VII.

A.

Virtucio was a composer of Ilocano songs who has been quite popular in the Ilocos Region.
Pascuala is a professor of music in a local university with special focus on indigenous music.
When she heard the musical works of Virtucio, she purchased a CD of his works. She copied thte
CD and sent the second copy to her Music class with instructions for the class to listen to the CD
and analyze the works of Virtucio.

Did Pascuala thereby infringe Virtucio’s copyright? Explain your answer. (4%)

Answer:

No. Exception sya sa copyright infringement - The recording made in schools, universities, or
educational institutions of a work included in a broadcast for the use of such schools, universities
or educational institutions: Provided, That such recording must be deleted within a reasonable
period after they were first broadcast: Provided, further, That such recording may not be made
from audiovisual works which are part of the general cinema repertoire of feature films except
for brief excerpts of the work;

law allows the following reproductions:

- the private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the reproduction is made
by a natural person exclusively for research and private study, shall be permitted, without the
authorization of the owner of copyright in the work.

B.

Super Biology Corporation (Super Biology) invented and patented a miracle medicine for the
cure of AIDS. Being the sole manufacturer, Super Biology sold the medicine at an exorbitant
price. Because of the sudden prevalence of AIDS cases in Metro Manila and other urban areas,
the Department of Health (DOH) asked Super Biology for a license to produce and sell the AIDS
medicine to the public at a substantially lower price. Super Biology, citing the huge costs and
expenses incurred for research and development, refused.

Assuming you are asked your opinion as the legal consultant of DOH, discuss how you will
resolve the matter. (4%)

Answer:

Republic Act No. 9502 June 6, 2008

Amending RA8293, RA6675, RA5921

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR CHEAPER AND QUALITY MEDICINES, AMENDING FOR

THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293 OR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6675 OR THE GENERICS ACT OF 1988, AND REPUBLIC ACT NO.
5921 OR THE PHARMACY LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

- AMENDMENTS TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

"SEC. 72. Limitations of Patent Rights. - The owner of a patent has no right to prevent
third parties from performing, without his authorization, the acts referred to in Section 71
hereof in the following circumstances:

"72.1. Using a patented product which has been put on the market in the Philippines by
the owner of the product, or with his express consent, insofar as such use is performed
after that product has been so put on the said market: Provided, That, with regard to drugs
and medicines, the limitation on patent rights

shall apply after a drug or medicine has been introduced in the Philippines or anywhere
else in the world by the patent owner, or by any party authorized to use the invention:
Provided, further, That the right to import the drugs and medicines contemplated in this
section shall be available to any government agency or any private third party;

VIII.

A.

Flora, a frequent traveller, found a purse concealed between the cushions of a large sofa inside
the VIP lounge in NAIA while she was waiting for her flight to be called. Inside the purse was a
very valuable diamond-studded necklace. She decided not to turn over the purse to the airport
management, and instead to keep it. On her return from her travels, she had a dependable
jeweller appraise the necklace, and the latter told her that the necklace was easily worth at least
P5 million in the open market. To test the appraisal, she pawned the necklace for P2 million. She
then deposited the entire amount in her checking account with Metro Bank. Promptly, Metro
Bank reported the transaction to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Given that her appropriation was theft, may Flora be successfully prosecuted for money
laundering? Explain briefly your answer. (4%)
Answer:

No. because under REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160 AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF
MONEY LAUNDERING, PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. "Covered transaction" is a single, series, or combination of transactions involving a
total amount in excess of Four Million Philippine pesos (PhP4,000,000.00) or an equivalent
amount in foreign currency based on the prevailing exchange rate within five (5) consecutive
banking days except those between a covered institution and a person who, at the time of the
transaction was a properly identified client and the amount is commensurate with the business or
financial capacity of the client; or those with an underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose,
origin or economic justification.

It likewise refers to a single, series or combination or pattern of unusually large and complex
transactions in excess of Four Million Philippine pesos (PhP4,000,000.00) especially cash
deposits and investments having no credible purpose or origin, underlying trade obligation or
contract.

