Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Third, the motion of the officers to suspend the criminal proceedings cannot prosper simply because
under the new law on corporate rehabilitation, which is the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency
Act of 2010, Section 18 thereof explicitly provides that criminal actions against the individual officer
of a corporation are not subject to the Stay or Suspension Order in rehabilitation proceedings. ##
Relevant Laws
Hide
Rule 4, Sec 6 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation: Stay Order
Stay Order. If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, it
shall, not later than five (5) days from the filing of the petition, issue an Order x x x;
(b) staying enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such
enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against the debtor, its guarantors and
sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor; x x x
Hide
Sec 18, RA 10142: Inapplicability of Stay or Suspension Order
The Stay or Suspension Order shall not apply:
xxxx
(g) any criminal action against individual debtor or owner, partner, director or officer of
a debtor shall not be affected by any proceeding commenced under this Act.
Hide
A Pending Rehabilitation Proceeding Is Not A Reason to Suspend Criminal Proceedings
(Rosario vs Co, 2008)
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a
worthless check; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It
is designed to prevent damage to trade, commerce, and banking caused by worthless
checks. In Lozano v. Martinez, this Court declared that it is not the nonpayment of an
obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a
debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal
sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. Because of its deleterious
effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the
act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. The prime
purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others
from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and
rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. Hence, the criminal prosecution
is designed to promote the public welfare by punishing offenders and deterring others.
Consequently, the filing of the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is not a claim that can
be enjoined within the purview of P.D. No. 902-A. True, although conviction of the
accused for the alleged crime could result in the restitution, reparation or
indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by
reason of the felonious act of the accused, nevertheless, prosecution for violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 is a criminal action.
A criminal action has a dual purpose, namely, the punishment of the offender and
indemnity to the offended party. The dominant and primordial objective of the criminal
action is the punishment of the offender. The civil action is merely incidental to and
consequent to the conviction of the accused. The reason for this is that criminal actions
are primarily intended to vindicate an outrage against the sovereignty of the state and
to impose the appropriate penalty for the vindication of the disturbance to the social
order caused by the offender. On the other hand, the action between the private
complainant and the accused is intended solely to indemnify the former.
Yes. EYIS is the true owner because it is the prior and continuous user of the mark
VESPA.
Section 123.1 of the IPC should not be interpreted to mean that ownership is based
upon an earlier filing date. While RA 8293 removed the previous requirement of proof of
actual use prior to the filing of an application for registration of a mark, proof of prior
and continuous use is necessary to establish ownership of a mark. Ownership of a mark
or trade name may be acquired not necessarily by registration but by adoption and use
in trade or commerce.
As between actual use of a mark without registration, and registration of the mark
without actual use thereof, the former prevails over the latter. Hence, EYIS is entitled to
the registration of the mark in its name. ##
Notes
Hide
SECTION 122. How Marks are Acquired.
The rights in a mark shall be acquired through registration made validly in accordance
with the provisions of this law. (Sec. 2-A, R.A. No. 166a)
Hide
SECTION 123. Registrability.
123.1. A mark cannot be registered if it:
a. Consists of immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter, or matter which may disparage
or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or
national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute;
b. Consists of the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the Philippines or any of its
political subdivisions, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof;
c. Consists of a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual
except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased
President of the Philippines, during the life of his widow, if any, except by written
consent of the widow;
d. Is identical with a registered mark belonging to a different proprietor or a
mark with an earlier filing or priority date, in respect of:
i. The same goods or services, or
ii. Closely related goods or services, or
iii. If it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;
may be applied. Put in another manner, if the subject corporations Filipino equity falls
below the threshold 60%, the corporation is immediately considered foreign-owned, in
which case, the need to resort to the Grandfather Rule disappears.
In this case, using the control test, Narra, Tesoro and MacArthur appear to have
satisfied the 60-40 equity requirement. But the nationality of these corporations and
the foreign-owned common investor that funds them was in doubt, hence, the need to
apply the Grandfather Rule. ##
Hide
Remedial Law
Issue 2: W/N the case has become moot as a result of the MPSA conversion to FTAA
No. There are certain exceptions to mootness principle and the mere raising of an
issue of mootness will not deter the courts from trying a case when there is a valid
reason to do so.
The SC noted that a grave violation of the Constitution is being committed by a foreign
corporation through a myriad of corporate layering under different, allegedly, Filipino
corporations. The intricate corporate layering utilized by the Canadian company, MBMI,
is of exceptional character and involves paramount public interest since it undeniably
affects the exploitation of our Countrys natural resources. The corresponding actions of
petitioners during the lifetime and existence of the instant case raise questions as what
principle is to be applied to cases with similar issues. No definite ruling on such
principle has been pronounced by the Court; hence, the disposition of the issues or
errors in the instant case will serve as a guide to the bench, the bar and the public.
Finally, the instant case is capable of repetition yet evading review, since the Canadian
company, MBMI, can keep on utilizing dummy Filipino corporations through various
schemes of corporate layering and conversion of applications to skirt the constitutional
prohibition against foreign mining in Philippine soil. ##
Full Text
Narra Nickel Mining vs Redmont, 2015: Grandfather Rule may be Applied
Cumulatively with the Control Test in Determining the Ownership of Corporations
Engaged in Nationalized Activities Full Text l Digest
Share this:
Full Text
Gaanan vs IAC
GR L69809, October 16, 1986
Statutory Construction, Criminal Law
Facts:
Montebon filed a direct assault case against Leonardo Lanconico, which he later decided
to withdraw. His lawyer was Atty. Pintor, who called Lanconico initially to inform
him about his clients proposal to withdraw the complaint. Lanconico then requested
Atty. Gaanan, another lawyer, to secretly listen to the conversation through a telephone
extension. When Atty. Pintor called again to discuss the terms, Atty. Gaanan heard the
former enumerate the conditions which later served as the basis of a robbery/extortion
case against him. Atty. Pintor and Lanconico agreed that the former himself will receive
an amount of money at a certain place. Atty. Pintor was arrested by the time he
received the money.
Lanconico filed a case of robbery/extortion against Atty. Pintor, with an attached
affidavit of Atty. Gaanan stating what he heard. Atty. Pintor in turn charged the two with
violation of the Anti -Wiretapping law for listening to the telephone conversation without
his consent.
Lanconico's Contention:
Pintor's Argument:
Issue: W/N an extension telephone is covered by the term device or
arrangement under RA 4200
Held:
No. A rule in statutory construction states that in order to determine the true intent of
the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as
detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.
The phrase device or arrangement in Section 1, although not exclusive to that
enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or
similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the
main line of a telephone. Hence, an extension telephone is not in the same category as
a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in RA 4200 because its use
cannot be deemed as tapping the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone
extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for
ordinary office use.
Second, penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. Thus, in case
of doubt such as in this case, the penal statute must be construed as not including an
extension telephone. ##