Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

I. A.

: INSURANCE

Absolute Timber Co. (ATC) has been engaged in the logging business in
Isabela. To secure one of its shipments of logs to be transported by
Andok Shipping Co., ATC purchased a marine policy with an all-risk
provision. Because of a strong typhoon then hitting Northern Luzon, the
vessel sank and the shipment of logs was totally lost. ATC filed its claim,
but the insurer denied the claim on several grounds, namely:

1. the vessel had not been seaworthy;


2. the vessel’s crew had lacked sufficient training;
3. the improper loading of the logs on only one side of the vessel
had led to the tilting of the ship to that side during the stormy
voyage; and
4. the extremely bad weather had been a fortuitous event.

ATC now seeks your legal advice to know if its claim was sustainable.
What is your advice? Explain your answer. (3%)
John Alexander S. Belderol
Insurance Case Digests – Marine Insurance In the present case the entrance of the sea water into the ship's hold
through the defective pipe already described was not due to any
LA RAZON SOCIAL "GO TIAOCO Y HERMANOS," vs. UNION INSURANCE accident which happened during the voyage, but to the failure of the
SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD. ship's owner properly to repair a defect of the existence of which he
G.R. No. 13983 September 1, 1919 (Perils of the Sea vs. was apprised. The loss was therefore more analogous to that which
Perils of the Ship) directly results from simple unseaworthiness than to that which results
from perils of the sea. As applied to the present case it results that the
Facts: Go Tiaoco Brothers, owner of certain rice cavans insured by owners of the damages rice must look to the shipowner for redress and
Union Insurance, transported these cavans on May, 1915, on the not to the insurer.
steamship Hondagua from the port of Saigon to Cebu. On discharging
the rice from one of the compartments in the after hold, upon arrival at
Cebu, it was discovered that one thousand four hundred seventy-three CATHAY INSURANCE CO. vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and
sacks and been damages by sea water. The trial court found that the REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION
inflow of the sea water during the voyage was due to a defect in one of G.R. No. 76145 June 30, 1987 (Perils of the Sea vs. Perils of
the drain pipes of the ship and concluded that the loss was not covered the Ship)
by the policy of insurance. The court found in effect that the opening
causing loss had resulted in course of time from ordinary wear and tear Facts: Private respondent sought to collect losses and damages
and not from the straining of the ship in rough weather on that voyage. incurred in a shipment of seamless steel pipes under an insurance
The court also found that the repairs that had been made on the pipe contract in favor of the said private respondent as the insured,
were slovenly and defective and that, by reason of the condition of this consignee or importer of aforesaid merchandise while in transit from
pipe, the ship was not properly equipped to receive the rice at the time Japan to the Philippines on board vessel SS "Eastern Mariner".
the voyage was begun. For this reason the court held that the ship was According to respondent, such consignment had earlier been damaged
unseaworthy. by heavy rusting while in transit. As a result, respondent caused the
notation “rusty” to be placed in the bill of lading covering the
The policy of insurance was signed upon a form long in use among consignment. Respondent now contends that placing of notation
companies engaged in maritime insurance. It purports to insure the "rusty" in the way bills is not only private respondent's right but a
cargo from the following among other risks: "Perils . . . of the seas, men natural and spontaneous reaction of whoever received the seamless
of war, fire, enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, jettisons, . . . barratry of steel pipes in a rusty condition at private respondent's bodega.
the master and mariners, and of all other perils, losses, and misfortunes
that have or shall come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said Respondent in its comment on the petition, contends that “rust” is not
goods and merchandise or any part thereof." an inherent vice of the seamless steel pipes without interference of
external factors, while petitioner maintains that the insistence of
Issue: What is meant by the phrase “perils of the sea” as used in the private respondent that rusting is a peril of the sea is erroneous.
marine insurance contract between Go Tiaoco and Union Insurance?
Issue: Is “rusting” of the consignment steel pipes a peril of the sea, or
Held: It must be considered to be settled that a loss which, in the a peril of the ship?
ordinary course of events, results from the natural and inevitable action
of the sea, from the ordinary wear and tear of the ship, or from the Held: There is no question that the rusting of steel pipes in the
negligent failure of the ship's owner to provide the vessel with proper course of a voyage is a "peril of the sea" in view of the toll on the cargo
equipment to convey the cargo under ordinary conditions, is not a peril of wind, water, and salt conditions. At any rate if the insurer cannot be
of the sea. Such a loss is rather due to what has been aptly called the held accountable therefor, We would fail to observe a cardinal rule in
"peril of the ship." The insurer undertakes to insure against perils of the the interpretation of contracts, namely, that any ambiguity therein
sea and similar perils, not against perils of the ship. should be construed against the maker/issuer/drafter thereof, namely,
the insurer. Besides the precise purpose of insuring cargo during a
voyage would be rendered fruitless. An "all risks" provision of a marine policy creates a special type of
insurance which extends coverage to risks not usually contemplated
and avoids putting upon the insured the burden of establishing that the
CHOA TIEK SENG vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FILIPINO MERCHANTS' loss was due to peril falling within the policy's coverage. The insurer can
INSURANCE COMPANY, et. al. avoid coverage upon demonstrating that a specific provision expressly
G.R. No. 84507 March 15, 1990 (“All Risks” Marine Insurance excludes the loss from coverage. In this case, the damage caused to the
Policy) Note: See Succeeding Case cargo has not been attributed to any of the exceptions provided for nor
is there any pretension to this effect. Thus, the liability of respondent
Facts: On November 4, 1976 petitioner imported some lactose insurance company is clear.
crystals from Holland. The goods were loaded at the port at Rotterdam
in sea vans on board the vessel "MS Benalder” as the mother vessel,
and thereafter aboard the feeder vessel "Wesser Broker V-25" of FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
respondent Ben Lines Container, Ltd. The goods were insured by the and CHOA TIEK SENG
