Saturday, October 25, 2014

2014 Bar Examination Questionnaire for Criminal Law

See - Bar Examination Questionnaire for Criminal Law





2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS
CRIMINAL LAW
October 19, 20142:00 P.M.- 6:00 P.M.
x x x 
I.
Ms. Ahad been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas" until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. Bwas drunk, he would beat Ms. Aand their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. Barrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. Aseveral times while shouting invectives against her. Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. Avalidly put up a defense? Explain. (5%)
II.
Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda was a transgender. On their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered that Ganda was a transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the course of the heated argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the latter’s death. What was the crime committed? (4%)
III.
City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an ordinance,allotted the amount of P100 million for the construction of a road leading to the poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the road leading to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in the amount of P10 million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually lost in the bidding.
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million could not be accounted for although reports showed that these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized drivers but the same were never returned. Further, there were funds under City Engr. A’s custody amounting to P10 million which were found to be missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was instrumentalin awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building costing P10 million to a close relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed that City Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50 million, which was way beyond his legitimate income. (8%)
(A) If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file against City Engr. A?
(B) Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. Ais less than P50 million, will your answer still be the same?
IV.
Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check payable to cash in the amount of P1 million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X credited the amount to the account of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip. Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her that the amount of P1 million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus, Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of P1 million from her accountand to turn over the same to Madam X. As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain. (5%)
V.
Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? (3%)
VI.
Awas caught peeping through a small hole in the bathroom door while a young 16-year-old lady was taking a bath. Ais liable for: (1%)
(A) Violation of R.A. 9262 or Violence Against Women and their Children
(B) Violation of R.A. 7610 – Child Abuse Law
(C) Light coercion
(D) Acts of lasciviousness
VII.
Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied Filthyto the detention center. At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out.
What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (4%)
VIII.
Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms, attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse where heand Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took turns in raping her.After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house. (4%)
(A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?
(B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one hour after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty’s death? Explain.
IX.
A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. Dat 10 o’clock in the evening, with Cas the driver of the tricycle which they would use in going to and leaving the house of Mr. D, and Aand Bas the ones who would enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. As planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B entered the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the master’s bedroom and started getting all the valuables he could see, while Bentered another room. While inside the room, B saw a male person and immediately Bbrought out his gun but he accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window, hitting a neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by the gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen arrived. Aand B panicked and got hold of a young boy and shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the house that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse. Aand B demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to bring them to a certain place and that would be the time that they would release the young boy. The policemen acceded. In the meantime, Cwas arrested by the policemen while he was about to flee, while Aand B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.
What crime/s did A, B, and Ccommit, and what modifying circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s? (6%)
X.
Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial models for a TV advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project. Loko offered her a contract, which Ganda signed. She was asked to report to an address which turned out to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its most featured attraction. What is Loko’s liability, if any? What effect would Ganda’s minority have on Loko’s liability? (4%)
XI.
A, in a public place, fired his gun at B with the intention of killing B, but the gun did not fire because the bullet is a dud. The crime is: (1%)
(A) attempted homicide
(B) grave threat
(C) impossible crime
(D) alarm and scandal
XII.
Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she was already tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the situation and drove Sexyto a deserted place where he raped her for a period of two (2) weeks. What crime did Pogi commit? (4%)
XIII.
Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was intending to poison Pula.
The Vetinstantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. (4%)
(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit?
(B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?
XIV.
Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court.
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (4%)
(A) Malowas charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?
(B) Malowas charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?
XV.
Which of the following is not a privilege mitigating circumstance? (1%)
(A) 17-year-old offender
(B) 14-year-old offender
(C) incomplete self-defense
(D) incomplete defense of a relative
XVI.
Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjiereadily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. When the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from Mr. Edas partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint should continue despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the partial payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)
XVII.
Pierceis a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? (3%)
XVIII.
Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio’s house. There, Manolo noticed a nice painting that exactly looked like the painting which he reported was stolen from him some years back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately from a friend. Manolo later proved to Toniothat the painting was indeed the stolen painting. (4%)
(A) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?
(B) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one night, broke into Tonio’s house by destroying the wall and taking the painting. What, if any, would be the liability of Manolo?
XIX.
Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take one of the smaller purses without paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to leave her own purse in place of the one she took. Her act was discovered and Cleptowas charged with theft. She claimed that there was no theft, as the store suffered no injuryor prejudice because she had left a purse in place of the one she took. Comment on her defense. (3%)
XX.
Which of the following is not a qualifying aggravating circumstance? (1%)
(A) treachery
(B) evident premeditation
(C) dwelling
(D) cruelty
XXI.
During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to wit:
(1.) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;
(2.) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
(3.) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;
The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against AA? (4%)
XXII.
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want," and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (4%)
(A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green?
(B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow?
XXIII.
Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of "Impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave coercion? (4%)
XXIV.
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetuato death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance. (8%)
(A) May the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?
(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum prohibitum?
(C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was filed by Aand given due course by the court, may A still file an application for probation?
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will Aserve his sentence?
XXV.
Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount ofP200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. Whitefor P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (4%)
(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?
XXVI.
Awas bitten by a dog owned by a neighbor. The following day, angered by the incident, Atook the dog without the knowledge of the owner, had it butchered and cooked the meat. Hethen invited his friends to partake of the dish with his friends who knew fully well that the dog was taken without the knowledge of the owner. What are the friends of Aliable for? (1%)
(A) Theft
(B) Malicious mischief
(C) Accessories
(D) Obstruction of Justice
---oo0ooo---"

