View
232
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
1/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
1. Read carefully the instructions in the Supreme Court Gu idelines on the Trial Memorandumand Legal Opinion Exam. (See Annex A)
2. Budget your time wisely. Use the draft pad to maintain cleanliness in your answer p ad.3. Memorize the format of the Trial Memoranda and Legal Opinion.
Trial Memorandum Legal Opinion
Statement of the Case
Statement of the Facts
Statement of the Issues
Arguments
Prayer
(Note: There is no standard form for a
legal opinion. The following is a
recommended format for a legal
opinion)
Opening Statement
Brief Statement of the Facts
Issue/s
Position
Discussion
Recommendation
Closing Statement
Statement of the Case
This would refer to the relief or action that is being asked, which will depend on the
facts given in the problem
Example:
Breach of Contract = Specific Performance with Damages
Culpa Aquiliana = Action for Damages
Annulment = Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
Statement of the Facts
State only the relevant facts of the case.
Statement of the Issues
Always go straight to the point.
Arguments
Cite only the relevant or applicable portions of the provisions of law and jurisprudenc
provided in the problem. Take note of the instructions given by the Supreme Court on
the number of arguments allowed.
Prayer
Memorize the form of the prayer and how to state damages.
Example:
Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be rendered i n th
favor declaring that the real estate mortgage constituted in over the subject
property be declared null and void and ordering defendants to pay, jointly an
severally the following:
1. (Amount) by way of moral damages;2. (Amount) by way of exemplary damages; and3. (Amount) by way of attorneys fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiff further prays for such and further relief as may be deemed just
and equitable.
4. In the given problem, mark the relevant facts, p rovisions of law and j urisprudence that wbe useful in the construction of your trial memorandum and legal opinion. This way it w
be easier for you to recall the relevant portions of the transcript and jurisprudence.
5. Memorize standard opening statements for your trial memorandum and legal opinion.Examples:
Trial Memorandum Legal Opinion
Statement of the Case
The instant suit is based on
plaintiffs/defendants _____________.
This action seeks, among others, the_____________.
Opening Statement
I refer to your request for an opinion
whether under the terms of your exist
Lease Agreement, you can file a crimicase, like theft or estafa, against yo
defaulting lessees who refuse or fail
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
2/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
return the leased property despite
demand.
This refers to your query concerning
________________
Issues
Based on the pleadings and evidence
adduced by the parties, the following are
the issues to be resolved in the instantcase:
Facts
As gathered from the information you
have given during our
interview/consultation
Closing Statement
I trust that we have sufficiently addressed
your concerns. Thank you very much.
I trust that I have sufficiently addressed
your concerns. Should you have further
queries regarding this matter, please feel
free to contact the undersigned. Thank
you very much.
I hope that I have completely answeredyour query. Should you need further
clarification on the matter, please feel free
to call us.
6. For the legal opinion problem, you will be asked to write one legal document that may beused in connection with your recommended course of action.
Study the basic legal forms. (See Annex B)
E.g. Complaint, Petition, Special Power of Attorney
7. The legal opinion is essentially in a letter format. Make sure that you disclose to yourclient his rights and obligations under the problem given. You will be speaking with a clientso avoid using legalese, but maintain formal English.
8. PRACTICE.1. If you would like to argue for the plaintiff or defendant, practice writing a trial
memorandum for either one only. (See Annex C for sample Trial Memorandum a
Legal Opinion)
2. Read Supreme Court decisions which are in the format of a m emorandum, such athose penned by Justice Carpio, Tinga and Panganiban. They are essentially that o
trial memorandum the difference only lies in the point of view of the writer--that
the Supreme Court Justice. (See Annex D, available only in soft copy of this
document)
- Observe how they present the statement of the case, facts, issues andarguments.
- Observe their use of transitions and terms in inserting their arguments odiscussion.
Note: This task is for you to merely observe the writing style (how t
present the different parts of a memorandum, transitional terms in insert
arguments and their basis) of the Ponente in a memorandum form. Keep
mind that what is going to be asked in the exam is a Trial Memorandum a
NOT a decision.
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
3/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
ANNEX A
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ESSAY EXAMS
You are presented with a hypothetical case plus research materials (provisions of law and
jurisprudence) that you may want to use in your work.
The laws and jurisprudence accompanying the problems are designed to provide sufficient basis for
preparing an excellent trial memorandum or legal opinion. But you are free to include such laws, rules and
principles not provided that you feel will enhance your work.
Choose the side of the dispute that you want to uphold and defend and prepare a trial memorandum
in support of your side.
Omit the case caption.
Do not write more than four arguments.
You have been given, apart from this Test Question, a Draft Pad, and an Answer Pad. Use the Draft Pad
for making a draft of your memorandum. This will permit you to freely edit and rewrite your work. Editing
and rewriting are essential to sound legal writing.
The bells will be rung one hour before the end of the exam to signal the need for you to begin
transferring your work to your Answer Pad.
You may, of course, prefer to skip the preparation of a draft and write your essay directly on your
Answer Pad. That is allowed.
Quality of writing, not length is desired.
You are free to jot notes or place helpful markings like underlines on the test questions and the
enclosed materials.
Corrections even on your final essay on the Answer Pad are allowed and will not result in any
deduction. Still, it is advised that you write clearly, legibly and in an orderly manner.
When the bell rings a second timeto signal the end of the exam, your test questions, Draft Pad, and
Essay Pad will be collected whether you are finished or not. The time pressure is a part of the exam.
You will not be graded for a technically right or wrong answer but for the quality of your legal
advocacy.(Emphasis supplied)
The test is intended to measure your skills in:
1. Communicating in English 20%2. Sorting out the conflicting claims and extracting
those facts that are relevant to the issue or issues
15%
in the case
3. Identifying the issue or issues presented -- 15%;and
15%
4. Constructing your arguments and persuading yourreader to your point of view
50%
PART 1TRIAL MEMORANDUM:
Consider the following direct testimonies given in a hypothetical case for annulment of contract. Assuthat you are the lawyer for either one of the parties.