respondent Filipino Merchants' Insurance Co., Inc. against “all risks” G.R. No. 85141 November 28, 1989 (“All Risks” Marine Insurance
under the terms of the insurance cargo policy. Upon arrival at the port Policy) Note: See Previous Case
of Manila, the cargo was discharged into the custody of the arrastre
operator respondent E. Razon, Inc. (broker for short), prior to the Facts: Choa Tiek Seng, consignee of the shipment of fishmeal loaded
delivery to petitioner through his broker. Of the 600 bags delivered to on board the vessel SS Bougainville and unloaded at the Port of Manila
petitioner, 403 were in bad order. on or about December 11, 1976, insured said shipment with defendant
insurance company against “all risks”. The fishmeal in 666 new gunny
Respondent insurance company rejected the claim alleging that bags were unloaded from the ship on December 11, 1976 at Manila
assuming that spillage took place while the goods were in transit, unto the arrastre contractor E. Razon, Inc. in bad order. Insurer
petitioner and his agent failed to avert or minimize the loss by failing to contends that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation and
recover spillage from the sea van, thus violating the terms of the application of the "all risks" clause of the marine insurance policy when
insurance policy sued upon; and that assuming that the spillage did not it held the petitioner liable to the private respondent for the partial loss
occur while the cargo was in transit, the said 400 bags were loaded in of the cargo, notwithstanding the clear absence of proof of some
bad order, and that in any case, the van did not carry any evidence of fortuitous event, casualty, or accidental cause to which the loss is
spillage. attributable. Petitioner further contends that an "all risks" marine policy
has a technical meaning in insurance in that before a claim can be
Issue: In an “all risks” marine insurance policy, does insured have to compensable it is essential that there must be "some fortuity, "
provide evidence of loss? "casualty" or "accidental cause" to which the alleged loss is attributable
and the failure of herein private respondent, upon whom lay the
Held: No. An “all risks” insurance policy insures against all causes of burden, to adduce evidence showing that the alleged loss to the cargo
conceivable loss or damage, except as otherwise excluded in the policy in question was due to a fortuitous event precludes his right to recover
or due to fraud or intentional misconduct on the part of the insured. It from the insurance policy.
covers all losses during the voyage whether arising from a marine peril
or not, including pilferage losses during the war. The terms of the policy Issue: Who has the duty of proving loss under an “all risks” policy, the
are so clear and require no interpretation. The insurance policy covers insured, or the insurer?
all loss or damage to the cargo except those caused by delay or
inherent vice or nature of the cargo insured. It is the duty of the Held: It depends on the stage of the proceedings for claiming
respondent insurance company to establish that said loss or damage reimbursement. Generally, the burden of proof is upon the insured to
falls within the exceptions provided for by law, otherwise it is liable show that a loss arose from a covered peril, but under an "all risks"
therefor. policy the burden is not on the insured to prove the precise cause of
loss or damage for which it seeks compensation. The insured under an shipment of corn grains. When NFA refused to pay the amount
"all risks insurance policy" has the initial burden of proving that the reflected in the billing, Hongfil brought an action against NFA and its
cargo was in good condition when the policy attached and that the officers for recovery of deadfreight and demurrage.
cargo was damaged when unloaded from the vessel; thereafter, the
burden then shifts to the insurer to show the exception to the Issue: Is petitioner liable for deadfreight and demurrage due to
coverage. The basic rule is that the insurance company has the burden delay?
of proving that the loss is caused by the risk excepted and for want of
such proof, the company is liable. Held: No. It bears stressing that subject Letter of Agreement is
considered a Charter Party. A charter party is classified into (1)
The burden of the insured, therefore, is to prove merely that the goods "bareboat" or "demise" charter and (2) contract of affreightment.
he transported have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated. Thereafter, Subject contract is one of affreightment, whereby the owner of the
the burden is shifted to the insurer to prove that the loss was due to vessel leases part or all of its space to haul goods for others. It is a
excepted perils. To impose on the insured the burden of proving the contract for special service to be rendered by the owner of the vessel.
precise cause of the loss or damage would be inconsistent with the Under such contract the ship owner retains the possession, command
broad protective purpose of "all risks" insurance. In the present case, and navigation of the ship, the charterer or freighter merely having use
there being no showing that the loss was caused by any of the excepted of the space in the vessel in return for his payment of the charter hire.
perils, the insurer is liable under the policy.
In a contract of affreightment, the shipper or charterer merely contracts
a vessel to carry its cargo with the corresponding duty to provide for
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, et. al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND the berthing space for the loading or unloading. Charterer is merely
HONGFIL SHIPPING CORPORATION required to exercise ordinary diligence in ensuring that a berthing space
G.R. No. 96453 August 4, 1999 (Charter Party is NOT a contract of be made available for the vessel. The charterer does not make itself an
absolute insurance against fortuitous events) absolute insurer against all events which cannot be foreseen or are
inevitable. The law only requires the exercise of due diligence on the
Facts: National Food Authority (NFA) entered into a "Letter of part of the charterer to scout or look for a berthing space. In the
Agreement for Vessel/Barge Hire" with Hongfil Shipping Corporation for present case, shipper, not NFA, had control of the vessel. Not being the
the shipment of 200,000 bags of corn grains from Cagayan de Oro City cause of delay, NFA is not liable for the accruing deadfreight and
to Manila. On February 10, 1987, loading on the vessel commenced and demurrage.
was terminated on March 4, 1987. As there was a strike staged by the
arrastre workers and in view of the refusal of the striking stevedores to
attend to their work, the loading of said corn grains took twenty-one
(21) days, fifteen hours (15) and eighteen (18) minutes to finish. On
March 11, 1987, the vessel M/V CHARLIE/DIANE arrived at the Port of
Manila and a certification of discharging rate was issued at the instance
of Hongfil, stating that it would take twelve (12) days, six (6) hours and
twenty-two (22) minutes to discharge the 200,000 bags of corn grains.

