Uncategorized stuff from my 2011 Bar Examinations Commercial Law folder (yup, too lazy to organize the stuff. Sorry!)Full description
Full description
Obligations and ContractsFull description
On Walking Book v 21
Descripción completa
itroductin
project report on mapro foods
l
Full description
Healthy Foods
DBP v. Family Foods Manufacturing Facts: Respondent Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (FAML! F""D#$% a partners&ip o'ned and operated y #pouses )ulianco and Catalina Centeno (spouses Centeno$ otained an industrial loan of P*++%+++.++ from DBP. DBP. ,&e loan 'as evidenced y a promissory note and payale in seven (-$ years% 'it& uarterly amorti/ations of P01%-2+.3+. ,&e loan carried an interest rate of 145 per annum% and penalty c&arge of 45 per annum. As security% spouses Centeno e6ecuted a real estate mortgage on t&e parcels of land in Los Ba7os% Laguna and a c&attel mortgage over t&e uildings% euipment and mac&ineries t&erein% in favor of DBP. DBP. ,'o ,'o years later% FAML FAML! ! F""D# 'as granted an additional loan loan of P33+%+++.++% 'it& interest at 885 per annum and penalty c&arge of 45. ,&e loan 'as% li9e'ise% secured y t&e same real estate and c&attel mortgages. FAML! AML! F""D# failed to pay t&e loans '&en t&ey ecame due. Demand to pay 'as made% ut it 'as not &eeded. DBP led a petition for e6tra;udicial foreclosure of mortgage 'it& t&e "rit of n;unction and?or Restraining "rder. "rder. DBP led its ans'er asserting lac9 of cause of action% as a defense. R,C R, C rendered a decision dismissing t&e complaint. Respondents led a motion for reconsideration ut t&e same 'as denied. Respondents appealed to t&e Court of Appeals (CA$. ,&e appellate court modied t&e R,C R,C decision. >&ile up&olding t&e validity of t&e auction sale% t&e CA reduced t&e interest rates and penalty c&arges c& arges stipulated in t&e t'o (8$ promissory notes for eing iniuitous and unconscionale. Respondents led a motion for reconsideration% '&ile DBP moved for partial reconsideration of t&e decision% ut t&ese 'ere ot& denied y t&e CA. Petitioner led a petition for revie' assailing t&e CA ruling. Respondents moved for t&e outrig&t dismissal of t&e petition on t&e ground t&at DBP did not attac& material portions of t&e record% i.e. promissory notes% real estate and c&attel mortgages% and ot&er documents% '&ic& are necessary for a complete determination of t&e merits of t&e petition. ,&ey assert t&at DBP violated #ec. 3% Rule 3* of t&e Rules of Civil Procedure% t&us% ;ustifying t&e outrig&t dismissal of t&e petition. (Procedural issue raised y t&e respondent in t&eir comment$ ssue: >&et&er or not t&e petition s&ould e dismissed on t&e ground t&at petitioner failed to attac& t&e material portions of t&e record. Ruling: ,&e court disagrees. As a general rule% a petition lac9ing copies of essential pleadings and portions of t&e case record may e dismissed. ,&is rule% &o'ever% is not petried. As t&e e6act
nature of t&e pleadings and parts of t&e case record t&at must accompany a petition is not specied% muc& discretion is left to t&e court to determine t&e necessity for copies of pleadings and ot&er documents. A careful perusal of t&e records of t&e case s&o's t&at t&e petitioners sustantially complied 'it& t&e procedural reuirements of #ection 3% Rule 3* of t&e Rules of Court. Attac&ed to t&e petition for revie' as anne6es are legile certied duplicate originals of t&e assailed CA decision and resolution. DBP also attac&ed t&e pleadings led efore t&e R,C and t&e latter@s decision. ,&e attac&ment of t&e pleadings and of t&e decisions of t&e R,C and CA provides su