Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Culled from the Recent & Significant Decisions of the Supreme Court
2009 Bar Examinations
-o0o-
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Sec. 52. (NIL)—a holder in due course is a holder who has taken the
instrument under the following conditions:
A cashier’s check is really the bank’s own check and may be treated
as a promissory note with the bank as a maker. The check becomes
the primary obligation of the bank which issues it and constitutes a
written promise to pay upon demand. (BPI vs. Roxas)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
YES. A foreign corporation has the legal capacity to sue for the
protection of its trademarks, albeit it is not doing business in the Philippines.
Sec. 160 in relation to Sec. 3 of R.A. 8293, provides:
SEC. 160. “Any foreign national or juridical person who meets the
requirements of Sec. 3 of this Act and does not engage in business in the
Philippines may bring a civil or administrative action hereunder for
opposition, cancellation, infringement, unfair competition, or false designation
of origin and false description, whether or not it is licensed to do business in
the Philippines under existing laws.”
xxx
Stated differently, in the case of Philip Morris, Inc. vs. Fortune Tobacco
Corporation, 493 SCRA 333 [2006]), to wit:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5. What is the relationship between the banking institution and its depositor?
What is the standard of diligence required of the bank?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contract between the bank and its depositor is governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on simple loan. Article 1980 of the Civil Code
expressly provides that “x x x savings x x x deposits of money in banks and
similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple
loan.” There is a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its
depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The
depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on
demand. The savings deposit agreement between the bank and the depositor
is the contract that determines the rights and obligations of the parties.
The law imposes on banks high standards in view of the fiduciary
nature of banking. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8791 (“RA 8791”), which
took effect on 13 June 2000, declares that the State recognizes the “fiduciary
nature of banking that requires high standards of integrity and performance.”
This new provision in the general banking law, introduced in 2000, is a
statutory affirmation of Supreme Court decisions, starting with the 1990 case
of Simex International vs. Court of Appeals, holding that “the bank is under
obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always
having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship.”
This fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe
“high standards of integrity and performance” is deemed written into every
deposit agreement between a bank and its depositor. The fiduciary nature of
banking requires banks to assume a degree of diligence higher than that of a
good father of a family. Article 1172 of the Civil Code states that the degree of
diligence required of an obligor is that prescribed by law or contract, and
absent such stipulation then the diligence of a good father of a family. Section
2 of RA 8791 prescribes the statutory diligence required from banks – that
banks must observe “high standards of integrity and performance” in
servicing their depositors. (Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Citytrust Banking
Corporation, G.R. No. 141835, February 4, 2009 [Carpio-Morales, J.]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Upon the filing of the petition for insolvency, pending civil actions
against the property of the petitioner are not ipso facto stayed, but the insolvent
may apply with the court in which the actions are pending for a stay of the
actions against the insolvent’s property. If the court grants such application,
pending civil actions against the petitioner’s property shall be stayed;
otherwise, they shall continue. Once an order of insolvency nevertheless
issues, all civil proceedings against the petitioners property are, by statutory
command, automatically stayed. (See, Sec. 18 in relation to Sec. 60, Insolvency
Law)
7. When the payee of the check is not intended to be the true recipient of its
proceeds, is it payable to order or bearer?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
8. What is the FICTITIOUS-PAYEE RULE? Who is liable under it? Is there any
exception?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When a person making the check so payable did not intent for the
specified payee to have any part in the transaction, the payee is considered as
fictitious payee. (Mueller & Martin vs. Liberty Insurance Bank). Fictitious-payee
rule extends protection even to non-bank transferee of the checks.
The rule protects the depositary bank and assigns the loss to the drawer
of the check who was in a better position to prevent the loss in the first place.
(Getty Petroleum Corp. vs. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO.
