Archive for September, 2008
What say you ATENISTA???
Got this link from a friend…seems the La Sallian brothers can’t accept their recent fall with the UAAP Championship! What say you ATENISTA???
(Got this from Marion, Which he got from Thirdy. Copy Pasted
)
Gloating Blue Eagle -Talking Points
By Bobby Cabral
Dear La Sallians:
By now, you would have experienced gale force winds in Katipunan. Or you would have read articles in newspapers or blogs proclaiming the greatness of this season 71 edition of the Blue Eagles, Rabeh, Chris Tiu, Buenafe et al. They will also criticize our Archers as pikon and lacking class for not receiving their runner-up trophy, so perhaps we should be prepared with the facts.
1. While UP is the host of Season 71 and they selected the Narvasa Brothers (both former Blue Eagle varsity players) and were directly responsible for the referees.
2. Commissioner Chito Narvasa penalized La Salle and Coach Franz Pumaren during the first La Salle-Ateneo regular season game for not wearing his ID and gave two free throws to Ateneo. This inspite of Coach Pido Jarencio of UST being shown not wearing his ID during the earlier game and not being penalized.
3. During two regular games during the season, one versus FEU and the other against UST, referees who called technical fouls against La Salle’s opponents were punished by Narvasa after the game with a termination and one with a suspension.
4. During the the final championship game, Buenafe, Jobe and other Ateneans could be seen taunting and trash talking but were not penalized.
5. The referees called 29 fouls on the Archers and only 13 fouls against the Blue Eagles. They awarded 28 free throws (18 which were converted) to Ateneo and only 8 free throws to the Green Archers.
6. The phantom finger of Rico was not clearly evident and since there was no reaction from the Eagles, it must not have happened.
7. The Green Archers were in the dugout during the awarding and no official from the UAAP called them out to receive their award.
Finally, if the Ateneans wanted to win with honor, they failed to do so. The Ateneo community should have asked the Narvasas to inhibit themselves due to their school history and obvious bias towards La Salle.
I will concede the first three La Salle-Ateneo games in Season 71 to the Blue Eagles. But we will never know the outcome of game 2 of the Championship series.because the referees panicked when La Salle reduced a 15 point deficit to three in less than five minutes.
Animo La Salle!!!
Add comment September 30th, 2008
BAR EXAMINATION 2008: MERCANTILE LAW
|
||||||||
| 21 September 2008 | 8:00 A.M. – 12 Noon | |||||||
|
INSTRUCTIONS This questionnaire consists of fourteen (19) numbers contained in nine (9) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a subquestion under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and on the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat the question. You will be given credit for your knowledge of legal doctrine and for the quality of your legal reasoning. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding discussion will not be given any credit. HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE GOOD LUCK!!! |
||||||||
| Signed DANTE O. TINGA Chairperson 2008 Bar Examination Committee |
||||||||
|
PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS SET
I X corporation entered into a contract with PT Contruction Corp. for the latter to construct and build a sugar mill within six (6) months. They agreed that in case of delay, PT Construction Corp. will pay X Corporation P100,000 for every day of delay. To ensure payment of the agreed amount of damages, PT Construction Corp. secured from Atlantic Bank a confirmed and irrevocable letter of credit which was accepted by X Corporation in due time. One week before the expiration of the six (6) month period, PT Construction Corp. requested for an extension of time to deliver claiming that the delay was due to the fault of X Corporation. A controversy as to the cause of the delay which involved the workmanship of the building ensued. The controversy remained unresolved. Despite the controversy, X Corporation presented a claim against Atlantic Bank by executing a draft against the letter of credit.
II Tom Cruz obtained a loan of P 1 Million from XYZ Bank to finance his purchase of 5,000 bags of fertilizer. He executed a trust receipt in favor of XYZ Bank over the 5,000 bags of fertilizer. Tom Cruz withdrew the 5,000 bags from the warehouse to be transported to Lucena City where his store was located. On the way, armed robbers took from Tom Cruz the 5,000 bags of fertilizer. Tom Cruz now claims that his obligation to pay the loan to XYZ Bank is extinguished because the loss was not due to his fault. Is Tom Cruz correct? Explain. (4%) III
IV AB Corporation drew a check for payment to XY Bank. The check was given to an officer of AB Corporation who was instructed to deliver it to XY Bank. Instead, the officer, intending to defraud the Corporation, filled up the check by making himself as the payee and delivered it to XY Bank for deposit to his personal account. AB Corporation come to know of the officer’s fraudulent act after he absconded. AB Corporation asked XY Bank to recredits its amount. XY Bank refused.
V Pancho drew a check to Bong and Gerard jointly. Bong indorsed the check and also forged Gerard’s endorsement. The payor bank paid the check and charged Pancho’s account for the amount of the check. Gerard received nothing from the payment.
VI On January 1, 2000, Antonio Rivera secured a life insurance from SOS Insurance Corp. for P1 Million with Gemma Rivera, his adopted daughter, as the beneficiary. Antonio Rivera died on March 4, 2005 and in the police investigation, it was ascertained that Gemma Rivera participated as an accessory in the killing of Antonio Rivera. Can SOS Insurance Corp. avoid liability by setting up as a defense the participation of Gemma Rivera in the killing of Antonio Rivera? Discuss with reasons. (4%) VII Terrazas de Patio Verde, a condominium building, has a value of P50 Million. The owner insured the building against fire with three (3) insurance companies for the following amounts:
VIII City Railways, Inc. (CRI) provides train services, for a fee, to commuters from Manila to Calamba, Laguna. Commuters are required to purchase tickets and then proceed to designated loading ang unloading facilities to board the train. Ricardo Santos purchased a ticket for Calamba and entered the station. While waiting, he had an altercation with the security guard of CRI leading to a fistfight. Ricardo Santos fell on the railway just as a train was entering the station. Ricardo Santos was run over by the train. He died. In the action for damages filed by the heirs of Ricardo Santos, CRI interposed lack of cause of action, contending that the mishap occurred before Ricardo Santos boarded the train and that it was not guilty of negligence. Decide.(5%) IX On October 30, 2007, M/V Pacific, a Philippine registered vessel owned by Cebu Shipping Company (CSC), sank on her voyage from Hong Kong to Manila. Empire Assurance Company (Empire) is the insurer of the lost cargoes loaded on board the vessel which were consigned to Debenhams Company. After it indemnified Debenhams, Empire as subrogee filed an action for damages against CSC.