2014 Bar Examination Questionnaire for Commercial Law

See - Bar Examination Questionnaire for Commercial Law





2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS
COMMERCIAL LAW
October 19, 20148:00 A.M.- 12:00 N.N.
x x x. 
I.
Carlo and Bianca met in the La Boracay festivities. Immediately, they fell in love with each other and got married soon after. They have been cohabiting blissfully as husband and wife, but they did not have any offspring. As the years passed by, Carlo decided to take out an insurance on Bianca’slife for P1,000,000.00 with him (Carlo) as sole beneficiary, given that he did not have a steady source of income and he always depended on Bianca both emotionally and financially. During the term of the insurance, Bianca died of what appeared to bea mysterious cause so that Carlo immediately requested for an autopsy tobe conducted. It was established that Bianca died of a natural cause. More than that, it was also established that Bianca was a transgender all along – a fact unknown to Carlo. Can Carlo claim the insurance benefit? (5%)
II.
Bong bought 300 bags of rice from Ben for P300,000.00. As payment, Bong indorsed to Bena Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) check issued by Baby in the amount of P300,000.00. Upon presentment for payment, the BPI check was dishonored because Baby’s account from which it was drawn has been closed. To replace the dishonored check, Bong indorsed a crossed Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) check issued also by Baby for P300,000.00. Again, the check was dishonored because of insufficient funds. Ben sued Bong and Baby on the dishonored BPI check. Bong interposed the defense that the BPI check was discharged by novation when Ben accepted the crossed DBP check as replacement for the BPI check. Bong cited Section 119 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which provides that a negotiable instrument is discharged "by any other act which will discharge a simple contractfor the payment of money." Is Bong correct? (4%)
III.
Under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA), the filing of a petition for voluntary rehabilitation must be approved by: (1%)
(A) a majority vote of the Board of Directors and authorized by the vote of the stockholders representing at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock
(B) a majority vote of the Board of Directors and authorized by the vote of the stockholders representing at least two-thirds of the outstanding capital stock
(C) two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors and authorized by the vote of the stockholders representing at least a majority of the outstanding capital stock
(D) two-thirds vote of the Board of Directors and authorized by the vote of the stockholders representing at least two-thirds of the outstanding capital stock
IV.
DC is a unit owner of Medici Condominium located in Pasig City. On September 7, 2011, Medici Condominium Corp. (Medici) demanded from DC payment for alleged unpaid association dues and assessments amounting toP195,000.00. DC disputed the claim, saying that he paid all dues as shown by the fact that he was previously elected as Director and President of Medici. Medici, on the other hand, claimed that DC’s obligation was a carry-over of his obligations to the condominium developer, Medici Construction Corporation. Consequently, DCwas prevented from exercising his right to vote and be voted for during the 2011 election of Medici’s Board of Directors. This prompted DC to file a complaint for damages before the Special Commercial Court of Pasig City. Medici filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the intra-corporate dispute which the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) has exclusive jurisdiction over. Is Medici correct? (4%)
V.
A corporation organized under the Corporation Code commences to have corporate existence and juridical personality and is deemed incorporated: (1%)
(A) from the date the application for incorporation is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
(B) from the date the SEC issues a certificate of incorporation under its official seal
(C) thirty (30) days after the date the application for incorporation is filed with the SEC
(D) thirty (30) days after the datethe SEC issues a certificate of incorporation under its official seal
VI.
On May 26, 2014, Jess insured with Jack Insurance (Jack) his 2014 Toyota Corolla sedan under a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy for one year. On July 1, 2014, Jess’ car was unlawfully taken. Hence, he immediately reported the theft to the Traffic Management Command (TMC) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), which made Jess accomplish a complaint sheet as part of its procedure. In the complaint sheet, Jess alleged that a certain Ric Silat(Silat) took possession of the subject vehicle to add accessories and improvements thereon. However, Silat failed to return the subject vehicle within the agreed 3-day period. As a result, Jess notified Jack of his claim for reimbursement of the value of the lost vehicle under the insurance policy. Jack refused to pay claiming that there is no theft as Jess gave Silat lawful possession of the car. Is Jack correct? (4%)
VII.