Unfortunately, unloading only commenced on March 15, 1987 and was


completed on April 7, 1987. It took a total period of twenty (20) days,
fourteen (14) hours and thirty-three (33) minutes to finish the
unloading, due to the unavailability of a berthing space for M/V
CHARLIE/DIANE. Hongfil sent its billing to NFA, claiming payment for
freight covering the shut-out load or deadfreight as well as demurrage,
allegedly sustained during the loading and unloading of subject
B. INSURANCE under this arrangement as bailee of the property he has the obligation
to take care of it from any loss or injury, otherwise he can be held civilly
liable by the owner/bailor if such property be lost. By such contract of
The newly restored Ford Mustang muscle car was just released from
bailment, Sean has also insurable interest to secure seaparate policy
the car restoration shop to its owner, Seth, an avid sportsman. Given
over said car.
his passion for sailing, he needed to go to a round-the-world voyage
with his crew on his brand-new 180-meter yacht. Hearing about his
coming voyage, Sean, his bosom friend, asked Seth if he could borrow
the car for his net roadshow. Sean, who had been in display the
restored car of Seth in major cities of the country. Seth agreed and lent
the Ford Mustang to Sean. Seth further expressly allowed Sean to use
the car even for his own purposes on special occasions during his
absence from the country. Seth and Sean then went together to Bayad
Agad Insurance Co. (BAIC) to get separate policies for the car in their
respective names.