X Nelson owned and controlled Sonnel Construction Company. Acting for the company, Nelson contracted the construction of a building. Without first installing a protective net atop the sidewalks adjoining the construction site, the company proceeded with the construction work. One day a heavy piece of lumber fell from the building. It smashed a taxicab which at that time had gone offroad and onto the sidewalk in order to avoid the traffic. The taxicab passenger died as a result.
XI
XII Pedro owns 70% of the subscribed capital stock of a company which owns an office building. Paolo and Juan own the remaining stock equally between them. Paolo also owns a security agency, a janitorial company and a catering business. In behalf of the office building company, Paolo engaged his companies to render their services to the office building. Are the service contracts valid? Explain. (4%) XIII Grand Gas Corporation, a publicity listed company, discover after extensive drilling a rich deposit of natural gas along the coast of Antique. For five (5) months, the company did not disclose the discovery so that it could quitely and cheaply acquire neighboring land and secure mining information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, all the directors and key officer of the company bought shares went up. The directors and officer sold their shares at huge profits.
XIV Ace Cruz subscribed to 100,000 shares of stock of JP Development Corporation, which has a par value of P1 per share. He paid P25,000 and promised to pay the balance before December 31, 2008. JP Development Corporation declared a cash dividend on October 15, 2008, payable on December 1, 2008.
XV Eloise, an accomplished writer, was hired by Petong to write a bimonthly newspaper column for Diario de Manila, a newly-established newspaper of which Petong was the editor-in-chief. Eloise was to be paid P1,000 for each column that was published. In the course of two months, Eloise submitted three columns which, after some slight editing, were printed in the newspaper. However, Diario de Manila proved unprofitable and closed only after two months. Due to the minimal amounts involved, eloise chose not to pursue any claim for payment from the newspaper, which was owned by New Media Enterprises. Three years later, Eloise was planning to publish an anthology of her works, and wanted to include the three columns that appeared in the Diario de Manila in her anthology. She asks for your legal advice:
XVI In 1999, Mocha Warm, an American musician, had a hit rap single called Warm Warm Honey which he himself composed and performed. The single was produced by a California record company, Galactic Records. Many noticed that some passages from Warm Warm Honey sounded eerily similar to parts Unde Hassle, a 1978 hit song by the British rock band Majesty. A copyright infringement suit was filed in the United States against Mocha Warm by Majesty. It was later settled out of court, with Majesty receiving attribution as co-author of Warm Warm Honey as well as a share in the royalties. By 2002, Mocha Warm was nearing bankruptcy and he sold his economic rights over Warm Warm Honey to Galactic Records for $10,000 In 2008, Planet Films a Filipino movie producing company, commissioned DJ Chef Jean, a Filipino musician, to produce an original re-mix of Warm Warm Honey for use in one of its latest films, Astig!. DJ Chef Jean remixed Warm Warm Honey with salsa beat and interspersed as well a recital of a poetic stanza by John Blake, a 17th century Scottish poet. DJ Chef Jean died shortly after submitting the remixed Warm Warm Honey to Planet Films. Prior to the release of Astig!, Mocha Warm learns of the remixed Warm Warm Honey and demands that he be publicity identified as the author of the remixed song in all the CD covers and publicity releases of Planet Films.
XVII On January 1, 2008, Al obtained a loan of P10,000 from Bob to be paid on January 30,2008, secured by a chattel mortgage on a Toyota motor car. On February 1, 2008, Al obtained another loan of P10,000 from Bob to be paid on February 15, 2008. he secured this by executing a chattel mortgage on a Honda motorcycle. On the due date of the first loan Al failed to pay. Bob foreclosed the chattel mortgage but the car was bidded for P6,000 only. Al also failed to pay the second loan due on February 15, 2008. Bob filed an action for collection of sum money. Al filed a motion to dismiss claiming that Bob should first cforeclosed the mortgage on the Honda motorcycle before he can file the action for sum of money. Decide with reasons. (4%) XVIII
XIX Industry Bank, which has a net worth of P1 Billion, extended a loan to Celestial Properties Inc. amounting to P270 Million. The loan was secured by a mortgage over a vast commercial lot in the Fort Bonifacio Global City, appraised at P350 Million. After audit, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas gave notice that the loan to Celestial Properties exceeded the single borrower’s limit of 25% of the bank’s net worth under a recent BSP Circular. In light of other previous similar violations of the credit limit requirement, the BSP advised Industry Bank to reduce the amount of the loan to Celestial Properties under pain of severe sanctions. When Industry Bank informed Celestial Properties that it intended to reduce the loan by P50 Million, Celestial Properties countered that the bank should first release a part of the collateral worth P50 Million. Industry Bank rejected the counter-proposal, and reffered the matter to you as counsel. How would you advise Industry Bank to proceed, with its best interest in mind? (5%) NOTHING FOLLOWS. |
||||||||
Add comment September 23rd, 2008
BAR EXAMINATION 2008: CRIMINAL LAW
|
||
| 21 September 2008 | 2:00 P.M. – 5 P.M. | |
|
INSTRUCTIONS This questionnaire consist of fifteen (15) questions contained in six (6) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a subquestion under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and on the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat the question. You will be given credit for your knowledge of legal doctrine and for the quality of your legal reasoning. A mere ” Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding discussion will not be given credit. HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE GOOD LUCK!!! |
||
| Signed DANTE O. TINGA Chairperson 2008 Bar Examination Committee |
||
|
PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS SET
I
II While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.
III Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him three(3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be? Explain. ( 6% ) IV Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng’s revolver. As his gun was used in the killing,Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000.00 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece’s murder.
V Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to a nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precint PO1 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin, “in case you don’t find the owner let’s just pawn straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000.00 Eman never saw PO1 Melvin again.
VI Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secures a copy of the marriage contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines.
VII The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court.
VIII Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their relationship because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. The agreement was shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain. ( 5% ) IX Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3months. Gabriel , the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.
X Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money order and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. ( 6% ) XI Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. ( 7% ) XII Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last five years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor. Who had no inkling that she was married. Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa declared, in the application, that she is single. The marriage licensed was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. What crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. ( 7% ) XIII Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for Five Years. One Night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters’ bedroom with the used of a false key. They found Julia’s jewelry box in one of the cabinets which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia’s jewelry inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shock when they saw Nestor in the sala, pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the master’s bedroom with the box. State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. ( 7% ) XIV Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. However, the representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo , the winning bidder, purchased property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the amount within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said amount.
XV Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as “protection money”. With the monthly payment, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at round 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio’s home and hurled a grenade inti an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State, with reason, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto.(7%) NOTHING FOLLOWS. |
||
1 comment September 23rd, 2008
BAR EXAMINATION 2008: CIVIL LAW
Mostly questions on Family Law. Property questions include possession, good faith, prescription, hidden treasure, accretion, and riparian property. There’s about three questions on Obligations and Contracts; the rest are on Wills and Succession.
|
||
| 14 September 2008 | 8 A.M. – 12 Noon | |
|
INSTRUCTIONS This questionnaire consists of nineteen (19) questions contained in twelve (12) pages. Read each question very carefully. Answer legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each number on a separate page; an answer to a subquestion under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and on the immediately succeeding pages until completed. Do not repeat the question. You will be given credit for your knowledge of legal doctrine and for the quality of your legal reasoning. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding discussion will not be given any credit. HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. GOOD LUCK!!! |
||
| Signed DANTE O. TINGA Chairperson 2008 Bar Examination Committee |
||
|
PLEASE CHECK THE NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS SET
I Ana Rivera had a husband, a Filipino citizen like her, who was among the passengers on board a commercial jet plane which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean ten (10) years earlier and had never been heard of ever since. Believing that her husband had died, Ana married Adolf Cruz Staedtler, a divorced German national born of a German father and a Filipino mother residing in Stuttgart. To avoid being reqiured to submit the required certificate of capacity to marry from the German Embassy in Manila, Adolf stated in the application for marriage license that he was a Filipino citizen. With the marriage license stating that Adolf was a Filipino, the couple got married in a ceremony officiated by the Parish Priest of Calamba, Laguna in a beach in Nasugbu, Batangas, as the local parish priest refused to solemnize marriages except in his church. Is the marriage valid? Explain fully. (5%) II At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unboarn child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave chase and after one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby delivered were both found dead, with the baby’s umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.
III Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached 18 years of age, her parents forcibly took her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the marriage, Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their marriage, Faye gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was 25 years old, Brad discovered her continued liason with Roderick and in one of their heated arguments, Faye shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick, without a marriage license, claiming that they have been continuosly cohabiting for more than 5 years.
IV Gianna was born to Andy and Aimee, who at the time Gianna’s birth were not married to each other. While Andy was single at the time, Aimee was still in the process of securing a judicial declaration of nullity on her marriage to her ex-husband. Gianna’s birth certificate, which was signed by both Andy and Aimee, registered the status of Gianna as “legitimate” , her surname carrying that of Andy’s and that her parents were married to each other.
V Despite several relationships with different women, Andrew remained unmarried. His first relationship with Brenda produced a daughter, Amy, now 30 years old. His second, with Carla, produced two sons: Jon and Ryan. His third, with Donna, bore him no children although Elena has a daughter Jane, from a previous relationship. His last, with Fe, produced no biological children but they informally adopted without court proceedings, Sandy’s now 13 years old, whom they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned as a baby and was entrusted to them by the midwife who attended to Sandy’s birth. All the children, including Amy, now live with andrew in his house.
VI Alex died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled lot in Tagiug City. He is survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told the children that she is waiving her share in the property, and allowed Bobby, the eldest son who was about to get married, to construct his house on ? of the lot, without however obtaining the consent of his siblings. After settlement of Alex’s estate and partition among the heirs, it was discovered that Bobby’s house was constructed on the portion allocated to his sister, Cathy asked Bobby to demolish his house and vacate the portion alloted to her. In leiu of demolition, Bobby offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on which his house was constructed. At that time, the house constructed was valued at P350.000.
VII Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn, acquired the property by forging carlo’s signature in a deed of sale over the property. Carlo had been in possession of the property for 8 years, declared it for tax purposes, and religiously paid all taxes due on the property. Anthony is not aware of the defect in Bert’s title, but has been in actual physical possession of the property from the time he bought it from Bert, who had never been in possession of the property for one year.
VIII Adam, a building contractor, was engaged by Blas to construct a house on a lot which he (Blas) owns. While digging on the lot in order to lay down the foudation of the house, Adam hit a very hard object. It turned out to be the vault of the old Banco de las Islas Filipinas. Using a detonation device, Adam was able to open the vault containing old notes and coins which were in circulation during the Spanish era. While the notes and coins are no longer legal tender, they were valued at P100 million because of their historical value and the coins silver nickel content. The following filed legal claims over the notes and coins:
IX The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the banks of the Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would swell and as the water recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are deposited on Jessica’s and Jenny’s properties. This pattern of the river swelling, receding and depositing soil and other materials being deposited on the neighbors’ properties have gone on for many years. Knowing his pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2 meters from her property line and extending towards the river, so that when the water recedes, soil and other materials are trapped within this barrier. After several years, the area between Jessica’s property line to the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively increasing Jessica’s property by 2 meters. Jenny’s property, where no barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of the river.
X Arthur executed a will which contained only: (i) a provision disinheriting his daughter Bernica for running off with a married man, and (ii) a provision disposing of his share in the family house and lot in favor of his other children Connie and Dora. He did not make any provisions in favor of his wife Erica, because as the will stated, she would anyway get ? of the house and lot as her conjugal share. The will was very brief and straightforward and both the above provisions were contained in page 1, which Arthur and his instrumental witness, signed at the bottom. Page 2 contained the attestation clause and the signatures, at the bottom thereof, of the 3 instrumental witnesses which included Lambert, the driver of Arthur; Yoly, the family cook, and Attorney Zorba, the lawyer who prepared the will. There was a 3rd page, but this only contained the notarial acknowledgement. The attestation clause stated the will was signed on the same occasion by Arthur and his instrumental witnesses who all signed in the presence of each other, and the notary public who notarized the will. There are no marginal signatures or pagination appearing on any of the 3 pages. Upon his death, it was discovered that apart from the house and lot, he had a P 1 million account deposited with ABC bank.
