Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3


Q. Aguilar organized the Rural Bank of San Andres. He copied the forms of the contracts
which the lawyer of the Rural Bank of San Carlos prepared. The lawyer sued him for
infringement of copyright. Will the action prosper?
A: No. There is no infringement in the copying of basic forms which are used in a
widespread manner throughout a given field of industry. (Jack said this orally in class).
Q. Abad made a design for Christmas dcor. Benitez used it to make the Christmas
dcor without the consent of Abad. Abad sued him for infringement of copyright.
Benitez argued that the design could not be copyrighted. Is he right?
A: No, designs can be copyrighted.

172.1 Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original
intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment
of their creation and shall include in particular
Note also: An infringement takes place when the use of a protected work of a
copyright owner goes beyond the limitations, to include fair use provisions that are
outlined in the law. Further, In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is
prohibited. The copying must produce injurious effects. Here, the injury consists in that
respondent lifted from petitioners book materials that were the result of the latters s
research work and compilation and misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the
book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge petitioners as her source.
(Habana v. Robles)
Note: The facts are vague, but it appears that he made the decor for his own use. That
is not covered. But if he sold the copied design, and hence it would be covered. But
Jacks question is ambiguous.
Q. Nepomuceno Realty, Inc. obtained a loan from Oriental Banking Corporation. The
proceeds of the loan were deposited in the current account of Nepomuceno Realty Inc.,
and a portion of the amount was disbursed. Ocampo a minority stockholder of
Nepomuceno Realty Inc. claimed that the signatures in the promissory note signed by
Nepomuceno Realty Inc. were forged and filed a derivative suit. He subpoenaed the
records of the current account of Nepomuceno Realty Inc. The directors moved to quash
the subpoena on the basis of the secrecy of Bank deposits.
A: This is incorrect. As a rule bank secrecy will not prevail when the subject matter of
the litigation is the money in question. In this case, the money which was the subject of
the fraud is the very subject of the case. (Mellon Bank vs. Magsino)
Inasmuch as Civil Case No. 26899 is aimed at recovering the amount converted

by the Javiers for their own benefit, necessarily, an inquiry into the whereabouts
of the illegally acquired amount extends to whatever is concealed by being held
or recorded in the name of persons other than the one responsible for the illegal
Q. During a cabinet meeting, the President gave clearance to the military to torture
insurgent groups. Abad was one of those who were tortured. A person who was present
during the cabinet meeting disclosed that the President authorized the use of torture.
Upon the complaint of Abad, the House of Representatives filed an impeachment case

against the President. Because Abad wanted to recover damages, the prosecutors asked
that a subpoena be issued for the peso bank accounts of the President. Can the request
be granted?
A: No. The request is not made in connection of an impeachment offense, but merely by
a private citizen seeking damages. (Note: the impeachment is based on torture, not on
an impeachable ground based on money).
Note: Torture is a violation of the Human Security Act, but NOT an act defined as the
crime of terrorism under the law. Torture =/= Terrorism. Nevertheless, it is punishable
under the law when the government performs it.
Note further: RA 10168 -

SEC. 10. Authority to Investigate Financing of Terrorism. The AMLC, either

upon its own initiative or at the request of the ATC, is hereby authorized to
investigate: (a) any property or funds that are in any way related to
financing of terrorism or acts of terrorism; (b) property or funds of any
person or persons in relation to whom there is probable cause to believe that
such person or persons are committing or attempting or conspiring to
commit, or participating in or facilitating the financing of terrorism or
acts of terrorism as defined herein.
1. Aguilar made counterfeit softwares of computer games, which he then sold to video
stores. He deposited the proceeds from the sale in his bank account. Can he be held
liable for violating the Anti-Money Laundering Law?
A: No. The liability for AMLA is on the Banks Officers and Employees, not the criminal
who created money to launder.

Alternative: Yes. He is performing a transaction: "Transaction" refers to any act

establishing any right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or legal
relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any movement of funds by
any means with a covered institution.
SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. Money laundering is a crime whereby the
proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to
have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents,
involves, or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts
to transact said monetary instrument or property.
Note: What if it is Trillanes (or any other non-bank employee) who reveals Rodrigos
bank info? Not liable for violation of Bank Secrecy. Instead he can be held liable for
violation of right to privacy under the Civil Code, Article 26 (1). Source: Jack
Q. Abad Inc. had a current account with Asian Bank. Benitez, the treasurer, was
authorized to sign checks in its behalf. He issued check payable to himself and
deposited it in a savings account he opened in Asian bank. When Abad Inc. asked

why there was a discrepancy with his own records regarding the balance of its own
account, the branch manager informed it of what Benitez had done. Benitez argued
that this violated RA 1405 (Bank Confidentiality and Secrecy). Is he right?
A: No. The subject of the case is the very money itself.
Alternative: The bank secrecy law was not created to perpetuate injustice. See
white pedophile foreigner rapist case. In fine, the application of the law depends on
the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central
Bank Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other order
or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative
body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result especially to
a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. (Salvacion vs.
Other Quiz
Q. Aguilar established a factory to manufacture motorcycles. He was selling them for
20,000 pesos under the trademark Hundai. Hyundai Motors, which manufactured cars,
sued him for infringement of its registered trademark Hyundai. (Ehem Patrick) Will it
A: Yes. It will cause confusion of business. Further, it will lead the general public to
believe that Hyundai (a car maker) is engaged in a similar and related business
(motorcycles). (See CLV Book).
Detailed Explanation:
A crucial issue in any trademark infringement case is the likelihood of confusion,
mistake or deceit as to the identity, source or origin of the goods or identity of the
business as a consequence of using a certain mark. Likelihood of confusion is admittedly
a relative term, to be determined rigidly according to the particular (and sometimes
peculiar) circumstances of each case. Thus, in trademark cases, more than in other
kinds of litigation, precedents must be studied in the light of each particular case.
There are two types of confusion in trademark infringement. The first is "confusion of
goods" when an otherwise prudent purchaser is induced to purchase one product in the
belief that he is purchasing another, in which case defendants goods are then bought
as the plaintiffs and its poor quality reflects badly on the plaintiffs reputation. The
other is "confusion of business" wherein the goods of the parties are different
but the defendants product can reasonably (though mistakenly) be assumed
to originate from the plaintiff, thus deceiving the public into believing that
there is some connection between the plaintiff and defendant which, in fact,
does not exist. (Mighty Corporation vs. Gallo Winery)