibition against insider trading. They fall within
the definition of insider. Subsection 3.8 of the
Securities Regulation Code defines an insider as a
person whose relationship or former relationship to
Issuer gives or gave him access to a fact of special
significance about Issuer or the security that is not
generally available.

You are a member of the legal staff of a law
firm doing corporate and securities work for Coco
Products Inc., a company with unique products derived
from coconuts and whose shares are traded in the
Philippine Stock Exchange. A partner in the law firm,
Atty. Buenexito, to whom you report, is the Corporate
Secretary of Coco Products. You have long been
investing in Coco Products stocks even before you
became a lawyer.
While working with Atty. Buenexito on another
file, he accidentally gave you the Coco Products file
containing the company's planned corporate financial
rehabilitation. While you knew you had the wrong file,
your curiosity prevailed and you browsed through the file
before returning it. Thus, you learned that a petition for
financial rehabilitation is imminent, as the company could
no longer meet its obligations as they fell due.
Soon after, your mother is rushed to the
hospital for an emergency operation, and you have to
raise money for her hospital bills. An immediate option
for you is to sell your Coco Products shares. The sale
67 of 91
would be very timely because the price of the company's

stocks are still high.
Would you sell the shares to raise the needed
funds for your mother's hospitalization? Take into
account legal (5%) and ethical (3%) considerations. (8%
total points)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sale of the shares does not constitute insider
trading. Although Atty. Buenexito, as corporate
secretary of Coco Products, Inc., was an insider, it
did not obtain the information regarding the planned
corporate rehabilitation by a communication from
him. He just accidentally gave the wrong file (Section
3.8 of Securities Regulation Code).
It would be unethical to sell the shares. Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides,
"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct."
A lawyer should not only refrain from performing
unlawful acts. He should also desist from engaging
in unfair deceitful conduct to conceal from the buyer
of the shares the planned corporate rehabilitation.
Manipulative Practices; Wash Sale (2001)
Suppose A is the owner of several inactive securities. To
create an appearance of active trading for such
securities, A connives with B by which A will offer for sale
some of his securities and B will buy them at a certain
fixed price, with the understanding that although there
would be an apparent sale, A will retain the beneficial
ownership thereof.
a) Is the arrangement lawful? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. The arrangement is not lawful. It is an artificial
manipulation of the price of securities. This is
prohibited by the Securities Regulation Code.
b) If the sale materializes, what is it called? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) If the sale materializes, it is called a wash sale or
simulated sale.
Investment Contract; Procedure (2010)
Andante Really, a marketing company that promotes and
facilitates sales of real property through leverage
marketing, solicits investors who are required to be a
Business Center Owner (BCO) by paying an enrollment
fee of S250. The BCO is then entitled to recruit two other
investors who pay S250 each. The BCO receives S90
from the S250 paid by each of his recruits and is credited
a certain amount for payments made by investors
through the initial efforts of his Business Center. Once
the accumulated amount reaches S5, 000, the same is
used as down payment for the real property chosen by
the BCO.
(A) Does this multi-level marketing scheme constitute an
investment contract under the Securities Regulation
Code? Define an investment contract. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The multi-level marketing constitutes an
investment contractunder
the
Securities
Regulation Code.
An investment contract is a contract, transaction

or scheme (1) involving an investment of money, (2)
in a common enterprise, (3) with expectation of
profits, (4) primarily from the efforts of others (Power
Homes Unlimited Corporation v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 546 SCRA 567 (2008)).
(B) What procedure must be followed under the
Securities Regulation Code to authorize the sale or offer
for sale or distribution of an investment contract? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Before the investment contract is sold or offered for
sale or distribution to the public in the Philippines, it
should be registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in accordance with Section 8
of the Securities Regulation Code (Power Homes
Unlimited Corporation v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 546 SCRA 567 (2008)).
(C) What are the legal consequences of failure to follow
this procedure? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The failure to follow the procedure has criminal
consequences (i.e., upon conviction, a fine 50,000 to
5 million pesos and / or imprisonment of 7 to 21
years). It carries also civil liabilities in that the
purchaser can recover from the seller (i) the
consideration paid with interest thereon, less the
amount of any income received on the purchased
securities, upon the tender of such securities, or (ii)
damages if the purchaser no longer owns such
securities (Sections 57 and 73, Securities Regulation
Code). Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) may issue a cease and desist
order (Subsection 64.1, Securities Regulation Code).
Margin Trading Rule (2009)
Under the Securities Regulation Code, what is the
margin Trading Rule? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Margin Trading Rule, no registered broker
or dealer, or member of an exchange shall extend
credit on any security an amount greater than
whichever is higher of:
(a) 65 percent of the current market price of the
security, or
(b) 100 percent of the lowest market price of the
security during the preceding 36 calendar months,
but not more than 75 percent of the current market
price (Section 48, Securities Regulation Code).
The purpose of the Margin Trading Rule is to prevent
excessive use of credit for the purchase of
securities. It is a counter to a brokers desire to
generate more sales by encouraging clients to but
securities on credit (Carolina Industries, Inc. vs. CMS
Stock Brokerage, Inc. 97 SCRA 734 [1980]).
Securities; Exempt Securities (2009)
What are the so-called exempt securities under the
Securities Regulation Code? (2%)
68 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 9 of the Securities Regulation Code,
the so-called exempt securities are:
(A) Those issued or guaranteed by the government
of the Philippines or any of its political subdivisions
or agencies;
(B) Those issued or guaranteed by the government
of any foreign country with which the Philippines has
diplomatic relation, or any other state on the basis of
reciprocity, although the SEC may require
compliance with the form and content of disclosures;
(C) Those issued by the receiver or by the trustee in
a bankruptcy duly approved by the proper
adjudicatory board;
(D) Those involving the sale or transfer which is
bylaw, under the regulation of the OIC, HLURB, BIR;
and
(E) Those issued by banks, except its own shares.
(Note: It is suggested that any two of the above
exempt securities should be considered as enough
answer to the question.)
Equity Online Corporation (EOL), a New York
corporation, has a securities brokerage service on the
Internet after obtaining all requisite U.S. licenses and
permits to do so. EOLs website (www.eonline..com),
which is hosted by a server in Florida, enables Internet
users to trade on-line in securities listed in the various
stock exchanges in the U.S. EOL buys and sells U.S.listed securities for the accounts of its clients all over the
world, who convey their buy and sell instructions to EOL
through the Internet. EOL has no offices, employees or
representatives outside the U.S. The website has icons
for many countries, including an icon for Filipino Traders
containing the days prices of U.S. listed securities
expressed in U.S. dollars and their Philippine peso
equivalent. Grace Gonzales, a resident of Makati, is a
regular customer of the website and has been
purchasing and selling securities through EOL with the
use of her American Express credit card. Grace has
never traveled outside the Philippines. After a series of
erroneous stock picks, she had incurred a net
indebtedness of US$30,000. with EOL, at which time she
cancelled her American Express credit card.
After a number of demand letters sent to
Grace, all of them unanswered, EOL, through a Makati
law firm, filed a complaint for collection against Grace
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Grace, through
her lawyer, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
EOL (a) was doing business in the Philippines without a
license and was therefore barred from bringing suit and
(b) violated the Securities Regulation Code by selling or
offering to sell securities within the Philippines without
registering the securities with the Philippine SEC and
thus came to court with unclean hands. EOL opposed the
motion to dismiss, contending that it had never
established a physical presence in the Philippines, and
that all of the activities related to plaintiffs trading in U.S.
securities all transpired outside the Philippines.
If you are the judge, decide the motion to

dismiss by ruling on the respective contentions of the
parties on the basis of the facts presented above. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The grounds of the motion to dismiss are both
untenable. EOL is not doing business in the
Philippines, and it did not violate the Securites Act,
because it was not selling securities in the country.
The contention of EOL is correct, because it never
did any business in the Philippines. All its
transactions in question were consummated outside
the Philippines.
Philippine Palaces Realty (PPR) had been representing
itself as a registered broker of securities, duly authorized
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On
October6, 1996, PPR sold to spouses Leon and Carina
one timeshare of Palacio delBoracay for US S7, 500.00.
However, its Registration Statement became effective
only on Feb.11, 1998 after the SEC issued a resolution
declaring that PPR wasauthorized to sell securities,
including timeshares.
On March 30, 1998, Leon and Carina wrote
PPR rescinding their purchase agreement and
demanding the refund of the amount they paid because
the Palacio Del Boracay timeshare was sold to them by
PPR without the requisite license or authority from the
SEC. PPR contended that the grant of the SEC authority
had the effect of ratifying the purchase agreement (with
Leon and Carina) of Oct.6, 1996. Is the contention of
PPR correct? Explain (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of PPR is not correct. It is settled that
no securities shall be sold or offered for sale or
distribution in the Philippines without a registration
duly filed and approved by the Commission.
Corporate registration is one of the requirements
under Sec. 8of bataspambansaBlg. 178 (timeshare
Realty Corporation v. Lao, 544 SCRA 254 (2008)).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Such contention is not correct. Sale or offer to
sell securities which are not exempt securities or
which do not arise out of exempt transactions, and,
therefore, requiring registration, is unlawful as such
act is violative of theSecurities Regulation Cod.
Subsequent grant of authority by the SEC does not
retroact to past sales or offers to sell.
Tender Offer (2002)
A. What is a tender offer?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Tender offer is a publicly announced intention of a
person acting alone or in concert with other persons to
acquire equity securities of a public company. It may
also be defined as a method of taking over a company
by asking stockholders to sell their shares at a price
higher than the current market price and on a particular
date.
B. In what instances is a tender offer required to be made?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Instances where tender offer is required to be made:
69 of 91
a)
b)
c)
The person intends to acquire 15% or more of

the equity share of a public company pursuant
to an agreement made between or among the
person and one or more sellers.
The person intends to acquire 30% or more of
the equity shares of a public company within a
period of 12 months.
The person intends to acquire equity shares of
a public company that would result in
ownership of more than 50% of the said
shares.
Tender Offer (2010)

Union Mines, Inc. has total assets of P60 Million with 210
stockholders holding at least 100 shared each.
The company has two principal stockholders, ABC
which owns 60% of the shares of stock, and XYZ; which
owns 17%. ABC in turns is owned to the extent of 21.13% by
Acme, Inc.; 29.69% by Golden Boy Inc.; 9% by XYZ; and the
rest by individual stockholders.
None of the parties is a publicly-listed company.
XYZ now proposes to buy Acmes and Golden
Boys shares in ABC, which would give it, direct control of
ABC and indirect control of Union Mines.
Is the proposal acquisition by XYZ subject to the mandatory
tender offer rule? Why or why not? What is tender offer and
when is it mandatory? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, the proposed acquisition is subject to mandatory
tender offer rule. A tender offer is publicly announced
intention by a person (acting alone or in concert with
other persons) to acquire shares of a public company. A
tender offer is meant to protect minority stockholders
againstany scheme that dilutes the share value of their
investments. It gives them the chance to exit the
company under the same terms offered to the majority
stockholders.
Under the Securities Regulations Code and its
implementing rules, a mandatory tender offer is required
(i) when at least 35% of the outstanding shares of a
public company is to be acquired in one transaction or a
series of transaction during 12-month period, or (ii) even
if any acquisition is less than 35% threshold but the
result thereof is the ownership of more than 51% of the
total outstanding shares of a public company. The
mandatory offer rule also applies to share acquisition
meeting the threshold, which is done at the level of the
holding or Parent Corporation controlling a public
company (Cemco Holding, Inc. v. National Life
Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc. 529 SCRA
355 [2007]).
In this case, Union Mines is clearly a public
company, since it has total assets of P60 million pesos
with 210 stockholders holding at least 100 shares each.
A public company is defined as a corporation listed on
the stock exchange, or a corporation with assets
exceeding 50 million pesos and with 200 or more
stockholders at least 200 of them holding not less than
100 shares of such corporation.
BANKING LAWS
Banks; Insolvency; Prohibited Transactions (2000)
The Monetary Board of the BSP closed Urban Bank after
it encountered crippling financial difficulties that resulted
in a bank run. X, one of the members of the BOD of the
bank, attended and stayed throughout the entire meeting
of the Board that was held well in advance of the bank
run and before news had begun to trickle to the business
community about the dire financial pit the bank had fallen
into. Immediately after the meeting, X caused the
preparation and issuance of a managers check payable
to himself in the sum of 5 million pesos equivalent to the
amount placed or invested in the bank by a business
acquaintance. He now claims that he is keeping the
funds in trust for the owner and that he had committed no
violation of the General Banking Act (RA 337, as
amended) for which he should be punished. Do you
agree that there has been no violation of the statute?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. I do not agree that there is no violation of the statute
(RA 337, as amended). X violated Sec 85 when he
caused the preparation and issuance of a managers
check payable to himself in the sum of P5 million. This is
paying out or permitting to be paid out funds of the bank
after the latter became insolvent. This act is penalized by
fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P10,000.00
and by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than
ten years.
Banks; Insolvency; Actions of the Monetary Board
(2009)
Maharlikang Pilipino Banking Corporation (MPBC)
operates several branches of Maharlikang Pilipino Rural
Bank in Eastern Visayas. Almost all the branch
managers are close relatives of the members of the
Board of Directors of the corporation. Many undeserving
relatives of the branch managers were granted loans. In
time, the branches could not settle their obligations to
depositors and creditors.
Receiving reports of these irregularities, the
Supervising and Examining Department(SED) of the
Monetary Board prepared a detailed report (SED Report)
specifying the facts and the chronology of events relative
to the problems that beset MPBC rural bank branches.
The report concluded that the bank branches were
unable to pay their liabilities as they fell due, and could
not possibly continue in business without incurring
substantial losses to its depositors and creditors.
(A) May the Monetary Board order the closure of the
MPBC rural banks relying only on the SED Report,
without need of an examination? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Upon receipt of the report of the SED, the
Monetary Board is authorized to take any of the
actions enumerated under Sec. 30, Republic Act No.
7653, otherwise known as the New Central Bank Act,
leading to the receivership and liquidation of a bank
or quasi-bank. There is no requirement that an
70 of 91
examination be first conducted before a banking