XI John and Paula, British citizens at birth, acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization after their marriage. During their marriage the couple acquired substanial landholdings in London and in Makati. Paula bore John three children, Peter, Paul and Mary. In one of their trips to London, the couple executed a joint will appointing each other as their heirs and providing that upon the death of the survivor between them the entire estate would go to Peter and Paul only but the two could not dispose of nor divide the London estate as long as they live. John and Paul died tragically in the London Subway terrorist attack in 2005. Peter and Paul filed a petition for probate of their parent’s will before a Makati Regional Trial Court.
XII Ernesto, an overseas Filipino worker, was coming home to the Philippines after working for so many years in the Middle East. He had saved P100.000 in his saving account in Manila which intended to use to start a business in his home country. On his flight home, Ernesto had a fatal heart attack. He left behind his widowed mother, his common-law wife and their twins sons. He left no will, no debts, no other relatives and no other properties except the money in his saving account. Who are the heirs entitled to inherint from him and how much should each receive?(3%) XIII Raymond, single, named his sister Ruffa in his will as a devisee of a parcel of land which he owned. The will imposed upon Ruffa the obligation of preseving the land and transferring it, upon her death, to her illegitimate daughter Scarlet who was then only one year old. Raymond later died, leaving behind his widowed mother, Ruffa and Scarlet.
XIV Stevie was born blind. He went to school for the blind, and learned to read in Baille Language. He Speaks English fluently. Can he:
XV Eduardo was granted a loan by XYZ Bank for the purpose of improving a building which XYZ leased from him. Eduardo, executed the promissory note (“PN”) in favor of the bank, with his friend Recardo as co-signatory. In the PN, they both acknowledged that they are “individually and collectively” liable and waived the need for prior demand. To secure the PN, Recardo executed a real estate mortgageon his own property. When Eduardo defaulted on the PN, XYZ stopped payment of rentals on the building on the ground that legal compensation had set in. Since there was still a balance due on the PN after applying the rentals, XYZ foreclosed the real estate mortgage over Recardo’s property. Recardo opposed the foreclosure on the ground that he is only a co-signatory; that no demand was made upon him for payment, and assuming he is liable, his liability should not go beyond half the balance of the loan. Further, Recardo said that when the bank invoked compensation between the reantals and the amount of the loan, it amounted to a new contract or novation, and had the effect of extinguishing the security since he did not give his consent (as owner of the property under the real estate mortgage) therto.
XVI Dux leased his house to Iris for a period of 2 years, at the rate of P25,000.00 monthly, payable annually in advance. The contract stipulated that it may be renewed for another 2-year period upon mutual agreement of the parties. The contract also granted Iris the right of first refusal to purchase the property at any time during the lease, if Dux decides to sell the property at the same price that the property is offered for sale to a third party. Twenty-three months after execution of the lease contract, Dux sold breach of her right of first refusal. Dux said there was no breach because the property was sold to his mother who is not a third party. Iris filed an action to rescind the sale and to compel Dux to sell the property to her at the same price. Alternatively, she asked the court to extend the lease for another 2 years on the same terms.
XVII Felipe borrowed $100 from Gustavo in 1998, when the Phil P – US$ exchange rate was P56 – US$1. On March 1, 2008, Felipe tendered to Gustavo a cashier’s check in the amount of P4,135 in payment of his US$ 100 debt, based on the Phil P – US$ exchange rat at that time. Gustavo accepted the check, but forgot to deposit it until Sept. 12, 2008. His bank refused to accepted the check because it had become stale. Gustavo now wants Felipe to pay him in cash the amount of P5,600. Claiming that the previous payment was not in legal tender, and that there has been extraordinary deflation since 1998, and therefore, Felipe should pay him the value of the debt at the time it was incurred. Felipe refused to pay him again, claiming that Gustavo is estopped from raising the issue of legal tender, having accepted the check in March, and that it was Gustavo’s negligence in not depositing the check immediately that caused the check to become stale.
XVIII AB Corp. entered into a contract with XY Corp. whereby the former agreed to construct the research and laboratory facilities of the latter. Under the terms of the contract, AB Corp. agreed to complete the facility in 18 months, at the total contract price of P10 million. XY Corp. paid 50% of the total contract price, the balance to be paid upon completion of the work. The work stated immediately, but AB Corp. later experienced work slippage because of labor unrest in his company. AB Corp.’s employees claimed that they are not being paid on time; hence, the work slowdown. As of the 17th month, work was only 45% completed. AB Corp. asked for extension of time, claiming that its labor problems is a case of fortuitous event, but this was denied by XY Corp. When it became certain that the contruction could not be finished on time, XY Corp. sent written notice cancelling the contract, and requiring AB Corp. to immediately vacate the premises.
XIX Juliet offered to sell her house and lot, together with all the furniture and appliances therein to Dehlma. Before agreeing to purchase the property, Dehlma went to the Register of Deeds to verify Juliet’s title. She discovered that while the property was registered in Juliet’s name under the Land Registration Act, as amended by the Property Registration Decree, it property, Dehlma told Juliet to redeem the property from Elaine, and gave her an advance payment to be used for purposes of realesing the mortgage on the property. When the mortgage was released, Juliet executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property which was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds, and a new TCT was issued in Dehlma’s name. Dehlma immediately took possession over the house and lot and the movables therein. Thereafter, Dehlma went to theAssessor’ s Office to get a new tax declaration under her name. She was surprised to find out that the property was already declared for tax purposes in the name of XYZ Bank which had foreclosed the mortgage on the property before it was sold to her. XYZ Bank was also the purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the property. At that time, the property was still unregistered but XYZ Bank registered the Sheriff’s Deed of Conveyance in the day book of the Register of Deeds under Act. 3344 and obtained a tax declaration in its name.
NOTHING FOLLOWS. |
||
Add comment September 18th, 2008
Herrera vs. Luy Kim Guan
G.R. No. L-17043 January 31, 1961
NATIVIDAD HERRERA, assisted by her husband EMIGDIO SALAZAR, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
LUY KIM GUAN and LINO BANGAYAN, defendants-appellees.
