Transportation Law Prelims

First of all, if you haven't read the digests, please feel free to browse them at the following links:

Dangwa Transportation

Japan Airlines V. Asuncion

I actually did not finish digesting all the required cases but if you're interested to browse other case digests in transportation law, please visit arellanolaw.net. You can find about 200 case digests concerning Transportation Law.

Ok, let's begin.

Contract of Transportation - a contract whereby a person obligates himself to transport persons or property from one place to another for a consideration. It may involve either the carriage of goods or carriage of passengers. The person who obligates to transport the goods or passengers may be a private carrier or common carrier.

Perfection of the contract.
There are actually two types of contract involved in here:

1. Contract to carry - perfected by mere consent
2. Contract of carriage (or of common carriage) - perfected once the passenger has already purchased a ticket and boarded the carrier (in case of airplanes and trains), attempted to board the conveyances (in cases of buses, jeepneys, taxi), or once the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession and control of the carrier

What are common carriers?
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. They are public utilities impressed with public interest and concern.

Tests in determining whether a a party is a common carrier:

1. He must be engaged and holds himself out as ready to engage in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment;
2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is confined;
3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over his established roads;
4. The transportation must be for hire.
   

Characteristics of common carriers:

1. carrying of persons or goods or both may be the principal business activity or merely an ancillary activity;
2. transportation service may be offered on a regular, scheduled, occasional, episodic, or unscheduled basis;
3. the services may be offered to the general public or only to a narrow segment of the general population;
4. with or without a Certificate of Public Convenience;
5. no distinction as to means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air;
6. it does not only have to be transportation by motor vehicle;
7. a common carrier may have no fixed or publicly known route, maintains no terminal, and doesn't issue tickets;
8. a person or entity need not be engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to them.

Effect of Charter Party
A charter party may transform a common carrier into a private carrier in case of a bareboat or demise charter where the charterer mans the vessel with its own people and becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage or service stipulated.


Towage - where one vessel is hired to bring another vessel to another place
Arrastre - receive, handle, care for and deliver merchandise passing through ports
Stevedoring - loading and unloading of coastwise vessels calling at the port

GOVERNING LAWS (sus, kung si Manriquez pa atong professor sigurado ko mugawas jud ni!)

1. Code of Commerce and other special laws
2. Law of the country of destination applies
3. Warsaw Convention (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the International Carriage by Air

Summary of Rules:

1. Coastwise Shipping
• New Civil Code (Art. 1732-1766) - primary law
• Code of commerce - suppletorily
2. Carriage from Foreign Ports to Philippine Ports
• New Civil Code - primary law
• Code of Commerce - all matters not regulated bu the Civil Code
• Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) - suppletorily to the Civil Code
3. Carriage from Philippine Ports to Foreign Ports
• The laws of the country to which the goods are to be transported
4. Overland Transport
• Civil Code - primary
• Code of Commerce - suppletorily
5. Air Transportation
• Civil Code
• Code of Commerce
• For International Carriage - COGSA, as amended

I AM SICK! DI NAKO MAG-UPDATE.. TULOG SAKO! 12/21/07

Credit Transactions Prelims

Exam Coverage

-Loans
-Deposit
-Warehouse Receipts

LOANS
Two kinds of loan:

1. Commodatum – where one person called the bailor (lender) delivers to another called the baille (borrower) a non-consumable thing so that the latter may use it for a certain time and return the identical thing.
2. Mutuum – where the lender delivers to the borrower money or other consumable thing upon the condition that the latter shall pay the same amount of the same kind and quality.

Distinctions of commodatum and mutuum:

1. Commodatum ordinarily involves something not consumable, while in mutuum, the subject matter is money or other consumable thing;
2. In commodatum, ownership of the thing loaned is retained by the lender, while in mutuum, the ownership is transferred to the borrower;
3. Commodatum is essentially gratuitous, while mutuum may be gratuitous or may be onerous, that is, with stipulation to pay interest;
4. In commodatum, the borrower must return the same thing loaned, while in mutuum, the borrower need only pay the same amount of the same kind and quality;
5. Commodatum may involve real or personal property, while mutuum refers only to personal property;
6. Commodatum is a loan for use or temporary possession, while mutuum is a loan for consumption;
7. In commodatum, the bailor may demand the return of the thing loaned before the expiration of the term in case of urgent need, while in mutuum, the lender may not demand the return of the thing before the lapse of the term agreed upon;
8. In commodatum, the loss of the thing loaned is suffered by the bailor since he is the owner, while in mutuum, the borrower suffers the loss even if it is caused by a fortuitous event and he is not therefore discharged from his duty to pay;
9. Commodatum is purely personal in character, while mutuum is not so.

Kinds of Commodatum

1. Ordinary commodatum – (as defined above)
2. Precarium – where the bailor may demand the thing loaned at will

Characteristics of commodatum:

1. Real – delivery is necessary for the perfection of the contract.
2. Unilateral – once the subject matter has already been delivered, it creates on the part of the borrower the obligation to return the identical thing

Commodatum notes-

1. Similar to donation in that in confers a benefit to the recipient
2. The borrower may not use the fruits of the thing loaned, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
3. The bailor need not be the owner of the thing loaned since by loan, ownership does not pass to the borrower.
4. The death of either the bailor or the bailee extinguishes the commodatum, being a contract which is purely personal in character.
5. The borrower may not lend the thing loaned to a third person. However, it may extend to the members of his household, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary or unless the nature of the thing forbids such use.

