In addition to the cases provided above, we will have the ff topics po for finals:

1. General Banking Law particularly on secrecy of bank deposits

The Bank Secrecy Law in the Philippines, specifically Republic Act No. 1405, generally
prohibits the disclosure of bank deposits. However, there are notable exceptions where disclosure
is allowed:
1. Written Permission: The depositor’s written permission or consent allows the
examination of their bank accounts1.
2. Impeachment Cases: In cases of impeachment, bank records can be disclosed1.
3. Court Orders: A competent court can order the disclosure of bank deposits in cases of
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials1.
4. Litigation Involvement: If the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation, it can
be examined upon court order1.
5. Ombudsman Subpoena: The Ombudsman can issue a subpoena for bank records during
an investigation, provided there is a pending court case, the account is clearly identified,
the inspection is limited to the subject matter of the case, and both the bank personnel and
the depositor are notified to be present during the inspection1.

2. IP Law particularly on trademark, copyright, patents; read Arts. 721 and 723 NCC
Articles 721 and 723 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines deal with the ownership of
letters and other private communications:
 Article 721: This article is not explicitly provided in the search results, but it generally
pertains to the rules regarding the ownership of intellectual creations, which may include
literary and artistic works. In the context of the Civil Code, it would define the rights of
authors over their creations.
 Article 723: Letters and other private communications in writing are owned by the
person to whom they are addressed and delivered. However, they cannot be published or
disseminated without the consent of the writer or their heirs1.
 Copyright: Copyright refers to the protection granted to original literary and artistic
works. This includes books, music, paintings, films, software, and other creative
expressions. Under the Republic Act No. 8293, commonly known as the Intellectual
Property Code of the Philippines, copyright holders have exclusive rights to reproduce,
distribute, perform, and adapt their works1.
 Trademarks: Trademarks are distinctive signs (such as logos, names, or symbols) used
to identify goods or services. They help consumers recognize and distinguish products
from different sources. The Philippine law protects trademarks under the
same Intellectual Property Code. Trademark owners can prevent others from using
similar marks in a way that could cause confusion among consumers.
 Patents: Patents grant inventors exclusive rights to their inventions. These rights allow
inventors to prevent others from making, using, or selling their patented inventions
without permission. The Intellectual Property Code covers patents, encouraging
innovation and technological advancement in the Philippines.

3. AMLA particularly on acts constitutive of money laundering.

Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of the Philippines (AMLA), specifically Republic Act
No. 9160, the following acts are punishable as money laundering offenses:
1. Transaction of Monetary Instruments or Property: Knowingly transacting or
attempting to transact any monetary instrument or property which represents, involves, or
relates to the proceeds of an unlawful activity1.
2. Facilitation of Money Laundering: Knowingly performing or failing to perform an act
in relation to any monetary instrument or property involving the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, thereby facilitating the offense of money laundering2.
3. Failure to Disclose and File: Knowingly failing to disclose and file with the Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC) any monetary instrument or property required to be
disclosed and filed2.
The penalties for these offenses range from imprisonment to fines, depending on the gravity of
the act committed. For example, the penalty for transacting monetary instruments related to
unlawful activities is 7 to 14 years imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 3 million but
not more than twice the value of the monetary instrument or property2.
The AMLA also defines a list of predicate crimes or unlawful activities that generate dirty
money or property, such as kidnapping for ransom, drug trafficking, graft and corrupt practices,
plunder, and others2.

