Business Organization Case Digest: Mangila vs. CA/Loreta Guina

ANITA MANGILA,

petitioner, 

vs. 

COURT OF APPEALS and LORETA GUINA,

respondents.

G.R. No. 125027.

August 12, 2002

Facts:

Petitioner Mangila hired the freight service of private respondent Guina for the importation of seafoods to USA. Petitioner failed to pay the services rendered by Air Swift International a business operating under the sole proprietorship of Guina. The latter filed a case for collection of money but summons were unsuccessfully served thus a writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued. Petitioner filed a motion to discharge without submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the court. The CA upheld the validity of the issuance of the writ attachment and sustained the filing of the case in Pasay as the proper venue, despite stipulation in the contract that in case of complaints, cases should be filed in Makati City. Pasay City is the office location of Air Swift.

Issue:

Whether or not the venue of the swift was properly laid when it was filed in Pasay City where the sole proprietorship business of the respondent was located.

Held:

A mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude the parties from bringing a case in other venues. The partiers must be able to show that the stipulation is exclusive. In the present case… there are no qualifying or restrictive words in the invoice that would evince the intention of the parties that Makati is the only or exclusive venue where the action would be instituted. Nevertheless, we hold that Pasay is not the proper venue.

In this case it was established that petitioner resides in Pampanga while respondent resides in Parañaque. The case was filed in Pasay where the business is located.

A sole proprietorship does not possess a juridical personality separate and distinct from the personality of the owner of the enterprise… The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship to empower it to file or defend an action in court. Thus, not being vested with legal personality to file this case, the sole proprietorship is not the plaintiff but Guina herself.

Corporation Law Case Digest: Marquez vs. Desierto

LOURDES T. MARQUEZ,in her capacity as Branch Manager, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,

petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO ,in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANGEL C. MAYOR-ALGO, JR., MARY ANN CORPUZ-MANALAC AND JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR.,in their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Panel, respectively, respondents.

G.R. No. 135882

June 27, 2001

Facts:

Respondent Ombudsman Desierto ordered petitioner Marquez to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where petitioner is the branch manager.

The order is based on a pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI.

Petitioner wanted to be clarified first as to how she would comply with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly RA. No. 1405.

Issue:
 

Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405).

Held:

No.We rule that before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case

Corporation Law Case Digest: Intengan vs Court of Appeals

CARMEN LL. INTENGAN, ROSARIO LL. NERI, and RITA P. BRAWNER, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AZIZ RAJKOTWALA, WILLIAM FERGUSON, JOVEN REYES, and VIC LIM,

respondents.

G.R. No. 128996

February 15, 2002

Facts:

 
On September 21, 1993, Citibank filed a complaint for violation of section 31 in relation to section 144 of the Corporation Code against two (2) of its officers, Dante L. Santos and Marilou Genuino. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit executed by private respondent Vic Lim, a vice-president of Citibank

As evidence, Lim annexed bank records purporting to establish the deception practiced by Santos and Genuino. Some of the documents pertained to the dollar deposits of petitioners Carmen Ll. Intengan, Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner.

In turn, private respondent Joven Reyes, vice-president/business manager of the Global Consumer Banking Group of Citibank, admits to having authorized Lim to state the names of the clients involved and to attach the pertinent bank records, including those of petitioners’.

Petitioners aver that respondents violated RA 1405.

Issue: 

 
Whether or not Respondents are liable for violation of Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, RA 1405.

Held: 

 
No. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits; consequently, the applicable law is not Republic Act No. 1405 but Republic Act (RA) No. 6426, known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines,” However, applying Act No. 3326, the offense prescribes in eight years, therefore, per available records, private respondents may no longer be haled before the courts for violation of Republic Act No. 6426.

Criminal Law Case Digest: Ladonga vs People of the Philippines

EVANGELINE LADONGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 141066

February 17, 2005


Facts:

In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became Alfredo Oculam’s regular customers in his pawnshop business. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post dated to July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason “CLOSED ACCOUNT”; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner who was not the drawer or issuer of the three checks that bounced but her co-accused husband under the latter’s account could be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.