Jinggy went to Kluwer University(KU) in Germany for his doctorate degree (Ph.D.). He completed his degree with the highest honors in the shortest time. When he came back, he decided to set-up his own graduate school in his hometown in Zamboanga. After seeking free legal advice from his high-flying lawyer-friends, he learned that the Philippines follows the territoriality principle in trademark law, i.e., trademark rights are acquired through valid registration in accordance with the law. Forth with, Jinggy named his school the Kluwer Graduate School of Business of Mindanao and immediately secured registration with the Bureau of Trademarks. KU did not like the unauthorized use of its name by its top alumnus no less. KU sought your help. What advice can you give KU? (4%)
VIII.
As a rule, an insurance contract is consensual and voluntary. The exception is in the case of: (1%)
(A) Inland Marine Insurance
(B) Industrial Life Insurance
(C) Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance
(D) Life Insurance
IX.
On February 21, 2013, Barrack entered into a contract of insurance with Matino Insurance Company (Matino) involving a motor vehicle. The policy obligates Matino to pay Barrack the amount of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) in case of loss or damage to said vehicle during the period covered, which is from February 26, 2013 to February 26, 2014.
On April 16, 2013, at about 9:00 a.m., Barrack instructed his driver, JJ, to bring the motor vehicle to a near by auto shop for tune-up. However, JJno longer returned and despite diligent efforts to locate the said vehicle, the efforts proved futile. Resultantly, Barrack promptly notified Matino of the said loss and demanded payment of the insurance proceeds of P600,000.00.
In a letter dated July 5, 2013. Matino denied the claim, reasoning as stated in the contract that "the company shall not be liable for any malicious damage caused by the insured, any member of his family or by a person in the insured’s service. Is Matino correct in denying the claim? (4%)
X.
A person is said to have an insurable interest in the subject matter insured where he has a relation or connection with, or concern in it that he will derive pecuniary benefit or advantage from its preservation. Which among the following subject matters is not considered insurable? (1%)
(A) A partner in a firm on its future profits
(B) A general creditor on debtor’s property
(C) A judgment creditor on debtor’s property
(D) A mortgage creditor on debtor’s mortgaged property
XI.
PA Assurance (PA) was incorporated in 1980 toengage in the sale of pre-need educational plans. It sold open-ended educational plans which guaranteed the payment of tuition and other fees to planholders irrespective of the cost at the time of availment. Italso engaged in the sale of fixed value plans which guaranteed the payment of a pre-determined amount to planholders. In 1982, PAwas among the country’s top corporations. However, it subsequently suffered financial difficulties.
On September 8, 2005, PA filed a Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. On October 17, 2005, ten (10) plan holders filed an Opposition and Motion to Exclude Planholders from Stay Order on the ground that planholders are not creditors as they (planholders) have a trust relationship with PA. Are the planholders correct? (4%)
XII.
To constitute a quorum for the transaction of corporate business, only a majority of the number of Board of Directors is required: (1%)
(A) as fixed by the corporate by-laws
(B) as fixed in the articles of incorporation
(C) actually serving in the board
(D) actually serving in the board but constituting a quorum
XIII.
Pursuant to its By-Laws, Soei Corporation’s Board of Directors created an Executive Committee to manage the affairs of the corporation in between board meetings. The Board of Directors appointed the following members of the Executive Committee: the President, Sarah L; the Vice President, Jane L; and, a third member from the board, Juan Riles. On December 1, 2013, the Executive Committee, with Sarah L and Jane L present, met and decided on the following matters:
1. Purchase of a delivery van for use in the corporation’s retail business;
2. Declaration and approval of the 13th month bonus;
3. Purchase of an office condominium unit at the Fort; and
4. Declaration of P10.00 per share cash dividend.
Are the actions of the Executive Committee valid? (4%)
XIV.
On September 25, 2013, Danny Marcial (Danny) procured an insurance on his life with a face value ofP5,000,000.00 from RN Insurance Company (RN), with his wife Tina Marcial(Tina) as sole beneficiary. On the same day, Danny issued an undated check to RN for the full amount of the premium. On October 1, 2013, RN issued the policy covering Danny’s life insurance. On October 5, 2013, Dannymet a tragic accident and died. Tina claimed the insurance benefit, but RN was quick to deny the claim because at the time of Danny’s death, the check was not yet encashed and therefore the premium remained unpaid.
Is RN correct? Will your answer be the same if the check is dated October 15, 2013? (4%)
XV.
A, B, C, D, and Ewere members of the 2003-2004 Board of Directors of FLP Corporation. At the election for the 2004-2005 Board of Directors, not one of them was elected. They filed in court a derivative suit on behalf of FLP Corporation against the newly-elected members of the Board of Directors. They questioned the validity of the election as it was allegedly marred by lack of quorum, and prayed for the nullification of the said election. The 2004-2005 Board of Directorsmoved to dismiss the complaint because the derivative suit is not proper. Decide. (4%)