Obligations of the Bailee

1. To pay for the ordinary expenses for the use and preservation of the thing loaned.
2. To pay for the loss of the thing even if it is caused by fortuitous event in the following cases:
• If he devotes the thing to any purpose other than that intended (he acts in bad faith)
  
• If he retains the thing beyond the agreed term or after the accomplishment of its use (he incurs delay)
  
• If the thing loan was delivered with an appraisal of its value, unless there is a stipulation exempting the bailee from liability in case of fortuitous event (presumed by law)
  
• If he lends or leases the thing to third persons (commodatum is purely personal)
• If, being able to save the thing borrowed or his own thing, he chooses to save the latter (ingratitude).
  
3. To return the thing loaned. The bailee may only retain the thing IF he suffered losses or damages because of the flaws of the thing loaned.
4. To be solidarity liable in case there are two or more bailees.
   

Obligations of the Bailor

1. To respect the duration of the loan, unless he should have urgent need of the thing.
2. To refund the extraordinary expenses.
3. To pay the damages caused by known hidden flaws. Requisites:
• There is a flaw or defect in the thing loaned;
• The flaw or defect is hidden
• The bailor is aware thereof
• He does not advise th bailee of the same; and
• The bailee suffers damages by reason the the said flaw or defect
  

Mutuum, notes-

1. The borrower acquires ownership of the thing loaned.
2. The relationship of the parties is that of obligor-obligee.
3. Muttum involves money or any other fungible things.
4. It may be gratuitous.
5. No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. In case the payment of interest is agreed and in writing, but the interest rate is not indicated, the legal interest rate of 12% shall apply. Exceptions to the rule when interest may be due even in the absence of stipulation:
• Indemnity for damages due to delay
• Interest accruing from unpaid interest - when judicially demanded or stipulated (presupposes a stipulated interest, the interest contemplated in this exception is the interest of the defaulted interest payments)

DEPOSITS
A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another with the obligation of safly keeping it and of retuning the same.

Characteristics of deposit:

1. Real - delivery is necessary for the perfection of the contract
2. Unilateral (when gratuitous) - only the depositary has the obligation of safely keeping the thing deposited
   
3. Bilateral (when onerous) - the depositary has the obligation of safely keeping the thing deposited and the depositor has the obligation therefor to pay the fees associated with the deposit.

Distinctions between deposit and mutuum

1. In deposit, the principal purpose is the safekeeping or mere custody, while in mutuum, the consumption of the subject matter;
2. In deposit, the depositor can demand the return of the subject matter at will, while in mutuum, th lender must wait until the expiration of the period granted to the debtor;
3. In deposit, both movable and immovable property may be the object, while in mutuum, only money and other fungible thing.

Disctinctions between deposit and commodatum

1. In deposit, the principal purpose is the safekeeping or mere custody, while in commodatum, the transfer of the use;
2. Deposit may be gratuitous or onerous, while commodatum is essentially and always gratuitous;
3. In extrajudicial deposit, only movable things may be the object, while in commodatum, both movable and immovable property may be the object.

Kinds of deposit

1. Judicial - one which takes place when an attachment or seizure of property in litigation is ordered; it may involve movable or immovable property
   
2. Extrajudicial - which may be further classified into:
• Voluntary - one wherein the delivery is made by the will of the depositor/s
• Necessary - one made in compliance with a legal obligation, or on th occasion of a calamity, or by travelers in hotels and inns or with common carriers.

Deposit, notes-

1. A deposit is a gratuitous contract, except
• when there is contrary stipulation
• where the depositary is engaged in the business of storing goods
• where the property is saved from the destruction without knowledge of the owner - negotiorum gestio applies
2. Deposit only contemplates corporeal things
3. Interpleader is an action to compel the depositors to settle their conflicting claims among themselves.
4. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in writing.
5. When the deposit is made by an incapacitated person to a depositary who is a capacitated person, the latter incurs all the obligations of a depositary and must return the property to the legal representative of the incapacitated or to the depositor himself if he should acquire capacity.
6. When the deposit is made by a capacitated person to a depositary who is incapacitated, the latter does not incur all the obligations of a depositary but he must return the thing deposited while it is still in his possession, and to pay the depositor the amount by which he may have benefited himself with the thing or its price subject to the right of any third person who acquired the thing in good faith.
7. Permission is not presumed. The burden of proof is on the depositary to prove that permission has been given.
8. Fault on the part of the depositary is presumed, unless there is proof to the contrary.
9. The depositary cannot demand that the depositor prove the ownership of the thing. But, if he discovers that the thing deposited has been stolen, the depositary has the duty to inform the true owner of such fact.
   

Obligations of the Depositary

1. To keep the thing deposited and return it.
2. Not to transfer the deposit, unless there is stipulation to the contrary.
3. Not to change the way of deposit, unless consented by the depositor.
4. To collect interest on choses in action deposited.
5. Not to co-mingle things if such is stipulated.
6. Not to make use of the things deposited unless authorized.
7. Liability for th loss of the thing through a fortuitous event if:
• it is so stipulated
• if he uses the thing without permission
• if he incurs delay in returning the thing
• if he allows other persons to use the thing deposited
8. Return the thing deposited when delivered closed and sealed, in the same condition.
9. Pay for damages should the seal or lock be broken through his fault.
10. Keep the secret of the deposit when the seal or lock is broken, with or without his fault.
11. Return the deposit with its products, accessions, and accessories.
12. Pay interest on sums converted for personal use.
    

Irregular deposit distinguished from mutuum

1. In an irregular deposit, the consumable thing deposited may be demanded at will by the irregular depositor, while in mutuum, the lender is bound to respect the time agreed upon by the parties.
2. In an irregular deposit, the only benefit is that which accrues to the depositor, while in mutuum, the essential cause for the transaction is the necessity of the borrower.
3. The depositor in an irregular deposit has preference over other creditors with respect to the thing deposited, while common creditors enjoy no preference in the distribution of the debtor's property.

i am tired of reading deposits... let's jump to....

WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS
A warehouse receipt is a written acknowledgment by a warehouseman that he has received and holds certain goods therein described in store for the person to whom it is issued. It is also the simple written contract between the owner of the goods and the warehouseman to pay the compensation for that service.

Contents of the warehouse receipt:

1. Location of the warehouse
   
2. Date of issue of receipt
3. Consecutive number of receipt
4. Person to whom goods are deliverable
5. Rate of storage charges
6. Description of goods or packages
7. Signature of warehouseman
8. Warehouseman's ownership of or interest in goods
9. Statement of advances made and liabilities incurred.

Obligations of the warehouseman:

1. to take good care of the goods entrusted to his safekeeping
2. to deliver them to the holder of the receipt or the depositor provided the following conditions are complied:
• demand was made, accompanied by:
• an offer to satisfy the warehouseman's lien
• an offer to surrender the receipt
• a readiness and willingness to sign the receipt

Person to whom goods must be delivered:

1. person lawfully entitled to possession of goods or his agent
2. person entitled to delivery under a non-negotiable receipt or with written authority
3. person in possession of a non-negotiable receipt

Acts for which warehouseman is liable:

1. Failure to stamp "duplicate" on copies of a negotiable receipt
• the warehouseman shall be liable for all damages caused to any one who purchased the subsequent receipt for value
  
2. Failure to place "non-negotiable" or "not-negotiable" on a non-negotiable receipt
• the warehouse receipt shall be considered negotiable provided the holder of such unmarked receipt purchased it for value supposing it to be negotiable
  
3. Misdelivery of the goods
• the warehouseman has a liability similar to a bank paying a forged check and also a liability as for conversion (whatever that means?)
  
4. Failure to effect cancellation of a negotiable receipt upon delivery of the goods
• the warehouseman shall be liable to anyone who purchases for value in good faith such receipt which have not been cancelled, after such purchaser acquired title to the receipt
  
5. Issuing receipt for non-existing goods or misdescribed goods
• warehouseman shall be liable for damages
  
6. Failure to take care of the goods
• the warehouseman in liable for any loss or injury to the goods caused by his failure to exercise ordinary or reasonable care in the custody of the goods
  
7. Failure to give notice in case of sale of goods to satisfy his lien or because goods are perishable or hazardous.
• the warehouseman shall be severally liable to each depositor for the care and redelivery of his share of such mass to the same extent and under the same circumstances as if the goods had been kept separate.

NO MORE UPDATES FOR TODAY... (--, ) 12/20/2007

Take a break

I found this video on youtube, you might find it interesting... Can you relate?



I know law students all over the world can relate to this

Administrative Law Prelims

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.

As defined by Goodnow, Administrative Law is that branch of public law which deals with three things:

1. fixes the organization of the government;
2. determines the competence of administrative authorities;
3. indicates to the individuals remedies for the violation of their rights.

Administrative law covers all the portion of the public law of the land concerning executive and administrative officials. It deals with the enforcement and execution of the laws of the State, its powers and duties, the law on public officers, their election, appointment, and removal, their rights, duties, and liabilities. It also covers the law of public corporations, the laws that provide for the grant of rights, privileges, bounties of government to private individuals.

The following are the sources of administrative law:

1. Statute of legislation – these are the laws passed by congress;
2. Decisions/Interpretations made by the courts – Jurisprudence or court decisions involving administrative law and procedures
3. Rules and regulations made by the administrative agency or body charged of implementing the law – these are what we call the Implementing Rules and Regulation of laws passed by congress. Administrative bodies have this quasi-legislative power in making the rules and regulations for statutes.
4. Decisions/Interpretations made by the administrative body/agency tasked to implement the law – Aside from the quasi-legislative power, administrative agencies/bodies also have quasi-judicial power which shall be later on discussed.

What is the purpose of administrative law?

The chief concern of administrative law is the protection of private rights. Its subject matter is the nature and mode of exercise of administrative power and the system of relief against administrative action.

What is the function of administrative law?

Its function is to make the government machinery work well in an orderly manner. It is the body of rules that makes every component part of the government perform its assigned tasks.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY

An administrative body is a body composed of one or more officials designed to carry on certain business of government, to dispense certain services or privileges accorded by government, to regulate certain public callings, to promote the general welfare through police regulations, to determine rights of individuals in certain cases where a strong social policy is involved, to use a varying degree of discretion in arriving at decision and, often to proceed without being bound by some of the so-called technical procedures of law courts.

Types of administrative bodies:

Those set-up to function when the government is ---

1. offering some gratuity grant or social privilege (such as Phil. Veterans Administration)

2. seeking to carry on certain business of the government (such as BIR, Bureau of Customs)

3. seeking to regulate business affected with public interest (such as Land Transportation Commission)

4. exercising police power to regulate private businesses and individuals (such as Securities and Exchange Commission)

5. adjusting individual controversies because of some strong social policy involved (such as National Labor Relations Commission, Court of Agrarian Relations)

6. setting up of bodies where the government becomes a private party (such as Commission on Audit and GSIS)

Powers of administrative bodies

The powers of administrative bodies may be classified into:

1. Ministerial Powers – this refers to the administrative body’s power to perform a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority without regard to the exercise of his own judgment. (Example, Register of Deeds with respect to the registration of properties)

2. Discretionary Powers – this refers to the administrative body’s authority to do any act, the doing of the same being dependent upon his sound discretion (Example, the Commission on Audit, an auditor exercises his discretion in the performance of his duties)