Using the information given, choose one side and write a memorandum of arguments that the court m
consider before deciding the case.
PART 2LEGAL OPINION:
Below is an exchange between you and a hypothetical client. Based on the information given, write (1
brief legal opinion/advice specifying the relevant facts of the case, the legal problems raised by y
hypothetical client, your assessment of the issues i nvolved, and the possible courses of action that may
taken under the law; and (2) one legal document that may be used in connection with your recommen
course of action.
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
4/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
ANNEX B (Basic Legal Forms)
COMPLAINT
Contents of a Complaint
Caption
Parties
Ultimate Facts and Material Allegations
Arguments and applicable provisions of law & jurisprudence
Prayer
Signature of Counsel
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum shopping
Example:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch III, Quezon City
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintiff,
- versus - Civil Case No. 1234
ANNA MANALASTAS, For: Ejectment
Defendant.
x ----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case, through counsel, and to this
Honorable Court alleges:
1. That plaintiff is of age, married and residing at No. 9 Bagong Daan Street, Quezon City,while defendant is likewise of age, married and residing at No. 10 Bagong Daan Street, Quezon
City, where he may be served with summons;
2. That plaintiff is the owner of an apartment located at No. 10 Bagong Daan Street,Quezon City;
3. That on June 10, 2007, plaintiff leased the said apartment to the defendant for the nthree (3) years at a monthly rental of P10,000.00, payable within the first five days of each mon
and that the lease contract thereon is hereto attached as Annex A;
4. That since June 11, 2010, the lease contract had already expired and, despite repeademands, defendant had refused to vacate the premises and continues to occupy the same.
5. That written demand (Annex B hereof) to vacate and pay rentals in arrears was sentand received by defendant but despite said demand, he failed to vacate the same or pay s
rentals.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defend
ordering her:
1. To vacate the premises;2. To pay the monthly sum of P10,000.00 beginning on June 11, 2010, with inter
thereon at the legal rate until fully paid, until the defendant vacates said premis
3. To pay the sum of P2,000.00 as litigation expenses and attorneys fees.Quezon City, July 7, 2010.
JUAN TAMAD
Attorney for the Plaintiff
ABC Tower, Quezon City
IBP No. 12345 ; 1/2/1998 Quezon C
PTR No. 12345; 2/3/1998 Quezon C
Roll no. 24681 1/2/1998
MCLE Compliance No. 36912 4/5/20
VERIFICATION
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
JURAT
PETITIONREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1, Quezon City
IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION
OF SOPHIA DELGADO
SP No. 888888
LEO FONACIER and ANNA MANALASTAS FONACIER, Petitioners
x ------------------------------------------ x
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
5/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
PETITION
PETITIONERS, through counsel, respectfully state that:
1. Petitioners are husband and wife, both of legal age, and residents of No. 100 St. Peters street,
Ayala Heights, Quezon City.
2. They have no legitimate children of their own and desire to jointly adopt a minor named
SOPHIA DELGADO, 7 years old, the legitimate child of ANDRES DELGADO and ROSELIA DELGADO.
3. The parents of the minor are not insane, intemperate and are in full possession of civil
capacity; they have not abandoned the minor child. With full knowledge of petitioners intention, they have
expressly given their written consent to the adoption, as shown by their statement, a copy of which is
attached as ANNEX A.
4. Petitioners are qualified to adopt the minor and are financially capable of supporting the
minor; they are also morally qualified to bring up and educate the said minor.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in petitioners favor adjudging
the minor child SOPHIA DELGADO freed from all legal obligations of obedience and maintenance with
respect to his/her natural parents and that he/she be declared to all legal intents and purposes, the child of
herein petitioners and that his/her surname be changed to that of petitioners.
Quezon City; 11 July 2011.
JUAN TAMAD
Attorney for the Plaintiff
ABC Tower, Quezon City
IBP No. 12345 ; 1/2/1998 Quezon City
PTR No. 12345; 2/3/1998 Quezon City
Roll no. 24681 1/2/1998
MCLE Compliance No. 36912 4/5/2010
Verification
Certification against Forum Shopping
Jurat
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WE, (Insert Name of Principal) single/married (insert name of spouse if married), of legal age, w
residence and postal address at (Address) do hereby APPOINT (Insert name of Agent /Attorney-In-Fact)
single/married (insert name of spouse if married), likewise of legal age, with postal address at (Address) a
our true and legal representative to act for and in our name and stead and to perform the following acts:
1. (e.g. To sell, offer for sale, and come to an agreement as to the purchase price and thereafter
to sign for us and in our name and receive payment from the sale of our property more
particularly described as follows: (Insert Description of Property) )
HEREBY GRANTING unto our representative full power and authority to execute and
perform every act necessary to render effective the power to sell the foregoing properties, as
though we ourselves, have so performed it, and
HEREBY APPROVING ALL that he may do by virtue hereof with full right of substitution of
his person and revocation of this instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS THIS ____ DAY OF
_______________ 20__, AT (Insert Place of execution of this Instrument).
_______________________________ ____________________________
(Name of Principal ) (Name of Agent /Attorney-In-Fact)
Republic of the Philippines )
_____________________ ) S.S.
BEFORE ME, personally appeared:
Name Valid Government Issued I.D. No. Date/Place Issued
Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument
and acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act and deed. WITNESS MY
HAND AND SEAL, on the date and place first above written.
Notary Public
Doc. No.______;
Page No. ______;
Book No.______;
Series of 20___.