XVI.
In intellectual property cases, fraudulent intent is not an element of the cause of action except in cases involving: (1%)
(A) trademark infringement
(B) copyright infringement
(C) patent infringement
(D) unfair competition
XVII.
On December 1, 2010, Kore A Corporationshipped from South Korea to LT Corporation in Manila some 300,000 sheets of high-grade special steel. The shipment was insured against all risks by NA Insurance(NA). The carrying vessel arrived at the Portof Manila on January 10, 2011. When the shipment was discharged, it was noted that 25,000 sheets were damaged and in bad order. The entire shipment was turned over to the custody of ATI, the arrastre operator, on January 21, 2011 for storage and safekeeping, pending its withdrawal by the consignee’s authorized customs broker, RVM.
On January 26 and 29, 2011, the subject shipment was withdrawn by RVM from the custody of ATI. On January 29, 2011, prior to the withdrawal of the last batch of the shipment, a joint inspection of the cargo was conducted per the Request for Bad Order Survey (RBO) dated January 28, 2011. The examination report showed that 30,000 sheets of steel were damaged and in bad order.
NA Insurance paid LT Corporationthe amount of P30,000,000.00 for the 30,000 sheets that were damaged, as shown in the Subrogation Receipt dated January 13, 2013. Thereafter, NA Insurance demanded reparation against ATI for the goods damaged in its custody, in the amount of P5,000,00.00. ATI refused to pay claiming that the claim was already barred by the statute of limitations. ATI alleged that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) applies in this case since the goods were shipped from a foreign port to the Philippines. NA Insurance claims that the COGSA does not apply, since ATIis not a shipper or carrier. Who is correct? (5%)
XVIII.
Skechers Corporation sued Inter-Pacific for trademark infringement, claiming that Inter-Pacificused Skechers’ registered "S" logo mark on Inter-Pacific’s shoe products without its consent. Skechers has registered the trademark "SKECHERS" and the trademark "S" (with an oval design) with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
In its complaint, Skechers points out the following similarities: the color scheme of the blue, white and gray utilized by Skechers. Even the design and "wave-like" pattern of the mid-sole and outer sole of Inter Pacific’s shoes are very similar to Skechers’ shoes, if not exact patterns thereof. On the side of Inter-Pacific’s shoes, near the upper part, appears the stylized "S" placed in the exact location as that of the stylized "S" the Skechers shoes. On top of the "tongue" of both shoes, appears the stylized "S" in practically the same location and size.
In its defense, Inter-Pacific claims that under the Holistic Test, the following dissimilarities are present: the mark "S" found in Strong shoes is not enclosed in an "oval design"; the word "Strong" is conspicuously placed at the backside and insoles; the hang tags labels attached to the shoes bear the word "Strong" for Inter-Pacific and "Skechers U.S.A." for Skechers; and, Strong shoes are modestly priced compared to the costs of Skechers shoes.
Under the foregoing circumstances, which is the proper test to be applied – Holistic or Dominancy Test? Decide. (4%)
XIX.
Guetze and his wife have three (3) children: Neymar, 25, who is now based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Muelter, 23, who has migrated to Munich, Germany; and James, 21, who resides in Bogota, Colombia. Neymar and Muelter have since renounced their Philippine citizenship in favor of their country of residence. Nearing 70 years old, Guetze decided to incorporate his business in Binondo, Manila. He asked his wife and three (3) children to act as incorporators with one (1) share of stock each, while he owned 999,996 shares of the 1,000,000 shares of the capital stock. (6%)
(A) Assuming all other requirements are met, should the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accept or reject the Articles of Incorporation? Why?
(B) Being the control freak and micro-manager that he is, Guetze asked you – his astute legal adviser – if he can serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, as President, and as General Manager of the corporation, all at the same time. Please advise Guetze.
(C) Assuming the corporation has beenproperly registered, may the Articles of Incorporation now beamended to reduce the number of directors to two (2) – Guetze and his wife– to reflect the real owners of the shares of stock?
XX.
On May 13, 1996, PAM, Inc. obtained a P15,000,000.00 fire insurance policy from Ilocano Insurance covering its machineries and equipment effective for one (1) yearor until May 14, 1997. The policy expressly stated that the insured properties were located at "Sanyo Precision Phils. Building, Phase III, Lots 4 and 6, Block 15, PEZA, Rosario, Cavite." Before its expiration, the policy was renewed on "as is" basis for another year or until May 13, 1998. The subject properties were later transferred to Pace Factory also in PEZA. On October 12, 1997, during the effectivity of the renewed policy, a fire broke out at the Pace Factory which totally burned the insured properties.