3. Determinative Powers – further classified into:

a. Directing power – refers to corrective powers, power of assessment, abstract determination such as definition, valuation, classification, and fact-finding (Example, power of assessment of BIR)

b. Dispensing power – consists of the granting of exemptions from or relaxing of a general prohibition (Example, authority of the zoning boards to vary the provision of zoning statute or ordinance)

c. Enabling power- the power to approve something which the law undertakes to regulate; manifested in the granting or denial of licenses to engage in a particular business or occupation (Example, LTFRB, Board of Censors, Central Bank)

d. Examining power – also called the investigatory power, which consists in requiring the production of books, papers, records for inspection, the attendance of witnesses and compelling their testimony and the filing of statements (Example, Commission on Elections)

e. Summary power – the power to apply compulsion or force against a person or property to effectuate a legal purpose without a judicial warrant to authorize such action

4. Quasi-legislative Power (rule-making power) – the power of making rules and regulations to govern a certain subject within its jurisdiction. This grant of rule-making power is a relaxation of the principle of separation of power and serves an as exception to the non-delegation of legislative power. Administrative relations adopted under legislative authority by particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions, without extending, expanding, or amending the law itself.

a. Requisites for the validity of administrative rules and regulations:

i. It must have been issued under the authority of law

ii. It must be within the scope and purview of the law

iii. It must be reasonable

iv. Must be published in the official gazette and newspaper of general circulation

v. Must be registered with the UP Law Center

b. Exceptions:

i. Those which are merely internal in nature regulating personnel of the agency and not the public

ii. Letters of instructions issued by an administrative superior to be followed by subordinates

c. Categories of rules and regulations that may be promulgated:

i. Those intended to supply the details of a legislation

ii. Those that are intended to construe or interpret the particular law or statute being enforced

iii. Those that are intended to determine some facts or state of things from which the enforcement of the law shall depend

5. Quasi-Judicial Power (power of adjudication) – the power to investigate facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. Quasi-judicial adjudication is a determination of rights, privileges, and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a situation. (Example, the National Labor Relations Commission adjudicates labor cases)

a. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction – means that the judicial action of a case is deferred pending the determination of some issues which properly belong to an administrative body because their expertise, specialized skills, knowledge and resources as required for the resolution of the factual or non-legal matters. This requires substantial evidence, or such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the quality of evidence necessary for a court to affirm a decision of an administrative body.

b. Trial-type hearing or a full blown hearing is needed when adjudicative fact is to be established.

c. Types of administrative investigation

i. Determinative – the purpose is to determine the facts which would qualify the positive application of the law being enforced, administered, or implemented

ii. Disciplinary administrative investigation

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Where the law provides for the remedies against the action of an administrative board, body or officer, relief to courts against such action can be sought only after exhausting all the remedies provided for. As a general rule, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies only when there is an express legal provision requiring such administrative step as a condition precedent to the taking of an action in court.

Exceptions to exhaustion of administrative remedies:

1. When no administrative review is provided by law
2. When the issue is purely legal
3. When the party invoking the doctrine is guilty of estoppel
4. When there is unreasonable delay of official action that will prejudice the complaint
5. When the amount involved is too small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive to the complainant
6. When there is no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy available
7. When there is “qualified political agency”
8. In land case, when the land in question is a private land
9. When it will result into the nullification of the claim or cause of action
10. When there is an official action demanded by public interest

Civil Procedure Questions

1. What are the remedies of the plaintiff if the motion to dismiss is granted?

It depends on the ground specified in his motion to dismiss.
(a) If dismissal is without prejudice, the defendant may REFILE
(b) File an APPEAL if the grounds in the motion are based on prescription, res adjudicata, lis
pendens, or statute of frauds
(c) File for Certiorari under Rule 65 when there is grave abuse of discretion (Rule 16)


2. What are the effects of dismissal of complaint on the counterclaim?

When the complaint is dismissed upon motion of the plaintiff, The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action.

When the complaint is dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, it is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (Rule 17)


3. A. What are the requisites before a party may be declared in default?

The following are the requisites before a party may be declared in default:
(a) failure of the party to file his answer within the time allowed;
(b) Motion of the claiming party;
(c) notice to the defending party;
(d) proof of failure to file answer;
(e) proof that the summons have been validly served;
(f) Hearing on the Motion to declare the party in default

Rule 9, Section 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

B. What are the remedies of a party declared in default?

(a) file a Motion under oath to set aside the order of default if the default was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
(b) file a Motion for New Trial if there is new evidence
(c) Petition for relief of judgment

4. What are the effects of a declaration or order of default?

(a) The party declared in default loses standing in trial
(b) Notice of subsequent proceedings must still be served to the default party
(c) He may participate in the trial but only as a witness for the other parties
(d) Declaration of default is not tantamount to an admission of the truth of the plaintiff's complaint because the former still has to present evidence

A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but not to take part in the trial. [Rule 9, Section 3, sub-paragraph (a)]


5. What are the cases where an order of default cannot be made?

(a) Annulment of marriage;
(b) Declaration of nullity of marriage;
(c) Legal separation.

An order of default cannot be made in cases involving the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage, or for legal separation. If the defending party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated. [Rule 9, Section 3, sub-paragraph (e)]


6. What are the modes of extra-territorial service?

(a) Personal service
(b) Publication plus registered mail
(c) Any other manner that the court may deem sufficient

Rule 14, Section 15. Extraterritorial service. When the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines, service may, by leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines by personal service as under section 6; or by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant, or in any other manner the court may deem sufficient. Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less than sixty (60) days after notice, within which the defendant must answer.


