Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Answers To The Mock Bar Examination (Commercial Law)
Answers To The Mock Bar Examination (Commercial Law)
REVIEW)
Issue: Whether pearl & Deans copyright registration for its light boxes and
the trademark registration of Poster Ads preclude Shoemart and North
Edsa Marketing from using the same.
Held: No. Pearl & Dean secured its copyright under the classification class
o work. This being so, its protection extended only to the technical
drawings and not to the light box itself. Pearl & Dean cannot exclude
others from the manufacture, sale and/or commercial use over the light
boxes on the sole basis of its copyright, certificate over the technical
drawings. It cannot be the intention of the law that the right of exclusivity
would be granted for a longer time (so years in copyright, and 17 years in
patent) through the simplified procedure of copyright registration with the
Petitioners claim:
It is Cresers contention that it can file, under Section 42 of the Patent Law
(R.A. 165), an action for infringement not as a patentee but as an entity in
possession of a right, title or interest in and to the patented invention. It
advances the theory that while the absence of a patent may prevent one
from lawfully suing another for infringement of said patent, such absence
does not bar the first true and actual inventor of the patented invention
from suing another who was granted a patent in a suit for declaratory or
injunctive relief recognized under American patent laws. This remedy,
petitioner points out, may be likened to a civil action for infringement
under Section 42 of the Philippine Patent Law.
Respondents claim:
Private
respondent
Floro International
submitted
its
memorandum alleging that petitioner has no cause of action to file a
complaint for infringement against it since Creser has no patent for the
aerial fuze which it claims to have invented; that petitioner's available
remedy is to file a petition for cancellation of patent before the Bureau of
Patents; that private respondent as the patent holder cannot be stripped
of its property right over the patented aerial fuze consisting of the
exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the same and that it stands to
suffer irreparable damage and injury if it is enjoined from the exercise of
its property rights over its patent.
Issue:
Whether Creser can file an action for infringement being not as patentee
Ruling:
NO. Section 42 of R.A. 165, otherwise known as the Patent Law, explicitly
provides:
Sec. 42. Civil action for infringement. Any patentee, or anyone possessing
any right, title or interest in and to the patented invention, whose rights
have been infringed, may bring a civil action before the proper Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial court), to recover from the infringer
damages sustained by reason of the infringement and to secure an
injunction for the protection of his right. . . .
3. Check drawn against Pigue and payable to the order of Yang and Chow was
deposited to Porki Bank (collecting bank) with the lone indorsement of Yang.
Yang was able to get the proceeds of the check after it was cleared by Pigue
bank.
a. Was the check properly indorsed?
- No. we must apply the general rule. Sec. 41. Where an instrument is
payable to the order of two or more payees or indorsees who are not
partners, all must indorse unless the one indorsing has authority to
indorse for the others.
- METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs. BA FINANCE
CORPORATION and MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. No.
179952. December 4, 2009.
-
FACTS:
Lamberto Bitanga obtained from respondent BA Finance Corporation a
loan, to secure which, he mortgaged his car to respondent BA Finance.
Bitanga had the mortgaged car insured by respondent Malayan Insurance.
The car was stolen. On Bitangas claim, Malayan Insurance issued a check
payable to the order of "B.A. Finance Corporation and Lamberto Bitanga",
drawn against China. The check was crossed with the notation "For
Deposit Payees Account Only." Without the indorsement or authority of
his co-payee BA Finance, Bitanga deposited the check to his account with
the Asianbank, now merged with herein petitioner Metrobank. Bitanga
subsequently withdrew the entire proceeds of the check. In
the meantime, Bitangas loan became past due, but despite demands, he
failed to settle it. BA Finance eventually learned of the loss of the car and
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is liable for the full value of the check?
HELD: Yes. Affirming the decision of the CA, the SC held that Section 41 of
the
Negotiable Instruments Law provides: Where an instrument is payable to
the order of two or more payees or indorsees who are not partners, all
must indorse unless the one indorsing has authority to indorse for the
others. Bitanga alone endorsed the crossed check, and petitioner allowed
the deposit and release of the proceeds thereof, despite the absence of
authority of Bitangas co-payee BA Finance to endorse it on its behalf. The
payment of an instrument over a missing indorsement is the equivalent of
payment on a forged indorsement or an unauthorized indorsement in itself
in the case of joint payees. Clearly, petitioner, through its employee, was
negligent when it allowed the deposit of the crossed check, despite the
lone endorsement of Bitanga, ostensibly ignoring the fact that the check
did not, it bears repeating, carry the indorsement of BA Finance.
5. Congee, entrustee under a trust receipt, returned the goods to the entruster
as she was not able to sell the goods. Congee now claims that her obligation
to the entrusted has been extinguished. Is this correct?
o No. A Trust Receipt is a security arrangement, the bank acquires
security interest thus the return did not accord full satisfaction of
the debtor because he still has outstanding obligation.