B.

Prosperous Bank is a domestic bank with head office in Makati. It handles the banking
requirements of thousands of clients.

The AMLC initiated a discreet investigation of the financial transactions of Lorenzo, a suspected
drug trafficker based in Naga City. The intelligence group of the AMLC, in coordination with
the counterpart group from the PDEA and the NBI, gathered ample evidence establishing
Lorenzo’s unlawful drug activities. The AMLC had probable cause that his deposits and
investments in various banks, including Prosperous Bank, were related to money laundering.

Accordingly, the AMLC now transmits to Prosperous Bank a formal demand to allow its agent to
examine the banking transactions of Lorenzo, but Prosperous Bank refuses the demand.

Is Prosperous Bank’s refusal justified? Explain your answer. (4%)

Answer:

No. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160 allows - Sec. 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. –
Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426,
as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any
particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution
upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act when it has been established
that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments involved are in any way related to a
money laundering offense: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to deposits and
investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act.

IX.

A.

Alfred issued a check for P1,000 to Benjamin, his friend, as payment for an electronic gadget.
The check was drawn against Alfred’s account with Good Bank. Benjamin then indorsed the
check specially in favor of Cesar. However, Cesar misplaced the check. Dexter, a dormmate of
Cesar, found the check, altered its amount to P91,000 and forged Cesar’s indorsement by way of
a blank indorsement in favor of Felix, a known jeweler. Felix then caused the deposit of the
check in his account with Solar Bank. As collecting bank, Solar Bank stamped “all previous
indorsements guaranteed” on the check. Seeing such stamp of the collecting bank, Good Bank
paid the amount of P91,000 on the check.

Answer:

May Good Bank claim reimbursement from Alfred? Explain your answer. (4%)

No. Because Alfred only issued a check of P1,000.00, run after Solar Bank, Solar Bank run after
Felix, Felix run after Dexter who forged the check

(CHECK NYO NGA TO KUNG TAMA, DI AKO SURE DITO)

B.

In 2006, Donald, an American temporarily residing in Cebu City, issued to Rhodora a check for
$50,000 drawn against Wells Fargo Bank with offices in San Francisco, California. Rhodora
negotiated the check and delivered it to Yaasmin, a Filipina socialite who frequently travelled
locally and internationally. Because of her frequent travels, Yaasmin misplaced the check. It was
only 11 years later on, in 2017, when she found the check inside a diary kept in her vault in her
Hollywood, California house.

Discuss and explain the rights of Yaasmin on the check. (4%)

Answer:

(Ito ang sagot ko kasi U.S. yung check) The date when the check is presented to be cashed or
deposited in a bank account is known as the payment date. Checks dated six months after this
payment date do not have to be honored by a bank pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code in
the United States. This code is a set of laws adopted at the state level that governs financial
contracts. The bank receiving a stale check can return the check to the paying bank marked
unpaid, request a new check be issued or consult with the person who wrote the check.

http://simplestudies.com/what-is-stale-check.html

X.

Wisconsin Transportation Co., Inc. (WTC) owned and operated an inter-island deluxe bus
service plying the Manila-Batangas-Mindoro route. Three friends, namely: Aurelio, Jerome, and
Florencio rode on the same WTC bus from Manila bound for Mindoro. Aurelio purchased a
ticket for himself. Jerome, being a boyhood friend of the bus driver, was allowed a free ride by
agreeing to sit during the trip on a stool placed in the aisle. Florencio, already penniless after
spending all of his money on beer the night before, just stole a ride in the bus by hiding in the on-
board toilet of the bus.

During the trip, the bus collided with another bus coming from the opposite direction. The three
friends all suffered serious physical injuries.