BAIC consults you as its lawyer on whether separate policies could be


issued to Seth and Sean in respect of the same car.

a. What is insurable interest? (2%)

A) Insurable interest may be viewed in two insurance rules perspective.


First, when what is taken is a life insurance, in this case insurable
interest should exist at the moment the policy is made effective and it
lies either to the beneficiary mentioned in the policy or the insurer has
pecuniary interest in the life of the insured. The second is when it
comes to property insurance, here, insurance interest refers to the
ascertainable lost that may be suffered by the insurer upon loss or
injury to the property insured which should exists at the time of the lost
although it may not apparent for the mean time. In short, one cannot
insure the property if he/she will not suffer pecuniary loss the moment
the property lost.

b. Do Seth and Sean have separate insurable interests? Explain briefly


your answer. (3%)

B) Yes, separate insurable interest amongst Seth and Sean do exist. In


property insurance, one must suffer pecuniary loss over the property
being lost by reason of the risk insured against, called insurable
interest. Seth as owner will directly suffers pecuniary loss or injury if his
car lost hence he has absolute insurable interest in taking a policy for
such property. On one hand, Sean held the property by gratitious loan,
II. A.

Morgan, a lawyer, received a lot of diving and other water sports


equipment as payment of his professional fees by Dennis, his client in a
child custody case. Dennis owned a diving and water sports dealership
in Anilao, Batangas. Morgan decided to name Dennis as entrustee
because he did not have any experience in selling such specialized
sports equipment. They executed a trust receipt agreement, with
Morgan as entruster and Dennis as entrustee.

Before the sports equipment could be sold, a strong typhoon hit


Batangas. Anilao and other parts of Batangas experienced power
outage. Taking advantage of the total darkness, unidentified thieves
destroyed the padlocks of the establishment of Dennis, and carted off
the equipment inside.

Morgan demanded that Dennis pay the value of the stolen equipment,
but the latter refused on the ground that he also had suffered from the
effects of the typhoon, and insisted that the cause of the loss was
fortuitous event or force majeure.

Is the justification of Dennis warranted? Explain your answer. (4%)

.the justification of Dinnis is warranted because unidentified thieves


destroyed the padlocks and intentionally stolen of equipment was
discovered and due to fortuitous event Dinnis suffered from the effects
of typhoon. Hence Dinnis is justified. .
B.

Safe Warehouse, Inc. (Safe) issued on various dates negotiable


warehouse receipts to Peter, Paul, and Mary covering certain goods
deposited by the latter with the former. Peter, Paul, and Mary then
negotiated and endorsed the warehouse receipts to Cyrus, Magnus,
and Charles upon payment by the latter of valuable consideration for
the warehouse receipts. Cyrus, Magnus, and Charles were not aware of,
nor were they parties to any irregularity or infirmity affecting the title
or the face of the warehouse receipts.

On due dates of the warehouse receipes, Cyrus, Magnus, and Charles


demanded that Safe surrender the goods to them. Safe refused because
its warehouseman’s claim must first be paid. Cyrus, Magnus, and
Charles refused to pay, and insisted that such claim was the liability of
Peter, Paul, and Mary.

a. What is a warehouseman’s claim? (3%)

b. Is Safe’s refusal to surrender the goods to Cyrus, Magnus, and


Charles legally justified? Explain your answer. (3%)
III.

A.

Data Realty, Inc. (DRI) was engaged in realty development. The family of
Matteo owned 100% of the capital stock of DRI. Matteo was also the
President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Other members of
Matteo’s family held the major positions in DRI. Because of a nasty
takeover fight with D&E Realty Co., Inc. (D&E), another realty
developer, for the control of a smaller realty company with vast
landholdings, DRI and D&E engaged in an expensive litigation that
eventually led to a money judgment being rendered in favor of D&E.

Meantime, DRI, facing inability to pay its liabilities as they fall due but
still holding substantial assets, filed a petition for voluntary
rehabilitation. Trying to beat the consequences of rehabilitation
proceedings, D&E moved in the trial court for the issuance of a writ of
execution. The trial court also happened to be the rehabilitation court.
The writ of execution was issued.

Serving the writ of execution, Merto, the court sheriff who had just
passed his Credit Transactions subject in law school, garnished Matteo’s
bank accounts, and levied his real properties, including his house and
lot in Makati.