7. What is the remedy of the defendant if the motion is denied?

Rule 16, Section 4. Time to plead. � If the motion is denied, the movant shall file his answer within the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11 to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from his receipt of the notice of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be amended, he shall file his answer within the period prescribed by Rule 11 counted from service of the amended pleading, unless the court provides a longer period.


8. How is substituted service made?

Rule 13, Section 8. If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers filed with the court cannot be made either personally or by mail, the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of such delivery.

Rule 14, Section 7. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served with summons within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.


9. What are the 3 options available to defendant upon receipt of complaint?

(1) File Motion to Dismiss
(2) File a Motion for Bill of Particulars
(3) File an Answer (may be with counter-claim, third-party claim, etc.)

Lacson vs Reyes GR No. 86250 February 26, 1990

Atty. Ephraim Serquina did not pay docket fees in his Motion for Attorney’s Fees, contending that such motion was only incidental to the probate of the will of Carmelita Farlin, he being the executor thereof. Thereafter, the heirs filed their answer and denied the claim for P68,000.00 attorney’s fees alleging that the sum agreed upon was only P7,000.00, a sum they had allegedly already paid.

The Supreme Court ruled that the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees. The payment of docket fees is required before the Motion for Attorney’s Fees could be validly tired.

Tacay vs RTC of Tagum GR Nos 88075-77 December 20, 1989

Tacay vs RTC of Tagum
GR Nos. 88075-77
December 20, 1989

Facts:
These were 2 separate cases originally filed by Godofredo Pineda at the RTC of Tagum for recovery of possession (acciones publiciana) against 3 defendants, namely: Antonia Noel, Ponciano Panes, and Maximo Tacay.

Pineda was the owner of 790 sqm land evidenced by TCT No. T-46560. The previous owner of such land has allowed the 3 defendants to use or occupy the same by mere tolerance. Pineda, having himself the need to used the property, has demanded the defendants to vacate the property and pay reasonable rentals therefore, but such were refused.

The complaint was challenged in the Motions to Dismiss filed by each defendant alleging that it did not specify the amounts of actual, nominal, and exemplary damages, nor the assessed value of the property, that being bars the determination of the RTC’s jurisdiction in deciding the case.

The Motions to Dismiss were denied but the claims for damages in the complaint were expunged for failure to specify the amounts. Thus, the defendants filed a Joint Petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and temporary restraining order against the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the amount of damages claimed and the assessed value of the property are relevant in the determination of the court’s jurisdiction in a case for recovery of possession of property?

Decision:
Determinative of the court’s jurisdiction in a recovery of possession of property is the nature of the action (one of accion publicaina) and not the value of the property, it may be commenced and prosecuted without an accompanying claim for actual, nominal or exemplary damages and such action would fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. The court acquired jurisdiction upon the filing of the complaint and payment of the prescribed docket fees.

(CLICK THE TITLE TO VIEW THE FULL TEXT OF THE CASE @ LAWPHIL.NET)
ANOTHER TACAY VS RTC OF TAGUM DIGEGST AT ARELLANOLAW.NET

Sun Insurance Office Ltd. vs Hon. Asuncion and Manuel Uy Po Tiong GR No. 79937-38 February 13, 1989

Facts:
Sun insurance filed a case for the consignation of premiums on a fire insurance policy with a prayer for the judicial declaration of its nullity against private respondent Manuel Uy Po Tiong. Private respondent as declared in default for failure to file the required answer within the reglementary period. Meanwhile, the Respondent Manuel Tiong also filed a case against Sun Insurance for the refund of premiums and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment, seeking the payment of actual, compensatory, moral, exemplary and liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation, and costs of suit, but the damages sought were not specifically stated in the prayer, although it may be inferred from the body of the complaint that it would amount to about P50M. In the body of the original complaint, the total amount of damages sought amounted to about P50 Million. In the prayer, the amount of damages asked for was not stated. The amount of only P210.00 was paid for the docket fee. On January 23, 1986, private respondent filed an amended complaint wherein in the prayer it is asked that he be awarded no less than P10,000,000.00 as actual and exemplary damages but in the body of the complaint the amount of his pecuniary claim is approximately P44,601,623.70. Said amended complaint was admitted and the private respondent was reassessed the additional docket fee of P39,786.00 based on his prayer of not less than P10,000,000.00 in damages, which he paid.
On April 24, 1986, private respondent filed a supplemental complaint alleging an additional claim of P20,000,000.00 in damages so that his total claim is approximately P64,601,620.70. On October 16, 1986, private respondent paid an additional docket fee of P80,396.00. After the promulgation of the decision of the respondent court on August 31, 1987 wherein private respondent was ordered to be reassessed for additional docket fee, and during the pendency of this petition, and after the promulgation of Manchester, on April 28, 1988, private respondent paid an additional docket fee of P62,132.92. Although private respondent appears to have paid a total amount of P182,824.90 for the docket fee considering the total amount of his claim in the amended and supplemental complaint amounting to about P64,601,620.70, petitioner insists that private respondent must pay a docket fee of P257,810.49.

Issue:
Whether or not the court acquires jurisdiction when the correct and proper docket fee has not been paid?

Ruling:
Manchester ruling applies, with modification. Statutes regulating the procedure of courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and in that respect.
The Court dismissed petitioner’s motion and ordered the Clerk of court to re-asses the docket fees.

Personal Observation:
The case is different in Manchester because the respondent herein has shown compliance by paying docket fees upon reassessment and has also paid the docket fees on its amended complaint increasing the claim for damages. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence that the respondent has the intention of deliberately defraud the court or evaded the payment of docket fees.