There will be 3 cases that will be assigned for each law, so a total of 17 cases will be covered under
Finals.
These addtl 9 cases will be given daw po next week.
As for transpo law, read Arts. 1732-1766 NCC.
Certainly! Let’s delve into the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines related to
common carriers, obligations, and contracts. Here are the relevant articles from Book IV:
Obligations and Contracts:
1. Common Carriers (Articles 1732-1766):
o Article 1732: 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.
o Article 1733: Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in
the vigilance over the goods and the safety of passengers transported by them.
This duty arises from the nature of their business and public policy.
o Article 1734: Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of goods unless it is due to specific causes such as natural disasters,
acts of public enemies, or the character of the goods themselves.
o Article 1735: If the goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated for reasons other
than those mentioned in Article 1734, common carriers are presumed to be at fault
unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.
o Article 1736: The extraordinary responsibility of common carriers lasts from the
time the goods are unconditionally placed in their possession until delivery to the
consignee.
o Article 1737: Even when goods are temporarily unloaded or stored in transit,
common carriers must continue to observe extraordinary diligence.
 oArticle 1738: The extraordinary liability of common carriers continues even when
goods are stored in their warehouse at the destination until the consignee is
advised of the arrival and has a reasonable opportunity to remove or dispose of
them.
o Article 1739: To be exempted from responsibility, a natural disaster must be the
proximate and only cause of loss. Common carriers must also exercise due
diligence to prevent or minimize loss during such events.
2. Nature and Effect of Obligations (Articles 1163-1167):
o Article 1163: Every person obliged to give something must take care of it with
the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the parties’
stipulation requires another standard of care.
o Article 1164: The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the
obligation to deliver it arises, but no real right over it until delivery.
o Article 1165: When a determinate thing is to be delivered, the creditor may
compel the debtor to make the delivery. If the thing is indeterminate or generic,
the creditor can ask for compliance at the debtor’s expense.
o Article 1166: The obligation to give a determinate thing includes delivering all its
accessions and accessories, even if not explicitly mentioned.

i just wish to clarify and narrow down the focus of your review for tomorrow's exam. the following
are the cases which are bases of the questions:
1. PNR vs. CA, GR No. 157658, OCtober 15, 2007;
The case of PNR vs. CA, GR No. 157658, October 15, 2007, involves the Philippine National
Railways (PNR) and Virgilio J. Borja as petitioners, and the Court of Appeals (Second Division),
along with the heirs of Jose Amores as respondents1. The Supreme Court’s decision, penned by
Justice Nachura, addressed the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which
reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 92-
619871.
The case stemmed from an incident on April 27, 1992, where Jose Amores was hit by a PNR
train while crossing the railroad tracks in Pandacan, Manila, leading to his death. The heirs of
Amores filed a Complaint for Damages against PNR and Borja, alleging negligence due to the
lack of proper warning signs at the crossing and a defective speedometer on the train. PNR and
Borja countered that the proximate cause of the accident was Amores’ own negligence1.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that railroad companies owe a duty of care to avoid injury to
persons and property at railroad crossings, which pertains both to the operation of trains and to
the maintenance of the crossings1. The decision is a significant reference for cases involving
transportation safety and negligence.

2. Rural Bank of Lucena vs. Arca, September 20, 1965;

The case Rural Bank of Lucena vs. Arca, G.R. No. L-21146, September 20, 1965, dealt with
the Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc. (petitioner) versus Hon. Francisco Arca, as Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, Branch 1, and the Central Bank of the Philippines (respondents)1. The
Supreme Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, reviewed the actions taken by the Central Bank
against the Rural Bank of Lucena, which included directives to reorganize its board of directors,
refrain from granting or renewing loans, accept new deposits, and not to issue drafts or make
disbursements without the approval of the supervising Central Bank examiners1.
The case arose from Resolution No. 928 of the Monetary Board, which found that the Rural
Bank of Lucena had committed acts substantially prejudicial to the Government, depositors, and
creditors. The resolution directed the bank to undertake certain measures and threatened that its
management would be taken over if it failed to comply1. The Rural Bank of Lucena filed an
action to collect damages and to enjoin the Central Bank from enforcing this resolution. The
Court of First Instance of Manila initially decided in favor of the Rural Bank of Lucena,
enjoining the enforcement of Resolution No. 928 and ordering the Central Bank to pay damages
and costs. However, subsequent resolutions and legal actions led to the liquidation of the Rural
Bank of Lucena’s affairs1.
This case is significant in the context of banking law and the regulatory oversight of financial
institutions.

3. Mariano Jr. vs. Callejas et al, GR No. 166640, July 31, 2009;
The case Mariano Jr. vs. Callejas et al, GR No. 166640, July 31, 2009, revolves around a
breach of contract of carriage and damages filed by Herminio Mariano Jr., the petitioner, against
Ildefonso C. Callejas, the registered owner of Celyrosa Express, and Edgar de Borja, the driver
of the bus involved in the accident1.
The incident occurred on November 12, 1991, when a Celyrosa Express bus carrying Dr.
Frelinda Mariano, the petitioner’s wife, collided with an Isuzu truck along Aguinaldo Highway
in Cavite. The collision resulted in the death of Dr. Mariano and injuries to other
passengers1. The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to safely transport his wife to her
destination, while the respondents claimed that the proximate cause of the accident was the
recklessness of the truck driver1.
The Supreme Court’s decision, penned by Chief Justice Puno, was an appeal from the Court of
Appeals’ decision which reversed the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City’s ruling that found
the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay damages for the death of Dr. Mariano1. The
case highlights the responsibilities and liabilities of common carriers in the context of Philippine
law.

4. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping vs. Philippine First Insurance, GR NO. 143133 June 5,
2002;
The case Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. vs. Philippine First Insurance
Co., Inc., G.R. No. 143133, June 5, 2002, concerns a dispute over the liability for damaged
cargo. The Supreme Court, in its decision, established that proof of delivery of goods in good
order to a common carrier and their arrival in bad order at the destination constitutes prima facie
evidence of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier1. If the carrier cannot provide an
adequate explanation for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, they are held liable 1.
In this case, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati City, which had dismissed the complaint against Belgian Overseas Chartering and
Shipping N.V. and Jardine Davies Transport Services, Inc. The CA ordered them to jointly and
severally pay the plaintiff-appellant, Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., for the actual damages
representing the value of the damaged cargo, plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit 1.
This decision is significant for its clarification of the responsibilities of common carriers in the
context of maritime transport and the legal presumptions regarding carrier liability.
(1) flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) an act of the public
enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) an act or omission of the shipper or owner of the
goods; (4) the character of the goods or defects in the packing or the container; or (5) an order or act
of competent public authority.

5. Joaquin vs. Drilon, GR NO. 108946, January 28, 1999;

The case Joaquin vs. Drilon, GR NO. 108946, January 28, 1999, involves Francisco
G. Joaquin, Jr., and BJ Productions, Inc., as petitioners, against Honorable Franklin Drilon, then
Secretary of Justice, and others, as respondents1. The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by
Justice Mendoza, addressed the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners seeking to annul the
resolution of the Department of Justice, which directed the dismissal of a criminal case against
the respondents1.
The case stemmed from a copyright dispute over a television show format. BJ Productions, Inc.
held the copyright for “Rhoda and Me,” a dating game show aired from 1970 to 1977. The
petitioners alleged that IXL Productions, Inc. aired a similar show called “It’s a Date,” which
infringed on their copyright. Despite initial apologies and discussions for a settlement, IXL
continued to air the show, leading to legal action1.
The Department of Justice initially directed the dismissal of the case, citing a lack of probable
cause for infringement. The petitioners contended that this was a grave abuse of discretion. The
Supreme Court’s decision in this case is significant for its discussion on the standards for
copyright infringement and the role of the Department of Justice in reviewing resolutions of
lower courts1.

6. Habana vs. Robles, GR No. 131522, July 19, 1999;

The case Habana vs. Robles, GR No. 131522, July 19, 1999, is a significant legal dispute
concerning copyright infringement and unfair competition. The petitioners, Pacita I. Habana,
Alicia L. Cinco, and Jovita N. Fernando, are authors and copyright owners of educational books
titled “COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY” (CET), Books 1 and 2, and “WORKBOOK FOR
COLLEGE FRESHMAN ENGLISH”, Series 11.
The respondents, Felicidad C. Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc., published a work entitled
“DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY” (DEP), Books 1 and 2. The petitioners discovered
that DEP contained striking similarities to their own work, leading them to file a complaint for
infringement and/or unfair competition with damages1.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, found that Robles’ lifting of substantial portions from CET
without acknowledgment constituted copyright infringement. The Court emphasized that
copyright laws aim to protect the intellectual property rights of authors against unauthorized
reproduction of their works1. This case reaffirms the importance of acknowledging sources to
avoid allegations of piracy, especially under the umbrella of fair use2.
7. Smith Kline vs. CA, GR No. 126627, August 14, 2003;
The case Smith Kline Beckman Corporation vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and
Tryco Pharma Corporation, G.R. No. 126627, August 14, 2003, involved a dispute over
patent infringement and unfair competition1. The petitioner, Smith Kline Beckman Corporation,
filed a patent application in 1976 for a method and composition for producing biphasic
parasiticide activity using the compound methyl 5 propylthio-2-benzimidazole carbamate, which
was granted as Letters Patent No. 145611.
Tryco Pharma Corporation manufactured and sold a veterinary drug called Impregon, which
contained Albendazole as its active ingredient. Smith Kline claimed that Albendazole was
covered by its patent and that Tryco’s actions constituted patent infringement and unfair
competition1.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially issued a temporary restraining order and a writ of
preliminary injunction against Tryco. However, the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that the
Letters Patent No. 14561 did not cover Albendazole and that the substance was
unpatentable. They also declared that the patent was null and void due to the application being
filed beyond the one-year period from the filing of an application abroad for the same invention1.
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s conclusion that there was no patent
infringement, as Albendazole was not equivalent to the patented compound under the doctrine of
equivalents. The doctrine of equivalents states that a patent infringement occurs if the alleged
infringing product performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve
substantially the same result as the patented product2. The Court found insufficient evidence
proving that Albendazole operated in substantially the same manner to achieve the same result as
the patented compound2.
The Supreme Court also found the granting of actual damages and attorney’s fees to Tryco
Pharma Corporation untenable due to the lack of sufficient proof of actual losses and bad faith on
the part of the petitioner. However, the Court awarded Tryco temperate damages of P20,000.00
considering the pecuniary loss suffered2. This case is significant for its discussion on the doctrine
of equivalents in patent law and the standards for proving patent infringement.

