Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
______________________
______________________
1) Distinguish between cash dividend and stock dividend. When may the
declarations of these dividends be revoked?
2) After one year of operation, Safe Realty Inc., wanted to declare dividends
to its stockholders. Ramos, its President, asked Santos, its Treasurer.
Whether this is feasible, considering the financial standing of the
Corporation. Santos reported that the Corporation posted a P1 Million
profit and its real estate has appreciated in value to the tune of P4
million. The Board then declared dividends to its stockholders computed
on the basis of P5M representing profits and appreciation in value of its
real estate. Is the dividend declaration proper? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
II
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) The action of the Board is not legal. The rights and liabilities of X
as the Mine Superintendent (or as an Officer) are apart from his
rights and liabilities arising from being likewise a stockholder. In
general, in order that directors and officers may be held personally
accountable they must have voted or assented to a patently illegal
act, or are guilty of bad faith or gross negligence, or are in conflict of
interest with the corporation (see Sec. 31 Corporation Code). A mere
technical error committed by X in the design of n equipment used by
the company, absent fault or negligence, would warrant liability on
his part even as an employee. (any of the following answers should
also be given full credit)
III
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The “no fault indemnity” in the Insurance Code provides that any
claim for death or injury to a passenger or to third party should be
paid without the necessity of proving fault or negligence, subject
to the following rules:
a. The total indemnity shall not exceed P5,000.00;
b. Proof of loss, e.g., police report, death certificate or
medical report when submitted under oath, shall be
sufficient to substantiate the claim; and
c. The claim may be made against one motor vehicle only. In
the case of an occupant of a vehicle, the claim shall lie
against the insurer of the vehicle in which the occupant is
riding, mounting or dismounting from. In any other case,
claim shall lie against the insurer of the directly offending
vehicle. The party paying the claim may recover against
the vehicle responsible for the accident (see Sec. 378
Insurance Code).
2) The beneficiary of X cannot collect on the policy. Concealment as
a defense against liability by the insurer, may either be
intentional or unintentional (see Sec. 27, Insurance Code as
amended by BP 874, revoking the rule in the Ng Gan Ze case, GR
230685, 30 May 1983). Lack of knowledge on the part of the
insured about her ailment will not preclude the insurer from
raising the defense (see Tang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.No L-
48563, 25 may 1979). The insurer may be held in estoppels only
if, having known of the concealed or misrepresented fact, still
accepts the payment of premium (B.P. 874) which is not the
situation in this case.
Alternative Answer:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
September 1, 1989.
At the bottom of the note, X wrote in his own handwriting the following:
"I will not sell the jeep until I shall have paid in full." Is the note
negotiable? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) Adam makes a note payable to Bert or order. Bert indorses the note to
Cora. Douglas steals the note and indorses it to Elvin by forging Cora's
signature. Elvin then indorses the note to Felix who is not aware of the
forgery. What is the right of Felix agains Adam, Bert, Cora, Douglas, and
Ervin?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
VII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Alternative Answer:
VII
Answer:
Answer:
(1) While Felix can have a copyright on his own painting which is
expressive of his own artistic interpretation of the event he has portrayed,
the scene or the event itself, however, is not susceptible to exclusive
ownership. Accordingly, there would be no violation of Felix copyright if
another painter were to do a similar work.
(2) The Copyright Law provides that to an extent compatible with fair
practice and justified by scientific, critical, informatory or educational
purposes, it is permissible to make quotations or exempts from a work
already made accessible to the public. Such quotations may be utilized in
their original form or in translation (Sec. 11, Copyright Law). Viewed from
the foregoing, a review by another that “liability reproduced 90%” of the
research work done by X may no longer be considered as fair play, and X
can sue Y for the violation of the copyright.
6) X shipped thru M/V Kalayaan, spare parts worth P500,000.00. The bill
of lading limits the liabilty of the carrier to P500.00 and contains a
notation indicating the amount of the letter of credit (i.e. P500,000.00)
which X obtained from a bank to import spare parts. The spare parts
were not delivered to X so X sued the carrier for P50,000.00. Decide.
