1

Yes, the Court of Appeals should grant the motion.

Under the Anti-Money Laundering law the Court of Appeals may issue freeze order for a
period of 20 days or unless extended by the court.
Hence, the CA may extend the freeze order since there is no petition to lift the freeze
order the CA may allow the extension of the freeze order to resolve the issue.

I will rule against KDG petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Under Anti-Money Laundering Act the AMLC is given the authority to conduct
investigation and it is a unit tasked to analyze covered transaction reports and
suspicious transaction reports submitted to it and is prohibited by law to reveal any
information revealed to them by reason of office.

Here the KDG is requesting for relevant information from the court and alleging that it
had no ordinary, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to protect its rights and interest in
the examination done by the AMLC. But under the law AMLC is not obliged to reveal
relevant information to the covered person when it is deemed confidential.

Hence the petition for certiorari and prohibition is not proper.

No, The court was incorrect in applying the holistic test.

Under Commercial law on Trademarks it is the dominancy test should be applied in

determining the violation on trademark infringement and not the holistic test.

Hence in the case at bar the usage of the holistic test to determine the trademark
infringement is not valid and the dominancy is to used to determine if there is such
violation in which “MINI-MINE” and “PA-MINE-PO” is clearly different and the word
MINE is not a dominant trait of the trademark for it to be confused with PA-MINE-PO

In conclusion the court was incorrect in applying the holistic test for the determination of
the trademark infringement it should be the dominancy test.

No, Mario and Pedro argument is incorrect.

Under the Corporation Code no corporation shall possess or exercise any corporate
power except those given by this code or its article of incorporation except necessary or
incidental to the exercise of the powers given.

Hence in the case the suspension of board of trustee against Mario and Pedro even if it
is not recorded in the articles of incorporation and its by-laws is valid for it is necessary
and incidental power given to Board of Trustee to properly manage the corporation.

No, The denial of the trademark application is improper.

Under Commercial law on Trademark a generic or descriptive term refers to signs or

indication that it have become customary or used in everyday language for the usage of
such word in words or application in service.

Hence the denial of the trademark application is improper for the word “jurist” is neither
generic or a descriptive term.
 6

No, The Corporation may not return Alex’s investment to him.

Under the Corporation Code a corporation has no power to release an original

stockholder from their obligation to pay his shares.

In the case before us the agreement of all the stockholders releasing or allowing Alex to
withdraw of so much capital from the fund which the company’s creditor were entitled to
rely on without due process is ineffectual.

Yes, the beneficiary of X can collect on the policy.

Under the Insurance Code provide that a contract of insurance is perfected when both
parties agreed on the terms and condition and the premium is paid by the insured to the
insurer.

In the case both parties agreed on the terms and condition of the contract and approve
the same, also paid the insurer the premium for the insurance which perfected the
insurance policy. The cause of death is irrelevant for there is no concealment or fraud
acts by X, therefore X’s beneficiary may collect on the policy.

Yes, Reynaldo may recover the value of the rice from AM

Under the transportation law except specified by the law no person shall be responsible
for events which could not be foreseen or were inevitable.

In the case AM failed to deliver the cargo for the truck was carnapped in the parking lot
while the driver is having lunch, which is could be foreseen and not inevitable in which it
can not be ruled as a fortuitous cause for the driver did not practice due diligence in
securing the safety of the truck and the cargo. In conclusion without proper due
diligence of the driver AM is liable for the cargo.
 9

No, Lex may not file a money claim for donation in the proceedings for the settlement of
Tito’s estate

Under the law for donation to be valid the transfer must be made in presence of both
parties alive and such donation exceeding 5000 must be in writing.

Hence in this case with Tito’s death without transfer of the money to be donated failed
to perfect the donation to Lex and such donation was not in writing.

10

Atty. James Hurt committed copyright infringement.