Held:

The conviction must be set aside. Article 8 of the RPC provides that “a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.” To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose

Documents Required for Registration of Real Property with the Register of Deeds

1. Common Requirements
• Original copy of the Deed or Instrument (Original Copy + 2 duplicate copies)If the original copy cannot be produced, the duplicate original or certified true copy shall be presented accompanied with a sworn affidavit executed by the interested party why the original copy cannot be presented.
• Owner's copy of the Certificate of Title or Co-owner's copy if one has been issued. (Original Copy + 2 duplicate copies)
• Latest Tax Declaration if the property is an unregistered land.  (Original Copy + 2 duplicate copies)
2. Specific Requirements

1.    Deed of Sale/Transfer

§  For Individuals

1.    Bureau of Internal Revenue Certificate Authorizing Registration   (CAR) (Original Copy + 1 Photocopy)

2.    Revenue Tax Receipts evidencing payment of Capital Gains Tax (1 Duplicate Copy)

3.    Revenue Tax Receipts evidencing payment of Documentary Stamp Tax (1 Duplicate Copy)

4.    Real Property Tax Clearance indicating the tax declaration number (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

5.    Official Receipt showing payment of the Transfer Fee (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

6.    Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Clearance and Affidavit of Aggregate landholding of transferee if the land is covered by Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). (Original Copy + Duplicate Copy)

7.    Certificate from the Condominium Management in case involving transfer of condominium units

§  For Corporation

1.    Secretary's Certificate or Board Resolution to Sell or Purchase (Original Copy + Duplicate Copy)

2.    Articles of Incorporation (for transferee corporation) (1 Certified Copy of the Original)

3.    Certificate of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the Articles of Incorporation had been registered . (1 Certified Copy of the Original)

4.    For Condominium or Condominium Certificate of Transfer, affidavit/certificate of the Condominium Corporation that the sale/transfer does not violate the 60-40 rule.(Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

5.    Subsequent transfer of CCT requires Certificate of the Condominium Management. (Original Copy)

6.    Sale by a Corporation Sole, court order is required.(Original copy of the Court Order)

Additional Requirements

 

2.    Extra-Judicial Settlement/Adjudication

§  Affidavit of Publication of the publisher/editor stating that the deed/instrument has been published once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. (Original Copy)

§  Death Certificate

§  Heirs Bond for personal properties

§  Certificate Fee with Official Receipt

3.    Registration of Sale of Subdivision Projects

§  License to Sell (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate  Copies)

§  Development Permit (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

Certificate of Registration (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

4.    Power of Attorney or any Deed/Instrument executed abroad

§  Certificate of Authentication by the nearest Philippine Consulate  (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

5.    Judicial Settlement of Estate

§  Court Order approving the project of partition (Original Copy of the Court Order + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Certificate of Finality of the order/termination of special proceeding (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Letters of Administration - if the property is being sold or encumbered during the settlement proceeding (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

6.    Mortgage/Lease

§  Certificate of Non-Delinquency in the payment of real property tax (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

§  Documentary Stamp Tax Return (Original Copy + Duplicate Copy)

7.    Cancellation of Mortgage

§  Deed of Cancellation of Mortgage

8.    Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage

§  Certificate of Sale by the Sheriff/Notary Public (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Approval of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trail Court (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Documentary Stamp Tax Return (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

9.    Consolidation of Ownership

§  Affidavit of Consolidation of the purchase or Deed of Sale executed by the Attorney In Fact (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

10. Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage

§  Court Order directing the sale by public auction (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Certificate of Sale issued by the Sheriff (Original Copies + 3 Duplicate Copies)

11. Execution Sale

§  Notice of Levy or attachment must first be annotated accompanied by a writ of execution (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Certificate of Sale (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

§  Final Deed of Sale (Original Copy + 3 Duplicate Copies)

12. Condominium Projects

§  Master Deed (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

§  Declaration of Restriction (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

§  Diagrammatic Floor Plan (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

If the Condominium Certificate of Title is issued for the first time in the name of the registered owner, require the following:

o    Certificate of Registration with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (Original Copy + ! Duplicate Copy)

o    Development Permit (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy)

o    License to Sell (Original Copy + 1 Duplicate Copy

Note: Just to be always sure it is better to ask for the list from the office itself. They might require you for some additional requirements.