T. de los Santos for plaintiffs-appellants.
Rafael C. Climaco and Abelardo S. Fernandez for defendants-appellees.
BARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City (a) dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s complaint for the recovery of three (3) parcels of land and their produce in the sum of P320,000.00; and (b) instead, sentencing plaintiff to pay P2,000.00 for attorney’s fees and P1,000.00 for expenses of litigation, to defendant Lino Bangayan, and P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P500.00 as expenses of litigation, to the other defendant Luy Kim Guan.
The pertinent facts as found by the trial court and upon which its decision was predicated are set forth in the following portion of the decision appealed from:
The Plaintiff Natividad Herrera is the legitimate daughter of Luis Herrera, now deceased and who died in China sometime after he went to that country in the last part of 1931 or early part of 1932. The said Luis Herrera in his lifetime was the owner of three (3) parcels of land and their improvements, known as Lots 1740, 4465 and 4467 of Expediente No. 5, G.L.R.O. Record 477 and the area, nature, improvements and bound of each and every of these three (3) lots are sufficiently described in the complaint filed by the plaintiffs.
Before leaving for China, however, Luis Herrera executed on December 1, 1931, a deed of General Power of Attorney, Exhibit ‘B’, which authorized and empowered the defendant Kim Guan, among others to administer and sell the properties of said Luis Herrera.
Lot 1740 was originally covered by Original Certificate Title 8601 registered in the name of Luis Herrera, married to GO Bang. This lot was sold by the defendant Luy Kim in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of the deceased Luis Her to Luy Chay on September 11, 1939, as shown in Exhibit “2″, corresponding deed of sale. Transfer Certificate of Title 3162, Exhibit “3″, was issued to Luy Chay by virtue of deed of sale. On August 28, 1941, to secure a loan of P2,00 a deed of mortgage to the Zamboanga Mutual Building and Association was executed by Luy Chay, Exhibit “4″. On January 31, 1947, the said Luy Chay executed a deed of sale, Exhibit “E”, in favor of Lino Bangayan. By virtue of this Transfer Certificate of Title T-2567 was issued to Lino Bangayan on June 24, 1949, Exhibit “1″:
Lots 4465 and 4467 were originally registered in the of Luis Herrera, married to Go Bang, under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-14360, Exhibit “5″. On December 1, 1931, Luis Herrera sold one-half (?) undivided share and to Herrera and Go Bang, the other half (?), as shown by Exhibit “12″ and Exhibit “12-A”, the latter an annotation made the Register of Deeds of the City of Zamboanga, in which stated as follows:
Cancelado el presente Certificado en virtud de una escritura de traspaso y en su lugar se ha expedido el Certificado de T No. 494-(T-13045) del Tomo 2 del Libro de Certificado de Transferencias.
|
(Fdo) R. D. MACROHON |
On July 23, 1937, Luis Herrera thru his attorney-in-fact Luy Kim Guan, one of the defendants, sold to Nicomedes Salazar his one half (?) participation in these two (2) lots, as shown in Exhibit “C”, the corresponding deed of sale for P3,000.00 Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-494-(T-13045) was is to Nicomedes Salazar and to the defendant Luy Kim Guan, Exhibit ’7′. On August 4, 1937, the defendant Luy Kim Guan Nicomedes Salazar executed a deed of mortgage in favor of Bank of the Philippine Islands to secure a loan of P3,500.00, Exhibit ’6′. On August 17, 1937, the defendant Luy Kim Guan and Nicomedes Salazar sold Lot 4465 to Carlos Eijansantos for the sum of P100.00 as shown in Exhibit “9″, the corresponding deed of sale, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2653 was issued on September 7, 1939 to Carlos Eijansantos, Exhibit “10″. Nicomedes Salazar sold his one half (?) interest on Lot 4467 to the defendant Lino Bangayan for P3,000.00 on February 22, 1949, Exhibit ‘B’, and the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title T-2654 was issued to Lino Bangayan and to Luy Kim Guan, both are co-owners in equal shares, Exhibit “8″. Opinion of the City Attorney, Exhibit “p”, and an affidavit of Atty. Jose T. Atilano, Exhibit “O”, state that Lino Bangayan is a Filipino citizen.
As admitted by both parties (plaintiffs and defendants), Luis Herrera is now deceased, but as to the specific and precise date of his death the evidence of both parties failed to show.
It is the contention of plaintiff-appellant that all the transactions mentioned in the preceding quoted portion of the decision were fraudulent and were executed after the death of Luis Herrera and, consequently, when the power of attorney was no longer operative. It is also claimed that the defendants Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan who now claim to be the owners of Lots Nos. 1740 and 4467 are Chinese by nationality and, therefore, are disqualified to acquire real properties. Plaintiff-appellant, in addition, questions the supposed deed of sale allegedly executed by Luis Herrera on December 1, 1931 in favor of defendant Luy Kim Guan, conveying one-half interest on the two lots, Nos. 4465 and 4467, asserting that what was actually executed on that date, jointly with the general power of attorney, was a lease contract over the same properties for a period of 20 years for which Luy Kim Guan paid the sum of P2,000.00.