institution may be placed under receivership ( Rural
Bank of Buhi v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 288
(1988)).
(B) If MPBC hires you as lawyer because the Monetary
Board has forbidden it from carrying on its business due
to its imminent insolvency, what action will you institute to
question the Monetary Boards order? Explain. (3%)]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The order of the Monetary Board may be questioned
on a petition for certiorari on the ground that the
action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. The petition of certiorari may
only be filed by the stockholders of record
representing the majority of the capital stock within
ten (10) days from receipt by the board of directors
of MPBC of the order directing receivership,
liquidation or conservatorship (Sec. 30, par. (2), R.A.
No. 7653).
Banks; Insolvency; Claims (2010)
When OCCIDENTAL Bank folded up due to insolvency,
Manuel had the following separate deposits in his name:
P200,000 in savings deposit; P250,000 in time deposit;
P50,000 in current account; P1 million in a trust account
and P3 million in money market placement. Under the
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, how much
could Manuel recover? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manuel can recover P500, 000.00, because this is the
total of his savings deposit, time deposit and current
account (Section 4(g) of Republic Act No. 3591, as
amended). The trust accountand the money market
placements are not included in the insured deposits
(section 4(f) of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended).
(2005)).
(B) Will a suit to enforce the exclusive right of the
investors to purchase the property prosper? Reason
briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the exclusive options granted to the investors,
having been entered into by one without authority to
do so, is unenforceable. The bank, therefore, cannot
be compelled to sell the property. Under Section 30
of Republic Act No. 7653, New Central Bank Act, the
properties of Z Bank should be administered for the
benefit of its creditors. The property in question can
be disposed of only for the purpose of paying the
debts of Z Bank (Sec. 30, Republic Act No. 7653, and
New Central Bank Act).
Banks; Receivership; Prohibited Transaction (2009)
(E) A bank under receivership can still grant new loans
and accept new deposits.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. During the receivership, the assets and
properties of the corporation are being gathered for
conversion into cash in preparation for distribution
to creditors. Granting new loans and accepting new
deposits would constitute doing business for the
bank in the ordinary course of business which is
contrary to the purpose and nature of a receivership
proceeding.
Banks; Receivership (2007)

Due to growing financial difficulties, Z Bank was unable
to finish construction of its 21-storey building on a prime
lot located in Makati City. Inevitably, the BangkoSentral
ordered the closure of Z Bank and consequently placed it
under receivership. In a bid to save the banks property
investment, the President of Z Bank entered into a
financing agreement with a group of investors for the
completion of the construction of the 21-storey building in
exchange for a ten-year lease and the exclusive option to
purchase the building. (10%)
Banks; Conservator vs. Receiver (2006)

Distinguish between the role of a conservator and that of
a receiver of a bank. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Conservator is appointed for a period 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 quasibank 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 desist
order, involving acts or transactions amounting to fraud
or a dissipation of the assets of the institution. The main
purpose of the Receiver is to recommend the
rehabilitation or liquidation of the bank.
(A) Is the act of the President valid? Why or why not?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the bank presidents act is not valid.
He had no authority to enter into the financing
agreement. Z Bank was ordered closed and placed
under receivership. Control over the properties of Z
Bank passed to the receiver. The appointment of a
receiver operates to suspend the authority of the
bank and its officers over the banks assets and
properties, such authority being reposed in the
receiver (Abacus Real Estate Development Center,
Inc. v. Manila Banking Corporation, 455 SCRA 97
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Exceptions (2004)

The Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits provides that all
deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions are absolutely confidential in nature and may
not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office. However, the law
provides exceptions in certain instances. Which of the
following may not be among the exceptions:
1. In cases of impeachment.
2. In cases involving bribery
3. In cases involving BIR inquiry.
4. In cases of anti-graft and corrupt practices.
71 of 91
5. In cases where the money involved is the subject of

litigation. Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 6(F) of the National Internal Revenue
Code, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue can inquire into the deposits of a decedent
for the purpose of determining the gross estate of
such decedent. Apart from this case, a BIR inquiry
into bank deposits cannot be made. Thus, exception
3 may not always be applicable. Turning to exception
4, an inquiry into bank deposits is possible only in
prosecutions for unexplained wealth under
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, according
to the Supreme Court in the cases of Philippine
National Bank v. Gancayco, 15 SCRA 91 (1965) and
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v.
Purisima, 161 SCRA 576 (1988). However, all other
cases of anti-graft and corrupt practices will not
warrant an inquiry into bank deposits. Thus,
exception 4 may not always be applicable. Like any
other exception, it must be interpreted strictly.
Exceptions 1, 2 and 5, on the other hand, are
provided expressly in the Law on Secrecy of Bank
Depositors. They are available to depositors at all
times.
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposit; Exceptions (2006)
Under Republic Act No.1405 (The Bank Secrecy Law),
bank deposits are considered absolutely confidential and
may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any
person, government official, bureau or office. What are
the exceptions? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Law are the
following:
1. Special or general examination of a bank,
authorized 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. In case of Impeachment.
4. In cases of Bribery or dereliction of duty by a
Public Officer, upon order of a competent court.
In cases of money deposited/invested which, in
turn, is the subject of Litigation, upon order of a
competent Court.
5. DOSRI Loans: Loans with their Banks of Bank
Directors, Officers, Stockholders and related
interests. Loans in excess of 5% of the Bank's
Capital & Surplus The Borrower waived his right
as regards the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
6. Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
7. Coup d' etat Law (RA 6968, Oct 24,1990).
8. 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.
9. Foreign Currency Deposits by foreign lenders &
investors under PDs 1034.
10. Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Law.
11. When the State exercises/invokes its Police

Power.
(NOTA BENE: It is suggested that any 6 of the above be
given full credit)
GP is a suspected jueteng lord who is rumored to be
enjoying police and military protection. The envy of many
drug lords who had not escaped the dragnet of the law,
GP was summoned to a hearing of the Committee on
Racketeering and Other Syndicated Crimes of the House
of Representatives, which was conducting a
congressional investigation in aid of legislation on the
involvement of police and military personnel, and
possibly even of local government officials, in the illegal
activities of suspected gambling and drug lords.
Subpoenaed to attend the investigation were officers of
certain identified banks with a directive to them to bring
the records and documents of bank deposits of
individuals mentioned in the subpoenas, among them
GP. GP and the banks opposed the production of the
banks records of deposits on the ground that no such
inquiry is allowed under the Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits (RA 1405 as amended). Is the opposition of GP
and the banks valid? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The opposition is valid. GP is not a public
official. The investigation does not involve one of the
exceptions to the prohibition against disclosure of
any information concerning bank deposits under the
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits. The Committee
conducting the investigation is not a competent
court or the Ombudsman authorized under the law to
issue a subpoena for the production of the bank
record involving such disclosure.
(B) If the Ombudsman is convinced that there is a
violation of law after investigating a complaint alleging
illicit bank deposits of public officer, the Ombudsman
may order the bank concerned to allow in camera
inspection of bank records and documents.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. The Bank Secretary Law prohibits the
inspection of a bank account unless the permission
of the account holder is obtained, or upon lawful
order of the court or when the deposit is the subject
of litigation. Investigation by the Ombudsman is not
considered as a pending litigation to allow the
examination of the bank records and documents
(Marquez v. Desierto, 359 SCRA 772 (2001)).
Banks; Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Garnishment
(2001)
The Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, otherwise known
as RA 1405, is intended to encourage people to deposit
their money in banking institutions and also to discourage
private hoarding so that the same may be properly
utilized by banks to assist in the economic development
of the country. Is a notice of garnishment served on a
bank at the instance of a creditor of a depositor covered
by the said law? State the reason(s) for your answer.
(5%)
72 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The notice of garnishment served on a bank at
the instance of a creditor is not covered by the Law
on Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Garnishment is just a
part of the process of execution. The moment a
notice of garnishment is served on a bank and there
exists a deposit by the judgment debtor, the bank is
directly accountable to the sheriff, for the benefit of
the judgment creditor, for the whole amount of the
deposit. In such event, the amount of the deposit
becomes, in effect, a subject of the litigation.
Banks: Secrecy of Bank Deposits; Garnishment
(2004)
CDC maintained a savings account with CBank. On
orders of the MM Regional Trial Court, the Sheriff
garnished P50,000 of his account, to satisfy the judgment
in favor of his creditor, MO. CDC complained that the
garnishment violated the Law on the Secrecy of Bank
Deposits because the existence of his savings account
was disclosed to the public. (5%) Is CDC's complaint
meritorious or not? Reason briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. CDC's complaint is not meritorious. It was held in
China Banking Corporation v. Ortega, 49 SCRA 355
(1973) that peso deposits may be garnished and the
depositary bank can comply with the order of
garnishment without violating the Law on the
Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Execution is the goal of
litigation as it is its fruit. Garnishment is part of the
execution process. Upon service of the notice of
garnishment on the bank where the defendant
deposited funds, such funds become part of the
subject matter of litigation.
Truth in Lending Act (2000)
Embassy Appliances sells home theater components that
are designed and customized as entertainment centers
for consumers within the medium-to-high price bracket.
Most, if not all, of these packages are sold on installment
basis, usually by means of credit cards allowing a
maximum of 36 equal monthly payments. Preferred credit
cards of this type are those issued by banks, which
regularly hold mall wide sales blitzes participated in by
appliance retailers like Embassy Appliances. You are a
buyer of a home theater center at Embassy Appliances.
The salesclerk who is attending to you simply swipes
your credit card on the electronic approval machine
(which momentarily prints out your charge slip since you
have unlimited credit), tears the slip from the machine,
hands the same over to you for your signature, and
without more, proceeds to arrange the delivery and
installation of your new home theater system. You know
you will receive a statement on your credit card
purchases from the bank containing an option to pay only
a minimum amount, which is usually 1/36 of the total
price you were charged for your purchase. Did Embassy
Appliances comply with the provisions of the Truth in
Lending Act (RA 3765)?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There is no need for Embassy Appliances to comply
with the Truth in Lending Act. The transaction is not
a sale on
installment basis. Embassy Appliances is a seller on

cash basis. It is the credit card company which
allows the buyer to enjoy the privilege of paying the
price on installment basis.
Truth in Lending Act (2009)
(A) A loan agreement which provides that the debtor
shall pay interest at the rate determined by the banks
branch manager violates the disclosure requirement of
the Truth in Lending Act.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True. This contrary to the duty of the creditor to
disclose in detail the interests, charges and other
figures indicating in detail the cost of the credit
granted to the debtor (United Coconut Planters Bank
v. Beluso, 530 SCRA 567 (2007)).
Legal Tender (2000)
After many years of shopping in the Metro Manila area,
housewife HW has developed the sound habit of making
cash purchases only, none on credit. In one shopping trip
to Mega Mall, she got the shock of her shopping life for
the first time, a stores smart salesgirl refused to accept
her coins in payment for a purchase worth not more than
one hundred pesos. HW was paying seventy pesos in
25centavo coins and twenty five pesos in 10 centavo
coins. Strange as it may seem, the salesgirl told HW that
her coins were not legal tender. Do you agree with the
salesgirl in respect of her understanding of legal
tender?Explain (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The salesgirls understanding that coins are not
legal tender is not correct. Coins are legal tender in
amounts
not
exceeding
fifty
pesos
for
denominations from twenty five centavos and above,
and in amounts not exceeding twenty pesos for
denominations ten centavos and less.
As part of the safeguards against imprudent banking, the
General Banking Law imposes limits or restrictions on
loans and credit accommodations which may be
extended by banks. Identify at least two (2) of these limits
or restrictions and explain the rationale of each of them.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any two (2) of the following limits or restrictions on
loan and credit transactions which may be extended
by banks, as part of the safeguards against
imprudent banking, to
wit:
1 SBL Rules (i.e., Single Borrowers Limit) rules are
those promulgated by the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, upon the authority of 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.
73 of 91
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 banks 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.
3. No commercial bank shall make any loan or
discount on the security of shares of its own capital
stock.
Pio is the president of Western Bank. His wife applied for
a loan with the said bank to finance an internet cafe. The
loan officer told her that her application will not be
approved because the grant of loans to related interests
of bank directors, officers, and stockholders is prohibited
by the General Banking Law. Explain whether the loan
officer is correct. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 36 of the General Banking Law of 2000 does
not entirely prohibit directors or officers of the bank,
directly or indirectly, from borrowing from the bank.
In this case, Pio is the president of Western Bank,
which makes him an officer, director and stockholder
of the said bank. The General Banking Law provides
for additional restrictions to the bank before it can
lend to its directors or officers. A
written approval of the majority vote of all the
directors of the bank, excluding the director
concerned, is required. Furthermore, such dealings
must be upon terms not less favorable to the bank
than those offered to others (Section 1326, Central
Bank's "Manual of Regulations for Banks and Other
Financial Intermediaries, cited in Ranioso v. CA, G.R.
No. 117416, December 8, 2000). A violation of this
provision will cause his or her position to be
declared vacant and the erring director or officer
subjected to the penal provisions of the New Central
Bank Act.
General Banking Law of 2000; Classifications of
Banks (2002)
There are six (6) classes of banks identified in the
General Banking Law of 2000. Name at least four (4) of
them and explain the distinguishing characteristic or
function of each one. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any four (4) of the following six (6) classes of banks
identified in the General Banking Law of 2002, to wit:
1 Universal Banks These are those which used to
be called expanded commercial banks and the
operations of which are now primarily governed by
the General Banking Law of 2002. They can exercise
the powers of an investment house and invest in
non-allied enterprises. They have the highest
capitalization requirement.
2 Commercial Banks These are ordinary or regular

