CIVIL LAW
For hotel-keepers to be liable as depositaries, the following elements must concur (Art. 1998 NCC):
a. They have been previously informed about the effects brought by the guests; and
b. The latter have taken the precautions prescribed their safekeeping. #incrediBar2023
Extended liability of hotel-keepers – includes vehicles, animals and articles introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel (Art. 1999 NCC)
When hotel-keeper liable (Art. 2000 NCC)
a. The loss or injury is caused by his servants or employees
b. The loss or injury is caused by strangers
When hotel-keeper not liable (Arts. 2000-2002 NCC)
a. The cause is force majeure
b. The cause is robbery with use of firearm or through irresistible force
c. The cause is the act or acts of the guest
d. The cause is the character of the thing
Rule on Posting of Exculpatory Notices (Art. 2003 NCC)
They cannot free the hotel-keeper from responsibility. Any stipulation suppressing or diminishing the liability of the hotel-keeper shall be void.
Hotel-keeper’s Right of Retention
The hotel-keeper has a right to retain things brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits on account of lodging, and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests. In addition, non-payment constitute Estafa.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
CIVIL LAW
CHAIR’S CASES (Thread)
Pugoy-Solidum v. Republic of the Philippines GR 213954 (2022) - the totality of evidence must still be sufficient to prove that the incapacity was grave, incurable, and existing prior to the time of the marriage.
Carullo-Padua v. Padua GR 208258 (2022) - Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, also do not warrant psychological incapacity
Time Realty v. PNTC GR 219698 (2021) – Unjust enrichment under Art. 33 requires that (1) a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) such benefit is derived at another's expense or damage.
CRIMINAL LAW Chair’s Cases (thread)
•People v. Constantino GR 251636 (2022) – the test to determine when the act is mala in se and not malum prohibitum is whether it is inherently immoral or the vileness of the penalized act;
·Chua v. SOJ GR 214960 (2022)- trust receipts law is malum prohibitum; mere failure of petitioners to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods, or to return the good themselves if not sold under the trust receipts that were not novated, constitutes the gravamen of the offense.
·People v. Villegas, Jr GR 218210 (2019) - rape with homicide is a special complex crime or "two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse."
CRIMINAL LAW
ABERRATIO ICTUS – If the crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is liable for a complex crime.
Exceptions: accused is liable for separate crimes despite the application of the aberratio ictus rule, and not a complex crime:
a. Bullet that killed the target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third person
2/4
b. Crime committed against the third person is merely a light felony such as slight physical injuries
c. Components of a complex crime are alleged in 2 different information
3/4
CRIMINAL LAW
Obstruction of justice – any person who willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects or the investigation or prosecution of criminal cases, or intrudes in a crime scene and may be typically committed under the following:
1/10
a) Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal investigation proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
2/10
b) Altering, erasing, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, traces or prints, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence;
REMEDIAL LAW
Factual-issue-bar Rule - Petition for review under Rule 45 is discretionary. It may only be availed if the appeal is on pure question of law. Thus, question of fact is not allowed to be raised because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. #IncrediBar2023
Instances when Supreme Court may pass upon questions of fact:
-Conclusions of CA is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures
-Inference is manifestly mistaken
-There is grave abuse of discretion
-Judgment is based on misapprehension of facts
1 of 3
-Findings of facts are conflicting
-CA went beyond the issues of the case or its judgment is contrary to the admission of the parties
-Findings of CA is contrary to lower court
-Finding of fact are conclusion without basis in evidence
2 of 3
· Francia v. Sagario AC 10938 (2019) – Non-filing despite receipt of legal fees from client; highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship (Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18)
· Petelo v Rivera AC10408 (2019) – unauthorized practice of law (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10)