Are the garnishment and levy of Matteo’s assets lawful and proper?
Explain your answer. (4%)

A) No. The garnishment and levy executed in the case were improper.
In voluntary rehabilitation, a rehabilitation recever is assigned by the
court to which its main function is to protect the stakeholders as well as
the assests of the petitioner-corporation from improper disposition and
all claims against the petitioner should be filed before him. Although
there was already money judgment against the petitioner, the same
should be filed before the appointed rehabilitation receiver and not
with another forum so that the court issuace of the writ of execution
which led to the garnishment and levy of some of the properties of the
petitioner asserted by D&E is improper and illegal.
B.

Sid used to be the majority stockholder and President of Excellent


Corporation (Excellent). When Meridian Co., Inc. (Meridian), a local
conglomerate, took over control and ownership of Excellent, it brought
along its team of officers. Sid thus became a minority stockholder and a
minority member of the Board of Directors. Excellent, being the leading
beverage manufacturer in the country, became the monopoly when
Meridian’s own beverage business was merged with Excellent’s,
thereby making Excellent virtually the only beverage manufacturer in
the country.

Left out and ignored by the management, Sid became a fiscalizer of


sorts, questioning during the Board meetings the direction being
pursued by Excellent’s officers.

Ultimately, Sid demanded the inspection of the books and other


corporate records of Excellent. The management refused to comply,
saying that his right as a minority stockholder has been much reduced.

State under what conditions may Sid properly assert his right to inspect
the books and other corporate records of Excellent. Explain your
answer. (3%)
IV.

Procopio, a Director and the CEO of Parisian Hotel Co., Inc. (Parisian),
was charged along with other company officials with several counts
of estafa in connection with the non-remittance of SSS premiums the
company had collected from its employees. During the pendency of the
cases, Parisian filed a petition for rehabilitation. The court, finding the
petition to be sufficient in form and substance, issued a
commencement order together with a stay or suspension order.

Citing the commencement order, Procopio and the other officers facing
the criminal charges moved to suspend the proceedings in the estafa
cases.

a. What is a commencement order, and what is the effect of its


issuance? Explain your answer. (4%)

b. Suppose you are the trial judge, will you grant the motion to suspend
of Procopio, et al.? Explain your answer. (4%)
V.

A.

Under the Nell Doctrine, so called because it was first pronounced by


the Supreme Court in the 1965 ruling in Nell v. Pacific Farms, Inc. (15
SCRA 415), the general rule is that where one corporation sells or
otherwise transfers all of its assets to another corporation, the latter is
not liable for the debts and liabilities of the transferor.

State the exceptions to the Nell Doctrine. (4%)

(1) where the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such


debts; (2) where the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger
of the corporations; (3) where the purchasing corporation is merely a
continuation of the selling corporation; and (4) where the transaction is
entered into fraudulently in order to escape liability for such debts.
B.

Santorini Corporation (Santorini) was in dire straits. In order to firm up


its financial standing, it agreed to entertain the merger and takeover
offer of Proficient Corporation (Proficient), the leading company in their
line of business. Erica, the major stockholder of Santorini, strongly
opposed the merger and takeover. The matter of the merger and
takeover by Proficient was included in the agenda of the next meeting
of Santorini’s Board of Directors. However, owing to Erica’s serious
illness that required her to seek urgent medical treatment and care in
Singapore, she failed to attend the meeting and was consequently
unable to cast her vote. The Board of Directors approved the merger
and takeover. At the time of the meeting, Santorini had been in the red
for a number of years owing to its recurring business losses and
reverses.

Erica seeks your legal advice regarding her right as a stockholder


opposed to the corporate action. Explain your answer. (4%)

This was my answer in the BAR (non verbatim)

I would advise Erica to express her dissent in the stockholders' meeting


for the approval of the merger plan.

One of the requisites of a merger is that it is ratified by a vote of the


stockholders representing at least 2/3 of the outstanding capital stock
of each constituent corporations in a meeting called for that purpose.

Here, a dissenting vote by Erica, being a majority stockholder, would


render the attainment of the 2/3 vote impossible.

Hence, the merger plan will not be approved.

Nakita ko kasi na board meeting lang naman siya di nakaattend and


there was no showing that stockholders' meeting for that purpose was
held kaya ayern.
C.