8. Nursery Care Corp et al vs. Acevedo et al, GR No. 180651, July 30, 2014
The case Nursery Care Corporation et al. vs. Anthony Acevedo et al., G.R. No. 180651, July
30, 2014, addressed the issue of double taxation1. The petitioners, which included Nursery Care
Corporation and several other companies, were subjected to taxes under Sections 15 and 17 of
the Revenue Code of Manila. Additionally, the City of Manila imposed taxes under Section 21 of
the same code as a condition for the renewal of their business licenses for the year 19991.
The petitioners paid these taxes under protest and subsequently requested a tax credit or refund,
which was denied by the City Treasurer, Anthony Acevedo, and his successor, Liberty Toledo1.
The petitioners then filed petitions for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
which were dismissed. The Court of Appeals (CA) also dismissed the appeal due to lack of
jurisdiction, as the issue was purely legal2.
The Supreme Court, adopting a liberal approach for the sake of justice and equity, ruled that the
imposition of taxes under Section 21, on top of those under Sections 15 and 17, constituted
double taxation. The taxes were imposed on the same subject matter, by the same taxing
authority, within the same jurisdiction and period, and were of the same kind or character. As a
result, the taxes collected under Section 21 for the first quarter of 1999 had to be refunded to the
petitioners2.
This case is significant for its clarification on the concept of double taxation and the criteria that
must be met for such a claim to be valid. Double taxation is considered obnoxious because it
implies taxing the same property or subject matter twice when it should only be taxed once,
within the same taxing jurisdiction and period, by the same taxing authority, and for the same
purpose2.

Actually po the pointers sent on May 9, 2024 will already take place the lecture para hindi an po
kayo maconfuse. Just read all those pointers kasi you will definitely encounter them in the final
exams plus the case of Nursery Care Corp et al vs. Acevedo et al, GR No. 180651, July 30, 2014 and
the definition of the life blood doctrine for taxation which is part of comrev.
Cases for Com Rev Final Exams
1. Dangwa Transpo vs. CA October 7, 1991

The case Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95582, October 7,
1991, involved a claim for damages due to the death of Pedrito Cudiamat resulting from a
vehicular accident1. The accident occurred on March 25, 1985, when Pedrito Cudiamat was run
over by a passenger bus owned by Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. and driven by Theodore
M. Lardizabal1.
The heirs of Pedrito Cudiamat filed a complaint against the transportation company and the
driver, alleging reckless and imprudent driving and failure to observe traffic rules and
regulations. They also claimed negligence on the part of the driver for not immediately bringing
Cudiamat to the hospital1.
The trial court initially found Pedrito Cudiamat to be negligent and the proximate cause of his
death. However, for equity’s sake, it ordered the petitioners to pay the heirs PHP
10,000.00. Dissatisfied with the decision, the heirs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
reversed the trial court’s decision and awarded the heirs a total of PHP 338,000 in damages and
legal costs1.
The Supreme Court, after a thorough review, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ findings and
decision, with minor modifications on the award of damages. The Court held that the bus was
stationary when Cudiamat attempted to board, negating the premise of negligence on his part.
The sudden acceleration of the bus while Cudiamat was boarding constituted gross negligence by
the driver. The Court also modified the actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals to
reflect net earnings rather than gross, resulting in a reduced amount of PHP 216,000. However,
the death indemnity was raised to PHP 50,000 in line with prevailing jurisprudence2.
This case is important as it reiterates the doctrine that a common carrier is bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in ensuring the safety of its passengers and that liability for damages
arises from the presumption of negligence in the event of death or injury to passengers2.