Answer:
8) X took the Benguet bus from Baguio going to Manila. He deposted his
maleta in the baggage compartment of the bus common to all
passengers. He did not declare his bggage not pay its charges contrary
to the regulations of the company. When X got off, he could not find
his baggage which obviously was taken by another passenger.
Determing the liability of the bus company.
9) X bought seven sacks of palay to the PNR. He paid its freight charges
and was issued Way Bill No.1 The cargo was loaded on the freight
wagon of the train. Without any permission, X boarded the boarded
the freight wagon and not the passenger coach. Shortly after the train
started, it was derailed. The frieght wagon fell on its side, killing X.
There is no evidence that X bought a ticket or paid his fare at the
same time that he paid the freight charges for his cargo. Is X a
passenger of PNR?
Answer:
(1) The bus company is liable for the loss of the maleta. The duty of
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods is due on such goods
as are deposited or surrendered to the common carrier for transportation.
The fact that the maleta was not declared nor the charges paid thereon,
would not be consequential so long as it was received by the carrier fro
transportation (Art. 1754, in relation to Arts. 1733-1753, Civil Code)
Alternative Answer:
The act of the passenger who “did not declare his baggage nor pay its
charges contrary to the regulations of the bus company” conveys a
surreptitious act on his part which constitutes an act of bad faith and would
therefore disentitle recovery.
(2) No, X was not a “passenger” (see Nueca vs. Manila Railroad, 65
O.G. 3153). A “stowaway”, being a trespasser, has been held to assume the
risk of damage (see Pontillas vs. Cebu Autobus Co. 13 CA Reps., 211).
10) X owns the ship M/V Aguinaldo. He bareboat chartered the ship
of Y who appointed all its crew members from the captain down to its
last official. Y then transported a shipment of 10,000 bags of sugar
belonging to Z. Thru the negligence of the ship captain, half of the
sugar was damaged due to sea water. Since Y is bankrupt, Z sued
captain and X. Will the suit succeed?
14) 1. X, a rich trader, boarded M/V Cebu, a small vessel with a value of
P3M and owned by Y, plying the route Cotabato to Pagadian City. X had in
his possession a diamond worth P5M. The vessel had a capacity of 40
passengers. Near Pagadian, the vessel met squally weather and was ht by
six foot waves every seconds. Soon, water entered the engine room and
the full of the vessel. The patron of the vessel ordered the distribution of
life belts to the passengers. He told them the vessel was sinking and for
them to take care fo themselves. The vessel turned out to be overloaded
by 20 passengers and had no suffecient life belts. X failed to get a life
belt and died when the vessel totally sunk. The heirs of X sued Y for P10M
for damages. Y raised the defensed of limited liability. Decide
Answer:
(1) The doctrine of limited liability does not apply when death or injury
or damage sustained is attributable to the fault or negligence of the
shipowner or shipagent or to the concurring fault or negligence of the
shipowner or shipagent and the captain (or patron) of the vessel (see Chua
vs. Intermediate Appeallate Court, G.R 74811, 30 September 1988).
Undoubtedly, the shipowner himself, was guilty of such fault or negligence in
not making certain that the passenger vessel is not overloaded, as well as
and is having failed to provided sufficient life belts on board the vessel.
(2) The owner of S/S Tamarraw is liable for the death of X in failing to
exercise utmost diligence in the safety of passengers. Evidently, the carrier
did not take the necessary precautions in ensuring the safety of passengers
in the boarding of and disembarking from the vessel. Unless shown to the
contrary, a common carrier is presumed to have been negligent in cases of
death or injury to its passengers (Arts. 1755-1756, Civil Code). Since X has
not completely disembarked yet, the obligation of the shipowner to exercise
utmost diligence still then subsisted and he can still be held liable.