commercial banks, as distinguished from a universal
bank. They have a lower capitalization requirement
than universal banks and cannot exercise the powers
of an investment house and invest in non-allied
enterprises.
3 Thrift Banks These banks (such as savings and
mortgage banks,
stock
savings and
loan
associations, and private development banks) may
exercise most of the powers and functions of a
commercial bank except that
they cannot, among others, open current or check
accounts without prior Monetary Board approval,
and they cannot issue letters of credit. Their
operations are governed primarily by the Thrift
Banks Act of 1995 (RA 7906).
4 Rural Banks these are those which are
organized primarily to extend loans and other credit
facilities to farmers, fishermen or farm families, as
well as cooperatives, merchants, and private and
public employees and whose operations are
primarily governed by the Rural Banks Act of 1992
(RA 7353).
5 Cooperative Banks these are those which are
organized primarily to provide financial and credit
services to cooperatives and whose operations are
primarily governed by the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines (RA 6938).
6 Islamic Banks these are those which are
organized primarily to provide financial and credit
services in a manner or transaction consistent with
the Islamic Shariah. At present, only the Al Amanah
Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines has been
organized as an Islamic Bank.
General Banking Law of 2000; Types of Banks (2010)
Briefly describe the ff. types of banks; (2% each)
(A) Universal bank
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A universal bank is a commercial bank with 2
additional powers, namely: (1) the power of an
investment house and (2) the power to invest in nonallied enterprises (Section 23, Rep. Act No. 8791,
The General Banking Law of 2000).
(B) Commercial bank
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A commercial bank is a bank that can:
(1) accept drafts; (2) issue letters of credit; (3)
discount and negotiate promissory notes, drafts,
bills of exchange, and other evidence of debt; (4)
accept or create demand deposits; (5) receive other
types of deposits, as well as deposit substitutes; (6)
buy and sell foreign exchange, as well as gold or
silver bullion; (7) acquire marketable bonds and
other debts securities; and (8) extend credit, subject
to such rules promulgated by the Monetary Board.
(Section 29, Rep. Act No. 8791, The General
Banking Law of 2000).
74 of 91
(C) Thrift bank

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A thrift bank is one established as a savings and
mortgage bank, a stock savings and loan
association, or a private development bank, for the
purpose of: (1) accumulating the savings of
depositors and investing them in outlets determined
by the Monetary Board as necessary in the
furtherance of national economic objectives; (2)
providing short-term working capital, medium and
long-term financing, to business engaged in
agriculture, services, industry and housing; and (3)
providing diversified financial and allied services for
its chosen market and constituencies specially for
small and mediumenterprises
and
individuals
(Section 3 (a), Rep. Act No. 7906 Thrift Banks Act of
1995).
(D) Rural bank
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A rural bank is one established to provide credit
facilities to farmers and merchants or their
cooperatives and, in general to the people of the
rural communities (Section 3, Rep. Act No. 7353,
The Rural Banks Act of 1992).
(E) Cooperative bank
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A cooperative bank is organized under the
Cooperative Code to provide financial and credit
services to cooperatives. It may perform any or all
the services offered by a rural bank, including the
operation of a Foreign Currency Deposit Unit subject
to certain conditions (Section 100, Rep. Act No.6938,
The Cooperative Code of the Philippines).
General Banking Law of 2000; Single
Borrowers
Limit; Collateral Security (2008)
Industry Bank, which has a net worth of P1 Billion,
extended a loan to Celestial Properties Inc. amounting to
P270 Million. The loan was secured by a mortgage over
a vast commercial lot in the Fort Bonifacio Global City,
appraised at P350 Million. After audit, the Banko
Sentralng Pilipinas gave notice that the loan to Celestial
Properties exceeded the single borrowers limit of 25% of
the banks net worth under a recent BSP Circular. In light
of other previous similar violations of the credit limit
requirement, the BSP advised Industry Bank to reduce
the amount of the loan to Celestial Properties under pain
of severe sanctions. When Industry Bank informed
Celestial Properties that it intended to reduce the loan by
P50 Million, Celestial Properties countered that the bank
should first release a part of the collateral worth P50
Million. Industry Bank rejected the counter-proposal, and
referred the matter to you as counsel. How would you
advise Industry Bank to proceed, with its best interests in
mind? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
With a net worth of P1.0 Billion, the maximum loan
exposure of the bank to Celestial Properties can
reach up to P250.0 Million. The bank should proceed
with to reduce the loan of Celestial properties by
P20.0 Million, but shouldnot release any part of the

collateral by the amount of reduction.
The collateral is a single commercial lot in
the Fort, covered by a single title and beings
essentially indivisible in character, the mortgage
cannot be partially released. Besides, since a real
estate mortgage cannot be partially released.
Besides, since a real estate mortgage is merely a
collateral contract, it can be enforced only to the
amount of the loan; and the moment the loan
exposure is reduced, then automatically, reduction of
the collateral coverage of the real estate mortgage
follows.
Banks; Deposit: Safety Deposit Box; Relationship
with Banks (2010)
(A) How do you characterize the legal relationship
between a commercial bank and its safety deposit box
client? (20%)
SUGGESTED ANWERS:
The Relationship between a commercial bank and its
safety deposit box client is that of a bailee and a
bailor, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit
(Sia v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 24 (1993); CA
Agro-Industrial Development Corp. v. Court of
Appeals, 219 SCRA 426(1993)).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The legal relationship of the bank and its safety
deposit box client is that of lessor and lessee.
(B) Is a stipulation in the contract for the use of a safety
deposit box relieving the bank of liability in connection
with the use thereof valid? (2%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The stipulation relieving the bank of liability in
connection with the use of the safety deposit box is
void as it is against law and public policy (CA AgroIndustrial Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals,
supra).
Banks; Deposits; Safety Deposit Box; Liability
MN and OP rented a safety deposit box at SIBANK. The
parties signed a contract of lease with the conditions that:
the bank is not a depository of the contents of the safe
and has neither the possession nor control of the same;
the bank assumed no interest in said contents and
assumes no liability in connection therewith. The safety
deposit box had two keyholes: one for the guard key
which remained with the bank; and the other for the
renters' key. The box can be opened only with the use of
both keys. The renters deposited certificates of title in the
box. But later, they discovered that the certificates were
gone. MN and OP now claim for damages from SIBANK.
Is the bank liable?
Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The bank is liable, based on the decisions of the
Supreme Court in CA Agro-Industrial Development Corp.
v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 426 (1993) and Sia v.
Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 24 (1993). In those cases,
the Supreme Court ruled that the renting out of safety
deposit boxes is a "special kind of deposit" wherein the
bank is the depositary. In the absence of any stipulation
75 of 91
prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a

good father of a family is to be observed by the
depositary. Any stipulation exempting the depositary from
any liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited
would be void for being contrary to law and public policy.
The deposit box is located in the bank premises and is
under the absolute control of the bank.
Banks; Deposits vs. Deposit Substitutes (2010)
(C) Differentiate bank deposits fromdeposit
substitutes. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bank deposits are funds obtained by a bank from the
public which are relent by such bank to its own
borrowers. Deposit substitutes are alternative forms
of obtaining funds from the public, other than
deposits, through the issuance, endorsement, or
acceptance of debt instruments for the own account
of the borrower, for the purpose of relending or
purchasing of receivables and other obligations.
These instruments may include, but need not be
limited to, bankers acceptances, promissory notes,
participations, certificates of assignment and similar
instruments with
recourse,
and
repurchase
agreements (Section 95, Rep. Act No. 7653, The New
Central Bank Act).
(D) Why are banks required to maintain reserves against
their deposits and deposit substitutes? State one of three
purposes for these reserves. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any one of the following 4 purposes for requiring
banks to maintain reserves against their deposits
and deposit substitutes will suffice:
(1) One of the purposes of the requirement to
maintain bank reserves is to control the
volume of money created by the credit
operations of the banking system (Section
94 of the New Central Bank Act);
(2) It is to enable the banks to answer any
withdrawal;
(3) To help Government to finance its
operation;
(4) To help the Government control money
supply.
Banks; Mortgage; Redemption (2007)
On December 4, 2003, RED Corporation executed a real
estate mortgage in favor of BLUE Bank. RED
Corporation defaulted in the payment of its loan.
Consequently, on June 4, 2004, BLUE Bank extra
judicially foreclosed the property. Being the highest
bidder in the auction sale conducted, the Bank was
issued a Certificate of Sale which was registered on
August 4, 2004.
Does RED Corporation still have the right to redeem the
property as of September 14, 2007? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, RED Corporation has lost its right to redeem the
property. Juridical persons whose property is sold
pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure, shall have
the right to redeem the property until registration of

the certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds,
which shall in no case be more than three months
after foreclosure, whichever is earlier (Section 47,
General Banking Law).
Banks: Collateral Security (2002)
Andrew is engaged in the business of building low-cost
housing units under contracts with real estate
developers. He applied for a loan of P3 Million from
Ready Credit Bank (the Bank), which required Andrew to
provide collateral security for it. Andrew offered to assign
to the Bank his receivables amounting to P4 million from
Home Builders Development Corporation (the Obligor).
The Bank accepted the offer. Accordingly, Andrew
obtained the loan and he executed a promissory note
undertaking to pay the loan in full in one lump sum on
September 1, 2002, together with interest thereon at the
rate of 20% per annum. At the same time, Andrew
executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of the Bank
assigning to the Bank his receivables from the Obligor.
The deed of assignment read:
I, Andrew Lee, hereby assign, transfer and convey,
absolutely and unconditionally, to Ready Credit Bank
(hereinafter called the Bank) all of my right, title and
interest in and to my accounts receivable from Home
Builders Development Corporation (hereinafter called the
Obligor) arising from delivery of housing units with a total
contract price of P4,000,000.00, the description and
contract value of which are attached hereto as Annex A
(hereinafter called the Receivables).
In the event that I shall be unable to pay my
outstanding indebtedness owned to the Bank, the Bank
shall have the right, without any further formality or act on
its part, to collect the Receivables from the Obligor and to
apply the proceeds thereof toward payment of my said
indebtedness.
Andrew failed to pay the loan on its due date on
September 1, 2002. When the Bank attempted to collect
from the Obligor, the Bank discovered that the latter had
already closed operations and liquidated all its assets.
The Bank sued Andrew for collection, but Andrew moved
to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the debt had
already been paid by reason of his execution of the
aforesaid Deed of Assignment which, being absolute and
unconditional, was in essence a dacion en pago. The
Bank opposed the motion, contending that the Deed of
Assignment was only a security for a loan. If you were
the Judge, how would you resolve the motion to dismiss
filed by Andrew? Explain (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Since the question is outside the scope of the Bar
Examination, it is recommended that the candidate be
given full credit of 5%, whatever may be his answer, and
he be given a bonus if he made an answer in the
following manner:) The motion to dismiss should be
granted. The simple absolute and unconditional
conveyance embodied in the deed of assignment
would be operative, and the assignment would
constitute essentially a mode of payment or dacion
76 of 91
en pago.
Banks: Applicability: Foreign Currency Deposit Act &
Secrecy of Bank Deposits (2005)
Hi Yielding Corporation filed a complaint against five of
its officers for violation of Section 31 of the Corporation
Code. The corporation claimed that the said officers were
guilty of advancing their personal interests to the
prejudice of the corporation, and that they were grossly
negligent in handling its affairs. Aside from documents
and contracts, the corporation also submitted in evidence
records of the officers U.S. Dollar deposits in several
banks overseas - Boston Bank, Bank of Switzerland, and
Bank of New York.
For their part, the officers filed a criminal
complaint against the directors of Hi Yielding Corporation
for violation of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known
as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines.
The officers alleged that their bank deposits were illegally
disclosed for want of a court order, and that such
deposits were not even the subject of the case against
them.
a) Will the complaint filed against the directors of Hi
Yielding Corporation prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the Foreign Currency Deposit Act (R.A.
No. 6426), including its punitive provisions, refers to
foreign currency deposits accounts constituted
within the Philippines. It has no application at all to
accounts, even though they are banks, opened and
constituted abroad.
b) Was there a violation of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
Law (Republic Act No. 1405)? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the punitive provisions of the Secrecy
of Bank Deposits Law (R.A. No. 1405), including the
statutory exemptions provided therein, are not
applicable to FCDU accounts, even when constituted
locally. (Intengan v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No.
128996, February 15, 2002)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Patent; Non-Patentable Inventions (2006)
Supposing Albert Einstein were alive today and he filed
with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) an application
for patent for his theory of relativity expressed in the
formula E=mc2. The IPO disapproved Einstein's
application on the ground that his theory of relativity is
not patentable. Is the IPO's action correct? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the IPO is correct because under the Intellectual
Property Code, discoveries, scientific theories and
mathematical methods, are classified to be as
"nonpatentable inventions." Eintein's theory of
relativity falls within the category of being a nonpatentable "scientific theory."
Patents: Gas-Saving Device: first to file rule (2005)
Cezar works in a car manufacturing company owned by
Joab. Cezar is quite innovative and loves to tinker with
things. With the materials and parts of the car, he was
able to invent a gas-saving device that will enable cars to
consume less gas. Francis, a co-worker, saw how Cezar
created the device and likewise, came up with a similar
gadget, also using scrap materials and spare parts of the
company. Thereafter, Francis filed an application for
registration of his device with the Bureau of Patents.
Eighteen months later, Cezar filed his application for the
registration of his device with the Bureau of Patents.
1) Is the gas-saving device patentable? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the gas-saving device is patentable because it
provides a technical solution to a problem in a field
of human activity. It is new and involves an inventive
step, and certainly industrially applicable. It therefore
fulfills the
requisites mandated by the intellectual Property
Code for what is patentable.
2) Assuming that it is patentable, who is entitled to the
patent? What, if any, is the remedy of the losing party?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cezar is entitled to the patent because he was the
real inventor. Francis, copying from the work of
Cezar, cannot claim the essential criteria of an
inventor, who must possess essential elements of
novelty, originality and precedence to be entitled to
protection. Nevertheless, under the "first to file rule,"
Francis application would have to be given priority.
Cezar, however, has within three months from the
decision, to have it cancelled as the rightful inventor;
or within one year from publication, to file an action
to prove his priority to the invention, which has been
taken from him and fraudulently registered by
Francis.
3) Supposing Joab got wind of the inventions of his
employees and also laid claim to the patents, asserting
that Cezar and Francis were using his materials and
company time in making the devices, will his claim
prevail over those of his employees? Explain.
77 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Joab's claim cannot prevail over those of his
employees. In the first place, Joab did not
commission any of the two employees to invent the
device, and its invention did not fall within their
regular duties. What prevails is the provision of the
Intellectual Property Code that holds that the
invention belongs to the employee, if the inventive
activity is not a part of his regular duties, even if he
uses the time, facilities and materials of the
employer.
Patent: Method of Diagnosis & Treatment; NonPatentable (2010)
Dr. Nobel discovered a new method of treating
Alzheimers involving a special method of diagnosing the
disease, treating it with a new medicine that has been
discovered after long experimentation and field testing,
and novel mental isometric exercises. He comes to you
for advice on how he can have his discoveries protected.
Can he legally protect his new method of diagnosis, the
new medicine, and the new method of treatment? If no,
why?If yes, how? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dr. Nobel can be protected by a patent for the new
medicine as it falls within the scope of Sec. 21 of the
Intellectual Property Code (Rep. Act No. 8293, as
amended). But no protection can be legally extended
to him for the method of diagnosis and method of
treatment which are expressly non-patentable (Sec.
22, Intellectual Property Code).
Patent; When Importation of Patented Product
Constitutes Infringement (2010)
For years, Y has been engaged in the parallel
importation of famous brands, including shoes carrying
the foreign brand MAGIC. Exclusive distributor X
demands that Y cease importation because of his
appointment as exclusive distributor of MAGIC shoes in
the Philippines.
Y counters that the trademark MAGIC is not
registered with the Intellectual Property Office as a
trademark and therefore no one has the right to prevent
its parallel importation.
(B) Suppose the shoes are covered by a Philippine
patent issued to the owner, what would your answer be?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A patent for a product confers upon its owner the
exclusive right of importing the product (Subsection
71.1 of the Intellectual Property Code). The
importation of a patented product without the
authorization of the owner of the patent constitutes
infringement of the patent (Subsection 76.1 of the
Intellectual Property Code). X can prevent the parallel
importation of such shoes by Y without its
authorization.
Trademark; Dominancy Test; Holistic Test (2014)
Skechers Corporation sued Inter-Pacific for trademark
infringement, claiming that Inter-Pacificused Skechers
registered "S" logo mark on Inter-Pacifics shoe products
without its consent. Skechers has registered the

trademark "SKECHERS" and the trademark "S" (with an
oval design) with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
In its complaint, Skechers points out the following
similarities: the color scheme of the blue, white and gray
utilized by Skechers. Even the design and "wave-like"
pattern of the mid-sole and outer sole of Inter Pacifics
shoes are very similar to Skechers shoes, if not exact
patterns thereof. On the side of Inter-Pacifics shoes,
near the upper part, appears the stylized "S" placed in
the exact location as that of the stylized "S" the Skechers
shoes. On top of the "tongue" of both shoes, appears the
stylized "S" in practically the same location and size.
In its defense, Inter-Pacific claims that under
the Holistic Test, the following dissimilarities are present:
the mark "S" found in Strong shoes is not enclosed in an
"oval design"; the word "Strong" is conspicuously placed
at the backside and insoles; the hang tags labels
attached to the shoes bear the word "Strong" for InterPacific and "Skechers U.S.A." for Skechers; and, Strong
shoes are modestly priced compared to the costs of
Skechers shoes.
Under the foregoing circumstances, which is
the proper test to be applied Holistic or Dominancy
Test? Decide. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Considering the facts given and the
arguments of the parties, the dominancy test is the
proper test to apply. Thus, the appropriation and the
use of the letter S by Inter-Pacific on its rubber
shoes constitutes an infringement of the trademark
of Skechers.
The essential element of infringement under
the Intellectual Property Code is that the infringing
mark is likely to cause confusion. In determining
similarity and likelihood of confusion, jurisprudence
has developed tests the Dominancy Test and the
Holistic or Totality Test. The Dominancy Test
focuses on the similarity of the prevalent or
dominant features of the competing trademarks that
might cause confusion, mistake, and deception in
the mind of the purchasing public. Duplication or
imitation is not necessary; neither is it required that
the mark sought to be registered suggest an effort to
imitate. Given more consideration are the aural and
visual impressions created by the marks on the
buyers of goods, giving little weight to factors like
prices, quality, sales outlets, and market segments.
In contrast, the Holistic or Totality Test
necessitates a consideration of the entirely of the
marks as applied to the products, including the
labels and packaging, in determining confusing
similarity. The discerning eye of the observer must
focus not only on the predominant words, but also
on the other features appearing on both labels so
that the observer may draw conclusion on whether
one is confusingly similar to the other.
Relative to the question on confusion of
marks and trade names, jurisprudence has noted two
(2) types of confusion, viz,.: (1) confusion of goods
(product confusion), where the ordinarily prudent
purchaser would be induced to purchase one
product in the belief that he was purchasing the
78 of 91
other; and (2) confusion of business (source or

origin confusion), where, although the goods of the
parties are different, the product, the mark of which
registration is applied for by one party, is such as
might reasonably be assumed to originate with the
registrant of an earlier product, and the public would
then be deceived either into that belief or into the
belief that there is some connection between the two
parties, though inexistent.
Applying the Dominancy Test to the
problem, we find that the use of the stylized S by
Inter-Pacific in its Strong rubber shoes infringes on
the mark already registered by Skechers with the
IPO. While it is undisputed that stylized S of
Skechers is within an oval design, the dominant
feature of the trademark is the stylized S, as it is
precisely the stylized S which catches the eye of
the purchaser. Thus, even if Inter-Pacific did not use
an oval design, the mere fact that it is used the same
stylized S, the same being dominant feature of the
trademark of
Skechers,
already
constitutes
infringement under the Dominancy Test. (Skechers,
U.S.A., Inc. v. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corp., et
al., G.R. 164321, November 30, 2006 [decision
reconsidering and setting aside the original decision
in the case]).
Trademark; Unfair Competition (2010)
For years, Y has been engaged in the parallel
importation of famous brands, including shoes carrying
the foreign brand MAGIC. Exclusive distributor X
demands that Y cease importation because of his
appointment as exclusive distributor of MAGIC shoes in
the Philippines.
Y counters that the trademark MAGIC is not
registered with the Intellectual Property Office as a
trademark and therefore no one has the right to prevent
its parallel importation.
(A) Who is correct? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
X is correct. His rights under his exclusive
distributorship agreement are property rights entitled
to protection. The importation and sale by Y of
MAGIC shoes constitute unfair competition (Yu v.
Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA 328 (1993)). Registration
of the trademark is not necessary in case of an
action for unfair competition (Del Monte Corporation
v. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 410 (1990)).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Y is correct. The rights in a trademark are acquired
through registration made validly in accordance with
the Intellectual Property Code (Section 122of the
Intellectual Property Code).
Trademark; Petition to Cancel Registration (2014)
Jinggy went to Kluwer University (KU) in Germany for his
doctorate degree (Ph.D.). He completed his degree with
the highest honors in the shortest time. When he came
back, he decided to set-up his own graduate school in his
hometown in Zamboanga. After seeking free legal advice
from his high-flying lawyer-friends, he learned that the
Philippines follow the territoriality principle in trademark
law, i.e., trademark rights are acquired through valid

registration in accordance with the law. Forth with, Jinggy
named his school the Kluwer Graduate School of
Business of Mindanao and immediately secured
registration with the Bureau of Trademarks. KU did not
like the unauthorized use of its name by its top alumnus
no less. KU sought your help. What advice can you give
KU? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I can advise KU to file a petition to cancel
the registration of the name Kluwer Graduate
School of Business of Mindanao (KGSBM) with the
Bureau of Trademarks.
The petition could be anchored on the
following facts: Kluwer University is the owner of the
name Kluwer. Jinggy registered the trademark in
bad faith. He came to know of the trademark
because he went to Kluwer University in Germany for
his doctorate degree. KU is the owner of the name
Kluwer and has the sole right to register the same.
Foreign marks that are not registered are still
accorded protection against infringement and/or
unfair competition under the Paris Convention for
the Protection of Industrial Property.
Both the
Philippines and Germany are signatories to the Paris
Convention.
Under the said Convention, the
trademark of a national signatory to the Paris
Convention is entitled to its protection in other
countries that are also signatories to the Convention
without need of registering the trademark.
The petition could also be based on the fact,
if it were proven by KU that Kluwer is a well-known
mark and entitled to protection as KU and KGSBM
belong to the same class of services, i.e., Class 41
(education and entertainment). KU must also prove
that a competent authority of the Philippines has
designated Kluwer to be well known internationally
and in the Philippines.
Finally, the petition could also be based on
the fact, if it were proven by KU, that Kluwer is a
trade name that KU has adopted and used before its
use and registration by Jinggy. (Ecole de Cuisine
Manille [Cordon Bleu of the Philippines], Inc. v.
Renaud Cointreau & Cie and Le Cordon Bleu Intl.,
B.V., G.R. 185830, June 5,2013).
Tradename; International Affiliation (2005)
S Development Corporation sued Shangrila Corporation
for using the S logo and the tradename Shangrila.
The former claims that it was the first to register the logo
and the
tradename in the Philippines and that it had been using
the same in its restaurant business. Shangrila
Corporation counters that it is an affiliate of an
international organization which has been using such
logo and tradename Shangrila for over 20 years.
However, Shangrila Corporation registered the
tradename and logo in the Philippines only after the suit
was filed. Which of the two corporations has a better right
to use the logo and the tradename? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
S Development Corporation has a better right to use
the logo and the tradename, since the protective
79 of 91
benefits of the law are conferred by the fact of

