PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, appealing accused's death prior to his final conviction by the Court renders dismissible the criminal case against him. Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is  totally extinguished  by the death of the accused, to wit: Article 89.  How criminal liability is totally extinguished . - Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; xxx. In People v. Layag,[1] the Supreme Court thoroughly explained the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on his liabilities, as follows: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability, based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final

Here is quiz on  PIERCING OF THE CORPORATE VEIL . Perfect score is 10 POINTS . To view the results, please click  SUBMIT  and then  VIEW SCORES . In case you find errors in our quiz results, please send us a message at www.facebook.com/projectjuris or info@projectjurisprudence.com. FOR OTHER QUIZZES, PLEASE SCROLL  BELOW THE QUIZ . Loading… TRY OTHER QUIZZES: [1] 10-item online quiz on TAX principles - Project Jurisprudence . [2] 20-item quiz in sales law (#1) - Project Jurisprudence . [3] 15-item quiz in family law. [4] 10-item quiz in obligations law. [5] 10-item quiz in evidence law . [6] 20-item quiz on Latin legal phrases . [7] 15-item quiz in political law . [8] Quiz on effectivity of law . [9] Remedial law quiz; 15 items . [10] Civil law, 20-item quiz on Article 3 and 4 . [11] Quiz on criminal law basics . [12] QUIZ: Articles 5, 6 of the Civil Code . [13] QUIZ on negotiability . [14] QUIZ: Insurance warranty . [15] QUIZ: Offer and acceptance (contracts l

Modifying the rules in the Eastern Shipping Lines case, the High Court promulgated the Nacar guidelines. In Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[1] the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for the imposition and computation of legal interests. The guidelines in the Eastern Shipping Lines case[2] were accordingly modified to embody BSP­ MB Circular No. 799, as follows: When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi­contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts, is breached, the contravener can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the RATE OF INTEREST , as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows: When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money , i.e., a loan or forbearance of money , the interest due

In several cases, the Supreme Court has disciplined lawyers for their dishonesty and immoral conduct in refusing to pay their just debts . In Constantino v. Saludares,[1] respondent unjustifiably refused to pay his f P,000.00 loan to complainant's son and gave paltry excuses for his non-payment. He was suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law. [2] In Dr. Sanchez v. Atty. Somoso,[3] respondent paid his hospital bill totalling P44,347.00 with personal checks that were dishonored when deposited. The Supreme Court found Atty. Somoso guilty of misconduct in writing off a check from an account he knew to be closed and refusing to settle his bill despite demand. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.[4] In Vda. de Espino v. Atty. Presquito,[5] complainant sold respondent a piece of land for which respondent issued eight (8) post-dated checks totalling P736,060.00 as payment. All eight checks were dishonored, and respondent refused to pay the amo

In Sulit v. Court of Appeals,[1] the Supreme Court held that the failure of the mortgagee to return to the mortgagor the surplus proceeds of the foreclosure sale carves out an exception to the general rule that a writ of possession should issue as a matter of course. To have a better grasp of the reasons for the Court’s ruling in said case, below is a brief summary and analysis. The case of Sulit v. CA stemmed from the extra-judicial foreclosure conducted by the notary public where Sulit (creditor-mortgagee) emerged as the highest bidder for the amount of P7,000,000.00. It appears that Sulit failed to deliver the sale price’s surplus equivalent to at least 40% of the mortgage debt to the notary public. Instead, he credited it to the satisfaction of the P4,000,000.00 debt.  During redemption period , he petitioned for the issuance of a writ of possession which the trial court granted. From the order of the court, the debtor-mortgagor filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA

CASE DIGEST: [ G.R. No. 221932, February 14, 2018 ] PATRICIA CABRIETO DELA TORRE, REPRESENTED BY BENIGNO T. CABRIETO, JR., PETITIONER, V. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC., RESPONDENT. PERALTA, J.: FACTS:  Respondent Primetown Property Group, Inc., in 2003, filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation with prayer for suspension of payments and actions with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, and was raffled off to Branch 138. On August 15, 2003, the rehabilitation court issued a Stay Order.[3] On October 15, 2004, petitioner Patricia Cabrieto dela Torre filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene[4] seeking judicial order for specific performance, i.e., for respondent to execute in her favor a deed of sale covering Unit 3306, Makati Prime Citadel Condominium which she bought from the former as she had allegedly fully paid the purchase price. Respondent opposed the motion arguing that it was filed out of time considering that the Stay Order was issued on August 15, 2003 and under