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
6/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
ANNEX C
SAMPLE TRIAL MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, Petitioner DOMINADOR MADLANGTUTA through undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully submits this Memorandumand states that:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1. The present petition is for the declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage under Article 36 ofthe Family Code. Petitioner invokes as a ground for this petition the psychological incapacity of
respondent which renders the latter incapable of complying with her essential marital obligations.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
2. On 9 September 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of a voidmarriage based on the provision of Article 36 of the Family Code.
3. On 7 December 2009, Petitioner filed an Ex-parte Motion for Issuance of Alias Summons statingthe fact that the summons was not served on respondent or her representative at No. 9418, Don
Manalo Blvd., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa and requested that an alias summons be issued by the
Court on respondent at her representative at her present residential address at No.13 A. Molave
Street, Batungbacal Executive Village, Payatas, Quezon City.
4. On 6 January 2010, the Court Process Server certified that on 5 January 2010, a copy of the Aliassummons together with the Petition and its annexes were personally served to respondent at her
present address.
5. On 19 January 2010, Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion due to the failure of therespondent to file an answer within the reglementary period provided by law from service of
summons and in order to expedite the proceedings, moved that an Order be issued by this
Honorable Court directing the public prosecutor to investigate whether or not collusion exists
between the parties.
6. In its Order dated 29 January 2010, the Regional Trial Court ordered the City Prosecutor to conductan investigation to determine whether or not there was such collusion. In the same order, the
Court Social Worker was directed by the court to conduct a social case study report.
7. A Subpoena was issued by the Office of City Prosecution on 18 February 2010, directing thepetitioner to appear and testify under oath before the investigating prosecutor.
8. On 13 March 2010, the assistant City Prosecutor submitted a Manifestation to the Court statingthat that no collusion exists between the parties and that the evidence was neither fabricated norsuppressed.
9. On 11 March 2010, this Honorable Court issued an Order dismissing the instant petition dueimproper venue, citing Section 4 of A.M. N o. 02-11-10-SC which provides that Sec. 4. Venue
petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or t
respondent has been residing for at least s ix (6) months prior to the date of the filing.
10. Petitioner then filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 March 2010, stating that fthat the number of the residence stated in the petition was erroneously indicated therein as 4
rather than 421, which is the true and correct number of the residence of the petitioner.
11. This Honorable Court then issued an Order dated 5 April 2010, which granted the petitioneUrgent Motion for Reconsideration. The City Prosecutor was then ordered by the Court to condan investigation to determine whether or not c ollusion exists between the parties.
12. A Subpoena was issued by the Office of City Prosecutor on 27 April 2010, directing the petitioto appear before the investigating prosecutor.
13. On 21 May 2010, the Assistant City Prosecutor, in its Manifestation, established that no collusexists between the parties and that the evidence was neither fabricated nor suppressed.
14. On 28 May, 2010, Patt Y. Gasan, a Social Welfare Officer, submitted to the Court her social cstudy report. In her report, the social welfare officer recommended that the present petition
granted for the reasons stated in said report.
15. On 16 June 2010, Plaintiff filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Set Case for Pre-Trial.16. On 3 August 2010, a preliminary conference was conducted before the court wherein Petitio
had his Documentary Exhibits pre-marked. The Court then set the pre-trial conference onSeptember 2010.
17. At the pre-trial conference on 13 September 2010, petitioner adopted the minutes of preliminary conference as well as the pre-trial brief he earlier submitted.
18. On 11 October 2010, Petitioner and Atty. Jose Pakundo Alitaptap testified in open court. Twere thereafter cross examined by the public prosecutor.
19. On 22 February 2011, petitioner presented as its third witness, clinical psychology Dr. Boy AsoAfter her testimony, petitioner manifested that he intends to present his fourth witness, the co
social worker. Since the said witness will merely identify the case study report she prepared on
child of the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor agreed to just stipulate with petitioner on
existence and validity of the report. Thereafter, petitioner rested its case and asked for fifteen (
days to submit his Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence.
20. On 25 February 2011, petitioner filed his written Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits.
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
7/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
21. The court set the hearing for presentation of respondents evidence on 5 April 2011. On the saiddate, the public prosecutor manifested that, since respondent failed to participate in the
proceedings, the state had no other option but t o have the case submitted for Decision.
22. The Court, noting the manifestation of the public prosecutor, issued an Order submitting the casefor Decision and directing the parties to file their respective memoranda on or before 20 April
2011.
Hence, this memorandum of the petitioner.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
23. The only issue in this petition is whether or not the marriage between petitioner and respondent isNULL and VOID due to psychological incapacity of respondent to perform her essential marital
obligations, pursuant to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code.
THE ARGUMENT
24. The petition should be granted.25. Firstly, the testimony of the petitioner shows to us a firsthand experience of the incapacity of the
respondent to perform her essential marital obligations:
On the night of their honeymoon, respondent wept profusely in one corner of the
bedroom and repeatedly said that she missed her mother. Despite assurances from
petitioner that they shall always be in touch with respondents mother, respondent
refused to stop crying. Nevertheless, after a few minutes, respondent ceased crying andbegan gathering all their wedding gifts. When petitioner asked respondent for an
explanation, respondent said she wanted to list down the price of each wedding gift so
that she would know how much money each guest spent for his/her gift.
During the course of their marriage, respondent made it a point to always be with her
mother, whether during weekends, holidays or on special occasions. She would insist
that petitioner and their daughter should always be with her on these visits. However,
when it came to petitioners parents and r elatives, respondents would make upall sorts
of excuses to defer visiting them. It came to a point where petitioner and respondent
would argue whenever petitioner would attempt to bring respondent and their
daughter to his parents house. This exasperated petitioner who subsequently stopped
trying to convince respondent to visit his relatives.
Respondents conduct towards petitioner in public is markedly different from the way
she treats petitioner at home. Respondent would portray the image of a loving, caring,
and affectionate wife when she, petitioner and their daughter would go out or werewith the company of friends. However, once she and petitioner were left alone or were
at home, respondent would be cold and indifferent towards petitioner.