(CLICK ON THE TITLE TO VIEW THE FULL TEXT OF THE CASE @LAWPHIL.NET)

Manchester Development Corporation vs Court of Appeals GR No. 75919 May 7, 1987

Facts:
This was originally a case of an action for torts and damages and specific performance with a prayer for temporary restraining order. The damages were not specifically stated in the prayer but the body of the complaint assessed a P78.75M damages suffered by the petitioner. The amount of docket fees paid was only P410.00. The petitioner then amended the complaint and reduced the damages to P10M only.

Issues:
When does a court acquire jurisdiction?
Does an amended complaint vest jurisdiction in the court?

Ruling:
The court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amounts sought in the amended pleading.

(CLICK THE TITLE OF THE CASE TO VIEW THE FULL TEXT @LAWPHIL.NET)

Japan Airlines V. Asuncion (G.R No. 161730, January 28,2005) 449 SCRA 544

Digested by Ms. Karen Mae Gonzales

FACTS:
This petition for review seeks to reverse and set aside the October 9, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals and its January 12, 2004 resolution, which affirmed in toto the June 10, 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 61 in Civil Case No. 92-3635.
On March 27, 1992, respondents Michael and Jeanette Asuncion left Manila on board Japan Airlines’ (JAL) Flight 742 bound for Los Angeles. Their itinerary included a stop-over in Narita and an overnight stay at Hotel Nikko Narita. Upon arrival at Narita, Mrs. Noriko Etou-Higuchi of JAL endorsed their applications for shore pass and directed them to the Japanese immigration official. A shore pass is required of a foreigner aboard a vessel or aircraft who desires to stay in the neighborhood of the port of call for not more than 72 hours.
During their interview, the Japanese immigration official noted that Michael appeared shorter than his height as indicated in his passport. Because of this inconsistency, respondents were denied shore pass entries and were brought instead to the Narita Airport Rest House where they were billeted overnight.
Mr. Atsushi Takemoto of the International Service Center (ISC), the agency tasked by Japan’s Immigration Department to handle passengers who were denied shore pass entries, brought respondents to the Narita Airport Rest House where they stayed overnight until their departure the following day for Los Angeles. Respondents were charged US$400.00 each for their accommodation, security service and meals.

On December 12, 1992, respondents filed a complaint for damages claiming that JAL did not fully apprise them of their travel requirements and that they were rudely and forcibly detained at Narita Airport.


Issue: Whether or not JAL is liable of breach of contract of carriage.

Side Issues:
• Whether or not JAL is liable for moral, exemplary damages,
• Whether or not the plaintiff is liable for attorney’s fee and cost of suit incurred (JAL counterclaim)

Ruling:

The court finds that JAL did not breach its contract of carriage with respondents. It may be true that JAL has the duty to inspect whether its passengers have the necessary travel documents, however, such duty does not extend to checking the veracity of every entry in these documents. JAL could not vouch for the authenticity of a passport and the correctness of the entries therein. The power to admit or not an alien into the country is a sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL. This is not within the ambit of the contract of carriage entered into by JAL and herein respondents. As such, JAL should not be faulted for the denial of respondents’ shore pass applications.

In the Respondents claim that petitioner breached its contract of carriage when it failed to explain to the immigration authorities that they had overnight vouchers at the Hotel Nikko Narita. They imputed that JAL did not exhaust all means to prevent the denial of their shore pass entry applications. JAL or any of its representatives have no authority to interfere with or influence the immigration authorities. The most that could be expected of JAL is to endorse respondents’ applications, which Mrs. Higuchi did immediately upon their arrival in Narita.

Moral damages may be recovered in cases where one willfully causes injury to property, or in cases of breach of contract where the other party acts fraudulently or in bad faith. Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, when the party to a contract acts in wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner. Attorney’s fees are allowed when exemplary damages are awarded and when the party to a suit is compelled to incur expenses to protect his interest.[17] There being no breach of contract nor proof that JAL acted in wanton, fraudulent or malevolent manner, there is no basis for the award of any form of damages.

Neither should JAL be held liable to reimburse respondents the amount of US$800.00. It has been sufficiently proven that the amount pertained to ISC, an agency separate and distinct from JAL, in payment for the accommodations provided to respondents. The payments did not in any manner accrue to the benefit of JAL.

However, we find that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed JAL’s counterclaim for litigation expenses, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The action was filed by respondents in utmost good faith and not manifestly frivolous. Respondents honestly believed that JAL breached its contract. A person’s right to litigate should not be penalized by holding him liable for damages. This is especially true when the filing of the case is to enforce what he believes to be his rightful claim against another although found to be erroneous.[

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The October 9, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals and its January 12, 2004 resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 57440, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the finding of breach on the part of petitioner and the award of damages, attorney’s fees and costs of the suit in favor of respondents is concerned. Accordingly, there being no breach of contract on the part of petitioner, the award of actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of the suit in favor of respondents Michael and Jeanette Asuncion, is DELETED for lack of basis. However, the dismissal for lack of merit of petitioner’s counterclaim for litigation expenses, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, is SUSTAINED. No pronouncement as to costs

Dangwa Transportation Co. vs Court of Appeals GR No. 95582 October 1991

Facts:
On March 25, 1985, Pedrito Cudiamat was ran over by a bus operated by Dangwa Transportation Company, and driven by Theodore Lardizabal. Lardizabal, being reckless and negligent, has prematurely stepped on the accelerator of the bus just as when Cudiamat boarded the same. The sudden jerk movement caused Cudiamat to fall from the platform and was ran over by they bus. Moreover, the driver did not immediately brought the victim to the nearest hospital for medical attention.