CASE DIGEST: [ G.R. No. 205548, February 07, 2018 ] DE LA SALLE MONTESSORI INTERNATIONAL OF MALOLOS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DE LA SALLE BROTHERS, INC., DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., LA SALLE ACADEMY, INC., DE LA SALLE-SANTIAGO ZOBEL SCHOOL, INC. (FORMERLY NAMED DE LA SALLE-SOUTH INC.), DE LA SALLE CANLUBANG, INC. (FORMERLY NAMED DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY-CANLUBANG, INC.), RESPONDENTS. JARDELEZA, J.: FACTS:  Petitioner De La Salle Montessori International of Malolos, Inc. was asked by respondents De La Salle Brothers, Inc., De La Salle University, Inc., La Salle Academy, Inc., De La Salle-Santiago Zobel School, Inc. (formerly De La Salle-South, Inc.), and De La Salle Canlubang, Inc. (formerly De La Salle University-Canlubang, Inc.) to change its corporate name. Alleged misleading or confusingly similar. SEC OGC ordered petitioner to change corporate name. Said "La Salle" is not descriptive. Said there is priority registration in favor of respondents. Said the Lyceum ruling does

CASE DIGEST: [ G.R. No. 210538, March 07, 2018 ] DR. GIL J. RICH, PETITIONER, VS. GUILLERMO PALOMA III, ATTY. EVARISTA TARCE AND ESTER L. SERVACIO, RESPONDENTS. DECISION. REYES, JR., J: DOCTRINE:  A corporation which has already been dissolved, be it voluntarily or involuntarily, retains no juridical personality to conduct its business save for those directed towards corporate liquidation. FACTS:  Sometime in 1997, Dr. Gil Rich (petitioner) lent P1,000,000.00 to his brother, Estanislao Rich (Estanislao).[3] The agreement was secured by a real estate mortgage over a 1000-square-meter parcel of land with improvements. Estanislao FAILED to pay.  Petitioner FORECLOSED on the subject property via a sheriff's public auction sale. Petitioner, highest bidder.[5] Without the petitioner's knowledge, however, and prior to the foreclosure, Estanislao entered into an agreement with Maasin Traders Lending Corporation (MTLC), at P2.6 million. Real estate mortgage over the same proper

CASE DIGEST:  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 235511, June 20, 2018 ] METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. JUNNEL'S MARKETING CORPORATION, PURIFICACION DELIZO, AND BANK OF COMMERCE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 235565] BANK OF COMMERCE, PETITIONER, VS. JUNNEL'S MARKETING CORPORATION, PURIFICACION DELIZO, AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY RESPONDENTS. DECISION. VELASCO JR., J.: SUMMARY OF FACTS:  The instant case involves the unauthorized payment of valid checks, i.e., the payment of checks to persons other than the payee named therein or his order. The subject checks herein are considered valid because they are complete and bear genuine signatures. FACTS:  Respondent Junnel's Marketing Corporation (JMC) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling wines and liquors. It has a current account with Metrobank[4] from which it draws checks to pay its different suppliers. Among JMC's suppliers are Jardine Wines and Spirits (Jardine) and Premier

In PEZA v. COA ( G.R. No. 210903 ), a 2016 case, the Supreme Court said that the disallowance of the payment of additional Christmas bonus/cash gifts to PEZA officers and employees for CY 2005 to 2008 does not automatically cast liability on the responsible officers. In other words, even if the Commision on Audit (COA) disallowed said bonus/gifts, responsible officers are not liable as long as there is "good faith reliance." Further explained by the Court, the question to be resolved is: "To what extent may accountability and responsibility be ascribed to public officials who may have acted in good faith, and in accordance with their understanding of their authority which did not appear clearly to be in conflict with other laws?" Otherwise put, should public officials be held financially accountable for the adoption of certain policies or programs which are found to be not in accordance with the understanding by the Commission on Audit several years after the fact

A preliminary investigation is “not a casual affair.”[1] It is conducted to protect the innocent from the embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial.[2] While the right to have a preliminary investigation before trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a substantive right and a component of due process in the administration of criminal justice.[3] In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be heard.[4] It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent’s side with regard to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and that it was the respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint. “The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense.”[5] 

CASE DIGEST: 750 Phil. 95. FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 182864, January 12, 2015 ] EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP., & MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO., LTD., RESPONDENTS. DECISION. PEREZ, J.: FACTS:  On 29 December 2004, BPI/MS Insurance Corporation (BPI/MS) and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company Limited (Mitsui) filed a Complaint[3] before the RTC of Makati City against ESLI and Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) to recover actual damages amounting to US$17,560.48 with legal interest, attorney’s fees and costs of suit. In their complaint, BPI/MS and Mitsui alleged that on 2 February 2004 at Yokohama, Japan, Sumitomo Corporation shipped on board ESLI’s vessel M/V “Eastern Venus 22” 22 coils of various Steel Sheet weighing 159,534 kilograms in good order and condition for transportation to and delivery at the port of Manila, Philippines in favor of consignee Calamba Steel Center, Inc. (Calamba Steel) located in Saimsim, Calamba, Laguna as evidenced by a