26. The testimony of Atty. Jose Pakundo Alitaptap c orroborates with the testimony by the petitioneI have observed that, from the start of their marriage, petitioner and r espondent wo
often quarrel, at times even in front of their child. The quarrels were mostly promp
by some act or statement made by respondent. Respondent has a very domin
personality, she always insists on what she wants, even if it would be inconvenient
petitioner to comply. She also is not as affectionate to petitioner who, on the ot
hand, is quite expressive with his feelings. These quarrels were the result of a c
between respondents stubborn, domineering and dispassionate or undemonstrat
character and petitioners expressive, emotional nature and his yearning for a wiwarmth and affection.
I have also noticed that when it comes to petitioners relatives respondent would m
all sorts of excuses to prevent petitioner from visiting them or she would not
petitioner in these visits. However, when it came to respondents relatives, m
particularly, her mother, respondent would be adamant in her demand that petitio
should join her in her visits. I noticed that this would likewise result in serious squab
between them.
Respondent would also have the same stubborn attitude vis--vis petitioner whe
came to Friday nights. She expected petitioner to take her out to dine every Fri
evening, regardless of the work schedule of petitioner or his state of health at that ti
If petitioner fails to bring her out on a Friday night, respondent would throw a tantr
and there would be times when respondent would give petitioner the cold treatm
for several weeks.
Since the time they got married until the time they separated, petitioner
respondent have had serious quarrels. Their family life was not a happy or tranquil o
the fights were usually more mean or serious on special occasions like ChristmSomehow, respondent would always find a way to dampen the mood of petitioner a
their child during these occasions.
27. Furthermore, the Court Social Worker testified i n her social case study report:The herein couple have settled to live separately accepting the stark reality of
incurability of ones problems or malady that could have made the petitioner the vic
of the worsening consequences of his kind of marriage. This is a case of an estrang
couple who have found peace in living separately; nevertheless, the petitioner rema
obliged to provide financially for the respondent and their only child. However,
present situation must be properly addressed in order to clear their behaviour
decisions on their future relationships.
28. A perusal of the evidence presented by petitioner, both testimonial and documentary, would shthat indeed respondent is psychologically incapacitated to fulfil her essential marital obligatio
Respondent on the other hand, failed to present any evidence to r efute the claim of Petitioner.
29. By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
8/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties . (Edward Kenneth Ngo Te Vs.
Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te, et al., G.R. No. 161793, 13 February, 2009)
30. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifestpsychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. (Edward Kenneth Ngo Te Vs. Rowena
Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te, et al., G.R. No. 161793, 13 February, 2009)
31. It is respectfully submitted to this court that the petitioner has proven through the psychologicalevaluation report of Dr. Boy Aso III that indeed the respondent is psychologically incapable of
complying with her essential marital obligations. The report shows that respondent is suffering
from 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder due to her grandiose sense of self-importance, senseof entitlement, interpersonal exploitativeness, arrogant and haughty behaviour, as well as lack of
empathy.
32. The report further provides that since the psychological incapacity is rooted on a personalitydisorder, it is deemed to have been existent at the time of the celebration of the marriage and
even prior thereto because a personality disorder is something that starts to develop from
childhood or early adolescence into adulthood.
33. It is also in the expert opinion of Dr. Aso III that since respondents psychological incapacity isanchored on her Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the same is incurable.
34. Having proven that the personality disorder of respondent, is serious, incurable, directly linked toher marital obligations, and existing at the time of marriage it is respectfully submitted that the
Court has no other option but grant this petition to have the marriage of the petitioner and the
respondent declared null and void.
35. Moreover, the testimony of Atty. Jose Pakundo Alitaptap also corroborated the testimony of thepetitioner and the clinical psychologist which likewise proves that indeed respondent is incapable
of fulfilling her essential marital obligations.
36. Furthermore, the petition should be granted because of the manifestation of the Assistant CityProsecutor that indeed there was no collusi on between the petitioner and respondent in the filing
of the case and the social case studyof the court social worker, which also recommended that the
present petition be granted.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, judgment be rendered by this Honorable Court Declaring the
marriage between petitioner and respondent NULLand VOIDdue to psychological incapacity of respondent to
perform her essential marital obligations, pursuant to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Article 36 of the
Family Code.
Petitioner prays for such relief or remedy as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable underthe premises.
Makati City, 11 April 2011.
SAMPLE LEGAL OPINION
September 22, 2011
JUDY ANN SANCHEZ
911 Bluewhale Street
Palanan, Makati City
Dear Ms. Sanchez:
This refers to your query regarding the possibility of filing an action for damages against McbMetropark Branch due to the physical injuries you sustained from falling in their staircase.
It is in my opinion that you may file an action for damages, more specifically under Article 2176 of t
Civil Code, which states that Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence , if there is no pre-existing contract
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
Negligence, as defined in Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (321 SCRA 375 ), is
omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would
do. It is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaut
and vigilance which the ci rcumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury."
Undoubtedly, the person wearing the McBee costume was negligent. In Philippine Natio
Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals (467 SCRA 569), the Supreme Court pronounced.
The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or dama
results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the per
to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence
the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course o
take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitu
negligence. xxx xxx.
The McBee employee wearing the mascot was well aware of the size of his costume. Thus, he sho
have foreseen the harm he could cause by hurrying down the staircase, especially to those ascending from
opposite direction.
McBee-Metrobanks management is also responsible for the injuries you sustained. T his is supported
Article 2180 and 2202 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is r esponsible.xx xx xx
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
9/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
xx xx xx
And this fact of responsibility cannot be denied by McBee, as the circumstances of your case fall
squarely with the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). In Child Learning Center, Inc. v.