The policy forbade the removal of the insured properties unless sanctioned by Ilocano. Condition 9(c) of the policy provides that "the insurance ceases to attach as regards the property affected unless the insured, before the occurrence of any loss or damage, obtains the sanction of the company signified by endorsement upon the policy x x x (c) if the property insured is removed to any building or place other than in that which is herein stated to be insured." PAM claims that it has substantially complied with notifying Ilocano through its sister company, the RBC, which, in fact, referred PAM to Ilocano for the insurance coverage. Is Ilocano liable under the policy? (4%)
XXI.
On July 3, 1993, Delia Sotero (Sotero) took out a life insurance policy from Ilocos Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (Ilocos Life) designating Creencia Aban(Aban), her niece, as her beneficiary. Ilocos Life issued Policy No. 747, with a face value of P100,000.00, in Sotero’s favor on August 30, 1993, after the requisite medical examination and payment of the premium.
On April 10, 1996, Sotero died. Aban filed a claim for the insurance proceeds on July 9, 1996. Ilocos Life conducted an investigation into the claim and came out withthe following findings:
1. Soterodid not personally apply for insurance coverage, as she was illiterate.
2. Soterowas sickly since 1990.
3. Soterodid not have the financial capability to pay the premium on the policy.
4. Soterodid not sign the application for insurance.
5. Aban was the one who filed the insurance application and designated herself as the beneficiary.
For the above reasons and claiming fraud, Ilocos Life denied Aban’s claim on April 16, 1997, but refunded the premium paid on the policy. (6%)
(A) May Sotero validly designate her niece as beneficiary?
(B) May the incontestability period set in even in cases of fraud as alleged in this case?
(C) Is Aban entitled to claim the proceeds under the policy?
XXII.
Paul George Pua (Pua) filed a complaint for a sum of money against the spouses Benito and Caroline James (Spouses James). In the complaint, Pua prayed that the defendants pay Pua the amount of P8,500,000.00, covered by a check. Pua asserts that defendants owed him a sum of money way back in 1988 for which the Spouses James gave him several checks. These checks, however, had all been dishonored and Pua has not been paid the amount of the loan plus the agreed interest. In 1996, the Spouses James approached Pua to get the computation of their liability including the 2% compounded interest. After bargaining to lower the amount of their liability, the Spouses James gave Puaa postdated check bearing the discounted amount of P8,500,000.00. Like the 1988 checks, the drawee bank likewise dishonored this check. To prove his allegations, Pua submitted the original copies of the 17 checks issued by Caroline in 1988 and the check issued in 1996, Manila trust Check No. 750. The Spouses James, on the other hand, completely denied the existence of the debt asserting that they had never approached Pua to borrow money in 1988 or in 1996. They assert, instead, that Pua is simply acting at the instance of his sister, Lilian, to file a false charge against them using a check left to fund a gambling business previously operated by Lilian and Caroline. Decide. (5%)
XXIII.
What vote is needed to consider every decision to be a valid corporate act? (1%)
(A) a majority of the directors present at the meeting
(B) two-thirds of the directors present at the meeting
(C) a majority of the directors present at the meeting at which there is a quorum
(D) two-thirds of the directors present at the meeting at which there is a quorum
XXIV.
A criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 was filed by Foton Motors (Foton), an entity engaged in the business of car dealership, against Pura Felipe (Pura) with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. The Office found probable cause to indict Pura and filed an information before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, for her issuance of a postdated check in the amount of P1,020,000.00 which was subsequently dishonored upon presentment due to "Stop Payment."
Pura issued the check because her son, Freddie, attracted by a huge discount of P220,000.00, purchased a Foton Blizzard 4x2 from Foton. The term of the transaction was Cash-on-Delivery and no downpayment was required. The car was delivered on May 14, 1997, but Freddie failed to pay upon delivery. Despite non-payment, Freddie took possession of the vehicle.
Pura was eventually acquitted of the charge of violating B.P. 22 but was found civilly liable for the amount of the check plus legal interest. Pura appealed the decision as regards the civil liability, claiming that there was no privity of contract between Foton and Pura. No civil liability could be adjudged against her because of her acquittal from the criminal charge. It was Freddie who was civilly liable to Foton, Pura claimed. Pura added that she could not be an accommodation party either because she only came in after Freddie failed to pay the purchase price, or six (6) months after the execution of the contract between Foton and Freddie. Her liability was limited to her act of issuing a worthless check, but by her acquittal in the criminal charge, there was no more basis for her to be held civilly liable to Foton. Pura’s act of issuing the subject check did not, by itself, assume the obligation of Freddie to Foton or automatically make her a party to the contract. Is Pura liable? (5%)
XXV.