6. Refer to the question.
o Rule on adhesion. Is a contract between two parties, where the
terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties,
and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more
favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.
o Construed in favor of the insured.
o Case
- Eternal vs. PhilAm Life Gr. No. 166245 April 9, 2008
-
FACTS:
December 10, 1980: Philippine American Life Insurance Company
(Philamlife) entered into an agreement denominated as Creditor Group
Life Policy No. P-19202 with Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation
(Eternal) Under the policy (renewable annually), the clients of Eternal who
purchased burial lots from it on installment basis would be insured by
Philamlife amount of insurance coverage depended upon the existing
balance Eternal complied by submitting a letter dated December 29,
1982, a list of insurable balances of its lot buyers for October 1982 which
includes John Chuang which was stamped as received by Philam Life
August 2, 1984, Chuang died with a balance of 100,000 php April 25,
1986: Philamlife had not furnished Eternal with any reply on its insurance
claim so its demanded its claim According to Philam Life, since
the application was submitted only on November 15, 1984, after his
death, Mr. John Uy Chuang was not covered under the Policy since
his application was not approved. Moreover, the acceptance of
the premiums are only in trust for and not a sign of approval.
It can be sued but cannot sue here in the Philippines because it has
no license and juridical personality.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ma. Lourdes could claim benefits as the beneficiary of her
husband under the insurance plan despite consideration that her husband
Manuel concealed the true condition of his health.
RULING:
The Supreme Court answers this to the negative and the AFFIRMED in its
entirety the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The comprehensive pension plan that Philam Plans issued contains a oneyear incontestability period. It states:
VIII. INCONTESTABILITY
After this Agreement has remained in force for one (1) year, we can no
longer contest for health reasons any claim for insurance under this
Agreement, except for the reason that installment has not been paid
(lapsed), or that you are not insurable at the time you bought this pension
program by reason of age. If this Agreement lapses but is reinstated
afterwards, the one (1) year contestability period shall start again on the
date of approval of your request for reinstatement.
The above incontestability clause precludes the insurer from disowning
liability under the policy it issued on the ground of concealment or
misrepresentation regarding the health of the insured after a year of its
issuance.
Since Manuel died on the eleventh month following the issuance of
his plan, the one year incontestability period has not yet set in.
Consequently, Philam Plans was not barred from questioning Lourdes
entitlement to the benefits of her husbands pension plan.
12.Yes. Considered as common carrier despite the fact that the clients are
limited. Common carrier definition.
CASE : Sps. Perea vs. Sps. Zarate
G.R. No. 157917, August 29, 2012
FACTS:
Sps. Zarate, parents of Aaron Zarate, engaged the services of Sps. Perea for the
adequate and safe transportation carriage of the former spouses son from their
residence to his school. During the effectivity of the contract of carriage, Aaron
Zarate died in connection with a vehicular/train collision which occurred while Aaron
was riding the contracted carrier. At the time of the said collision, there were no
safety warning signs and railings at the site commonly used for railroad crossing.
The site of the collision was not intended by the railroad operator for railroad
crossing at the time of the collision. PNR refused to acknowledge any liability for
the collision. In Sps. Pereas defense, they adduces evidence to show that they had
exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision
of Alfaro, the driver, by making sure that Alfaro had been issued a drivers license
and had not been involved in any vehicular accident prior to the collision. The RTC
ruled in favor of Sps. Zarate and held the Pereas and PNR jointly and severally
liable for the death of Aaron plus damages. The CA upheld the award for the loss of
Aarons earning capacity, plus damages, and the award for Attorneys fees was
deleted. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the Pereas and PNR are jointly and severally liable for damages.
HELD:
YES. The defense of the Pereas that they exercised the diligence of a good father
of a family has no merit because they operated as common carriers and that their
standard of care was extraordinary diligence, not the ordinary diligence of a good
father of a family. The Pereas, acting as a common carrier, were already presumed
to be negligent at the time of the accident because death had occurred to their
passenger. The presumption for negligence, being a presumption of law, laid the
burden of evidence on their shoulders to establish that they had not been negligent.
There is no question that the Pereas did not overturn the presumption of their
negligence by credible evidence. Their defense of having observed the diligence of
a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their driver was not
legally sufficient. PNR was also found guilty of negligence because it did not ensure
the safety of others through the placing of crossbars, signal lights, warning signs,
and other permanent safety barriers to prevent vehicles or pedestrians from
crossing there. Hence, the Pereas and PNR should jointly and severally be liable
for the death of Aaron Zarate.
13.Negotiability of the instrument.
a. Validly negotiated? No. because the instrument does not bearing
negotiable words to bearer or order
b. Did Ramen acquired credit? Yes by virtue of assignment but not by
negotiation.
14.Regarding condition precedent in COGSA. Qualified answer.
15.3 fold character of Bill of Lading.
a. Receipt, contract, document of title.
16.Doctrine of Last Clear Chance.
17.Exempt securities.