Tagorio, (476 SCRA 236), the Supreme Court enunciated:
xx xx xx
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant's negligence; (2) the accident musthave been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the
person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the acci dent must not have been due to any
voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.
xx xx xx
First, the mishap would not have happened were it not for the negligence of the employee wearing the
McBee costume. Second, the mascot was within the exclusive control and management of the employees of the
McBee-Metro Bank Branch. Third, you did not contribute to your own injury as you just followed the advice of
another employee that it is safe for you to proceed to the second floor because the party was almost over.
Aside from actual damages, you may also seek moral damages as found in Article 2217 and 2219 of the
Civil Code, which states:
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they arethe proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for omission (Emphasis Supplied).
xx xx xx
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
xx xx xx
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
xx xx xx
At the onset, you have sufficiently shown that you sustained physical injuries, which was also admitted
by McBee in writing. Moreover, there are enough facts gathered from your daughters statement to establish the
negligence of the McBee employees. Lastly, the negligence of McBee employees was the proximate cause of the
injuries you sustained. Lastly, your case falls within the instances provided in Art. 2219 and 2220 that entitles an
injured party to claim moral damages. Therefore, upon considering the foregoing applicable laws andjurisprudence, I am in the opinion that an action for damages against McBee Metropark Branch will prosper.
Attached herewith is a draft of a complaint for damages. Please read it and we shall discuss the mat
in further detail during our next meeting.
I trust that I have sufficiently addressed your concerns. Should you have further queries regarding t
matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Thank you very much.
Respectfully Yours,
ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
10/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
ANNEX D
DECISIONS PENNED BY JUSTICE PANGANIBAN, JUSTICE CARPIO, JUSTICE TINGA
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 150487 July 10, 2003
GERARDO F. SAMSON JR.,petitioner,
vs.
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, respondent.
PANGANIBAN,J.:
Gross negligence of a bank in the handling of its client's deposit amounts to bad faith that calls for an award
of moral damages. Credit is very important to businessmen, and its loss or impairment needs to be
recognized and compensated.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the March 30,
2001 Decision2and the October 22, 2001 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 54599.
The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED WITH A
MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00."4
The assailed Resolution denied the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the parties.
The Facts
The CA summarized the antecedents of the case as follows:
"Gerardo F. Samson, Jr. filed an action for damages against the Bank of the Philippine Islands.
"In his complaint, [petitioner] avers, inter aliathat he is a client/depositor of [respondent] with
Savings Account No. 3085-0125-75 through the [respondent's] Express Teller System[,] a 24-ho
banking service; that on August 20, 1990, [petitioner] deposited to his BPI account a Prudential
Bank Check No. 209116 in the amount of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00); that
of said date, [petitioner's] account balance was Three Hundred Sixty-Seven and 38/100 Pesos
(P367.38); that on August 24, 1990, [petitioner] instructed his daughter to withdraw P2,000.00
from the said account; that the withdrawal was declined twice as the Express Teller transaction
record showed 'Sorry, Insufficient Funds'; that because of such eventuality, [petitioner] suffere
embarrassment as he could not then and there produce the required cash with which to fulfill h
commitment and monetary obligation towards a creditor who had waited at his residence; that
on September 12, 1990, [petitioner] deposited to his aforesaid account through the Express Tethe amount of Five Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P5,500.00); that he discovered that his
available total balance as of said date was only Three Hundred Forty-Two and 38/100 Pesos
(P342.38) without his earlier check deposit of Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00) o
August 20, 1990 but with a Twenty-Five Peso (P25.00) penalty/service charge; that [petitioner]
complained to [respondent] about the discrepancy; that [respondent] confirmed the P3,500.00
check deposit but could not account the same; that investigation only ensued after [petitioner]
informed [respondent] that his P3,500.00 Prudential Bank check was encashed by [respondent
security guard named Nonilon E. Rondina; that per such investigation, it was discovered that on
of the deposit envelopes was missing; that [respondent] did nothing to look for the missing che
deposit or to inform [petitioner] about it; that despite [respondent's] knowledge of the
irregularity and suspicious discrepancy in its records as early as of August 20, 1990, it did n ot ev
bother to conduct its own inquiry into said irregularity; that worse, despite being at fault,
[respondent's] Manager, Nerissa M. Cayanga, displayed arrogance, indifference and discourtes
towards [petitioner].
"In its Answer, [respondent] Bank denied all the material allegations in the [C]omplaint and
alleged among others, that the [C]omplaint fails to state a cause of action; that [petitioner] has
violated the provisions of the covering contract of deposit which provides that representatives
not allowed to contract business on the account on behalf of the depositor; that [petitioner's]
claim has been paid, waived and extinguished; that [petitioner] by his i naction in reporting the
loss of his check deposit, is estopped from claiming damages from defendant.
"After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered [a Decision in favor of petitioner]."5
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court, but modified the amount of damages. It held that since the
banking business was affected with public interest, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) was required to
exercise a high degree of care with respect to the accounts of its clients. Thus, the bank was rendered lia
by its negligence resulting in damage to its depositor.
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
11/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
Since it was undisputed that BPI had lost the check of petitioner, the appellate court reviewed the evidence
and held that respondent bank was grossly negligent in its failure to observe the required degree of care.
This gross negligence on the part of BPI amounted to bad faith that entitled petitioner to moral damages.
The moral damages of P200,000 awarded by the trial court was, however, found to be excessive. It was
therefore reduced to P50,000, because petitioner claimed only P3,500, which had already been credited
back to his account.
Hence, this Petition.6
Issues:
In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the Court's consideration:
"I
Whether the reduction of the award of moral damages to Php50,000.00, a mere one-fourth of the moral
damages awarded by the trial court, was proper.
"II
Assuming that Respondent BPI is not precluded from raising this defense in this appeal, whether petitioner
was negligent in demanding the return of his deposit, which was lost through the bank's gross negligence
and inaction."7
In sum, the main issue in this case is whether the CA erred in reducing the award of moral damages from
P200,000 to only P50,000.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is partly meritorious.
