(I.

)
X, as depositor may recover from the PDIC the following amounts.

a. X as depositor in his personal capacity.

The money deposited in his personal accounts in Tokyo
and Personal Account in the Philippines, shall be added as the
basis of aggregate amount for purposes of computing the
P500,000 insurance coverage under the PDIC:
*Tokyo Account = P600,000.00
*PNB-Legazpi = P700,000.00
*PNB-Subsidiary = P450,000.00 with accrued interest in
the amount of P50,000.00.

Here, from the total amount of P1,700,000, X may only recover from the
PDIC the amount P500,000.

b. X, as joint depositor with the different Branches of PNB:

His (X’s) interest in each joint account shall be added as an
aggregate amount for purposes of computing the P500,000 amount covered under
the PDIC:
• joint account with his wife with PNB-Naga City in the amount
of P500,000.00 ( X’s interest = P250,000)
• joint account with Y with PNB-Tabaco in the amount of
P500,000.00 (X’s interest= P250,000)
• joint account with Z with PNB-Caloocan in the amount of
P500,000.00. (X’s interest= P250,000)
= X has total interest of P750,000 in the joint account.
Therefore, from P750,000, X may only recover from the
PDIC the amount of P500,000.
 (II.)
(A.)
X-passenger may recover damages from the airline under the provisions of
the Warsaw Convention on the following grounds:
(a.) xxx
(b.) Loss or damage to any check baggage or goods sustained
during the transport by air; and
(c.) Delay in the transport by air of passengers, baggage or
goods.
Here, the airline told X-passenger that the plane bound for Australia will be
arriving the following day. Hence, airline is in delay in the performance of its
obligations. Moreover, the water craft of the airline transporting the goods of X from
the warehouse, to the aircraft, sank due to the negligence of the watercraft damaging
the goods of X before they could be loaded to the aircraft.

(B.)
The following are the purposes of the Warsaw Convention:
(i) for Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air
provides for rules applicable to international transportation by air;
(ii) to provided protection and safety for all international carriage of persons,
luggage or goods performed by aircraft.
(C.)
The following are the documents made uniform by the Warsaw Convention:
(a.) Passenger Ticket; (b.) Luggage Ticket; and (c.) Air Consignment
note.
 (III.)
(A.)

As X’s counsel, I will invoke Republic Act No. 3765 or the Truth in
Lending Act, which requires the lender-Bank to give the borrower-X all the details
regarding the transaction. Under the Section 4 of R.A. No. 3765, any creditor shall
furnish to each person to whom credit is extended, prior to the consummation of
the transaction, a clear statement in writing, setting forth, to the extend of Finance
Charge- interest, fees, service charges etc.
In the case at bar, the Bank-lender did not disclose in writing the extent of
the service fees prior to the consummation of the credit contract. Hence, the Bank-
lender violates the R.A. No. 3765 which seeks to protect users of credit from lack
of awareness of the true cost thereof, which the bank-lenders are able to conceal
such true cost by hidden charges (uncertainty of interest rates, deduction of interest
from loaned amount, and the like).
Hence, since the Bank-Lender violates the Truth in Lending Act, the Bank is
liable to pay Borrower-X doubles the amount the bank is charging X by way of
sanction for its violation.
(B.)
The following are the purpose of the Truth in Lending Act as held in UCPB
v. Spouses Beluso:
(i) to protect debtors by permitting them to fully appreciate the true
cost of their loan;
(ii) to enable them to give full consent to the contract, and
(iii) to properly evaluate their options in arriving at business
decisions.
(C.)
The following are the duty of the lender or seller under the Truth in Lending
Act:
 Any creditor shall furnish to each person to whom credit is extended,
prior to the consummation of the transaction, a clear statement in writing setting
forth, to the extent applicable and in accordance with rules and regulations
prescribed by the Board, the following information: (a) the cash price or delivered
price of the property or service to be acquired; (b) the amounts, if any, to be credited
as down payment and/or trade-in; (c) the difference between the amounts set forth
under clauses (1) and (2); (d) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or
to be paid by such person in connection with the transaction but which are not
incident to the extension of credit; (e) the total amount to be financed; (f) the finance
charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and (g) the percentage that the
finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on
the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.