General rule remains that the drawee who has paid upon the forged
signature bears the loss. The exception to this rule arises only when
negligence can be traced on the part of the drawer whose signature was
forged, and the need arises to weigh the comparative negligence between the
drawer and the drawee to determine who should bear the burden of loss. x x x
10. If a bank refuses to pay a check, can the payee-holder thereof sue the bank?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
11. What are the requisites before a Management Committee can be created and
a Receiver are appointed by the Regional Trial Court?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
12. What is the Concession Theory? Does it have any legal basis in Philippine
Law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
13. Distinguish between the Trust Fund Doctrine from the Trust Fund Theory.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
14. What is the extent of the power and function of a Rehabilitation Receiver?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The rehabilitation receiver shall not take over the management and
control of the debtor but shall closely oversee and monitor the operations of
the debtor during the pendency of the proceedings. x x x
He shall be considered as an officer of the court. And shall be primarily
tasked to study the best way to rehabilitate the debtor and to ensure that the
value of the debtor’s property is reasonably maintained pending the
determination of whether or not the debtor should be rehabilitated, as well as
implement the rehabilitation plan after its approval. (Section 12, A.M. No. 00-8-
10-SC, Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
17. When may a corporation invest its funds in another corporation or business
or for any other purposes? (1996 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
19. What is the nature of a health care agreement? What is the effect of limited
liability to health care agreements?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
20. REP Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws with
its main office in the City of Mandaluyong. Sometime in 2004, REP Inc.
filed a Petition for the Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments
with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan with RTC Malolos, Bulacan.
Thereafter, court issued a Stay Order suspending the enforcement of all
claims whether for money or otherwise judicial or extrajudicial against REP
Inc. Creditors opposed the petition and subsequently the Stay Order was
lifted.
Since REP Inc. did not appeal, AT Bank, one of it’s creditors initiated
foreclosure proceedings against REP Inc’s. properties. In anticipation of the
foreclosure, REP filed a complaint for Annulment of Documents and
Damages with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction.
Court granted the TRO enjoining AT Bank from proceeding with the extra-
judicial foreclosure of mortgage on its properties. AT Bank filed a Petition
for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the RTC issuing the TRO. CA ruled in favor of AT Bank and
annulled the order of the RTC, stating that the Stay Order could not be any
clearer, that it was lifted by the trial court because of REP Inc.’s insolvency,
misrepresentations, and infeasible rehabilitation plan. The appellate court
further observed that the Order granting TRO in the Civil Case interfered
with and set aside the earlier Order of the RTC in the rehabilitation case,
and such intervention thwarted the foreclosure of REP Inc.’s assets.
REP Inc. through a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court raised the
issue that the CA gravely erred when it ordered the annulment of orders of
the RTC, granting the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and the
TRO, on the ground that the Civil Case is entirely separate and distinct and
involves a totally separate and distinct cause of action as against a petition
for declaration of state of suspension of payments.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indeed, the two cases are different with respect to their nature,
purpose, and the reliefs sought such that the injunctive writ issued in the
annulment of foreclosure case did not interfere with the rehabilitation case.
(Rombe Eximtrade (Phils.), et al vs. Asiatrust Development Bank, G.R. No. 164479,
February 13, 2008, [Velasco, J.]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As to the nature of a petition for a writ of possession, it is well to state
that the proceeding in a petition for a writ of possession is ex parte and
summary in nature. x x x It is not strictly speaking a judicial process as
contemplated in Article 433 of the Civil Code. It is a judicial proceeding for the
enforcement of one's right of possession as purchaser in a foreclosure sale. . It
is not an ordinary suit filed in court, by which one party "sues another for the
enforcement of a wrong or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of
a wrong." (Spouses Lam vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No.
178881, February 18, 2008, [Nachura, J.]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
xxx
Yes.