Issue:
Whether or not the driver and bus company are liable for the death of P. Cudiamat.

Held:
They are liable.

Common carriers, from the nature of their business and reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers transported by the according to all the circumstances of each case. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

It has also been repeatedly held that in an action based on a contract of carriage, the court need not make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier in order to hold it responsible to pay the damages sought by the passenger. By contract of carriage, the carrier assumes the express obligation to transport the passenger to his destination safely and observe extraordinary diligence with a due regard for all the circumstances, and any injury that might be suffered by the passenger is right away attributable to the fault or negligence of the carrier. This is an exception to the general rule that negligence must be proved, and it is therefore incumbent upon the carrier to prove that it has exercised extraordinary diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil Code.

November 12, 2007

Tonight is going to be the first night of our classes this semester.. Last semester was really hell... The current fad was bombarded with 3.5 and reconsidered grades.. Luckily, i passed all subjects but i was not spared from the 3.5 grade.. Let me publish my grades here (nyahahah!)

Negotiable Instruments - 1.1
Law on Election - 1.6
Land Titles and Deeds - 2.0
Labor Standards - 2.4
Law on Natural Resources - 2.5
Property - 3.0
Criminal Procedure - 3.1
Law on Public Corporation - 3.1
Environmental Rights - 3.5

I had 9 subjects in all and it was really hell. The subject I dreaded most was Criminal Procedure and I was very happy and contented with the 3.1 final grade. I really thought that I would flunk on this subject. Our professor for Public Corporation and Environmental Rights was tough, too!! Damn, I couldn't imagine myself taking again his subjects... I was really lucky to pass all my subjects..

I'm currently enrolled full load this second semester with the following subjects:

Credit Transactions
Administrative Law
Civil Procedure
Transportation
Public International Law
Sales
Social Legislation
Ombudsman/Sandigan Law

8 subjects in all, a bit lighter that the previous semester's load.. Well, good luck to me and good luck to all other law students in UM! Ahehehe.. (--,)

Enrolment

Enrolment officially starts today.. Get ready with your downpayment of P2,300.00 for second year students.. Unfortunately, the grades aren't available yet (Nego pa lang ang available as of 9am 10-30-07).. Good luck!

CPA Board Exam October 2007 result

Check this out! Click the link below to download.

CPA Board Exam Passers

Land Titles: Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals; July 5, 1996

Facts:

The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a Notice of Levy on Execution from a certificate of Title covering a parcel of real property. The inscription was caused to be made by the private respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-79073 of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, issued in the name of the spouses Uychocde, and was later carried over to and annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 of the same registry, issued in the name of the spouses Sajonas, who purchased the parcel of land from the Uychocdes, and are now the petitioners in this case.

The subject property was bought by Sajonas spouses on September 1983 and caused the annotation of their adverse claim on August 1984. The Deed of Sale was executed upon the full payment of the purchase price and the same was registered only on August 1985.

Meanwhile, without the petitioners' knowledge, there has been a compromise agreement between the spouses Uychocde and Pilares (Uychocde's judgment creditor), and a notice of levy on execution was issued on February 12, 1985. On February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff Roberto Garcia of Quezon City presented said notice of levy on execution before the Register of Deeds of Marikina and the same was annotated at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry No. 123283.

Issue:
Which should be preferred between the notice of levy on execution and the deed of absolute sale. The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on September 4, 1984, but was registered only on August 28, 1985, while the notice of levy on execution was annotated six (6) months prior to the registration of the sale on February 12, 1985.

Decision:
The annotation of the adverse claim is equivalent to notice to third persons of the interest of the claimant. The provision of the law (PD 1529) that the adverse claim is only valid for 30 days cannot be upheld. Clearly, the intention of the law is otherwise as may be gleaned on the following discussion:

“Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.

The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.

Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos, nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.”

Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the portions of the law such that the provision on cancellation of adverse claim by verified petition would serve to qualify the provision on the effectivity period. The law, taken together, simply means that the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property. For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period, its cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a useless ceremony.

To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute and without qualification limited to thirty days defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for the remedy of an inscription of adverse claim, as the annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves as a warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest or the same or a better right than the registered owner thereof.

Petition was granted. The inscription of the notice of levy on execution on TCT No. N-109417 is ordered CANCELLED.

CASE DIGEST: Congson vs NLRC

FACTS:

The case was originally filed by herein respondents Bargo et al against Congson, the former being hired as piece-rate workers responsible for the loading/unloading of tuna catch for Southern Fishing Industry owned by the latter.

In 1990, the piece-rate workers were replaced with a new set of workers because of their alleged refusal/resistance to the proposed reduction of their piece-rate payment per tuna (the former rate was P1.00 per tuna movement. The reduction was proposed because of the decrease in the volume of tuna catch). They filed for underpayment of wages, contending that their average monthly rate did not exceed P1000, plus non-payment of overtime pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and separation pay.

The labor arbiter decided in favor of the workers and directed Congson to pay the monetary claims for salary differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and separation pay.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, in toto, thus the instant petition.

ISSUES:

1. W/N THE RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO A SEPARATION PAY?

2. W/N THE COMPUTATION OF WAGES SHOULD INCLUDE THE VALUE OF TUNA LIVER AND INTESTINES THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE REPONDENT WORKERS AS PART OF THEIR COMPENSATION?

HELD:

1. YES. There being a substantive proof that the respondent workers are to be reinstated by their employer, the award for separation pay is appropriate. Separation pay may be given when the employer-employee relationship is to so tainted that reinstatement would not prosper.