We find all the contentions of plaintiff-appellant untenable. Starting with her claim that the second deed executed on December 1, 1931 by Luis Herrera was a lease contract instead of a deed of sale as asserted by defendant Luy Kim Guan, we find that the only evidence in support of her contention is her own testimony and that of her husband to the effect that the deceased Luis Herrera showed the said document to them, and they remembered the same to be a lease contract on the three properties for a period of 20 years in consideration of P2,000.00. Their testimony was sought to be corroborated by the declaration of the clerk of Atty. Enrique A. Fernandez, who allegedly notarized the document. Outside of this oral testimony, given more than 23 years after the supposed instrument was read by them, no other evidence was adduced. On the other hand, defendant Luy Kim Gua produced in evidence a certification1 signed by the Register of Deeds of Dipolog, Zamboanga (Exh. 11) to the effect that a deed of sale, dated December 1, 1931, was execute by Luis Herrera in favor of Luy Kim Guan and entered in the Primary Book No. 4 as duly registered on September 30, 1936 under Original Certificate of Title No. 14360. It is to be noted that the deed of sale was registered shortly after the issuance in the name of Luis Herrera of Origin Certificate of Title No. 14360 pursuant to Decree No. 59093, covering the two lots, Nos. 4465 and 4467 (Exh. 5) dated April 7, 1936. In virtue of said deed of sale of December 1, 1931, Original Certificate of Title No. 1436 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1304 (Exh. 12) in the names of the conjugal partnership of the spouses Luis Herrera and Go Bang, one-half share, an Luy Kim Guan, single, one-half share, was issued on September 30, 1936. Later, or on July 23, 1937, Luy Kim Guan, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Luis Herrera, sold the half interest of the latter in the two parcels o land, in favor of Nicomedes Salazar, whereupon TCT No. 13045 was cancelled and TCT No. RT-657 (494-T-13045 (Exh. 7) was issued in the names of Luy Kim Guan an Nicomedes Salazar in undivided equal shares. On August 4, 1937, both Luy Kim Guan and Nicomedes Salazar mortgaged the two parcels in favor of the Bank of the Philippine Islands for the sum of P3,500.00 (Exh. 6). On August 17, 1937, Nicomedes Salazar and Luy Kim Gua sold their respective shares in Lot No. 4465 to Carlo Eijansantos (Exh. 9), subject to the mortgage, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 2653 (Exh. 10) covering the entire lot No. 4465 in the name of said Carlos Eijansantos. On February 23, 1949, Nicomedes Salazar sold his shall share in Lot No. 4467 to Lino Bangayan, as a consequence of which, TCT No. 2654 (Exh. B) was issued covering said Lot No. 4467 in the names of Luy Kim Guan and Lino Bangayan in undivided equal shares.
With respect to Lot No. 1740, the same was sold by Luy Kim Guan, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Luis Herrera, on September 11, 1939 to Luy Chay (See Exh. 2) who, in August, 1941, mortgaged the same (Exh. 4) to the Zamboanga Mutual Loan and Building Association (See TCT No. 3162 [Exh. 3] issued in the name of Luy Chay). Later on, Luy Chay sold the entire lot to defendant Lino Bangayan by virtue of the deed of sale dated January 31, 1947 (Exh. E), and as a consequence thereof, TCT No. 2567 was issued in the name of said vendee. (See Exh. 1). As a result of these various transactions, duly recorded in the corresponding office of the Register of Deeds, and covered by appropriate transfer certificates of title, the properties are now registered in the following manner: Lot No. 1740, in the name of Lino Bangayan; Lot No. 4465, in the name of Carlos Eijansantos; and Lot No. 4467, in the names of Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan in undivided equal shares.
In the face of these documentary evidence presented by the defendants, the trial court correctly upheld the contention of the defendants as against that of plaintiff-appellant who claims that the second deed executed by Luis Herrera in 1931 was a lease contract. It is pertinent to note what the lower court stated in this regard, that is, if the second deed executed by Luis Herrera was a lease contract covering, the 3 lots in question for a period of twenty (20) years, there would have been no purpose for him to constitute Luy Kim Guan as. his attorney-in-fact to administer and take charge of the same properties already covered by the lease contract.
Coming now to the contention that these transactions are null and void and of no effect because they were executed by the attorney-in-fact after the death of his Principal, suffice it to say that as found by the lower court, the date of death of Luis Herrera has not been satisfactorily proven. The only evidence presented by the Plaintiff-appellant in this respect is a supposed letter received from a certain “Candi”, dated at Amoy in November, 1936, purporting to give information that Luis Herrera (without mentioning his name) had died in August of that year. This piece of evidence was properly rejected by the lower court for lack of identification. the other hand, we have the testimony of the witness Chung Lian to the effect that when he was in Amoy the year 1940, Luis Herrera visited him and had a conversation with him, showing that the latter was still alive at the time. Since the documents had been executed the attorney-in-fact one in 1937 and the other in 1939, it is evident, if we are to believe this testimony, that the documents were executed during the lifetime of the principal. Be that as it may, even granting arguendo that Luis Herrera did die in 1936, plaintiffs presented no proof and there is no indication in the record, that the age Luy Kim Guan was aware of the death of his prince at the time he sold the property. The death of the principal does not render the act of an agent unenforceable, where the latter had no knowledge of such extinguishment the agency.2
Appellants also raise the question of the legality of the titles acquired by Luy Chay and Lino Bangayan, on ground that they are disqualified to acquire real properties in the Philippines. This point is similarly without me because there is no evidence to support the claim. In fact, in the deed of sale as well as in TCT No. 3162 issued to Luy Chay, the latter was referred to as a citizen of the Philippines. Nevertheless, the lower court acknowledged the probability that Luy Chay could have been actually a Chinese citizens.3 At any rate, the property was subsequently purchased by Lino Bangayan, as a result which TCT No. 3162 in the name of Luy Chay was cancelled and another certificate (TCT No. T-2567) was issued in favor of said vendee.
As to Bangayan’s qualification, the lower court held that said defendant had sufficiently established his Philippine citizenship through Exhibit P, concurred in by the Secretary of Justice. We find no reason to disturb such ruling.
With respect to Luy Kim Guan, while it is true that he is a Chinese citizen, nevertheless, inasmuch as he acquired his one-half share in Lot No. 4467 in 1931, long before the Constitution was adopted, his ownership can not be attacked on account of his citizenship.
Appellants, in this appeal, contest the judgment of the court a quo awarding defendants Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim Guan attorney’s fees in the sum of P2,000.00 each, and expenses of litigation in the amounts of P1,000.00 and P500.00, respectively. We agree with the appellant in this regard.
This Court has laid down the rule that in the absence of stipulation, a winning party may be awarded attorney’s fees only in case plaintiff’s action or defendant’s stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith.4 The same thing however, can not be said of the case at bar. As a matter of fact, the trial court itself declared that the complaint was filed in good faith. Attorney’s fees, therefore, can not be awarded to defendants simply because the judgment was favorable to them and adverse to plaintiff, for it may amount to imposing a premium on the right to redress grievances in court. And so with expenses of litigation. A winning party may be entitled to expenses of litigation only where he, by reason of plaintiff’s clearly unjustifiable claims or defendant’s unreasonable refusal to his demands, was compelled to incur said expenditures. Evidently, the facts of this case do not warrant the granting of such litigation expenses to defendants. In the absence of proof that the action was intended for reasons other than honest, we may agree with the trial court that the same must have been instituted by plaintiffs in their belief that they have a valid cause against the defendants.
WHEREFORE, and with the above modification, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects without prejudice to appellants’ right to demand from the agent (Luy Kim Guan) an accounting of proceeds of the agency, if such right is still available. No costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, concur.
Add comment September 16th, 2008
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED BY TRIAL COURT JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT IN THE CONDUCT OF PRE- TRIAL AND USE OF DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY MEASURES RESOLUTION
The use of pre-trial and the deposition-discovery measures are undeniably important and vital components of case management in trial courts. To decongest court dockets, and to further implementthe pre-trial guidelines laid down in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 and except as otherwise specifically provided for in other special rules, the following guidelines are issued for the observance and guidance of trial judges and clerks of court: decongest court dockets, and to further implement the pre-trial guidelines laid down in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999 and except as otherwise specifically provided for in other special rules, the following guidelines are issued for the observance and guidance of trial judges and clerks of court:
I. PRE-TRIAL
A. CIVIL CASES
1. Within one day from receipt of the complaint:
1.1 Summons shall be prepared and shall contain a reminder to defendant to observe restraint in filing a motion to dismiss and instead allege the grounds thereof as defenses in the Answer, in conformity with IBP-OCA Memorandum on Policy Guidelines dated March 12, 2002. A copy of the summons is hereto attached as Annex “A;” and
1.2 The court shall issue an order requiring the parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 25 and request for admission by adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rules 27 and 28 within five days from the filing of the answer.1 A copy of the order shall be served upon the defendant together with the summons and upon the plaintiff.
Within five (5) days from date of filing of the reply,2 the plaintiff must promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference.3 If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period, the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial.
2. The parties shall submit, at least three (3) days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs containing the following:4
a. A statement of their willingness to enter into an amicable settlement indicating the desired terms thereof or to submit the case to any of the alternative modes of dispute resolution;
b. A summary of admitted facts and proposed stipulation of facts;
c. The issues to be tried or resolved;
d. The documents or exhibits to be presented, stating the purpose thereof. (No evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that had been earlier identified and pre-marked during the pre-trial, except if allowed by the court for good cause shown);
e. A manifestation of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners; and
f. The number and names of the witnesses, the substance of their testimonies, and the approximate number of hours that will be required by the parties for the presentation of their respective witnesses.
A copy of the Notice of Pre-trial Conference is hereto attached as Annex “B.”
The rule on the contents of the pre-trial brief must strictly be complied with.
The parties are bound by the representations and statements in their respective pre-trial briefs.
3. At the start of the pre-trial conference, the judge shall immediately refer the parties and/or their counsel if authorized by their clients to the PMC mediation unit for purposes of mediation if available.5 If mediation fails, the judge will schedule the continuance of the pre-trial conference. Before the continuance, the Judge may refer the case to the Branch COC for a preliminary conference to assist the parties in reaching a settlement, to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the records after comparison and to consider such other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition.6
During the preliminary conference, the Branch COC shall also ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of the documents marked as exhibits. The proceedings during .the preliminary conference shall be recorded in the “Minutes of Preliminary Conference” to be signed by both parties and/or counsel, the form of which is hereto attached as Annex. “C”.
The minutes of preliminary conference and the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to the case record before the pre-trial.
4. Before the continuation of the pre-trial conference, the judge must study all the pleadings of the case, and determine the issues thereof and the respective positions of the parties thereon to enable him to intelligently steer the parties toward a possible amicable settlement of the case, or, at the very least, to help reduce and limit the issues. The judge should not allow the termination of pre-trial simply because of the manifestation of the parties that they cannot settle the case. He should expose the parties to the advantages of pre-trial. He must also be mindful that there are other important aspects of the pre-trial that ought to be taken up to expedite the disposition of the case.7
The Judge with all tact, patience, impartiality and with due regard to the rights of the parties shall endeavor to persuade them to arrive at a settlement of the dispute.8 The court shall initially ask the parties and their lawyers if an amicable settlement of the case is possible. If not, the judge may confer with the parties with the opposing counsel to consider the following:
a. Given the evidence of the plaintiff presented in his pre-trial brief to support his claim, what manner of compromise is considered acceptable to the defendant at the present stage?
b. Given the evidence of the defendant described in his pre-trial brief to support his defense, what manner of compromise is considered acceptable to the plaintiff at the present stage?
If not successful, the court shall confer with the party and his counsel separately.
If the manner of compromise is not acceptable, the judge shall confer with the parties without their counsel for the same purpose of settlement.
5. If all efforts to settle fail, the trial judge shall:
a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part of the pre-trial proceedings and confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents;
b. Inquire if there are cases arising out of the same facts pending before other courts and order its consolidation if warranted;
c. Inquire if the pleadings are in order. If not, order the amendments if necessary;
d. Inquire if interlocutory issues are involved and resolve the same;
e. Consider the adding or dropping of parties;
f. Scrutinize every single allegation of the complaint, answer and other pleadings and attachments thereto and the contents of documents and all other evidence identified and pre-marked during pre-trial in determining further admissions of facts and documents. To obtain admissions, the Court shall ask the parties to submit the depositions taken under Rule 23, the answers to written interrogatories under Rule 25 and the answers to request for admissions by the adverse party under Rule 26. It may also require the production of documents or things requested by a party under Rule 27 and the results of the physical and mental examination of persons under Rule 28;
g. Define and simplify the factual and legal issues arising from the pleadings. Uncontroverted issues and frivolous claims or defenses should be eliminated. For each factual issue, the parties/counsel shall state all the evidence to support their positions thereon. For each legal issue, parties/counsel shall state the applicable law and jurisprudence supporting their respective positions thereon. If only legal issues are presented, the judge shall require the parties to submit their respective memoranda and the court can proceed to render judgment;9
h. Determine the propriety of rendering a summary judgment dismissing the case based on the disclosures made at the pre-trial or a judgment based on the pleadings, evidence identified and admissions made during pre-trial;10
i. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates for continuous trial in accordance with Circular No. 1-89 dated January 19, 1989; adhere to the case flow chart determined by the court, which shall contain the different stages of the proceedings up to the promulgation of the decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates. The One-Day Examination of Witness Rule, that is, a witness has to be fully examined in one (1) day only, shall be strictly adhered to subject to the courts’ discretion during trial on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination for justifiable reasons. On the last hearing day allotted for each party, he is required to make his formal offer of evidence after the presentation of his last witness and the opposing party is required to immediately interpose his objection thereto. Thereafter, the Judge shall make the ruling on the offer of evidence in open court. However the judge has the discretion to allow the offer of evidence in writing in conformity with Section 35, Rule 132;
j. Determine the most important witnesses to be heard and limit the number of witnesses (Most Important Witness Rule). The facts to be proven by each witness and the approximate number of hours per witness shall be fixed;
k. At his discretion, order the parties to use the affidavits of witnesses as direct testimonies subject to the right to object to inadmissible portions thereof and to the right of cross-examination by the other party. The affidavits shall be based on personal knowledge, shall set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. The affidavits shall be in question and answer form, and shall comply with the rules on admissibility of evidence;
l. Require the parties and/or counsel to submit to the Branch COC the names, addresses and contact numbers of the witnesses to be summoned by subpoena;
m. Order the delegation of the reception of evidence to the Branch COC under Rule 30; and
n. Refer the case to a trial by commissioner under Rule 32.
