I.

A.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
I will advise ATC that the insurance claim is sustainable.
Under the law on marine insurance, “all risks” insurance policy covers all causes
of conceivable loss or damage, except as otherwise excluded in the policy or due to
fraud or intentional misconduct on the part of the insured.
In the case at bar, there was neither a stipulation as to what losses are excluded
from the coverage nor specific fraudulent or intentional conduct on the part of the
insured was present so as to absolve the insurer from its liability in the “all risks”
insurance policy of ATC.
Thus, the insured can recover.
B.
The newly restored Ford Mustang muscle car was just released from the car
restoration shop to its owner, Seth, an avid sportsman. Given 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 next roadshow. Sean, who had been in the business of holding
motor shows and promotions, proposed to 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%)
Under Section 10 of the Insurance Code, insurable interest is one of the basic
requirements of insurance, a person must derive pecuniary benefit from the
preservation and will suffer pecuniary loss from the destruction of the subject matter
being insured.
b. Do Seth and Sean have separate insurable interests? Explain briefly your answer.
(3%)
Suggested Answer:
No, they don’t have, only Seth has insurable interest in it.
Under Section 14 of the Insurance Code, insurable interest in property consists
of either an (1) existing interest, (2) an inchoate interest founded on an existing interest,
or (3) an expectancy coupled with an existing interest in that out of which the
expectancy arises.
In the case at bar, Seth, being the owner, has an existing interest. Sean, not
being the owner, has no insurable interest over the property, although he has derived
benefit but he would not suffer loss from its destruction.
Thus, Seth and Sean do not have separate insurable interest.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
No, the justification of Dennis is not warranted.
Under the Section 10 of the Trust Receipts Law, the risk of loss shall be borne by
the entrustee. Loss of goods, documents or instruments which are the subject of a trust
receipt, pending their disposition, irrespective of whether or not it was due to the fault or
negligence of the entrustee, shall not extinguish his obligation to the entruster for the
value thereof.
In this case, Dennis will be held liable as entrustee. His obligation to the
entruster will not be extinguished even if he was not at fault or negligent.
Thus, the justification of Dennis is not warranted.
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 receipts, 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%)
According to Section 27 of Warehouse Receipts Act, it refers to the
warehouseman’s lien, or lien on goods deposited or on the proceeds thereof in his
hands, for all lawful charges for storage and preservation of the goods; also for all lawful
claims for money advanced, interest, insurance, transportation, labor, weighing,
coopering and other charges and expenses in relation to such goods; also for all
reasonable charges and expenses for notice, and advertisements of sale.

b. Is Safe’s refusal to surrender the goods to Cyrus, Magnus, and Charles legally
justified? Explain your answer. (3%)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Safe’s refusal to surrender the goods is legally justified.
Under Section 29 of the Warehouse Receipts Act, a warehouseman loses his
lien upon goods by surrendering possession thereof.
In the case at bar, the law is explicit, the refusal of Safe in surrendering goods he
possessed is valid and in accord with the foregoing provision.
Thus, Safe’s refusal to surrender the goods is legally justified.