In an action for collection of a sum of money, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City issued a decision finding D-Securities, Inc. liable to Rehouse Corporation for P10,000,000.00. Subsequently, the writ of execution was issued but returned unsatisfied because D-Securities had no more assets to satisfy the judgment. Rehouse moved for an Alias Writ of Execution against Fairfield Bank (FB), the parent company of D-Securities. FB opposed the motion on the grounds that it is a separate entity and that it was never made a party to the case. The RTC granted the motion and issued the Alias Writ of Execution. In its Resolution, the RTC relied on the following facts: 499,995 out of the 500,000 outstanding shares of stocks of D-Securities are owned by FB; FB had actual knowledge of the subject matter of litigation as the lawyers who represented D-Securities are also the lawyers of FB. As an alter ego, there is no need for a finding of fraud or illegality before the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction can be applied. The RTC ratiocinated that being one and the same entity in the eyes of the law, the service of summons upon D-Securities has bestowed jurisdiction over both the parent and wholly-owned subsidiary. Is the RTC correct? (4%)
XXVI.
DMP Corporation (DMP) obtained a loan of P20 million from National Bank (NB) secured by a real estate mortgage over a 63,380-square-meter land situated in Cabanatuan City. Due to the Asian Economic Crisis, DMP experienced liquidity problems disenabling it from paying its loan on time. For that reason, NB sought the extra judicial foreclosure of the said mortgage by filing a petition for sale on June 30, 2003. On September 4, 2003, the mortgaged property was sold at public auction, which was eventually awarded to NBas the highest bidder. That same day, the Sheriff executed a Certificate of Sale in favor of NB.
On October 21, 2003, DMP filed a Petition for Rehabilitation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Pursuant to this, a Stay Order was issued by the RTC on October 27, 2003.
On the other hand, NB caused the recording of the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale on December 3, 2003 with the Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City. NB executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and had the same annotated on the title of DMP. Consequently, the Register of Deeds cancelled DMP’s title and issued a new title in the name of NB on December 10, 2003.
NB also filed on March 17, 2004 an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession before the RTC of Cabanatuan City. After hearing, the RTC issued on September 6, 2004 an Order directing the Issuance of the Writ of Possession, which was issued on October 4, 2004.
DMP claims that all subsequent actions pertaining to the Cabanatuan property should have been held in abeyance after the Stay Order was issued by the rehabilitation court. Is DMP correct? (4%)
XXVII.
ELP Insurance, Inc. issued Marine Policy No. 888 in favor of FCL Corp. to insure the shipment of 132 bundles of electric copper cathodes against all risks. Subsequently, the cargoes were shipped on board the vessel "M/V Menchu" from Leyte to Pier 10, North Harbor, Manila.
Upon arrival, FCL Corp. engaged the services of CGM, Inc. for the release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier and the subsequent delivery to its warehouses/plants in Valenzuela City. The goods were loaded on board twelve (12) trucks owned by CGM, Inc., driven by its employed drivers and accompanied by its employed truck helpers. Of the twelve (12) trucks en routeto Valenzuela City, only eleven (11) reached the destination. One (1) truck, loaded with eleven (11) bundles of copper cathodes, failed to deliver its cargo.
Because of this incident, FCL Corp. filed with ELP Insurance, Inc. a claim for insurance indemnity in the amount ofP1,500,000.00. After the requisite investigation and adjustment, ELP Insurance, Inc. paid FCL Corp. the amount ofP1,350,000.00 as insurance indemnity.
ELP Insurance, Inc., thereafter, filed a complaint for damages against CGM, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking reimbursement of the amount it had paid to FCL Corp. for the loss of the subject cargo. CGM, Inc. denied the claim on the basis that it is not privy to the contract entered into by and between FCL Corp. and ELP Insurance, Inc., and hence, it is not liable therefor. If you are the judge, how will you decide the case? (4%)
XXVIII.
Which of the following instruments is negotiable if all the other requirements of negotiability are met? (1%)
(A) A promissory note with promise to pay out of the U.S. Dollar account of the maker in XYZ Bank
(B) A promissory note which designates the U.S. Dollar currency in which payment is to be made
(C) A promissory note which contains in addition a promise to paint the portrait of the bearer
(D) A promissory note made payable to the order of Jose Cruz or Josefa Cruz
XXIX.
KKis from Bangkok, Thailand. She studies medicine in the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas (UST). She learned that the same foreign books prescribed in UST are 40-50% cheaper in Bangkok. So she ordered 50 copies of each book for herself and her classmates and sold the books at 20% less than the price in the Philippines. XX, the exclusive licensed publisher of the books in the Philippines, sued KK for copyright infringement. Decide. (4%)
---oo0ooo---"