Sole Issue:
Amount of Moral Damages
Moral damages are meant to compensate the claimant for any physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar
injuries unjustly caused.8Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, the amount must somehow be
proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. 9Moral damages are not punitive in
nature10
and were never intended to enrich the claimant at the expense of the defendant.11
There is no hard-and-fast rule in determining what would be a fair and reasonable amount of moral
damages, since each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts.12
Trial courts are given discretion in
determining the amount, with the limitation that it "should not be palpably and scandalously
excessive."13
Indeed, it must be commensurate to the loss or injury suffered.14
In the present case, petitioner bases his claim on the failure of respondent to credit the sum of P3,500 to
account due to its gross negligence. As a result of such failure, he was unable to fulfill his obligation to a
valued creditor, resulting in the severance of his credit line. He further alleges that he suffered humiliatio
and besmirched reputation.15
According to him, his suffering was exacerbated by his subjection to
indifference, discourtesy and arrogance from respondents' officers.
Moral damages are awarded to achieve a "spiritual status quo," thus:
"Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason o
the defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at restoration, as much as possible, of the
spiritual status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Since each ca
must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances, there is no hard and fast rule in determin
the proper amount. . . .."16
The social standing of the aggrieved party is essential to the determination of the proper amount of the
award. Otherwise, the goal of enabling him to obtain means, diversions, or amusements to restore him to
the status quo antewould not be achieved.
We believe that the award should be increased to P100,000, considering (1) that petitioner was a
businessman and was the hi ghest lay person in the United Methodist Church; (2) that he was regarded by
respondent and its officers with arrogance and a condescending manner; and (3) that respondent
successfully postponed compensating him for more than a decade. This amount is more than the P50,000
granted by the CA, but not as much as the P200,000 granted by the RTC.
That petitioner reported the missing check deposit to respondent only after three weeks did not constitu
contributory negligence. The injury resulted from the denial of hi s withdrawal due to insufficient funds, a
injury he suffered before learning that his check deposit had been lost. Respondent, not he, immediately
knew that a deposit envelop was missing, yet it did nothing to solve the problem. His alleged delay in
reporting the matter did not at all contribute to his injury.
Though the amount of P3,500 was already credited back to his account, this step was made only after his
persistent prompting. Prior to this development, he suffered damages that could no longer be reversed b
the belated restoration of the amount lost. It is for this suffering that moral damages are due.
8/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
12/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
In Prudential Bank v. CA,17
Philippine National Bank v. CA18
and Metropolitan Bank v. Wong,19
the Court
consistently awarded moral damages of P100,000 in consideration of the reputation and the social standing
of the claimant, as well as the rulings in similar cases involving the negligence of banks with regard to the
accounts of their depositors.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partly GRANTED and the assailed Decision MODIFIED. The award of moral
damages is increased to P100,000. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 188365 June 29, 2011
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.,Petitioner,
vs.
PRYCE GASES, INC., INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION, and NEDERLANDSE FINANCIERINGS-
MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR ONTWIKKELINGSLANDEN N.V.,Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,J.:
The Case
Before the Court is a petition for review1assailing the Decision
2promulgated on 26 February 2008 and the
Resolution3promulgated on 11 June 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98626.
The Antecedent Facts
Pryce Gases, Inc. (PGI) is a corporation engaged in the business of producing, selling and trading in all kin
of liquids, gases, and other chemicals, including but not limited to oxygen, acetylene, hydrogen, nitrogen
argon, carbon dioxide, carbonex, nitrous oxide, compressed air, helium, and other allied or related
products. PGI is a debtor of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), an international organization and
an affiliate of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), and the
Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V. (FMO), a Dutch development ba
engaged in promoting the expansion of private enterprise in emerging markets.
On 27 August 2002, IFC and FMO filed a Petition for Rehabilitation4with the Regional Trial Court of Maka
due to the failure of PGI to service its debts as well as the refusal of PGIs parent company, the Pryce
Corporation, to provide financial support to PGI. The case was raffled to Branch 142 and was docketed as
Proc. No. 02-1016. The petition for rehabilitation was meant to preserve PGIs workforce and ensure that
cash flow would not be diverted to ill-advised ventures but would instead be channeled back to its
operating capital to generate profits to pay off and retire debts. IFC and FMO proposed a financial
restructuring that called for the conversion of dollar-denominated loans to peso and the splitting of the
whole debt instrument into two categories: (1) the sustainable debt which would be rescheduled as a sen
loan and secured by PGIs assets; and (2) the unsustainable portion to be transformed into redeemable
preferred shares with voting rights. Under the proposal, senior loans shall be paid in five years while the
shares are forecast to be redeemed in ten years. Based on the proposed financial restructuring, PGIs loa
from BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BFB) shall be paid in ten years as it was a non-MTI5creditor.
Presiding Judge Estela Perlas-Bernabe of RTC, Branch 142, inhibited herself from further hearing the case
The case was re-raffled to RTC, Branch 138.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
In an Order6dated 24 January 2003, the RTC, Branch 138, gave due course to the petition. The RTC, Bran
138, appointed Mr. Gener Mendoza (Mendoza) as Rehabilitation Receiver and directed him to submit his
evaluation, study and recommendation on the proposed rehabilitation of PGI.
In a Manifestation7dated 29 May 2003, PGI informed RTC, Branch 138, that its parent company, Pryce
Corporation, had offered to help through dacion en pagoof its real estate assets to PGIs creditors, subje
to certain terms and conditions.
In a Compliance8dated July 2003, Mendoza submitted his recommendation which, among others, states:
2. Creditors Secured with Non-Operating Assets. - Payment of principal and interest accrued as of August
31, 2002 by way of assets already mortgaged to them at dacionvalues pegged to the average of two
appraisals to be undertaken by B angko Sentral-accredited appraisal firms who are nominated by thecreditors in a meeting called for that purpose.