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%)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the garnishment and levy of Matteo’s assets are lawful and proper.
Under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act, issuance of any
Commencement Order which necessarily includes a Stay or Suspension Order which
results to, among others, suspension of all actions to enforce any judgment, attachment
or other provisional remedies against the debtor.
In the case at bar, there is no issuance of Commencement Order that will
suspend all actions, especially the writ of execution served by Merto garnishing
Matteo’s bank accounts and levying his properties.
Thus, garnishment and levy of Matteo’s assets are lawful and proper.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
Under the Corporation Code, the following are valid purposes to justify a demand
for inspection:
a. To ascertain the financial condition of the company or the propriety of dividends;
b. the value of the shares of stock for sale or investment;
c. whether there has been mismanagement;
d.in anticipation of shareholders' meetings to obtain a mailing list of shareholders to
solicit proxies or influence voting;
e. to obtain information in aid of litigation with the corporation or its officers as to
corporate transactions.
If the right is to be denied on Sid, the burden of proof is upon the corporation to show
that the purpose of the shareholder is improper, by way of defense.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
Under Section 16 of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act, a
commencement order shall refer to the order issued by the court which is need in
commencing a rehabilitation proceeding (1) suspends all actions or proceedings, in
court or otherwise, for the enforcement of claims against the debtor; (2) suspend all
actions to enforce any judgment, attachment or other provisional remedies against the
debtor; (3)prohibit the debtor from selling, encumbering, transferring or disposing in any
manner any of its properties except in the ordinary course of business; and (4) prohibit
the debtor from making any payment of its liabilities outstanding as of the
commencement date except as may be provided herein .
b.Suppose you are the trial judge, will you grant the motion to suspend of Procopio, et
al.? Explain your answer. (4%)
Suggested Answer:
Supposed I am the trial judge, I will not grant the motion to suspend of Procopio,
et.al.
Under Section 18 of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act, any criminal
action against the individual debtor or owner, partner, director or officer of a debtor shall
not be affected by any proceeding commenced under the Act.
In the case at bar, the commencement order together with a stay or suspension
order issued by the court, is not proper because it will not affect the pendency of the
crime of estafa.
Thus, I will not grant the said motion.
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%)
Suggested answer:
It is well-settled in the case of The Edward J. Nell Compnay vs. Pacific Farms,
Inc. G.R. No. L-20850 that the exceptions to the general rule that the transfer of all the
assets of a corporation to another shall not render the latter liable to the liabilities of the
transferor are the following, to wit:
a.Where the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such debts;
b.Where the transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the corporations;
c.Where the purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the selling corporation
(business enterprise transfer); and
d.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%)
Suggested answer:
 Since the case involves merger, I will advise Erica that he can oppose the same
by virtue of being a stockholder.
Under Section 77 of the Corporation Code The affirmative vote of stockholders
representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock of each corporation
in the case of stock corporations shall be necessary for the approval of plan of merger
or consolidation.
In the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that the merger was ratified by at
least two-third votes of the stockholders of Santorini.
Thus, I will advise Erica to oppose the corporate action vehemently.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
Under Section 36 of the General Banking Law, the three restrictions imposed by
law on DOSRI transactions are teh following, to wit:
(1) ratio of net worth to total risk assets. When a loan is secured by realty, the
loan should not be more than 75% of appraised value of realty + 60% of
appraised value of improvements. If the loan is secured by chattel mortgage and
intangibles, the loan should not be more than 75%;
(2) SBL (Single Borrower’s Limit rule) – a single borrower cannot obtain more
than 25% of bank net worth, but the amount can be increased by additional 10% if
secured by trust receipts, warehouse receipts or shipping documents and (3) DOSRI
cannot borrow nor become guarantor for loans except if there is written approval of
majority of all directors, excluding DOSRI concerned, except if it is a fringe benefit
plan approved by BSP.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
No, BG Company’s opposition based on conflict of interest and violation of restrictions
on DOSRI transactions are not legally and factually correct.
Under the General Banking law, generally, a director or officer of any bank shall neither,
directly or indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of others, borrow from
such bank; nor become a guarantor, indorser or surety for loans from such bank to
others, or in any manner be an obligor or incur any contractual liability to the bank. The
exception is when there is a written approval of the majority of all the directors of the
bank, excluding the director concerned.
In the case at bar, what is indicated only is that Othello followed the normal banking
procedures in the processing of his loan, but there were neither amounts indicated as
reference, save for the P50M loan, as basis for compliance with the loan ceilings nor a
written approval of the majority of all the directors of the bank, excluding the director
concerned were present.
Thus, BG Company’s opposition based on conflict of interest and violation of restrictions
on DOSRI transactions are not legally and factually correct.

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%)
Suggested Answer:
I will advise Hortencio to file a petition for rehabilitation.
Under Section 5 of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act, a corporate
rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of business life and activities in an effort to
restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and
solvency, the purpose being to enable the debtor to gain a new lease on life and allow
its creditors to be paid their claims out of its earnings.
In the case at bar, Hortencio can file rehabilitation despite being a natural person,
the law expressly covers an insolvent debtor, whether natural or juridical one.
Thus, I advise Hortencio to file petition for rehabilitation.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
An application for voluntary liquidation is the legal recourse available.
Under Section 103 of the Free Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act, it applies when
the individual debtor has properties are not sufficient to cover his liabilities, and owing
debts exceeding P500,000. Suspension of payments is not feasible considering it
applies only if he possesses sufficient property to cover all his debts but foresees the
impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due. Here, Wyatt has more
liabilities than assets thus voluntary liquidation is the only remedy available to him.
Source: Section 94 and 103 FRIA; power point slide no. 24 in FRIA
 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 the 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%)

Suggested Answer:
No, Pascuala did not infringe Virtucio’s copyright.
According to Section 185 of Intellectual Property Code, the fair use of a
copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including limited
number of copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not
an infringement of copyright.
In the case at bar, no violation of infringement of copyright was made because
the CD of Virtucio was only used in classroom for educational purposes. It constitutes
fair use as contemplated in the foregoing provision.
Thus, Pascuala did not infringe Virtucio’s copyright.