2014 bar exams; questions. - Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank - The Lawphil Project



See - Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence Databank - The Lawphil Project





2014 BAR EXAMINATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE
October 5, 2014

 POLITICAL LAW
 LABOR LAW
October 12, 2014

 CIVIL LAW
 TAXATION LAW
October 19, 2014

 MERCANTILE LAW
 CRIMINAL LAW
October 26, 2014

 REMEDIAL LAW
 ETHICS LAW

Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America Regarding the Treatment of United States Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines, February 10, 1998 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

See - Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America Regarding the Treatment of United States Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines, February 10, 1998 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines





Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
and the Government of the United States of America
Regarding the Treatment of United States Armed Forces
Visiting the Philippines
Preamble
The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines,
Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to strengthen international and regional security in the Pacific area;
Reaffirming their obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951;
Noting that from time to time elements of the United States armed forces may visit the Republic of the Philippines;
Considering that cooperation between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines promotes their common security interests;
Recognizing the desirability of defining the treatment of United States personnel visiting the Republic of the Philippines;
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
Definitions
As used in this Agreement, “United States personnel” means United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government. Within this definition:
1. The term “military personnel” refers to military members of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.
2. The term “civilian personnel” refers to individuals who are neither nationals of nor ordinarily resident in the Philippines and who are employed by the United States armed forces or who are accompanying the United States armed forces, such as employees of the American Red Cross and the United Services Organization.
Article II
Respect for Law
It is the duty of United States personnel to respect the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and, in particular, from any political activity in the Philippines. The Government of the United States shall take all measures within its authority to ensure that this is done.
Article III
Entry and Departure
1. The Government of the Philippines shall facilitate the admission of United States personnel and their departure from the Philippines in connection with activities covered by this agreement.
2. United States military personnel shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations upon entering and departing the Philippines.
3. The following documents only, which shall be presented on demand, shall be required in respect of United States military personnel who enter the Philippines:
(a) personal identity card issued by the appropriate United States authority showing full name, date of birth, rank or grade and service number (if any), branch of service and photograph; and
(b) individual or collective document issued by the appropriate United States authority, authorizing the travel or visit and identifying the individual or group as United States military personnel.
(c) the commanding officer of a military aircraft or vessel shall present a declaration of health, and when required by the cognizant representative of the Government of the Philippines, shall conduct a quarantine inspection and will certify that the aircraft or vessel is free from quarantinable diseases. Any quarantine inspection of United States aircraft, or vessels, or cargoes thereon, shall be conducted by the United States commanding officer in accordance with the international health regulations as promulgated by the World Health Organization, and mutually agreed procedures.
4. United States civilian personnel shall be exempt from visa requirements but shall present, upon demand, valid passports upon entry and departure of the Philippines.
5. If the Government of the Philippines has requested the removal of any United States personnel from its territory, the United States authorities shall be responsible for receiving the person concerned within its own territory or otherwise disposing of said person outside of the Philippines.
Article IV
Driving and Vehicle Registration
1. Philippine authorities shall accept as valid, without test or fee, a driving permit or license issued by the appropriate United States authority to United States personnel for the operation of military or official vehicles.
2. Vehicles owned by the Government of the United States need not be registered, but shall have appropriate markings.
Article V
Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines.
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means:
(1) treason;
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply:
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:
(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.
(c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request.
(e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.