9
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt28/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
13/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
In its Comment10
to Mendozas Compliance, BFB objected to dacion en pagoas a mode of payment. BFBs
exposure to PGI was secured by assets that were considered non-operating and not critical to the
rehabilitation plan recommended by Mendoza. PGI and Pryce Corporation submitted a Partial
Opposition11
to the provision on income sharing of receivers recommended revised rehabilitation plan but
manifested their conformity to the other provisions of the plan.
In an Order12
dated 10 October 2003, the RTC, Branch 138, approved the rehabilitation plan.
On 3 November 2003, BFB filed a notice of appeal .13
PGI filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that BFB failed to perfect the appeal because of failure to file the record on appeal within the required
period.
On 20 April 2006, before the RTC, Branch 138, could resolve PG Is motion to dismiss, BFB filed its Opposition
(Re: Additional Argument in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated 27 July 2004) and Motion With
Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal Dated 3 November 2003 and Instead Be Allowed to File a Petition for
Review.14
1avvphi1
In an Order15
dated 9 May 2006, the RTC, Branch 138 , dismissed BFBs appeal. The RTC, Branch 138, ruled
that the law clearly states that in special proceedings, record on appeal is required to perfect the appeal.
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by respondent Pryce Gases, Inc. is granted and the appeal
of BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. is dismissed. Consequently, no action need to be taken by the Court on the
Motion for Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal dated 3 November 2003 and Instead Be Allowed to File a
Petition for Review filed by BPI Family Savings Bank, I nc.
SO ORDERED.16
BFB filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9 May 2006 Order. In its Order dated 16 February 2007 ,17
the
RTC, Branch 138, denied the motion on the ground that the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate
Rehabilitation prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration.
On 19 April 2007, BFB filed a petition for certiorar i18
before the Court of Appeals.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
In its 26 February 2008 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals ruled
that corporate rehabilitations are special proceedings and as such, appeals from the final order or decisio
therein should be by record on appeal in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court of Appeals ruled that when BFB filed the notice of appeal, the rule in force was the
Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation which required the filing of a record on appeal. Th
Court of Appeals ruled that the mere filing of a notice of appeal would not suffice without the required
record on appeal. The Court of Appeals further ruled that BFBs prayer that the petition be treated as file
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure lacked merit because it was filed out of time. The Court
of Appeals ruled that due to the dismissal of BFBs appeal and the denial of its motion for reconsideratio
by the RTC, Branch 138, the 10 October 2003 Order had become final and executory. Finally, the Court of
Appeals ruled that BFBs petition was grossly defective because the verification was signed by an employof the Bank of the Philippine Islands, a completely different entity from BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.
BFB filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 11 June 2009 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the
motion for lack of merit.
Hence, the petition before this Court on the following grounds:
1. The Honorable Court of Appeals resolved an issue in a manner contrary to law and
jurisprudence when it upheld the ruling of the lower court that dismissed the appeal of petition
bank; and
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals resolved an issue in a manner contrary to law and
jurisprudence when it upheld the ruling of the lower court which in effect forced and compelle
petitioner bank to accept a dacion en pagoarrangement against its consent.19
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in sustaining the RTC,
Branch 138, in dismissing BFBs appeal.
The Ruling of this Court
The petition has no merit.
Section 5 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation provides that "(t)he review of any order or
decision of the court or an appeal therefrom shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court x x x." Under
A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, a petition for corporate rehabilitation is considered a special proceeding.
20
Thus, thperiod of appeal provided in paragraph 19(b) of the Interim Rules Relative to the Implementation of Bata
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt108/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
14/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
Pambansa Blg.129 for special proceedings shall apply,21
that is, the period of appeal shall be 30 days since a
record of appeal is required.22
Thus:
19. Period of Appeal. -
(a) x x x
(b) In appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other
cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed, the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days, a record
of appeal being required.
On 14 September 2004, this Court issued A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC providing that all decisions and final orders in
cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure
Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 shall be appealed to the Court of
Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, to be filed within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the decision or final order of the Regional Trial Court .23
However, in this case, BFB filed a
notice of appeal on 3 November 2003, before the effectivity of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC. Hence, at the time of
filing of BFBs appeal, the applicable mode of appeal is Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure which provides:
Sec. 2. Modes of Appeal. -
(a) Ordinary appeal.- The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with thecourt which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon
the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other
cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "(a) partys appe al by record on appeal is
deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon approval of the record on
appeal filed in due time."
In this case, BFB did not perfect the appeal when it failed to file the record on appeal.1avvphi1The filing of
the notice of appeal on 3 November 2003 was not sufficient because at the time of its filing, the Rules
required the filing of the record on appeal and not merely a notice of appeal. The issuance by the Court of
A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC providing that all decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of
Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies
under Republic Act No. 8799 shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, to be filed within 15 days from notice of the decision or final order of the
Regional Trial Court, did not change the fact that BFBs appeal was not perfected. Further, BFB filed its
Motion With Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal only on 20 April 2006 or almost two years after the
issuance of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC on 14 September 2004.
Appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege.24
The party who seeks to exercise the right
appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.25
Whil
the Court, in certain cases, applies the policy of liberal construction, it may be invoked only in situations
where there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, but not where its application
subverts the essence of the proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court.26
In addition, BFB filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9 May 2006 Order of the RTC, Branch 138. Unde
Section 1, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, the proceedings shall be
summary and non-adversarial in nature and a motion for new trial or reconsideration is a prohibited
pleading. Hence, in view of the failure of BFB to perfect its appeal and its subsequent filing of a motion fo
reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading, the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC, Branch 138,
approving the rehabilitation plan had become final and executory.