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%)
Suggested Answer:
Assuming that my opinion as legal consultant of DOH is being asked, I will
resolve the matter pursuant to public interest and national emergency.
Under Section 74 of the Intellectual Property Code, a government agency or third
person authorized by the government may exploit the invention even without agreement
of the patent owner where, among others; (1)The public interest, in particular, national
security, nutrition, health or the development of other sectors, as determined by the
appropriate agency of the government, so requires; or (2) In the case of drugs and
medicines, there is a national emergency or other circumstance of extreme urgency
requiring the use of the invention.
In the case at bar, AIDS is menacing and prevalent in the society. The
government through the express power granted to it under the Intellectual Property
Code is obliged to act immediately to address national emergency and public interest
when so required.
Thus, I humbly submit such opinion.
 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%)
Suggested Answer:
No, given that Flora’s appropriation was theft, she cannot be successfully
prosecuted for money laundering.
As provided in Section 3 (i) of Anti- Money Laundering Act, the predicate crime or
unlawful activity referred to is qualified theft, not plain theft.
In the case at bar, Flora’s criminal liability is only simple theft. The act of taking
away the necklace owned she found inside the VIP lounge in NAIA does not constitute
qualified theft, although attended with intent to gain; it was not aggravated by abuse of
trust or confidence to qualify the crime of theft.
Thus, she cannot be successfully prosecuted for money laundering.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
No, Prosperous Bank’s refusal is not justified.
Under Rule 11.1, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
9160 The AMLC has the authority to inquire into or examine any particular deposit or
investment with any banking institution when it has been established that there is
probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activity.
In the case at bar, no court order is required if the predicate crime is violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act and probable cause has been determined thereon. The
authority to inquire or examine the deposits or investments of Prosperous Bank is
needed in order to investigate its unlawful activity.
 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%)
Suggested Answer:
No, Good Bank cannot claim reimbursement from Alfred.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, where a negotiable instrument is materially
altered without the assent of all parties liable thereon, it is avoided, except as against a
party who has himself made, authorized, or assented to the alteration and subsequent
indorsers. Further, every indorser who indorses without qualification, warrants to all
subsequent holders in due course.
In the case at bar, the figure being a material alteration, the instrument can be enforced
according to its original tenor, which is P1,000 only, on Alfred. However, considering
that there was an indorsement by Solar Bank, Good Bank, in case of dishonor of the
check by Alfred, can collect from Solar Bank the sum of P91,000. Solar Bank acted as
an indorser and thus warrants, among others, the genuineness of the instrument.
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 Yasmin, a Filipina socialite
who frequently travelled locally and internationally. Because of her frequent travels,
Yasmin 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 Yasmin on the check. (4%)
Suggested Answer:
Yasmin does not have any rights on the check.
Under Section 86 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check must be presented for
payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from
liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.
In the case at bar, since the check was not presented within a reasonable time after its
issue, that is 6 months from the issue date, it is already valueless and should not be
paid. The check is considered a stale one already, and Yasmin cannot expect payment
on it. Failure of a payee to encash a check for more than ten years undoubtedly resulted
in the check becoming stale.
Thus, Yasmin can no longer enforce her rights on the check.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
WTC is liable to Aurelio’s injuries, to Jerome only for negligence which is not gross and
to Florencio for all the risks attendant to the trip.
Article 1756 of the Civil Code provides that in case of death of or injuries to passengers,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently,
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. On the other hand, article
1758 also provides that when a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation limiting
the common carrier's liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross
negligence.
In the case at bar, WTC is liable for his injuries considering common carriers like WTC
are presumed to have been at fault, unless it was proven that it observed extraordinary
diligence. However, in so far as Jerome is concerned where there was gratuitous
carriage, if there was a stipulation limiting WTC’s liability for negligence, that is valid but
not for gross negligence. Thus, if there was no stipulation, then the carrier’s liability is
the same as that of Aurelio’s, the paying passenger. However, for a stowaway like
Florencio, he assumes all the risk attendant to the trip. The carrier then is not liable.
Thus, WTC is liable based on the foregoing manner.
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%)
Suggested Answer: FALSE. Under Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the failure of
an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or
instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster
or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if
they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall
constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under such Act. Thus, violation of the Trust
Receipts Law constitutes estafa under Revised Penal Code.
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%)
Suggested Answer: FALSE. Under the Philippine Constitution, It only refers to those
with voting shares. The restrictive application proposed might result to deprivation of
capital if there were no Filipino takers.
c. Forgery is a real defense but may only be raised against a holder not in due course.
(2%)
Suggested Answer: FALSE. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, being a real
defense, it can be raised even against a holder in due course.
d. News reports are not copyrightable. (2%)
Suggested Answer: FALSE. Under the Intellectual Property Code, news reports are
copyrightable. It falls under the category of audiovisual works and cinematographic
works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography. News of the day
however is not copyrightable.
e. The law on life insurance prohibits double insurance. (2%)
Suggested Answer: FALSE. Under the Insurance Code of the Philippines, the danger of
overinsuring, which is present in double insurance, is not present in life insurance.
Insurable interest in life is unlimited. Thus, the same is allowed.
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%)
Suggested Answer:
Considering that Go-Green was the one who operated the vessel with its own crew,
what was taken then by the parties was a bareboat or demise charter. In a charter by
demise or bareboat charter, the whole vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to him
of its entire command and possession and consequent control over its navigation,
including the master and the crew, who are his servants. The charterer mans the vessel
with his own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage or service
stipulated and hence liable for damages or loss sustained by the goods transported.
The concept of owner pro hac vice applies making Go-Green solidarily liable for the
injuries.
Source: Question no. 25 in 110 Questions in Merc 1; Philam Insurance vs. Heung-A
Shipping and Wallem Phils., July 23, 2014; powerpoint slide no. 19 in Transpo Law

***END OF EXAMINATION***