2. PNR et al vs. CA et al October 15, 2007

The case PNR et al vs. CA et al, G.R. No. 157658, October 15, 2007, is a significant decision
by the Philippine Supreme Court that involved the Philippine National Railways (PNR) and
Virgilio J. Borja as petitioners, against the Court of Appeals (Second Division) and the heirs of
Jose Amores as respondents1. The case arose from an incident where Jose Amores was fatally
struck by a PNR train while crossing the railroad tracks. The heirs of Amores filed a complaint
for damages against PNR and Borja, alleging negligence due to the lack of proper warning signs
at the crossing and a defective speedometer on the train1.
The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Nachura, addressed the petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court sought to annul and
set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 92-619871. The Supreme Court ultimately held
that PNR and Borja were negligent and liable for damages due to the lack of safety measures at
the railroad crossing, which led to the fatal accident1.
This case emphasizes the duty of care owed by railroad companies to prevent injury to persons
and property at railroad crossings, and it is a reference point for cases involving transportation
safety and negligence in the Philippines.

4. PAL vs. IAC et al December 11, 1992

The case Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. The Intermediate Appellate Court, George Lorenzana
and Veronica G. Lorenzana, G.R. No. 70481, December 11, 1992, involved a claim for
damages due to missing luggage during an international flight1. The Lorenzanas checked in two
pieces of baggage for a flight from Manila to Honolulu via Tokyo. Upon arrival in Honolulu, one
of the bags, which contained Veronica’s personal items and samples of women’s apparel, was
missing1.
The luggage was eventually located and returned to the Lorenzanas in December 1975, over a
year after it went missing. It was discovered that the missing luggage had not been turned over
by the employees of Philippine Airlines to the Pan Am Office in Tokyo and was instead returned
to Manila1.
The Supreme Court ruled that both Philippine Airlines and Pan American World Airways,
Inc. were jointly and severally liable to pay the Lorenzanas as actual damages the sum of $5,000
or its equivalent in Philippine currency, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing
of the complaint until the amount was fully paid1. This case is significant as it discusses the
liability of carriers for the mishandling of luggage in international carriage.

5. RCJ Bus Lines vs. Standard Insurance August 17, 2011

The case RCJ Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 193629,
August 17, 2011, involved a dispute over damages resulting from a vehicular accident1. On June
19, 1994, an RCJ bus, driven by Flor Bola Mangoba, collided with a 1991 Mitsubishi Lancer
along the National Highway in Barangay Amlang, Rosario, La Union1. The Mitsubishi Lancer
was insured with Standard Insurance Company, Inc. for PHP 450,000.00, and as a result of the
accident, it sustained extensive damage costing PHP 162,151.22 for repairs1.
Standard Insurance, after compensating the owner of the Mitsubishi Lancer, sought
reimbursement from RCJ Bus Lines and the driver, Flor Bola Mangoba, based on the principle of
subrogation. Subrogation refers to the legal right held by most insurance carriers to legally
pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured2. This is done as a means to
recover the amount of the claim paid by the insurance company to the insured for the loss2.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila ruled in favor of Standard Insurance and
ordered Mangoba and RCJ Bus Lines to pay the damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
dismissed RCJ Bus Lines’ appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision with
modifications1. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case upheld the appellate court’s ruling,
emphasizing the responsibility of the bus company and its driver in the accident and the right of
the insurance company to seek reimbursement for the damages paid1.

6. GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corp August 25, 2010

The case GSIS vs. Pacific Airways Corporation, G.R. No. 170414, August 25, 2010, involved
a complex legal dispute that reached the Philippine Supreme Court. The case centered around an
incident on April 2, 1996, when a Twin Otter aircraft operated by Pacific Airways Corporation
(PAC) was involved in a near-collision with a Philippine Airlines (PAL) Boeing 737 during
taxiing procedures at the Manila International Airport1.
The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), along with the Air Transportation Office
(ATO) and its officers, and PAL, filed separate petitions for review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals, which had affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City1. The
Court of Appeals’ decision was modified by a subsequent resolution1.
The Supreme Court’s decision, penned by Justice Carpio, consolidated the three petitions. The
case revolved around the proper procedures for aircraft taxiing and the responsibilities of the
pilots and ground control personnel. The near-collision occurred because the PAC pilots crossed
a runway without clearance while the PAL aircraft was preparing for take-off 1.
The Supreme Court found that the PAC pilots were grossly negligent for disregarding PAL’s
right of way, which could have resulted in a catastrophic accident1. The decision is significant for
its implications on aviation safety standards and the accountability of airline personnel in
adhering to strict ground control protocols to ensure the safety of passengers and aircraft
operations1.

7. Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping vs. Phil First Insurance Co, Inc. June 5, 2002
The case Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. vs. Philippine First Insurance
Co., Inc., G.R. No. 143133, June 5, 2002, is a notable decision by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines that dealt with the liability of a common carrier for the damage to goods during
transport1. The case arose when CMC Trading A.G. shipped 242 coils of various Prime Cold
Rolled Steel sheets on board the M/V ‘Anangel Sky’ from Hamburg, Germany to Manila,
consigned to the Philippine Steel Trading Corporation. Upon arrival, four coils were found to be
in bad order and declared a total loss by the consignee1.
Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., after compensating the consignee, sought recovery from
Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping N.V. and Jardine Davies Transport Services, Inc. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals
reversed this decision, holding the defendants liable for the damages1.
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that proof of delivery of
goods in good order to a common carrier and their arrival in bad order at the destination
constitutes prima facie evidence of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier. If the carrier
cannot adequately explain the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, they are held
liable1. This case underscores the high degree of obligation imposed on common carriers to
ensure the safety of the goods they transport.

8. Macam vs. CA et al August 25, 1999

The case Macam vs. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 125524, August 25, 1999, involved
Benito Macam, doing business under the name Ben-Mac Enterprises, as the petitioner, against
the Court of Appeals, China Ocean Shipping Co., and Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., as
respondents1. The dispute centered around the delivery of perishable goods, specifically 3,500
boxes of watermelons and 1,611 boxes of fresh mangoes, shipped from the Philippines to Hong
Kong1.
The shipment was delivered directly to the notify party, Great Prospect Company (GPC) in Hong
Kong, without the required bills of lading being surrendered to the consignee, the National Bank
of Pakistan in Hong Kong. As a result, the bank refused to pay the petitioner through his
depository bank, Solidbank, because GPC failed to pay the bank. This led to Solidbank
demanding reimbursement from the petitioner, who in turn sought payment from Wallem
Philippines Shipping, Inc.1.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, focused on the issue of whether the delivery of the shipment
to GPC without the presentation of the bills of lading and bank guarantee was justified. The
respondents contended that the delivery was made per the petitioner’s request due to the
perishable nature of the goods. The Court ultimately held that the delivery of the shipment
without the surrender of the bills of lading was unauthorized and constituted a breach of the
contract of carriage1.
This case is significant in the context of maritime law and the obligations of carriers regarding
the delivery of goods and the handling of shipping documents. It underscores the importance of
adhering to the terms stipulated in bills of lading and the potential legal consequences of
deviating from such terms1.

To my ComRev class: Here are the additional cases on Banking Laws and IP that will aid in dealing with
the questions in the FE:

1. Tang Tiong Tick vs. American Aphothecaries 65 Phil 414

The case Tang Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecaries, 65 Phil 414, decided on March 31,
1938, is a landmark decision involving the liquidation of the Mercantile Bank of China1. Tang
Tiong Tick, the claimant-appellant, presented a claim in the liquidation proceedings, asserting
that he had a credit balance in his current and savings accounts with the bank, which should be
set off against his debt under trust receipts1.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines, through Justice Imperial, discussed the classification and
preference of credits in the context of bank liquidation. The Court held that the credits for current
account and savings deposits should be set off against the bank’s claims against the depositors,
including the claims of Tang Tiong Tick1. This case is significant for its interpretation of the
legal principles governing the set-off of credits and the classification of claims in the event of a
bank’s liquidation under Philippine law1.