registration and not by use. Although Shangrila
Corporation's parent had used the tradename and
logo long before, the protection of the laws will be
for S Development Corporation because it was the
first entity to register the intellectual properties.
How does the international affiliation of Shangrila
Corporation affect the outcome of the dispute? Explain.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The international affiliation of Shangrila Corporation
may be critical in the event that its affiliates or parent
company abroad had registered in a foreign
jurisdiction the tradename and the logo. A wellknown mark and tradename is subject to protection
under Treaty of Paris for the Protection of Intellectual
Property to which the Philippines is a member.
Copyright; Commissioned Artist (2008)
In 1999, Mocha warn, an American musician, had a bit
rap single called Warm Warm Honey which he himself
composed and performed. The single was produced by a
California record company, Galactic Records. Many
notice that some passages from Warm Warm Honey
sounded eerily similar to parts of Under Hassle, a 1978
hit song by the British rock and Majesty. A copyright
infringement suit was filed in the United States against
Mocha Warm by Majesty. It was later settled out of court,
with Majesty receiving attribution as co-author of Warm
Warm Honey as well as a share in the royalties.
By 2002, Moeha Warm was nearing bankruptcy
and he sold his economic rights
over Warm Warm Honey to Galactic Records for
$10,000.
In 2008, Planet Films, a Filipino movie
producing company, commissioned DJ Chef Jean, a
Filipino musician, to produce an original re-mix of Warm
Warm Honey for use in one of its latest films, Astig!. DJ
Chef Jean remixed Warm Warm Honey with a salsa
beat, and interspersed as well a recital of poetic stanza
by John Blake, 1 17th century Scottish poet. DJ Chef
Jean died shortly after submitting the remixed Warm
Warm Honey to Planet Films.
Prior to the release of Astig!. Mocha Warm
learns of the remixed Warm Warm Honey and demands
that he be publicly identified as the author of the remixed
song is all the CD covers and publicity releases of Planet
Films.
(A) Who are the parties or entities entitled to be credited
as author of the remixed Warm Warm Honey? Reason
out your answers. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The parties entitled to be credited as authors of the
remixed Warm Warm Honey are Mocha Warm,
Majesty, DJ Chef Jean and John Blake, for the
segments that was the product of their respective
intellectual efforts.
In the case of Mocha Warm and Majesty,
who are the attributed co-authors, and in spite of the
sale of the economic right to Galactic Records, they
retain their moral rights to the copyrighted rap,
which include the right to demand attribution to them

of the authorship (Sec. 193, IPC).
Which respect to DJ Chef Jean, in spite of
his death, and although he was commissioned by
Planet Films for the remix, the rule is that the person
who so commissioned work shall have ownership of
the work, but copyright thereto shall remain with
creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the
contrary.
Even if no copyright exist in favor of poet
John Blake, intellectual integrity requires that the
authors of creative work should properly be credited.
(B) Who are the particular parties or entities who
exercise copyright over the remixed Warm Warm Honey?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The parties who exercise copyright or economic
rights over the remixed Warm Warm Honey would be
Galactic Records and Planet Films. In the case of
Galactic Records, it bought the economic rights of
Mocha Warm. In the case of PlanetFilms, it
commissioned the remixed work.
Copyright; Commissioned Artist (2004)
BR and CT are noted artists whose paintings are highly
prized by collectors. Dr. DL commissioned them to paint
a mural at the main lobby of his new hospital for children.
Both agreed to collaborate on the project for a total fee
ofvtwo million pesos to be equally divided between them.
It was also agreed that Dr. DL had to provide all the
materials for the painting and pay for the wages of
technicians and laborers needed for the work on the
project. Assume that the project is completed and both
BR and CT are fully paid the amount of P2M as artists'
fee by DL. Under the law on intellectual property, who will
own the mural? Who will own the copyright in the mural?
Why? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 178.4 of the Intellectual Property
Code, in case of commissioned work, the creator (in
the absence of a written stipulation to the contrary)
owns the copyright, but the work itself belongs to the
person who commissioned its creation. Accordingly,
the mural belongs to DL. However, BR and CT own
the copyright, since there is no stipulation to the
contrary.
Copyright; Commissioned Work (2008)
Eloise, an accomplished writer, was hired by Petong to
write a bimonthly newspaper column for Diario de Manila,
a newly-established newspaper of which Petong was the
editor-in-chief. Eloise was to be paid P1,000 for each
column that was published. In the course of two months,
Eloise submitted three columns which, after some slight
editing, were printed in the newspaper. However, Diario
de Manila proved unprofitable and closed only after two
months. Due to the minimal amounts involved, Eloise
chose not to pursue any claim for payment from the
newspaper, which was owned by New Media
Enterprises.
Three years later, Eloise was planning to
publish an anthology of her works, and wanted to include
80 of 91
the three columns that appeared in the Diario de Manila

in her anthology She asks for you legal advice:
(A) Does Eloise have to secure authorization from New
Media Enterprises to be able to publish her Diario de
Manila columns in her own anthology? Explain fully. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eloise may publish the columns without securing
authorization from New Media Enterprises. Under
Sec. 172 of the Intellectual Property Code, original
intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain are protected from the moment of their
creation and shall include those in periodicals and
newspapers. Under Sec. 178, copyright ownership
shall belong to the author. In case of commissioned
work, the person who so commissioned work shall
have ownership of work, but copyright shall remain
with creator, unless there is a written stipulation to
the contrary.
(B) Assume that New Media Enterprises plans to publish
Eloises columns in its own anthology entitled, The
Best of Diario de Manila Eloise wants to prevent the
publication of her columns in that anthology since she
was never paid by the newspaper. Name one irrefutable
legal argument Eloise could cite to enjoin New Media
Enterprises from including her columns in its anthology.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the IPC, the copyright or economic rights to
the columns she authored pertains only to Eloise.
She can invoke the right to either authorize or
prevent reproduction of the work, including the
public distribution of the original and each copy of
the work bysale or other forms of transfer of
ownership, Since this would be the effect of
including her column in the anthology.
Copyright; Painting (2013)
Rudy is a fine arts student in a university. He stays in a
boarding house with Bernie as his roommate. During his
free time, Rudy would paint and leave his finished works
lying around the boarding house. One day, Rudy saw
one of his works -an abstract painting entitled Manila
Traffic Jam - on display at the university cafeteria. The
cafeteria operator said he purchased the painting from
Bernie who represented himself as its painter and owner.
Rudy and the cafeteria operator immediately
confronted Bernie. While admitting that he did not do the
painting, Bernie claimed ownership of its copyright since
he had already registered it in his name with the National
Library as provided in the Intellectual Property Code.
Who owns the copyright to the painting? Explain. (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rody owns the copyright to the painting because he
was the one who actually created it. (Section 178.1 of
the Intellectual Property Code) His rights existed
from, the moment of its creation (Section 172 of the
Intellectual Property Code: Unilever Philippines
(PRC) v. Court of Appeals, 498 SCRA 334, 2006). The
registration of the painting by Bernie with the
National Library did not confer copyright upon him.
The registration is merely for the purpose of
completing
the
records
of
the
National
Library.(Section 191 of the Intellectual Property
Code).
Copyright; Infringement (2006)
In a written legal opinion for a client on the difference
between apprenticeship and learnership, Liza quoted
without permission a labor law expert's comment
appearing in his book entitled "Annotations on the Labor
Code." Can the labor law expert hold Liza liable for
infringement of copyright for quoting a portion of his book
without his permission? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Liza cannot be held liable for infringement of
copyright since under the Intellectual Property Code,
one of the limitations to the copyright is the making
of quotations from a published work for purpose of
any judicial proceedings or for giving of professorial
advice by legal practitioner, provided that the source
and name of the author are identified (See Section
184.1[k] of the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines).
Diana and Piolo are famous personalities in
showbusiness who kept their love affair secret. They use
a special instant messaging service which allows them to
see one anothers typing on their own screen as each
letter key is pressed. When Greg, the controller of the
service facility, found out their identities, he kept a copy
of all the messages Diana and Piolo sent each other and
published them. Is Greg liable for copyright infringement?
Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Greg is liable for copyright infringement. Letter
are among the works which are protected from the
moment of their creation (Section 172, intellectual
Property Code; Columbia Pictures, Inc. v Court of
Appeals, 261 SCRA 144 [1996]). The publication of
the letters without the consent of their writers
constitutes infringement of copyright.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
No, Greg is not liable for copyright infringement.
There is no copyright protecting electronic
documents. What are involved here are text
messages, not letter in their ordinary sense. Hence,
the protection under the copyright law does not
extend to text messages (Section 172, Intellectual
Property Code).
The messages that Diana and Piolo
exchanged through the use of messaging service do
not constitute literary and artistic works under
Section 172 of the Intellectual Property Code. They
are not letter under Section 172(d).
For copyright to subsist in a message, it
must qualify as a work (Section 172
Intellectual Property Code). Whether the
messages are entitled or not to copyright protection
would have to be resolved in the light of the
provision of the Intellectual Property Code.
Note: Since the law on this matter is not clear, it is
suggested that either of the above of the above
81 of 91
suggested answers should be given full credit.

KKis from Bangkok, Thailand. She studies medicine in
the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas (UST). She
learned that the same foreign books prescribed in UST
are 40-50% cheaper in Bangkok. So she ordered 50
copies of each book for herself and her classmates and
sold the books at 20% less than the price in the
Philippines. XX, the exclusive licensed publisher of the
books in the Philippines, sued KK for copyright
infringement. Decide. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
KK is liable for infringement of copyright.
XX, as exclusive licensed publisher, is entitled,
within the scope of the license, to all the rights and
remedies that the licensor has with respect to the
copyright (Sec. 180, Intellectual Property Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 10372).
The importation by KK of 50 copies of each
foreign book prescribed in UST and selling them
locally at 20% less than their respective prices in the
Philippines is subject to the doctrine of fair use set
out in Section 185.1 of the Intellectual Property Code.
The factors to be considered in determining whether
the use made of a work is fair use shall include:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is
for non-profit educational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion
used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole; and
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market
for a value of the copyrighted work.
Applying the above-listed factors to the
problem, KKs importation of the books and their
sale locally clearly show the unfairness of her use of
the books, particularly the adverse effect of her price
discounting on the business of XX.
Copyright; Denicola Test (2009)
(A) The Denicola Test in intellectual property law states
that if design elements of an article reflect a merger of
aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic
aspects of the work cannot be conceptually separable
from the utilitarian aspects; thus, the article cannot be
copyrighted.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True. Applying the Denicola Test in Brandir
International, Inc. v.Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. (834
F. 2d 1142, 1988 Copr.L.Dec. P26), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that if
there is any aesthetic element which can be
separated from the utilitarian elements, then the
aesthetic element may be copyrighted.
(Note: It is suggested that the candidate be given full
credit for whatever answer or lack of it. Further, it is
suggested that terms or any matter originating from
foreign laws or jurisprudence should not be asked.)
Infringement vs. Unfair Competition (2003)
In what way is an infringement of a trademark similar to

that which pertains to unfair competition?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Infringement; Jurisdiction (2003)

K-9 Corporation, a foreign corporation alleging itself to be
the registered owner of trademark K-9 and logo K,
filed an Inter Partes case with the Intellectual Property
Office against Kanin Corporation for the cancellation of
the latters mark K-9 and logo K. During the
pendency of the case before the IPO, Kanin Corporation
brought suit against K-9 Corporation before the RTC for
infringement and damages. Could the action before the
RTC prosper? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Infringement; Claims (2010)

While vacationing in Boracay, Valentino surreptitiously
took photographs of his girlfriend Monaliza in her skimpy
bikini. Two weeks later, her photographs appeared in the
Internet and in a national celebrity magazine.
Monaliza found out that Valentino had sold the
photographs to the magazine, adding insult to injury,
uploaded them to his personal blog on the Internet.
(A) Monaliza filed a complaint against Valentino
damages based on, among other grounds, violation of
her intellectual property rights. Does she have any cause
of action? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Monaliza cannot sue Valentino for violation of her
intellectual property rights, because she was not the
one who took the pictures (Subsection 178.1 of the
Intellectual Property Code). She may sue Valentino
instead for violation of her right to privacy. He
surreptitiously took photographs of her and then
sold the photographs to a magazine and uploaded
them to his personal blog in the Internet (Tolentino,
Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code
of the Philippines, Vol. I, 1987 ed., p. 169).
82 of 91
(B) Valentinos friend Francesco stole the photographs

and duplicated them and sold them to a magazine
publication. Valentino sued Francisco for infringement
and damages. Does Valentino have any cause of action?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Valentino cannot sue Francesco for infringement,
because he has already sold the photographs to a
magazine (Angeles vs. Premier Productions, Inc., 6
CAR (2s) 159).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, as the author of the photographs, Valentino has
exclusive economic rights thereto, which include the
rights to reproduce, to distribute, to perform, to
display, and to prepare derivative works based upon
the copyrighted work. He sold only the photographs
to the magazine; however, he still retained some
economic rights thereto. Thus, he has a cause of
action against infringement against Francesco.
(C) Does Monaliza have any cause of action against
Francesco? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Monaliza can also sue Francesco for violation of her
right to privacy.
Infringement; Trademark, Copyright (2009)
After disposing of his last opponent in only two rounds in
Las Vegas, the renowned Filipino boxer Sonny Bachao
arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport met by
thousands of hero-worshipping fans and hundreds of
media photographers. The following day, a colored
photograph of Sonny wearing a black polo shirt
embroidered with the 2-inch Lacoste Crocodile logo
appearedon the front page of every Philippine
newspaper.
Lacoste International, the French firm that
manufactures lacoste apparel and owns the Lacoste
trademark, decided to cash in on the universal popularity
of the boxing icon. It reprinted the photographs, with the
permission of the newspaper publishers, and went on a
world-wide blitz of print commercials in which Sonny is
shown wearing a Lacoste shirt alongside the phrase
Sonny Bachao just loves Lacoste.
When Sonny sees the Lacoste advertisements, he hires
you as lawyer and asks you to sue Lacoste International
before a Philippine court:
(A) For trademark Infringement in the Philippines
because Lacoste International used his image without his
permission: (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Sonny Bachao cannot sue for infringement of
trademark. The photographs showing him wearing a
Lacoste shirt were not registered as a trademark
(Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Inc. v. Shoemart, Inc., 409
SCRA 231 (2003)).
(B) For copyright infringement because of the
unauthorized use of the published photographs; (2%)and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Sonny Bachao cannot sue for infringement of
copyright for the unauthorized use of the