PPA was created for the purpose of, among others, promoting the
growth of regional port bodies. In furtherance of this objective, PPA is
empowered, after consultation with relevant government agencies, to make
port regulations particularly to make rules or regulation for the planning,
development, construction, maintenance, control, supervision and
management of any port or port district in the country. With this mandate,
the decision to bid out cargo-handling services is within the province and
discretion of PPA which necessarily required prior study and evaluation. This
task is left to the judgment of PPA and cannot be set aside absent grave abuse
of discretion on its part. As long as the standards are set in determining the
contractor and such standards are reasonable and related to the purpose for
which they are used, courts should not inquire into the wisdom of PPA’s
choice. x x x
[F]ranchises from Congress are not required before each and every
public utility may operate because the law has granted certain administrative
agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain
public utilities. (Oroport Cargoholding Services, Inc. vs. Phivdec Industrial
Authority, G.R. No. 166785, July 28, 2008, [Quisumbing, J.])
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Case for collection of actual damages with interest and attorney’s fees was
filed with RTC. Aboitiz disavowed any liability and asserted that the claim
had no factual and legal bases, and that complaint had no cause of action,
plaintiff Y Insurance had no personality to sue, cause of action was barred,
suit was premature there being no claim made upon Aboitiz. RTC rendered
decision against Y Insurance and case was elevated to CA, which reversed
RTC decision. Case was then elevated to SC.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. YES.
b. NO.
a. Both the insurer and the consignee are bound by the contractual
stipulations under the bill of lading;
b. The insurer can be subrogated only to the rights as the insured may
have against the wrongdoer.
26. What are the tests to determine whether a dispute constitutes an intra-
corporate controversy? How would jurisdiction be determined?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-
corporate partnership relations between any or all of the parties and the
corporation, partnership, or association of which they are stockholders,
members, or associates, respectively; and between such corporation,
partnership, or association and the State insofar as it concerns their
individual franchises.
The Second element requires that the dispute among the parties be
intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. If the
nature of the controversy involves matters that are purely civil in
character, necessarily, the case does not involve an intra-corporate
controversy.
(Reyes vs. Zenith Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 165744, August 11, 2008, [Brion, J.])
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Reyes vs. Zenith Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 165744, August 11, 2008, [Brion, J.])
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
29. What effect does the civil code provision on succession have in the
corporation with respect to the shares of stock registered under the name of
the decedent? Is there any exception?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article 777 of the Civil Code declares that he successional rights are
transferred from the moment of death of the decedent. Accordingly, upon the
decedent’s death, the heirs acquired legal right to his estate (which includes
his shareholdings with the corporation), and they are, prior to the estate’s
partition, deemed to be co-owners thereof. This status as co-owners, however,
does not immediately and necessarily make them stockholders of the
corporation. Unless and until there is compliance with Section 63 of the
Corporation Code on the manner of transferring shares, the heirs do not
become registered stockholders of the corporation. Section 63 provides:
It is noted, that in relation with the above statement, that in Abejo vs.
Dela Cruz and TCL Sales Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, it did not require the
registration of the transfer before considering the transferee a stockholder of
the corporation. A marked difference, however, exists between these cases
and the present one.
In Abjeo and TCL Sales, the transferee held definite and uncontested
titles to a specific number of shares of the corporation; after the transferee
has established prima facie ownership over the shares of stocks in question,
registration became a mere formality in confirming their status as
stockholders. In the present case, each of the decedent’s heirs holds only an
undivided interest in the shares. This interest, at this point, is still inchoate
and subject to the outcome of a settlement proceeding; the right of the heirs to
specific, distributive shares of inheritance will not be determined until all the
debts of the estate of the decedent are paid. In short, the heirs are only
entitled to what remains after payment of the decedent’s debts; whether there
will be residue remains to be seen. Justice Jurado aptly puts it as follows:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No.
Unmistakable herein is the fact that the drawee bank cleared and paid
the subject foreign draft and forwarded the amount thereof to the collecting
bank. The latter then credited to the Jewelry Store’s account the payment it
received. Following the plain language of the law, the drawee, by said
payment, recognized and complied with its obligation to pay in accordance
with the tenor of his acceptance. The tenor of his acceptance is determined by the
terms of the bill as it is when the drawee accepts. Stated simply, LBP was
liable on its payment of the check according to the tenor of the check at the
time of payment, which was the raised amount.