2. Guingona vs. City Fiscal of Manila 128 SCRA 577

The case Guingona vs. City Fiscal of Manila, G.R. No. L-60033, 128 SCRA 577, decided on
April 4, 1984, involves Teofisto Guingona, Jr., Antonio I. Martin, and Teresita Santos as
petitioners against the City Fiscal of Manila and others as respondents1. The petitioners sought to
prohibit the public respondents from proceeding with the preliminary investigation of a case in
which they were charged with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related
regulations regarding foreign exchange transactions1.
The charges were based on the allegation that from March 20, 1979, to March 1981, Clement
David invested significant sums in the Nation Savings and Loan Association (NSLA), where the
petitioners held key positions. After NSLA was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, it
was discovered that only a portion of David’s investments were recorded in NSLA’s books. The
petitioners were accused of misappropriating the balance of the investments while also violating
foreign exchange regulations1.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, focused on whether the obligation of the petitioners was civil
or criminal in nature. The petitioners argued that their obligation was civil, not criminal, and that
the preliminary investigation should be prohibited. The Court issued a temporary restraining
order to refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation1.
This case is notable for its discussion on the distinction between civil and criminal obligations,
particularly in the context of alleged financial misconduct and the jurisdiction of fiscal’s offices
in conducting preliminary investigations1.

3. Kao vs. CA March 11, 2002

The case you’re referring to is Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the name and style of
KEC Cosmetics Laboratory vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Summerville General
Merchandising and Company, and Ang Tiam Chay, G.R. No. 115758, March 19, 20021.
This case involved a dispute over intellectual property rights, specifically copyrights and patents
related to the beauty cream product “Chin Chun Su.”
Elidad C. Kho, the petitioner, claimed to be the registered owner of the copyrights and patent
rights for Chin Chun Su & Device and the Oval Facial Cream Container/Case. Kho alleged that
Summerville General Merchandising and Company and Ang Tiam Chay were infringing on
these rights by advertising and selling similar products, which led to a decline in Kho’s business
sales and income1.
The respondents argued that Summerville was the exclusive and authorized importer, re-packer,
and distributor of Chin Chun Su products manufactured by Shun Yi Factory of Taiwan. They
also claimed that KEC Cosmetics Laboratory obtained the copyrights through misrepresentation
and falsification, and that the authority of Quintin Cheng, assignee of the patent registration
certificate, to distribute and market Chin Chun Su products in the Philippines had already been
terminated by the Taiwanese manufacturing company1.
The Regional Trial Court initially granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Kho, but
the Court of Appeals set aside this order, leading to the petition for review on certiorari to the
Supreme Court1. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is significant for its discussion on the
ownership and use of copyrights and patents in the context of intellectual property law in the
Philippines1.

6. Pearl and Dean vs. Shoemart Inc et al GR No. 148222, August 15, 2003

The case Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated vs. Shoemart, Incorporated, and North Edsa
Marketing, Incorporated, G.R. No. 148222, August 15, 2003, was a legal battle over
trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition1.
Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Inc. (P&D) is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of advertising
display units known as light boxes, which they marketed under the trademark “Poster Ads.”
P&D held a Certificate of Copyright Registration for these units. The dispute began when P&D
negotiated with Shoemart, Inc. (SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City
North Edsa. However, only the contract for SM Makati was signed, and later, SMI rescinded it,
citing non-performance1.
Subsequently, SMI and its sister company, North Edsa Marketing Inc. (NEMI), were found to
have similar light boxes in their establishments. P&D alleged that this constituted copyright
infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The Regional Trial Court ruled in
favor of P&D and held SMI and NEMI jointly liable for the infringement and unfair
competition. However, the Court of Appeals overturned this decision1.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, holding that copyright protection was
limited to the engineering drawings alone and not the light box itself. Since P&D did not secure a
patent for the light boxes, they had no exclusive rights that could have been infringed upon by
SMI or NEMI’s use of similar devices. The Court also found that P&D’s trademark protection
for “Poster Ads” was confined to stationery and did not extend to the advertising display units
used by SMI and NEMI, thus there was no trademark infringement1.
As a result, no damages were awarded to P&D since the findings of copyright and trademark
infringement were not upheld. This case is significant for its clarification on the scope of
copyright and trademark protections and the importance of securing the appropriate intellectual
property rights for products1.