photographs showing him wearing a Lacoste shirt.
The copyright to the photographs belong to the
newspapers which published them inasmuch as the
photographs were the result of the performance of
the regular duties of the photographers (Subsection
173.3 (b), Intellectual Property Code (IPC)).Moreover,
the
newspaper
publishers
authorized
the
reproduction of the photographs (Section 177,
Intellectual Property Code).
(C) For injunction in order to stop Lacoste International
from featuring him in their commercials. (2%)
Will these actions prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint for injunction to stop Lacoste
International from featuring him in its advertisements
will prosper. This is a violation of subsection 123,
4(c) of the IPC and Art.169 in relation to Art.170 of the
IPC.
(D) Can Lacoste International validly invoke the defense
that it is not a Philippine company and, therefore,
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over it, if it is
doing business in the Philippines. Moreover, under
Section 133 of the Corporation Code, while a foreign
corporation doing business in thePhilippines without
license to do business, cannot sue or intervene in
any action, it may be sued or proceeded against
before our courts or administrative tribunal (De Joya
v. Marquez, 481 SCRA 376 (2006)).
Technology
Transfer
Agreements;
Important
Stipulations & Prohibitions (2010)
(A) What contractual stipulations are required in all
technology transfer agreements? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following stipulations are required in all
technology transfer agreements:
(1) The laws of the Philippines shall govern its
interpretation and in the event of litigation, the venue
shall be the proper court in the place where the
licensee has its principal office;
(2) Continued
access
to
improvements
in
techniques and processes related to the technology
shall be made available during the period of the
technology transfer arrangement;
In case it shall provide for arbitration, the Procedure
of Arbitration of the Arbitration Law of the
Philippines or the Arbitration Rules of the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law or
the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC) shall apply and the venue of
arbitration shall be the Philippines or any neutral
country;
(4) The Philippine taxes on all payments relating to
the technology transfer agreement shall be borne by
the licensor (Sec. 88, Intellectual Property Code).
(B) Enumerate three stipulations that are prohibited in
83 of 91
technology transfer agreements. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following stipulations are
technology transfer agreements:
prohibited
in
(1) Those that contain restrictions regarding the

volume and structure of production;
(2) Those that prohibit the use of competitive
technologies in a non-exclusive agreement; and
(1) Those that establish a full or partial purchase
option in favor of the licensor (Subsections 87.3, 87.4
and 87.5 of the Intellectual Property Code).
Article of Commerce; As Trademark, Patent &
Copyright (2010)
(C) Can an article of commerce serve as a trademark
and at the same time enjoy patent and copyright
protection? Explain and give an example. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A stamped or marked container of goods can be
registered as trademark (subsections 113.1 of the
Intellectual Property Code). An original ornamental
design or model for articles of manufacturer can be
copyrighted (Subsection 172.1 of the Intellectual
Property Code). An ornamental design cannot be
patented, because aesthetic creations cannot be
patented (Section 22 of the Intellectual Property
Code). However, it can be registered as an industrial
design (Subsections 113.1 and 172.1 of the
Intellectual Code). Thus, a container of goods which
has an original ornamental design can be registered
as trademark, can be copyrighted, and can be
registered as an industrial design.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It is entirely possible for an article of commerce to
bear a registered trademark, be protected by a
patent and have most, or some part of it
copyrighted. A book is a good example. The name
of the publisher or the colophon used in the book
may be registered trademarks, the ink used in
producing the book may be covered by a patent,
and the text and design of the book may be covered
by copyrighted.
OTHER SPECIAL LAWS

Chattel Mortgage
Chattel Mortgage vs. Levy (2003)
To pay for her loan obtained from Stela, Liza constituted
in Stelas favor a chattel mortgage over an electric
generator. Cecil, a creditor of Liza, levied on attachment
the generator. Stela filed a third party claim. Cecil
opposed the claim. Rule on their conflicting claims.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chattel Mortgage; Remedies (2003)

Carmakers, Inc., sold a motor vehicle on installment
basis to Chari Paredes. The transaction was reflected on
a promissory note executed by Chari in favor of
Carmakers. The note was secured by a mortgage over
the car. Contemporaneous with the execution of the note
and the mortgage deed, Carmakers, Inc., assigned the
instruments sans recourse to Adelantado Finance
Corporation. Chari defaulted in her obligations. Could
Adelantado Finance corporation take action against both
Carmakers Inc., and Chari? Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chattel Mortgage; Foreclosure (2008)

On January 1, 2008, Al obtained a loan of P10,000 from
Bob to be paid on January 30, 2008, secured by a chattel
mortgage on a Toyota motor car. OnFebruary 1, 2008, Al
obtained another loan of P10,000 from Bob to be paid on
February 15, 2008. He secured this by executing a
chattel mortgage on a Honda motorcycle. On the due
date of the first loan Al failed to pay. Bob foreclosed the
chattel mortgage but the car was bidded for P6,000 only.
Al also failed to pay the second loan due on February 15,
2008. Bob filed an action for collection of sum of money.
84 of 91
Al filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Bob should first

foreclose the mortgage on The Honda motorcycle before
he can file the action for sum of money. Decide with
reasons. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bob has the legal right to file a collection suit for a
sum of money in lieu of foreclosing on the chattel
mortgage. It has been ruled that a c chattel mortgage
is a security arrangement to support a primary
contract (Serra v. Rodriguez, G.R. no. L-25546, 22
April 1974). Since the chattel mortgage is only a
collateral contract prerogative to choose which of
the remedies available to pursue. However, the filing
of the collection suit constitutes a waiver of the
chattel mortgage (Land Settlement and Dev. Corp. v.
Carlos, 22 SCRA 202, 1968). And even if the
collection suit included the recovery of the P6,000
deficiency on the first loan, the same is valid
because unlike in a pledge the lender has the legal
right to recover the deficiency incurred on the
foreclosure of a chattel mortgage (PAMECA Wood
Treatment v. CA, G.R. No. 106435, 14 July 1999).
Phil. 472 (1935)). Registration of chattel mortgage in

the stock and transfer book is not required to make
the chattel mortgage valid. Registration of dealings
in the stock and transfer book under Section 63 of
the Corporation Code applies only to sale or
disposition of shares, and has no application to
mortgages and other forms of encumbrances
(Monserrat v. Ceron, 58 Phil. 469 (1933)).
Chattel Mortgage; Foreclosure (2009)

Armando, a resident of Manila, borrowed P3-million from
Bernardo, offering as security his 500 shares of stock
worth P1.5-million in Xerxes Corporation, and his
2007BMW sedan, valued at P2-million. The mortgage on
the shares of stock was registered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Makati City where Xerxes
Corporation has its principal office. The mortgage on the
car was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Manila. Armando executed a single Affidavit of Good
Faith, covering both mortgages.
Armando defaulted on the payment of his
obligation; thus, Bernardo foreclosed on the two chattel
mortgages. Armando filed suitto nullify the foreclosure
and the mortgages, raising the following issues:
Real Estate Mortgage; Extrajudicial Foreclose (2006)

A real estate mortgage may be foreclosed judicially or
extrajudicially. In what instance may a mortgagee
extrajudicially foreclose a real estate mortgage? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When a sale is made under a special power inserted
or attached to any real-estate mortgage, thereafter
given as security for the payment of money or the
fulfillment of any other obligation, then the
mortgagee may extrajudicially foreclose the real
estate mortgage (Sec. 1, Act No. 3135, as amended).
(A) The execution of only one Affidavit of Good Faith for

both mortgages invalidated the two mortgages; (2%) and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The execution of only one Affidavit of Good Faith for
both mortgages is not a ground to nullify the said
mortgages and the foreclosure thereof. Said
mortgages are valid as between immediate parties
(Lilius v. Manila Railroad Company, 62 Phil. 56
(1935)), although they cannot bind third parties
(Philippine Refining v. Jarque, 61 Phil. 229 (1935)).
(B) The mortgage on the shares of stocks should have
been registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of
Manila where he resides, as well as in the stock and
transfer book of Xerxes Corporation. (3%)
Rule on the foregoing issues with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mortgage on the shares of stock should be
registered in the chattel mortgage registry in the
Register of Deeds of Makati City where the
corporation has its principal office and also in the
Register of Deeds of Manila where the mortgagor
resides (Chua Guan v. SamahangMagsasaka, Inc., 62
(C) Assume that Bernardo extrajudicially foreclosed on

the mortgages, and both the car and the shares of stocks
were sold at public auction. If the proceeds from such
public sale should be 1-million short of Armandos total
obligation, can Bernardo recover the deficiency? Why or
why not? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Bernardo can recover the deficiency. Chattels
are given as mere security, and not as payment or
pledge (CuHada v. Drilon, 432 SCRA 618 (2004)).
Real Estate Mortgage
Real Estate Mortgage; Foreclosure (2003)

May the sale at public auction by a bank of a property
mortgaged to it be nullified because the price was
extremely low? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Because of failure of Janette and Jeanne to pay their
loan to X Bank, the latter foreclosed on the mortgage
constituted on their property which was put up by them
as security for the payment of the loan. The price paid for
the property at the foreclosure sale was not enough to
liquidate the obligation. The bank sued for deficiency. In
their answer, Janette and Jeanne did not deny the
existence of the loan nor the fact of their default. They,
however, interposed the defenses that the price at the
auction was extremely low and that their loan, despite the
loan documents, was a long-term loan which had not yet
85 of 91
matured. If you were the judge, how would you rule on

the case? Why? (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Ozamis Paper Corporation secured loans from ABC
Universal Bank in the aggregate principal amount of
P100 million, evidenced by several promissory notes,
and secured by a continuing guaranty of its principal
stockholder Menandro Marquez; a pledge of Marquezs
shares in the corporation valued at P45 million; and a
real estate mortgage over certain parcels of land owned
by Marquez.
The corporation defaulted and the bank extrajudicially foreclosed on the real estate mortgage. The
bank which was the sole bidder for P75 million, won the
award.
(A) Can the bank sue Marquez for the Deficiency of
P25 million? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the bank can sue Marquez for the deficiency of
P25million. In extrajudicial foreclosure of a real
estate mortgage, if the proceeds of the sale are
insufficient to pay the debt, the mortgagee has the
right to sue for the deficiency (Suico Rattan and Buri
Interiors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 490 SCRA 560
(2006)).
(B) If the bank opts to file an action for collection
against the corporation, can it afterwards institute a real
action to foreclose the mortgage? Explain (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the bank can no longer file an action to foreclose
the real estate mortgage. When it filed a collection
case, it was deemed to have abandoned the real
estate mortgage (Bank of America, NT and SA v.
American Realty Corporation, 321 SCRA 659(1999)).
(C) Can the bank foreclose on the pledged shares of
Marquez and recover the deficiency from the
corporation? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the bank forecloses the pledge, it cannot recover
the deficiency because the foreclosure extinguishes
the principal obligation, whether or not the proceeds
from the foreclosure are equal to the amount of the
principal obligation (Art. 2115, Civil Code).
Real Estate Mortgage; Foreclosure of Improvements
(1999)
Borrower obtained a loan against the security of a
mortgage on a parcel of land. While the mortgage was
subsisting, borrower leased for fifty years the mortgaged
property to Land Development Company (LDC). The
mortgagee was duly advised of the lease. Thereafter,