Samito is the President and a Director of Lucky Bank (Lucky), a


commercial bank holding its main office in Makati. His brother, Othello,
owned a big fishing business based in Malabon. Othello applied for a
loan of P50 million with Lucky. Othello followed the ordinary banking
procedures in all the stages of the processing of his application. When
required, he made the necessary arrangements to guarantee the loan.
Thus, in addition to the real estate mortgage, Othello executed a joint
and solidary suretyship, issued postdated checks, and submitted all
other requirements prescribed by Lucky.

When the loan application was about to be approved and the proceeds
released, BG Company, a keen competitor of Othello in the fishing
industry, wrote to the Board of Directors and the management of Lucky
questioning the loan on the ground of conflict of interest due to Samito
and Othello being brothers, citing the legal restriction against bank
exposure of directors, officers, stockholders or their related interests.
(DOSRI).

a. What are the three restrictions imposed by law on DOSRI


transactions? (4%)

b. Is BG Company’s opposition based on conflict of interest and


violation of the restrictions on DOSRI transactions legally and factually
correct? Explain your answer. (4%)
VI.

A.

Hortencio owned a modest grocery business in Laguna. Because of the


economic downturn, he incurred huge financial liabilities. he remained
afloat only because of the properties inherited from his parents who
had both come from landed families in laguna. His main creditor was
Puresilver Company (Puresilver), the principal supplier of the
merchandise sold in his store. To secure his credit with Puresilver, he
executed a real estate mortgage with a dragnet clause involving his
family’s assets worth several millions of pesos.

Nonetheless, Hortencio, while generally in the black, now faces a


situation where he is unable to pay his liabilities as they fall due in the
ordinary course of business. What will you advise him to do to resolve
his dire financial condition? Explain your answer. (5%)

Under said premises, my advice to him are: first, he can file with the
proper court a petition for suspension of payment of his loan. This
remedy fits to his situation since there are remaining assets of the
business, his debt is expected to become due and for that time he
cannot yet pay it. If not, he may file a petition for voluntary insolvency.
Here he needs to prove the following requirements: 1) the sending of
notice of insolvency to his creditors; 2) his assets is insufficient to pay
his creditors; and 3) his intention that he does not assert such remedy
in fraud of his creditors. After which he can start anew.
B.

Wyatt, an internet entrepreneur, engaged in a sideline business of


creating computer programs for selected clients on a per project basis
and for servicing basic computer problems of his friends and family
members. His main job was being an IT consultant at Futurex Co., a
local computer company.

Because of his ill-advised investments in the stock market and the fraud
perpetrated against him by his trusted confidante, Wyatt was already
drowning in debt, that is, he had far more liabilities than his entire
assets.

What legal recourse remained available to Wyatt? Explain your answer.


(5%)
VII.

A.

Virtucio was a composer of Ilocano songs who has been quite popular
in the Ilocos Region. Pascuala is a professor of music in a local university
with special focus on indigenous music. When she heard the musical
works of Virtucio, she purchased a CD of his works. She copied thte CD
and sent the second copy to her Music class with instructions for the
class to listen to the CD and analyze the works of Virtucio.

Did Pascuala thereby infringe Virtucio’s copyright? Explain your answer.


(4%)

No. Fair Use.


B.

Super Biology Corporation (Super Biology) invented and patented a


miracle medicine for the cure of AIDS. Being the sole manufacturer,
Super Biology sold the medicine at an exorbitant price. Because of the
sudden prevalence of AIDS cases in Metro Manila and other urban
areas, the Department of Health (DOH) asked Super Biology for a
license to produce and sell the AIDS medicine to the public at a
substantially lower price. Super Biology, citing the huge costs and
expenses incurred for research and development, refused.

Assuming you are asked your opinion as the legal consultant of DOH,
discuss how you will resolve the matter. (4%)
VIII.

A.

Flora, a frequent traveller, found a purse concealed between the


cushions of a large sofa inside the VIP lounge in NAIA while she was
waiting for her flight to be called. Inside the purse was a very valuable
diamond-studded necklace. She decided not to turn over the purse to
the airport management, and instead to keep it. On her return from her
travels, she had a dependable jeweller appraise the necklace, and the
latter told her that the necklace was easily worth at least P5 million in
the open market. To test the appraisal, she pawned the necklace for P2
million. She then deposited the entire amount in her checking account
with Metro Bank. Promptly, Metro Bank reported the transaction to the
Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Given that her appropriation was theft, may Flora be successfully


prosecuted for money laundering? Explain briefly your answer. (4%)
B.