During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised therein and all questions or comments by counsel or parties must be directed to the judge to avoid hostilities between the parties.
6. The trial judge shall schedule the pre-trial in the afternoon sessions and set as many pre-trial conferences as may be necessary.
7. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded. The minutes of each pre-trial conference shall contain matters taken up therein more particularly admissions of facts and exhibits and shall be signed by the parties and their counsel.
8. The judge shall issue the required Pre-Trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial. Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course of the action during the trial. A sample Pre-Trial Order is hereto attached as Annex “D.”
However, the Court may opt to dictate the Pre-Trial Order in open court in the presence of the parties and their counsel and with the use of a computer, shall have the same immediately finalized and printed. Once finished, the parties and/or their counsel shall sign the same to manifest their conformity thereto.
9. The court shall endeavor to make the parties agree to an equitable compromise or settlement at any stage of the proceedings before rendition of judgment.
B. CRIMINAL CASES
1. Before arraignment, the Court shall issue an order directing the public prosecutor to submit the record of the preliminary investigation to the Branch COC for the latter to attach the same to the record of the criminal case.
Where the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three days from the filing of the complaint or information. The accused shall be arraigned within ten days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial of his case shall be held within ten days after arraignment unless a shorter period is provided for by law.
2. After the arraignment, the court shall forthwith set the pre-trial conference within thirty days from the date of arraignment, and issue an order:
(a) requiring the private offended party to appear thereat for purposes of plea-bargaining except for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and for other matters requiring his presence;
(b) referring the case to the Branch COC, if warranted, for a preliminary conference to be set at least three days prior to the pre-trial to mark the documents or exhibits to be presented by the parties and copies thereof to be attached to the records after comparison and to consider other matters as may aid in its prompt disposition; and
(c) informing the parties that no evidence shall be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial other than those identified and marked during the pre-trial except when allowed by the court for good cause shown. A copy of the order is hereto attached as Annex “E”. In mediatable cases, the judge shall refer the parties and their counsel to the PMC unit for purposes of mediation if available.
3. During the preliminary conference, the Branch COC shall assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the civil aspect of the case, mark the documents to be presented as exhibits and copies thereof attached to the records after comparison, ascertain from the parties the undisputed facts and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents marked as exhibits and consider such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case. The proceedings during the preliminary conference shall be recorded in the Minutes of Preliminary Conference to be signed by both parties and counsel. (Please see Annex “B”)
The Minutes of Preliminary Conference and the exhibits shall be attached by the Branch COC to the case record before the pre-trial.
4. Before the pre-trial conference the judge must study the allegations of the information, the statements in the affidavits of witnesses and other documentary evidence which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation.
5. During the pre-trial, except for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the trial judge shall consider plea- bargaining arrangements. Where the prosecution and the offended party agree to the plea offered by the accused, the court shall:
a. Issue an order which contains the plea bargaining arrived at;
b. Proceed to receive evidence on the civil aspect of the case; and
c. Render and promulgate judgment of conviction, including the civil liability or
damages duly established by the evidence.
6. When plea bargaining fails, the Court shall:
a. Adopt the minutes of preliminary conference as part of the pre- trial proceedings, confirm markings of exhibits or substituted photocopies and admissions on the genuineness and due execution of documents and list object and testimonial evidence;
b. Scrutinize every allegation of the information and the statements in the affidavits and other documents which form part of the record of the preliminary investigation and other documents identified and marked as exhibits in determining farther admissions of facts, documents and in particular as to the following:
1. the identity of the accused;
2. court’s territorial jurisdiction relative to the offense/s charged;
3. qualification of expert witness/es;
4. amount of damages;
5. genuineness and due execution of documents;
6. the cause of death or injury, in proper cases;
7. adoption of any evidence presented during the preliminary investigation;
8. disclosure of defenses of alibi, insanity, self-defense, exercise of public authority and justifying or exempting circumstances; and
9. such other matters that would limit the facts in issue.
c. Define factual and legal issues;
d. Ask parties to agree on the specific trial dates and adhere to the flow chart determined by the court which shall contain the time frames for the different stages of the proceeding up to promulgation of decision and use the time frame for each stage in setting the trial dates;
e. Require the parties to submit to the Branch COC the names, addresses and contact numbers of witnesses that need to be summoned by subpoena; and
f. Consider modification of order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense.
7. During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised therein and all questions must be directed to him to avoid hostilities between parties.
8. All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre- trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in Section 1 of Rule 118 shall be approved by the court. (Section 2, Rule 118)
9. All proceedings during the pre-trial shall be recorded, the transcripts prepared and the minutes signed by the parties and/or their counsels.
10. The trial judge shall issue a Pre-trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial setting forth the actions taken during the pre-trial conference, the facts stipulated, the admissions made, evidence marked, the number of witnesses to bepresented and the schedule of trial. Said Order shall bind the parties, limit the trial to matters not disposed of and control the course the action during the trial.
6 comments September 4th, 2008