LDC constructed on the mortgaged property an office
condominium.
Borrower defaulted on his loan and mortgagee
foreclosed the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, the
mortgagee was awarded the property as the highest
bidder. The corresponding Certificate of Sale was
executed and after the lapse of one year, title was
consolidated in the name of mortgagee.
Mortgagee then applied with the RTC for the
issuance of a writ of possession not only over the land
but also the condominium building. The mortgagee
contended that the mortgage included all accessions,
improvements and accessories found on the mortgaged
property. LDC countered that it had built on the
mortgaged property with the prior knowledge of
mortgagee which had received formal notice of the lease.
a) How would you resolve the dispute between the
mortgagee and LDC? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The mortgagee has a better right than LDC. The
mortgage extends to the improvements introduced
on the land, with the declarations, amplifications,
and limitations established by law, whether the
estate remains in the possession of the mortgagor or
passes into the hands of a third person (Art 2127
NCC). The notice given by LDC to the mortgagee was
not enough to remove the building from coverage of
the mortgage considering that the building was built
after the mortgage was constituted and the notice
was only as regards the lease and not as to the
construction of the building. Since the mortgagee
was informed of the lease and did not object to it, the
mortgagee became bound by the terms of the lease
when it acquired the property as the highest bidder.
Hence, the mortgagee steps into the shoes of the
mortgagor and acquires the rights of the lessor
under Art 1768 of the NCC. This provision gives the
lessor the right to appropriate the condominium
building but after paying the lessee half of the value
of the building at that time. Should the lessor refuse
to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove
the improvement even though the land will suffer
damage thereby.
1st Alternative Answer:
a. The mortgagee has a better right to the building.
Under Art 2127 of the NCC, the mortgage extends to
all improvements on the mortgaged property
regardless of who and when the improvements were
introduced. LDC cannot complain otherwise,
because it knew that the property it was leasing was
mortgaged when it built the condominium.
2nd alternative Answer:
a. Assuming that the office condominium was duly
constituted under the Condominium Law, before LDC
could validly constitute the same as a condominium,
it should cause to be recorded in the register of
deeds of the province or city where the land is
situated an enabling or master deed showing, among
others, a certificate of the registered owner and of all
registered holders of any lien or encumbrance on the
property that they consent to the registration of the
deed. (Sec 4. RA 4726). If the mortgagee gave its
86 of 91
consent thereto, then LDC should prevail. If no

consent was given, the condominium was included
in the mortgage.
redemption is one (1) year from the date of

registration of the certificate of sale, which period
has not yet expired in this case.
b) Is the mortgagee entitled to the lease rentals due from

LDC under the lease agreement? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. The lease rentals belong to the mortgagor.
However, the mortgage extends to rentals not yet
received when the obligation becomes due and the
mortgagee may ran after the said rentals for the
payment of the mortgage debt.

X obtained a loan for Php50Million from SSS Bank. The
collateral is his vacation house in Baguio City under a
real estate mortgage. X needed more funds for his
business so he again borrowed another Php10Million,
this time from BBB Bank, another bank, using the same
collateral. The loan secured from SSS Bank fell due and
X defaulted.
(Recommendation: Since the subject matter of these

two (2) questions is not included within the scope of the
Bar Questions in Mercantile Law, as it is within Civil Law,
it is suggested that whatever answer is given by the
examinee, or the lack of answer should be given full
credit. If the examinee gives a good answer, he should
be given additional credit.)
a.
If SSS Bank forecloses the real estate
mortgage, what rights, if any, are left with 888 Bank as
mo1igagee also? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) BBB Bank, as junior mortgagee, would have a
right to redeem the foreclosed property, together
with X, his successors in interest, any judicial or
judgment creditor of X, or any other person or entity
having a lien on the vacation house subsequent to
the real estate mortgage in favor of SSS Bank (i.e.,
other junior mortgagees, if any). (Sec. 6, Act 3135)
Real
Estate
Mortgage;
Redemption
Period;
Foreclosed Property (2002)
Primetime Corporation (the Borrower) obtained a P10
Million, five-year term loan from Universal Bank (the
Bank) in 1996. As security for the loan and as required
by the Bank, the Borrower gave the following collateral
security in favor of the Bank:
1) a real estate mortgage over the land and
building owned by the Borrower and located in
Quezon City;
2) the joint and several promissory note of Mr.
Primov Timbol, the President of the Borrower;
and
3) a real estate mortgage over the residential
house and lot owned by Mr. Timbol, also
located in Quezon City.
Because of business reverses, neither the Borrower nor
Mr. Timbol was able to pay the loan. In June 2001, the
Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the two real estate
mortgages, with the Bank as the only bidder in the
foreclosure sale. On September 16, 2001, the certificates
of sale of the two properties in favor of the Bank were
registered with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Ten months later, both the Borrower and Mr. Timbol were
able to raise sufficient funds to redeem their respective
properties from the Bank, but the Bank refused to permit
redemption on the ground that the period for redemption
had already expired, so that the Bank now has absolute
ownership of both properties. The Borrower and Mr.
Timbol came to you today, September 15, 2002, to find
out if the position of the Bank is correct. What would be
your answer? State your reasons (5%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 With respect to the real estate mortgage over the
land and building owned by the Borrower, Primetime
Corporation, a juridical body, the period of
redemption is only three (3) months, which period
already expired.
2 As to the real estate mortgage over the residential
house and lot owned by Mr. Timbol, the period of
b.
If the value of the Baguio property is less than
the amount of loan, what would be the recourse of SSS
Bank? BBB Bank? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) In case of a deficiency, SSS Bank could file suit to
claim for the deficiency. BBB Bank could file an
ordinary action to collect its loan from X. If it does
so, it would be deemed to have waived its mortgage
lien. If the judgment in the action to collect is
favorable to BBB Bank, and it becomes final and
executory, BBB Bank could enforce the said
judgment by execution. It could even levy execution
on the same mortgaged property, but it would not
have priority over the latter. (Caltex Philippines v.
IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74730, August 25, 1989)
c.
If the value of the property is more that the
amount of the loan, who will benefit from the excess
value of the property? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) If the value of the property is more that the amount
of the loan, the excess could benefit and be claimed
by BBB Bank, any judicial or judgment creditor of X,
any other junior mortgagee, and X.
d.
If X defaulted with its loan in favor of BBB Bank
but fully paid his loan with SSS Bank, can BBB Bank
foreclose the real mortgage executed in its favor? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) If X defaulted in respect of his loan from BBB
Bank but fully paid his loan from SSS Bank, BBB
Bank could now foreclose the mortgaged property as
it would be the only remaining mortgagee of the
same.
e.
Does X have any legal remedy after the
foreclosure in the event that later on he has the rnoney to
pay for the loan? (1%)
87 of 91
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
e) Yes, X could redeem the property within one (1)
year from the date of registration of the sheriff's
certificate of foreclosure sale.
f.
If SSS Bank and BBB Bank abandon their
rights under the real estate mortgage, is there any legal
recourse available to them? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
f) SSS Bank and BBB Bank could each file an
ordinary action to collect its loan from X.
DMP Corporation (DMP) obtained a loan of P20 million
from National Bank (NB) secured by a real estate
mortgage over a 63,380-square-meter land situated in
Cabanatuan City. Due to the Asian Economic Crisis,
DMP experienced liquidity problems disenabling it from
paying its loan on time. For that reason, NB sought the
extra judicial foreclosure of the said mortgage by filing a
petition for sale on June 30, 2003. On September 4,
2003, the mortgaged property was sold at public auction,
which was eventually awarded to NBas the highest
bidder. That same day, the Sheriff executed a Certificate
of Sale in favor of NB.
On October 21, 2003, DMP filed a Petition for
Rehabilitation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Pursuant to this, a Stay Order was issued by the RTC on
October 27, 2003.
On the other hand, NB caused the recording of
the Sheriffs Certificate of Sale on December 3, 2003 with
the Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City. NB executed
an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and had the
same annotated on the title of DMP. Consequently, the
Register of Deeds cancelled DMPs title and issued a
new title in the name of NB on December 10, 2003.
NB also filed on March 17, 2004 an Ex-Parte
Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession before the
RTC of Cabanatuan City. After hearing, the RTC issued
on September 6, 2004 an Order directing the Issuance of
the Writ of Possession, which was issued on October 4,
2004.
DMP claims that all subsequent actions
pertaining to the Cabanatuan property should have been
held in abeyance after the Stay Order was issued by the
rehabilitation court. Is DMP correct? (4%)
(RECOMMENDATION:
This problem is outside the coverage of the
2014 Mercantile Law Bar Examination as the 2014
Syllabus for Mercantile law prepared by the Supreme
Court does not include the Supreme Court Rules of
Procedure
on
Corporate
Rehabilitation.
It
is
recommended that all examinees be given full credit
whether they gave any answer or not. In any case:)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
DMP is not correct. Since the foreclosure of DMPs
mortgage and the issuance of the certificate of sale
in NBs favor were done prior to the appointment of a
Rehabilitation Receiver and the Stay Order, all the
actions taken with respect to the foreclosed
mortgage property which were subsequent to the
issuance of the Stay Order were not affected by the
Stay Order. Thus, after the redemption period
expired without DMP redeeming the foreclosed

property, NB becomes the absolute owner of the
property and it was within its right to ask for the
consolidation of title and the issuance of new title in
its name as a consequence of ownership; thus, it is
entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the
property. (Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. DNG Realty and
Development Corporation, G.R. 168672, August 8,
2010).
Real Estate Mortgage; Extrajudicial Foreclosure
(2012)
X obtained a Php10Million loan from BBB Banking
Corporation. The loan is secured by Real Estate
Mortgage on his vacation house in Tagaytay City. The
original Deed of Real Estate Mortgage for the
Php10Million was duly registered. The Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage also provides that "The mortgagor also
agrees that this mortgage will secure the payment of
additional loans or credit accommodations that may be
granted by the mortgagee ... " Subsequently, because he
needed more funds, he obtained another Php5Million
loan. On due dates of both loans, X failed to pay the
Php5Million but fully paid the Php10Million. BBB Banking
Corporation
instituted
extrajudicial
foreclosure
proceedings.
a.
Will the extrajudicial foreclosure prosper
considering that the additional Php5Million was not
covered by the registration? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
Yes. X executed a real estate mortgage
containing a "blanket mortgage clause." Mortgages
given to secure future advancements are valid and
legal contracts, and the amounts named as
consideration in said contracts do not limit the
amount for which the mortgage may stand as
security if from the four corners of the instrument the
intent to secure future and other indebtedness can
be gathered. (Prudential Back v. Alviar, G.R. No.
150197, 28 July 2005)
Real Estate Mortgage; Dragnet Clause (2012)
b.
What is the meaning of a "dragnet clause" in a
Deed of Real Estate Mortgage? Under what
circumstances will the "dragnet clause" be applicable?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(b)
Generally, a dragnet clause is a clause in a
deed of real estate mortgage stating that the
mortgage secures all the loans and advances that
the mortgagor may at any time owe to the
mortgagee. The word "dragnet" is a reference to a
net drawn through a river or across ground to trap
fish or game. It is also known in American
jurisprudence as a "blanket mortgage clause" or an
"anaconda clause." A mortgage with a dragnet
clause enables the parties to provide continuous
dealings, the nature or extent of which may not be
known or anticipated at the time, and they avoid the
expense and inconvenience of executing a new
security on each new transaction. It operates as a
convenience and accommodation to the borrower as
it makes available additional funds to him without his
88 of 91
havingto execute additional security documents,

thereby saving time, travel, costs of extra legal
services, recording fees, etc. (Prudential Bank v.
Alviar, id.)
The "dragnet clause" may not apply to other
loans extended, by the mortgagee to the mortgagor
for which other securities were given. In the case of
Prudential Bank v. Alviar, the Supreme Court
adopted the "reliance on the security test" to the
effect that "when the mortgagor takes another loan
[from the mortgagee] for which another security was
given, it could not be inferred that such loan was
made in reliance solely on the original security with
the "dragnet clause," but, rather, on the new security
given." This means that the existence of the new
security must be respected and the foreclosure of
the old security should only be for the other loans
not separately collateralized and for any amount not
covered by the new security for the new loan.
Remedies; Available to Mortgagee-Creditor (2001)
Debtor A issued a promissory note in the amount of
P10M in favor of commercial bank Y secured by
mortgage of his properties worth P30M. When A failed to
pay his indebtedness, despite demands made by bank Y,
the latter instituted a collection suit to enforce payment of
the P10M account. Subsequently, bank Y also filed
foreclosure proceedings against A for security given for
the account. If you were the judge, how would you
resolve the two cases? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case for collection will be allowed to proceed.
But the foreclosure proceedings have to be
dismissed. In instituting foreclosure proceedings,
after filing a collection case involving the same
account or transaction, bank Y is guilty of splitting a
cause of action. The loan of P10M is the principal
obligation while the mortgage securing the same is
merely an accessory to said loan obligation. The
collection of the loan and the foreclosure of the
mortgage securing said loan constitute one and the
same cause of action. The filing of the collection
case bars the subsequent filing of the foreclosure
proceedings.
Anti-Money Laundering Act