What are WTC’s liabilities, if any, in favor of Aurelio, Jerome, and Florencio? Explain your
answer. (4%)

Answer:

Aurelio bought ticket – extraordinary diligence, subsidiary liable with the driver

• liable for three things – payment for death, indemnity for loss of earning capacity, and
moral damages

• the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its obligation. There is
breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of each case

 Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed
to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.

Jerome free ride – Alternative Answer: WTC no liability

(http://philcritic.blogspot.com/2012/12/limitations-on-carrier-liability.html)

Alternative Answer - “Article 1758. When a passenger is carried gratuitously, a stipulation

limiting the common carrier’s liability for negligence is valid, but not for willful acts or gross
negligence. The reduction of fare does not justify any limitation of the common carrier’s
liability.”

Florencio (hid in the toilet of the bus, presence unknown) – WTC no liability
 XI.

TRUE or FALSE – Explain briefly your answer.

a. A conviction under the Trust Receipts Law shall bar a prosecution for estafa under the
Revised Penal Code. (2%)

Answer:
False. Trust Receipts Law Section 13. Penalty clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn
over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust
receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt
or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in
accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa,
punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b)
of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise
known as the Revised Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a
corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in
this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or
persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising
from the criminal offense.

b. The term capital in relation to public utilities under Sec. 11, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution refers to the total outstanding capital stock comprising both common and
non-voting preferred shares. (2%)

Answer:
FALSE. Capital under Sec. 11 Art XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of
stock entitled to vote in the election of members of the board of directors of a
corporation.

c. Forgery is a real defense but may only be raised against a holder not in due course. (2%)

Answer:
FALSE. Where the indorsement is forged and the note is payable to order, the
party whose indorsement is forged and parties prior to him including the maker
cannot be held liable by the holder, whether that holder is a holder in due course or not:

d. News reports are not copyrightable. (2%)

Answer:
 TRUE. News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere
items of press information are not covered by copyright

e. The law on life insurance prohibits double insurance. (2%)

Answer:
TRUE. Amended Insurance Code R.A. 10607 TITLE 11 DOUBLE INSURANCE
TITLE 11
DOUBLE INSURANCE

Section 95. A double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several
insurers separately in respect to the same subject and interest.

Section 96. Where the insured in a policy other than life is over insured by double
insurance:

(a) The insured, unless the policy otherwise provides, may claim payment from the
insurers in such order as he may select, up to the amount for which the insurers are
severally liable under their respective contracts;

(b) Where the policy under which the insured claims is a valued policy, any sum received
by him under any other policy shall be deducted from the value of the policy without
regard to the actual value of the subject matter insured;

(c) Where the policy under which the insured claims is an unvalued policy, any sum
received by him under any policy shall be deducted against the full insurable value, for
any sum received by him under any policy;

(d) Where the insured receives any sum in excess of the valuation in the case of valued
policies, or of the insurable value in the case of unvalued policies, he must hold such sum
in trust for the insurers, according to their right of contribution among themselves;

(e) Each insurer is bound, as between himself and the other insurers, to contribute ratably
to the loss in proportion to the amount for which he is liable under his contract.

XII.

Onassis Shipping, Inc. (Onassis) operated passenger vessels and cargo trucks, and offered its
services to the general public. In line with its vision and mission to protect the environment, Go-
Green Asia (Go-Green), an NGO affiliated with Greenpeace, entered into a contract with Onassis
whereby Go-Green would operate with its own crew the M/V Dolphin, an ocean-going passenger
vessel of Onassis.

While on its way to Palawan carrying Go-Green’s invited guests who were international and
local observers desirous of checking certain environmental concerns in the area, the M/V
Dolphin encountered high waves and strong winds caused by a typhoon in the West Philippine
Sea. The rough seas led to serious physical injuries to some of the guests.

Discuss the liabilities of Onassis and Go-Green to the passengers of the M/V Dolphin. Explain
briefly your answer. (3%)

Answer:

Go-Green liable because the contract is a demise or bareboat charter. Onassis no liability.

(Puromines Inc vs CA GR No. 921228)