WHEREFORE, we DENYthe petition. We AFFIRMthe 26 February 2008 Decision and the 11 June 2009
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 98626.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_188365_2011.html#fnt218/12/2019 Memo LegOp Lecture Notes Judge Serrano Lecture With Samples
15/16
San Beda College Alabang Academic Bar Operations 2011 Lecture Not
LECTURER JUDGE ALBERTO SERRANOSubject Head: Karla Rosal Juan Miguel Talatala Cherry Joy Ycong Loralyn Lazaro Nadine Alessandra Gloria
Over-All Chairman: Jan Raphael Salud | Vice-Chairperson for Academics: Jonalyn Porquez and Michael Quesada | V ice-Chairperson for Logistics: Cristina Elaine Mangrobang |Vice-Chairperson for Finance: Amerissa Base | Vice-Chairperson for Secretariat: Patricia David | Vice-Chairperson for Recruitment: Kathleen May Clareza P a g e
TRIAL MEMORANDUM &LEGAL OPINION
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 164641 December 20, 2007
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, as successor of Far East Bank and Trust Company, petitioner,
vs.SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, REHABILITATION HOLDINGS, INC., VELASCO, JR., ASB
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ASB LAND, INC., ASB FINANCE, INC., MAKATI HOPE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL,
INC., BEL-AIR HOLDINGS CORP., WINCHESTER TRADING, INC., VYL DEVELOPMENT CORP., GERRICK
HOLDINGS CORP., NEIGHBORHOOD HOLDINGS, INC., and THE COURT OF APPEALS,respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,J.:
For resolution is a petition seeking to nullify the 30 January 2004 Decision1of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 773092upholding the Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) approval of the rehabilitation
of the ASB Group of Companies (ASB Group) in SEC En BancCase No. EB-726.3
The antecedent facts are as follows:
The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), through its predecessor-in- interest, Far East Bank and Trust
Company (FEBTC), extended credit accommodations to the ASB Group4with an outstanding aggregate
principal amount of P86,800,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage over two (2) properties located in
Greenhills, San Juan.5On 2 May 2000, the ASB Group filed a petition for rehabilitation and suspension of
payments before the SEC, docketed as SEC Case No. 05-00-6609 .6Thereafter, on 18 August 2000, the
interim receiver submitted its Proposed Rehabilitation Plan (Rehabilitation Plan )7for the ASB Group. The
Rehabilitation Plan provides, among others, a dacion en pago by the ASB Group to BPI of one of the
properties mortgaged to the latter at the ASB Group as selling value of P84,000,000.00 against the total
amount of the ASB Groups exposure to the bank. In turn, ASB Group would require the release of the other
property mortgaged to BPI, to be thereafter placed in the asset pool. Specifically, the pertinent portion of
the plan reads:
"x x x ASB plans to invoke a dacion en pagofor its #35 Eisenhower property at ASBs selling value
of P84 million against the total amount of the ASBs exposure to the bank. In return, ASB requests
the release of the #27 Annapolis property which w ill be placed in the ASB creditors asset pool."8
The dacionwould constitute full payment of the entire obligation due to BPI because the balance was t
to be considered waived, as per the Rehabilitation Plan.9
BPI opposed the Rehabilitation Plan and moved for the dismissal of the ASB Groups petition
rehabilitation.10
However, on 26 April 2001, the SEC hearing panel issued an order11
approving ASB Grou
proposed rehabilitation plan and appointed Mr. Fortunato Cruz as rehabilitation receiver.
BPI filed a petition for review12
of the 26 April 2001 order before the SEC en banc, imputing grave abuse
discretion on the part of the hearing panel. It argued that the Order constituted an arbitrary violation
BPIs freedom and right to contract since the Rehabilitation Plan compelled B PI to enter into a dacion
pagoagreement with the ASB Group.13
The SEC en bancdenied the petition.14
BPI then filed a petition for review15
before the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the SEC en bancerre
affirming the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan despite being violative of BPIs contractual rights.
contended that the terms of the Rehabilitation Plan would impair its freedom to contract, and alleged t
thedacion en pagowas a mode of payment beneficial to the ASB Group only .16
The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that considering that the dacion en pagotransact
could proceed only proceed upon the mutual agreement of the parties, BPIs assertion that it is be
coerced could not be sustained. At no point would the Rehabilitation Plan compel secured creditors suc
BPI to agree to a settlement agreement against their will, the CA added. Moreover, BPI could refuse
accept any arrangement contemplated by the receiver and just assert its preferred right in the liquidat
and distribution of the assets of the ASB Group.17
BPI filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same w
denied for lack of merit.18
Before this Court, BPI asserts that the CA er red in ruling that the approval by the SEC of the ASB Grou
Rehabilitation Plan did not violate BPIs rights as a creditor.19
It maintains its position that the dacion
pagois a form of coercion or compulsion, and violative of the rights of secured creditors .20
It asserts tha
order for the Rehabilitation Plan to be feasible and legally tenable, it must reflect the express and f
consent of the parties; i.e,that the conditions should not be imposed but agreed upon by the parties
approving the Rehabilitation Plan, the SEC hearing panel totally disregarded the efficacy of the mortga
agreements between the parties, and sanctioned a mode of payment which is solely for the unilate
benefit of the ASB Group.21
This is so because in the event that the secured creditors such as itself wo
not agree to dacion en pago, the ASB Groups obligations would be settled at the selling prices of t
mortgaged properties to be dictated by the ASB Group,22
rendering BPIs status as a preferred cred
illusory.23
BPI further claims that despite its rejection of the Rehabilitation Plan, no effort was made to resolve
impasse on the valuation of the mortgaged properties. With no repayment scheme for secured creditnot accepting the Rehabilitation Plan, the same has become discriminatory .
24Moreover, any interfere
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/dec2007/gr_164641_2007.html#fnt3Recommended