Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A.
Coca-Colas appeal will not prosper.
As decreed by the Supreme Court in Home Insurance
Company v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc. (G.R. No. L-25599
April 4, 1968) a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo
or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier. As a
private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the
negligence of its agent is not against public policy, and is deemed
valid. The Civil Code provisions on common carriers should not be
applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier.
The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability
for loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the
strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy
has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case
of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party.
B. 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.
II.
A. OB is an insider as defined in Subsection 3.8(3) of the
Securities Regulation Code since she is an employee of t h e
B a n k , t h e f i n a n c i a l a d v i s e r o f D O P, a n d t h i s
r e l a t i o n s h i p gives her access to material information about the
issuer
and
the
latters
securities
which
information is not generally available to the public
A c c o r d i n g l y,
OB
is guilty of insider trading under Section
9 o f t h e S e c u r i t i e s R e g u l a t i on C o d e wh i c h r e q u i r e s
disclosure when trading in securities. OB is also liable
for d a m a g e s t o s e l l e r s o r bu ye r s wi t h wh o m s h e
traded.
Under Subsection 63.1 of the Securities Regulation Code, the
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
As judge, I will hold as correct the contentions of the
assignee.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, as prohibited by the
Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act.
X.
XI.
XII.
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 wasnot selling securities in the
country. The contention of EOL is correct, because it never didany
business in the Philippines. All its transactions in question were
consummated outside the Philippines.
XIII.
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.
XIV.
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 allor 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.
XV.
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 coveredby 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.
XVI.
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 inaccordance with Section 1 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law
XVII.
XVIII.
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 acitizen
or national of another country, but of the Philippines.
XIX.
XX.
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.
XXI.