(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible.
(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction.
4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this article.
5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel.
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.
8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.
9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:
(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;
(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and to have reasonable time to prepare a defense;
(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses;
(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses;
(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines;
(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;
(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the proceedings.
10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance.
11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.
Article VI
Claims
1. Except for contractual arrangements, including United States foreign military sales letters of offer and acceptance and leases of military equipment, both governments waive any and all claims against each other for damage, loss or destruction to property of each other’s armed forces or for death or injury to their military and civilian personnel arising from activities to which this agreement applies.
2. For claims against the United States, other than contractual claims and those to which paragraph 1 applies, the United States Government, in accordance with United States law regarding foreign claims, will pay just and reasonable compensation in settlement of meritorious claims for damage, loss, personal injury or death, caused by acts or omissions of United States personnel, or otherwise incident to the non-combat activities of the United States forces.
Article VII
Importation and Exportation
1. United States Government equipment, materials, supplies, and other property imported into or acquired in the Philippines by or on behalf of the United States armed forces in connection with activities to which this agreement applies, shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes and other similar charges. Title to such property shall remain with the United States, which may remove such property from the Philippines at any time, free from export duties, taxes, and other similar charges. The exemptions provided in this paragraph shall also extend to any duty, tax, or other similar charges which would otherwise be assessed upon such property after importation into, or acquisition within, the Philippines. Such property may be removed from the Philippines, or disposed of therein, provided that disposition of such property in the Philippines to persons or entities not entitled to exemption from applicable taxes and duties shall be subject to payment of such taxes, and duties and prior approval of the Philippine Government.
2. Reasonable quantities of personal baggage, personal effects, and other property for the personal use of United States personnel may be imported into and used in the Philippines free of all duties, taxes and other similar charges during the period of their temporary stay in the Philippines. Transfers to persons or entities in the Philippines not entitled to import privileges may only be made upon prior approval of the appropriate Philippine authorities including payment by the recipient of applicable duties and taxes imposed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. The exportation of such property and of property acquired in the Philippines by United States personnel shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes, and other similar charges.
Article VIII
Movement of Vessels and Aircraft
1. Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces may enter the Philippines upon approval of the Government of the Philippines in accordance with procedures stipulated in implementing arrangements.
2. Vessels operated by or for the United States armed forces may enter the Philippines upon approval of the Government of the Philippines. The movement of vessels shall be in accordance with international custom and practice governing such vessels, and such agreed implementing arrangements as necessary.
3. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces shall not be subject to the payment of landing or port fees, navigation or overflight charges, or tolls or other use charges, including light and harbor dues, while in the Philippines. Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces shall observe local air traffic control regulations while in the Philippines. Vessels owned or operated by the United States solely on United States Government non-commercial service shall not be subject to compulsory pilotage at Philippine ports.
Article IX
Duration and Termination
This agreement shall enter into force on the date on which the parties have notified each other in writing through the diplomatic channel that they have completed their constitutional requirements for entry into force. This agreement shall remain in force until the expiration of 180 days from the date on which either party gives the other party notice in writing that it desires to terminate the agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized by their respective governments, have signed this agreement.
DONE in duplicate at Manila, the Philippines, this tenth day of February, 1998.
(SGD.) DOMINGO L. SIAZON, JR.(SGD.) THOMAS C. HUBBARD