2. NO. Article 102 par.1 of the Labor Code states that: Forms of payment. No employer shall pay the wages of an employee by means of promissory notes, vouchers, coupons, tokens, tickets, chits, or any object other than legal tender, even when expressly requested by the employee. Thus, the computation made by the labor arbiter in arriving at the money claims is correct.

why banks rarely accept checks with two or more endorsements?

I found this article really helpful for my Negotiale Instruments Law subject:

THE EFFECT OF FORGERY IN CHECKS
By: Atty. Christopher E. Cruz
Do you ever wonder why banks rarely accept checks bearing two or more endorsements
for deposit to your account? No law requires banks to reject checks bearing two or more
endorsements. In fact, the law encourages the free transfer and negotiation of checks to other
parties in accordance with the principle of “accumulation of secondary contracts” of negotiable
instruments. As checks and other negotiable instruments are endorsed from one person to
another, the endorsers become debtors of the holder of the check. Thus, the more debtors there
are, the greater are the chances that the holder of the check can collect payment. If the law
allows numerous endorsements on checks, why then does your bank rarely honor checks
bearing two or more endorsements? The reason is because banks may also be endorsers.
Let us consider a hypothetical case: Jojo draws a check payable to the order of Manny
as payee with ABC bank as drawee. Without Manny’s knowledge, Ronald steals the check and
forges Manny’s signature, making it appear that Manny endorsed it to him. Ronald then
endorses the check and deposits the same in his own savings account with XYZ bank. XYZ
bank then presents the check for payment with ABC bank. ABC bank pays the amount to XYZ
bank which, in turn, credits it to the account of Ronald. Thereupon, forger Ronald withdraws the
amount and goes into hiding. In this case, who bears the loss, the drawer (Manny), the drawee
bank (ABC bank) or the collecting bank (XYZ bank)?
Under Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a forged signature in a check,
whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is wholly inoperative and no one can gain title to
the instrument through it. A person whose signature was forged was never a party and never
consented to the contract. Thus, a forged endorsement does not operate as the payee’s
endorsement. However, this rule does not apply to a party who is precluded from setting up
forgery or want of authority. Who are these parties? They are those who warrant or admit the
genuineness of the forged signature and those who by their acts, silence or negligence, are
barred from setting up forgery. An endorser is an example of a party who is precluded from
setting up forgery as he warrants, among other things, that “the instrument is genuine and in all
respects what it purports to be” (Sec. 65 (a), Negotiable Instruments Law).
Let us now apply the aforesaid rules to the present case. As between the drawer Jojo
and the drawee ABC bank, the latter is liable for the loss. Under the circumstances, ABC bankഊis under strict liability to pay the check only to the order of Jojo as reflected on the face of the
check. Payment under the forged endorsement of Manny is not to Jojo’s order. By paying a
party other than to the order of Jojo, ABC bank failed to comply with the terms of the check. It
violated its duty to charge Jojo’s account only according to his order. Thus, as a general rule,
ABC bank may not debit Jojo’s account and must re-credit the amount of the check to his
account. However, if ABC bank can prove that Jojo substantially contributed to the making of
the forged signature, the latter is precluded from setting up forgery.
However, all is not lost for ABC bank since it was not Jojo’s signature that was forged
but Manny’s. In cases involving forged endorsements, the drawee ABC bank may not debit the
account of the drawer but may generally pass liability back through the collection chain to the
party who took it from the forger and, of course, to the forger himself, if available (Associated
Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 620). Thus, ABC bank may seek reimbursement from
XYZ bank. Since Manny’s signature was forged, XYZ bank had no right to be paid by ABC
Bank. Furthermore, under Sec. 66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, a collecting bank like
XYZ Bank that endorses a check bearing a forged signature and presents it to the drawee ABC
bank is liable as an endorser. Thus, XYZ warrants the genuineness of all prior signatures and is
precluded from setting up forgery or want of authority. Thus, as between the drawer, the drawee
and the collecting bank, the collecting bank is ultimately liable for the loss.
Since the drawee ABC Bank is liable to the drawer Jojo, and the collecting bank XYZ
Bank, in turn, is liable to the drawee ABC Bank, can Jojo be allowed to directly collect from XYZ
Bank to simplify matters? Negative. There is no legal relationship between Jojo and XYZ Bank.
Jojo is not a client of XYZ Bank. While the procedure may be simpler, this legal shortcut is not
permissible.
You now know why your bank rarely accepts checks bearing two or more endorsements
– as collecting banks, they do not want to be liable as endorsers.
Atty. Christopher E. Cruz is a Full-Time Assistant Professor of the Commercial Law Department,
De La Salle University.
These article are contributed by the CBE Faculty in the column of Business Focus of Manila
Bulletin published August 2, 2004.

my first week

My dad said that second year in lawschool is the point of no return. I am officially enrolled and is about to start my second week of law school funk as a second year student. Juggling 9 subjects is not an easy task, and i am not allowed to give up.

Heavy subjects include the following:

Law on Property
Law on Registration of Land Titles and Deeds
Law on Labor Standards
Criminal Procedure
Negotiable Instruments

and minor subjects....

As a consolation, our school gave us brilliant teachers. And I actually like them... As opposed to our first year teachers, some of whom are really lazy, our professors right now are really really good... =)

Well, more updates when I am not very busy doing case digests.. Lol

Sophomoric Repertoire

Enrollment days is fast approaching. I still have not saved enough for the downpayment for my tuition fees. Anyway, I'm already at my second year. I had a tough first year experience specially in establishing new relationships at school and on learning new things.. And these new things are ought to be remembered because this will contribute much of the profession that i have chosen. it just makes me think that learning these things carry with it a big responsibility.


Wish me luck!