(VI)
(A.)
No. the auction sale cannot be validly made on the date as agreed by X and Y.
To effect the extra-judicial foreclosure sale under Act No. 3135, the same must be
executed in the form of special power of attorney, allowing the creditor-Y to
foreclose the property in case of non-performance of the principal obligation.
Hence, Y cannot validly foreclose the property on the said agreed date.
(B.)
In extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage, the redemption price if the
mortgagor is other than a juridical person composes the following:
(a.) the purchase price; plus
(b.) interest of one percent (1%) per month; and
(c.) taxes
(C.)
The following may exercise the right of redemption:
(i) if redemption under ACT NO. 3135, section 6 provides.
‘’ Sec. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made
under the special power hereinbefore referred to, the debtor, his
successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment
 creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the
property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which
the property is sold, may redeem the same
(ii) if redemption under ordinary execution sale covered by Rule 39
of the Rules of Court, section 27 provides:
” (a) The judgment obligor; or his successor in interest in
the whole or any part of the property; (b) A creditor having a lien
by virtue of an attachment, judgment or mortgage on the property
sold, or on some part thereof, subsequent to the lien under which
the property was sold. Such redeeming creditor is termed a
redemptioner.
(iii) if redemption under rule 68 on judicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage (the named mortgagor-defendant having interest over
the subject property.

(D.)
Yes, the right of redemption is transferrable provided that they
are the parties referred to under the law following the principle
of privity of contracts. Section 6 of Act. No. 3135 provides:
‘’ Sec. 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale
is made under the special power hereinbefore referred to,
(i) the debtor,
(ii) his successors in interest or
(iii) any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said
debtor, or
(iv) any person; having a lien on the property
subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under
which the property is sold, may redeem the same.

(E.)
The following are the remedies of the highest bidder if the
mortgagor does not want to vacate the property subject of the
extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage:
Section 7 of Act. No. provides:
‘’ Sec. 7. In any sale made under the provisions of
this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance
of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is
situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption
period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the
property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor
in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the
mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this
Act. Xxx
Yes, the said remedy is also available against any person
who is in possession of the mortgaged property because section
7 of Act no. 3135 does not qualify whether the possessor of the
mortgage proper is the debtor himself or a third person.

V
(A.)
(i) if the carrier is at fault:
X should file a case against the common carrier. In the case
of Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. vs. BPI/MS Insurance Corp. et al,
the Supreme Court held that the extraordinary responsibility of
the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the
carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or
constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person
who has a right to receive them. Hence, since some of the goods
were lost and damaged, X may file a case against the carriage on
the basis of violation of contract of carriage.

(ii) if the arrastre operator is at fault:

In the case of Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. vs. BPI/MS
Insurance Corp. et al, the Supreme Court held that the
relationship between an arrastre operator and a consignee is
similar to that between a warehouseman and a depositor, or to
that between a common carrier and the consignee and/or the
owner of the shipped goods. Thus, an arrastre operator should
adhere to the same degree of diligence as that legally expected of
a warehouseman or a common carrier.

(B.)
The following are the basis of cause of action:
 (i) Violation of contract of carriage
(ii) Action for Damages
(C.)
The following are laws as basis of cause of action:
(i) Article 1733 of the Civil Code for the required diligence
expected to the carrier;
(ii) COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 65 (COGSA) and
(iii) Section 3[b] of the Warehouse Receipts [Act] for
negligence committed by the arrastre operator.
(D.)
Prescriptive period in filing the action (COGSA):
a) When to file a claim a with a carrier:
(i) Upon discharge of goods, if the damage is apparent, claim
should be filed immediately; or
(ii) If damage is not apparent, claim should be filed within 3 days
from delivery
(E.)
No, there is no condition precedent to be complied with before an action in
court can be filed. The same may be filed in court within a period of one (1) year
from discharge.