UM Shootfest

A cross-post from Khakiness



I "googled" UM shootfest this morning to see if there are any news articles about it posted on the internet, and I stumbled upon Neil Bravo's (a classmate in law school) article in The Daily Mirror here. The complete list of winners is also in that article.

Anyway, I thought that it would be nice to write my own version of the UM Shootfest.


This is the second time that the University of Mindanao College of Law hosted a shootfest open to all UM Law Students, Lawyers, UM Professors, and also opened its doors to guest shooters. For two years now, the committee was headed by "Coach" Ryan Neil Lofranco.


Ok, so why the term "coach" before Ryan's name? It's because the girls (Moi, Thea, Karen, Janice, Darlene, etc.) are so excited to join the the shootfest although we don't have our own guns. Coach Ryan agreed to "prostitute" his gun by lending it to those who want to join the fun... And, just like a real coach, he gave us the needed tips and advice on proper and safe gun handling.

It was not only a time for fun, it was also a chance for us students to have camaraderie with our professors. It was a break from the daily quizzes, recitations, mind-boggling questions, and classroom terrorism, not that we are indeed terrorized.... Lol!

Lawstudents are not only bookworms, we know how to beat stress off our necks, too!

Taxation Cases for MIDTERMS

1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and PHILIPPINE CASINO OPERATORS CORPORATION, respondents
2. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., (FORMERLY FILIPRO, INC.) petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
3. CARRARA MARBLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
4. TRANSGLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.

Note: Clicking on the title of this post would direct you to a downloadable .doc copy of these cases

Taxation 1 - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Taxation 1

International Humanitarian Law Day

The University of Mindanao was one of the donees of the 47 volumes of International Humanitarian Law books and resources given by the International Committee of the Red Cross last August 12, 2008,

August 12 is the International Humanitarian Law Day. Law students from Ateneo de Davao University, Cor Jesu College, and University of Mindanao attended the event which was held at The Royal Mandaya Hotel. Each school had their own one-hour presentation concerning International Humanitarian Law.

It was a successful event. Thanks ICRC!

Los Baños Rural Bank vs Africa

Petitioner Los Baños questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals in granting respondent Pacita Africa's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain petitioner from proceeding with the foreclosure and consolidation of the title over the subject property after such property was allegedly sold to Macy Africa by forging Pacita Africa's signature.

Los Baños argued that they should not be enjoined from foreclosing hte property because the foreclosure sale has long been effected and since it is a consummated act, it can no longer be restrained.

The SC held that in the instant case, the status quo was the situation of the parties at the time of filing the Amended Complaint, at the poin where the property was already foreclosed. But, the last actual uncontested status that preceeded the conroversy was when the property in dispute was still registered int he name of Macy Africa, petitioner not having consolidated in its name the title thereto.

Moreover, the court also held that the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are present and established by Pacita Africa. A writ of preliminary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo ante, upon an applican't showing of two important requisites; namely: (1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and (2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

The issuance of the wirt of preliminary injuction would no doubt preserve the status quo.

Provisional Remedies

List of Cases
July 15, 2008


1. Los Baños Rural Bank vs Africa 384 SCRA 535
2. Mabayo Farms Inc. cs Court of Appeals
3. Dayrit vs Philippine Bank of Communications 386 scra 117 (murag wala jud ni labot bah)
4. G & S Transport vs Court of Appeals 382 SCRA 262
5. Bustamante vs Court of Appeals 381 SCRA 171
6. Rosario Textile Mills Inc. vs Court of Appeals 409 SCRA 515


Receivership:

1. Commodities Storage & Ice Plant Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 439
2. Francisco vs Rodriguez 6 SCRA 443
3. Alcantara vs Abbas 9 SCRA 54
4. Philtrust vs Ata. Maria 53 P 463

Delta Ventures Resources Inc. vs Hon. Cabato

Petitioner Dela Ventures filed a third-party claim before the NLRC prior to the auction sale, and the Labor Arbiter issued an order directing the suspension of the auction sale until the merits of petitioner's claim has been resolved, But barely a month after, the petitioner filed with the RTC a complaint for injuction and damages with a prayer for TRO, reiterating the same allegations in the third-party claim.

Whether or not a complaint filed at the Regional Trial Court to quash the writ of execution issued by the Labor Arbiter may prosper?

No. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Whatever irregularities attended the issuance and execution of the writ of execution should be referred to the same administrative tribunal who rendered the decision. This is because any court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent power for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own processes.

Petitioner should have filed its third-party claim before the Labor Arbiter, from whom the writ of execution originated before instituting the civil case at RTC.

Phil. Sinter vs Cagayan Electric Light and Power Company

Whether or not an injunction lies against the final and executory judgment of the Energy Regulatory Board?

No. After a judgment has gained finality, it becomes the ministerial duty of the court to order its execution. No court, perforce, should interfere by injunction or otherwise to restrain such execution. The rule, however, concededly admits of exceptions; hence, when facts and circumstances later transpire that would render execution inequitable or unjust, the interested party may ask a competent court to stay its execution or prevent its enforcement. So, also, a change int he situation of parties can warrant an injunctive relief.

Taxation

List of Cases:

1. Commissioner vs Algue, Inc. GR No. L-28896, February 17, 1988
2. Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
3. Meralco vs Province of Laguna
4. Yutivo vs Court of Tax Appeals
   

Evidence

List of Cases:

1. Pp vs Nardo 278 SCRA 393
   
2. Pp vs Dadles 353 SCRA 339
3. Pp vs Santos 1993
   

Provsional Remedies

List of Cases:

1. Heirs of the late Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, et. al. represented by Adoracion Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals and Metro Manila Builders, Inc.
2. National Mines and Allied Workers Union vs Vera 133 scra 259
3. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. Majaducon 407 SCRA 356
4. Phil Sinter Corp. vs Cagayan Electric Light and Power Co. Inc. 381 SCRA 582
5. Dela Ventures Resources Inc. vs. Cabato 327 SCRA 521
6. Yupangco Cotton Mills Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 373 SCRA 451