Under Commercial law on Copyrights, infringements of copyright is a trespass on a

private domain owned and occupied by the owner and it is mala prohibitum per se, it
need not needed to be registered to be protected under copyright laws.

In the case Atty. James Hurt disseminate the handouts given by Prof. Charles to the
public website scribd in which the handout is only for their exclusive use not to be
publicize without consent. Hence Atty. James committed copyright infringement whether
he is in good faith or has no knowledge thereof of such violation he is still liable of
copyright infringement.

11
Yes, Y Corporation may be held liable for the debts of X Corporation

Under the Principle of Piercing the Corporate Veil when a corporate entity is a mere
alter ego of another entity, or when in respect for the corporate entity would defeat
public convenience or would result to injustice such veil may be pierced.

Here X corporation is found without assets and was substantially owned by another
corporation which Y corporation which have the same board of directors and is the one
financing X corporation showing that X corporation is a subsidiary or an alter ego of Y
corporation. Hence Y corporation is liable for the debts of its subsidiary or alter ego
corporation which is X corporation.

12

Yes, the complaint will prosper.

Under the Corporation law no foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines
without a license shall be allowed to maintain or intervene in any action in court or any
administrative agencies in the Philippines.

Here Crypfinex Corp. is transacting and engaging in the business in the Philippines
without acquiring a license to conduct business in the Philippines, Crypfinex Corp.
bought 30% of Bonniebee Corp. and proceed to nominate directors which are
Singaporeans which expressly implied that they are transacting the the Philippines and
not only a one time transaction.

Hence the complaint filed with the SEC against Crypfinex is proper.

13
No, Bozania Publishing Company may not publish Y’s books on July 18, 2064

Under the Copyright law the copyright is valid until the lifetime of the author and 50
years upon the death of the author.

Here the author died on February 2014 Bozania Publishing Company publish Y’s book
on July 2064 without consent or authorization of the heirs. Which is in violation of the
copyright for the 50 years is counted at the start of the next following year thereof the
death of the author, in conclusion the 50 years deadline for the copyright is on January
2065 and not on the year 2064.

14

a) No, the denial of the claims for damages for medical expenses is not justified.

Under the Montreal Convention a carrier may exonerate itself from liability if it proves
that the damage was caused by the contributed negligence of the person claiming
compensation.

Hence in the case Mr. X has a ticket going to the United States with a stopover in the
UAE and on the day to travel to the United States the plane crash and Mr. X suffered
injuries. Under the Montreal law he is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered
due to the crash landing.

b) Yes, the denial of exemplary damages is justified

Under the Montreal Convention a carrier is not liable to the extent it proves that the
agent and service crew or employees is not negligent on the operation and inspection of
the carrier.

Hence the AirB Airlines proving that they are not negligent in their operation is
exonerated from the exemplary damages claimed by the injured party.
 15

No, the dividend declaration is improper

Under the Corporation law the general rule is that capital or capital stocks cannot be
impaired or depleted by dividends

Here Safe Realty Inc., wanted to declare dividends on the basis of 1M profit made and
the real estate appreciated value of 4M and computed its dividend on the 5M
representing the profit and appreciation value of it reals estate which will impair the
corporation for the appreciation value is not a reserve stock to be subjected to
distribution of dividends. Therefore the dividend declaration is improper.

16

No, the insurance proceeds may not be turned over to Lothario’s legitimate wife and
children.
The supreme court held that, there is no legal prohibition in naming your illegal children
as beneficiaries of the insurance policy by the insured.

Hence the action or request of the legitimate wife and child for either revocation or
reduction on the ground that the beneficiaries is the illegitimate wife and child is invalid
for even if the illegitimate wife is not allowed to be a beneficiaries to an insurance policy
but it does not prohibit the illegitimate child from being allowed to be a beneficiary of the
insured.

In conclusion the legitimate wife and child may not demand for the turn over of the
insurance proceeds due to the illegitimate child is allowed by law to be the beneficiary of
the insured.