Anti-Money Laundering (2006)
Rudy is jobless but is reputed to be a jueteng operator.
He has never been charged or convicted of any crime.
He maintains several bank accounts and has purchased
5 houses and lots for his children from the Luansing
Realty, Inc. Since he does not have any visible job, the
company reported his purchases to the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC). Thereafter, AMLC charged
him with violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Law.
Upon request of the AMLC, the bank disclosed to it
Rudy's bank deposits amounting to P100 Million.
Subsequently, he was charged in court for violation of the
Anti-Money Laundering Law.
1. Can Rudy move to dismiss the case on the ground

that he has no criminal record? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Under the Anti-Money Laundering Law, Rudy
would be guilty of a "money laundering crime"
committed when the proceeds of an "unlawful
activity," like jueteng operations, are made to appear
as having originated from
legitimate sources. The money laundering crime is
separate from the unlawful activity of being a jueteng
operator, and requires no previous conviction for the
unlawful activity (See also Sec. 3, Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001).
2. To raise funds for his defense, Rudy sold the houses
and lots to a friend. Can Luansing Realty, Inc. be
compelled to transfer to the buyer ownership of the
houses and lots? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Luansing Realty, Inc. is a real estate company, hence
it is not a covered institution under Section 3 of the
Anti-Money
Laundering
Act.
Only
banking
institutions, insurance companies, securities dealers
and brokers, pre-need companies and other entities
administering or otherwise dealing in currency,
commodities or financial derivatives are covered
institutions. Hence, Luansing Realty, Inc. may not
use the Anti-Money Laundering Act to refuse to
transfer to the buyer ownership of the houses and
lots.
3. In disclosing Rudy's bank accounts to the AMLC, did
the bank violate any law? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the bank did not violate any law. The bank being
specified as a "covered institution" under the AntiMoney Laundering Law, is obliged to report to the
AMLC covered and suspicious transactions, without
thereby violating any law. This is one of the
exceptions to the Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act.
4. Supposing the titles of the houses and lots are in
possession of the Luansing Realty, Inc., is it under
obligation to deliver the titles to Rudy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it has an obligation to deliver titles to Rudy. As
Luansing Realty, Inc. is not a covered institution
under Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, it
may not invoke this law to refuse delivery of the titles
to Rudy.
Anti-Money Laundering: Predicate Crimes (2007)
Name at least five predicate crimes to money laundering.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any five of the following are predicate crimes to
money laundering:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act
No.3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code, as amended;
(2) Sections 3,4,5,7,8 and 9 of Article Two of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972;
89 of 91
(3) Section 3 paragraphs B,C,E,G,H and I of

Republic Act No. 3019, as amended; otherwise
known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act;
(4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as
amended;
(5) Robbery
and
extortion
under
Articles
294,295,296,299,300,301 and 302 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended;
(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal
gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602;
(7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal
Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No.
532;
(8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended; (9) Swindling under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
(9) Swindling under 315 of the Revised Penal code,
as amended;
(10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and
1937
(11) Violations under Republic Act No. 8792,
otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce
Act of 2000
(12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic
Act No 6235;destructive arson and murder, as
defined under the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, including those perpetrated by
terrorist against non-combatant persons and
similar targets;
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under
Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the
securities Regulation Code of 2000
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature those
are punishable under the penal laws of other
countries. (Sec 3, Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001).
Anti-Money Laundering; Authority to Inquire Into
Bank Deposits; Freeze Order (2013)
From his first term in 2007, Congressman Abner has
been endorsing his pork barrel allocations to Twin Rivers
in exchange for a commission of 40% of the face value of
the allocation. Twin Rivers is a non-governmental
organization whose supporting papers, after audit, were
found by the Commission on Audit to be fictitious. Other
than to prepare and submit falsified papers to support the
encashment of the pork barrel checks, Twin Rivers does
not appear to have done anything on the endorsed
projects and Congressman Abner likewise does not
appear to have bothered to monitor the progress of the
projects he endorsed. The congressman converted most
of the commissions he generated into US dollars, and
deposited these in a foreign currency account with Banco
de Plata (BDP).
Based on amply-supported tips given by a
congressman from another political party, the Anti-Money
Laundering Council sent BDP an order: (1) to confirm
Cong. Abner's deposits with the bank and to provide
details of these deposits; and (2) to hold all withdrawals
and other transactions involving the congressman's bank
accounts.
As counsel for BDP, would you advise the bank

to comply with the order? (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I shall advise Banco de Plata not to comply with the
order of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. It
cannot inquire into the deposits of Congressman
Abner, regardless of currency, without a bank inquiry
order from a competent court, because crimes
involved are not kidnapping for ransom, violations of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, hijacking
and other violations of Republic Act No. 6235,
destructive arson, murder, and terrorism and
conspiracy to commit terrorism (Section 11 of AntiMoney Laundering Act).
The Anti-Money Laundering Council cannot
order Banco de Plata to hold all withdrawals and
other transactions involving the accounts of
Congressman Abner. It is the Court of Appeals which
has the power to issue a freeze order over the
accounts upon petition of the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (Anti-Money LaunderingAct;
Republic v. Cabrini Green Ross, 489 SCRA 644,
2006).
MISCELLANEOUS
Energy Regulatory Commission: Jurisdiction & Power
(2004)
CG, acustomer, sued MERALCO in the MM Regional Trial
Court to disclose the basis of the computation of the
purchased power adjustment (PPA). The trial court ruled it
had no jurisdiction over the case because, as contended by
the defendant, the customer not only demanded a
breakdown of MERALCO's bill with respect to PPA but
questioned as well the imposition of the PPA, a matter to be
decided by the Board of Energy, the regulatory agency
which should also have jurisdiction over the instant suit. Is
the trial court's ruling correct or not? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trial court's ruling is correct. As held in Manila
Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, 271SCRA 417
(1997), the Board of Energy had the power to regulate
and fix power rates to be charged by franchised electric
utilities like MERALCO. In fact pursuant to Executive
Order No. 478 (April 17, 1998), this power has been
transferred to the Energy Regulatory Board (now the
Energy Regulatory Commission). Under Section 43(u) of
the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, the
Energy Regulatory Commission has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases contesting power
rates.
Government Deregulation vs. Privatization of an
Industry (2004)
What is the difference between government deregulation
and the privatization of an industry? Explain briefly. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Government deregulation is the relaxation or removal of
regulatory constraints on firms or individuals, with a
view to promoting competition and market-oriented
approaches
toward pricing, output, entry, and other related
economic decisions. Privatization of an industry refers
to the transfer of ownership and control by the
90 of 91
government of assets, firms and operations in an

industry to private investors.
Power of the State: Regulating of Domestic Trade (2004)
In its exercise of police power and business regulation, the
legislature of LVM State passed a law prohibiting aliens from
engaging in domestic timber trade. Violators including
dummies would, after proper trial, be fined and imprisoned or
deported. Mrs. BC, a citizen of LVM but married to ZC, an
alien merchant of PNG, filed suit to invalidate the law or
exempt from its coverage their timber business. She
contended that the law is, inter alia, gravely oppressive and
discriminatory. It violated the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) passed in 1948 by the United
Nations, of which LVM is a member, she said, as well as the
reciprocity provisions of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) Agreement of 1994, of which PNG and LVM are
parties. Aside from denying them equal protection, according
to BC, the law will also deprive her family their livelihood
without due process nor just compensation. Assuming that
the legal system of LVM is similar to ours, would Mrs. BC's
contention be tenable or not? Reason
briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mrs. BC's contention is not tenable. First, the UDHR
does not purport to limit the right of states (like LVM) to
regulate domestic trade. Second, the WTO Agreement
involves international trade between states or
governments, not domestic trade in timber or other
commodities. Third, nationality is an accepted norm for
making classifications that do not run counter to the
equal protection of law clause of the Constitution.
Fourth, there is no impairment of due process here
because violators of the law will be punished only after
"proper trial." Fifth, the issue of "just compensation"
does not arise, because the property of Mrs. BC is not
being expropriated. On the contrary, as a citizen of LVM,
Mrs. BC is freely allowed to engage in domestic timber
trade in LVM.
Tariff and Customs Code: Violation of Customs Laws
(2004)
The Collector of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture
of new electronic appliances shipped by TON Corp. from
Hongkong for violation of customs laws because they were
falsely declared as used office equipment and then
undervalued for purposes of customs duties. TON filed a
complaint before the MM Regional Trial Court for replevin,
alleging that the Customs officials erred in the classification
and valuation of its shipment, as well as in the issuance of
the warrant of seizure. The Collector moved to dismiss the
suit for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
Should the Collector's motion be granted or denied? Reason
briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Collector's motion should be granted. Under
Section 602(g) of the Tariff and Customs Code, the
Bureau of Customs has exclusive original jurisdiction
over seizure and forfeiture cases under the tariff and
customs laws. NOTE: (This question is outside the
coverage of the Bar Examinations. It is therefore
recommended that whatever answer made by the
candidate should be given full credit.)
Four ACID Problems of Philippine Judiciary (2006)
In several policy addresses extensively covered by media
since his appointment on December 21, 2005, Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban vowed to leave a judiciary

characterized by "four Ins" and to focus in solving the "four
ACID" problems that corrode the administration of justice in
our country. Explain this "four Ins" and "four ACID" problems.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Upon assuming his office, Chief Justice Panganiban
vowed to lead a judiciary characterized by the "four
Ins:" Integrity, Independence, Industry and Intelligence;
one that is morally courageous to resist influence,
interference, indifference and insolence. He envisions a
judiciary that is impervious to the
plague of undue influence brought about by kinship,
relationship, friendship and fellowship. He calls on the
judiciary to battle the "Four ACID" problems corroding
our justice system:
(1) limited access to justice by the poor;
(2) corruption;
(3) incompetence; and
(4) delay in the delivery
of quality judgments. The judicial department should
discharge
its
functions
with
transparency,
accountability and dignity.
(NOTA BENE: It is respectfully suggested that all Bar
Candidates receive a 2.5% bonus for the above question
regardless of the answer)
2. The Chief Justice also said that the judiciary must
"safeguard the liberty" and "nurture the prosperity" of our
people. Explain this philosophy. Cite Decisions of the
Supreme Court implementing each of these twin beacons of
the Chief Justice. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief Justice's philosophy "Safeguarding Liberty,
Nurturing Prosperity" embodies the Supreme Court's
approach in decision-making in the exercise of its
constitutional power of judicial review which provides:
In cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should
weight heavily against government and in favor of the
poor,
the
oppressed,
the
marginalized,
the
dispossessed and the weak; and that laws and action
that restrict fundamental rights come to the court "with
a heavy presumption against their constitutional
validity. On the other hand, as a general rule, the
Supreme Court must adopt a deferential or respectful
attitude towards actions taken by the governmental
agencies that have primary responsibility for the
economic development of the country; and only when
an act has been clearly made or executed with grave
abuse of discretion does the Court get involved in policy
issues. Decisions implementing the "safeguarding of
liberty" include those involving the constitutionality of
Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (David v. Arroyo,
G.R. No. 171390, May 3, 2006); the validity of Calibrated
Pre-emptive Response (CPR) and B.P. Big. 880 or the
Public Assembly Act (Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169848,
April 25, 2006); and the legality of Executive Order No.
464 and the President's exercise of Executive Privilege
(Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777,
April 20, 2006).
On the other hand, cases that relate to "nurturing the
prosperity" of the people include the question the
constitutionality of the Mining Law (La Bugal-B'Laan v.
Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, Dec. 1, 2004) and the WTO
Agreement (Tanada v. Angara, G.R. 118295, May 2,1997).
91 of 91

MERC Abq

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MERC Abq

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MERC Abq

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the document?

What is the purpose of the document?

What topics are covered in the document?

What topics are covered in the document?

S U G GE ST E D

Edited and Arranged by:

TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LAW

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW

Incomplete and Delivered (2005)

Claims; Loss of Property Insured; Authorized Driver Clause (2003)...

Commencement; Corporate Existence (2003) .

BULK SALES LAW

INSOLVENCY & CORPORATE rEHABILITATION

SECURITIES & REGULATIONS CODE

Banks; Restrictions on Loan Accommodations (2006)

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE

OTHER SPECIAL LAWS

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT

Joint Account (2000)

Letters of Credit; Nature (2012)

Joint Account vs. Partnership (2000)

(Note: In respect of Question (a), it is recommended

any of the topics under Letters of Credits and the

instance, if the beneficiary fraudulently presents to

b) Bravo Bank received from Cisco Bank by registered

Letter of Credit; Liabilities of a Confirming and

draft against the letter of credit.

TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

or as appears in the trust receipt (Sec. 9(2), Trust

Trust Receipts vs. Simple Loan (2013)

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LAW

(B) Would your answer be the same if the

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW

a) The date of the PN is February 30, 2002.

MP WILL PAY JR TEN THOUSAND PESOS IN

(Signed) Pedro Cruz

b) TH is an indorsee of a promissory note that simply

Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability (2002)

The note has no date, no place of payment and no

payee acknowledged having received the note on August

Negotiable Instruments; Negotiability; Promissory Note

does not express a time for its payment (Sec.

Yes, the check can be considered a negotiable

Negotiable Instruments: Subject to a Term (2009)

allowed by Seorita Isobel during their meeting with

2. Supposing the check was stolen while in Ruth's

and succeeded to encash P15,000 from another branch

On the other hand, if the drawee bank pays

Checks; Validity; Waiver of Banks liability for

banking practice, Lim was made to sign a waiver of BPIs

bank and partakes of a representation that the

specified maturity date as the office of the corporate

accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, and

The check, which bore the forged signature of

Parties; Accommodation Party (2003)

2) What is the liability of Juan Sy?

Parties; Accommodation Party (2005)