Prosperous Bank is a domestic bank with head office in Makati. It


handles the banking requirements of thousands of clients.

The AMLC initiated a discreet investigation of the financial transactions


of Lorenzo, a suspected drug trafficker based in Naga City. The
intelligence group of the AMLC, in coordination with the counterpart
group from the PDEA and the NBI, gathered ample evidence
establishing Lorenzo’s unlawful drug activities. The AMLC had probable
cause that his deposits and investments in various banks, including
Prosperous Bank, were related to money laundering.

Accordingly, the AMLC now transmits to Prosperous Bank a formal


demand to allow its agent to examine the banking transactions of
Lorenzo, but Prosperous Bank refuses the demand.

Is Prosperous Bank’s refusal justified? Explain your answer. (4%)


IX.

A.

Alfred issued a check for P1,000 to Benjamin, his friend, as payment for
an electronic gadget. The check was drawn against Alfred’s account
with Good Bank. Benjamin then indorsed the check specially in favor of
Cesar. However, Cesar misplaced the check. Dexter, a dormmate of
Cesar, found the check, altered its amount to P91,000 and forged
Cesar’s indorsement by way of a blank indorsement in favor of Felix, a
known jeweler. Felix then caused the deposit of the check in his
account with Solar Bank. As collecting bank, Solar Bank stamped “all
previous indorsements guaranteed” on the check. Seeing such stamp of
the collecting bank, Good Bank paid the amount of P91,000 on the
check.

May Good Bank claim reimbursement from Alfred? Explain your


answer. (4%)
B.

In 2006, Donald, an American temporarily residing in Cebu City, issued


to Rhodora a check for $50,000 drawn against Wells Fargo Bank with
offices in San Francisco, California. Rhodora negotiated the check and
delivered it to Yaasmin, a Filipina socialite who frequently travelled
locally and internationally. Because of her frequent travels, Yaasmin
misplaced the check. It was only 11 years later on, in 2017, when she
found the check inside a diary kept in her vault in her Hollywood,
California house.

Discuss and explain the rights of Yaasmin on the check. (4%)


X.

Wisconsin Transportation Co., Inc. (WTC) owned and operated an inter-


island deluxe bus service plying the Manila-Batangas-Mindoro route.
Three friends, namely: Aurelio, Jerome, and Florencio rode on the same
WTC bus from Manila bound for Mindoro. Aurelio purchased a ticket
for himself. Jerome, being a boyhood friend of the bus driver, was
allowed a free ride by agreeing to sit during the trip on a stool placed in
the aisle. Florencio, already penniless after spending all of his money on
beer the night before, just stole a ride in the bus by hiding in the on-
board toilet of the bus.

During the trip, the bus collided with another bus coming from the
opposite direction. The three friends all suffered serious physical
injuries.

What are WTC’s liabilities, if any, in favor of Aurelio, Jerome, and


Florencio? Explain your answer. (4%)
XI.

TRUE or FALSE – Explain briefly your answer.

a. A conviction under the Trust Receipts Law shall bar a prosecution for
estafa under the Revised Penal Code. (2%)

b. The term capital in relation to public utilities under Sec. 11, Art. XII of
the 1987 Constitution refers to the total outstanding capital stock
comprising both common and non-voting preferred shares. (2%)

c. Forgery is a real defense but may only be raised against a holder not
in due course. (2%)

d. News reports are not copyrightable. (2%)

e. The law on life insurance prohibits double insurance. (2%)


XII.

Onassis Shipping, Inc. (Onassis) operated passenger vessels and cargo


trucks, and offered its services to the general public. In line with its
vision and mission to protect the environment, Go-Green Asia (Go-
Green), an NGO affiliated with Greenpeace, entered into a contract
with Onassis whereby Go-Green would operate with its own crew the
M/V Dolphin, an ocean-going passenger vessel of Onassis.

While on its way to Palawan carrying Go-Green’s invited guests who


were international and local observers desirous of checking certain
environmental concerns in the area, the M/V Dolphin encountered high
waves and strong winds caused by a typhoon in the West Philippine
Sea. The rough seas led to serious physical injuries to some of the
guests.

Discuss the liabilities of Onassis and Go-Green to the passengers of the


M/V Dolphin. Explain briefly your answer. (3%)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi