I.

A.

An intra-corporate controversy is one which arises between a stockholder and the

corporation. There is no distinction, qualification nor any exemption whatsoever.
The provision is broad and covers all kinds of controversies between stockholders
and corporations. (Tabang v. National Labor Relations Commission,
334 Phil.424, 1997)
The following elements must concur: (a) the status or relationship of the
parties; and (b) the nature of the question that is subject of their controversy
(Renato Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc. and Kiichi Abe, G.R. No. 168757,
January 19, 2011)

B.

Pursuant to Section 145 of the Corporation Code, an existing intra-

corporate dispute, which does not constitute a continuation of corporate
business, is not affected by the subsequent dissolution of the corporation.
(Vitaliano N. Aguirre and Fidel N. Aguirre vs. FQB+7, Nathaniel
Bocobo, Priscila Bocobo and Antonio De Villa, G.R. No. 170770,
January 9, 2013)

None. The dissolution of the corporation simply prohibits it from continuing

its business. However, despite such dissolution, the parties involved in the
litigation are still corporate actors. The dissolution does not automatically
convert the parties into total stranger or change their intra corporate
relationships. Neither does it change or terminate existing causes of action,
which arose because of corporate ties between the parties

II.
A.

The effect of crossing a check relates to the mode of payment, meaning

that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only by the rightful
person, i.e., the payee named therein

What are the effects of crossing a check?

 It means that it could only be deposited and could not be converted

into cash. Thus, the effect of crossing a check relates to the mode of

payment, meaning that the drawer had intended the check for deposit only

by the rightful person, i.e.,the payee named therein. (Bank of America, NT

& SA, vs. Associated Citizens Bank, G.R. No. 141001, 141018, May 21,

2009, [Carpio, J.])

In Bataan Cigar v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court

enumerated the effects of crossing a check as follows:

a.) The check may not be encashed but only deposited in the bank;

b.) The check may be negotiated only once—to one who has an account

with a bank; and

c.) The act of crossing the check serves as a warning to the holder that the

check has been issued for a definite purpose so that he must inquire if he

has received the check pursuant to that purpose; otherwise, he is not a

holder in due course.

The effect therefore of crossing a check relates to the mode of its

presentment for payment. Under Section 72 of the Negotiable Instruments

Law, presentment for payment to be sufficient must be made (a) by the

holder, or by some person authorized to receive payment on his behalf…As

to who the holder or authorized person will depend on the instructions

stated on the face of the check. (State Investment House vs. Intermediate

Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72764, July 13, 1989, [Fernan, C.J:])

The act of crossing a check serves as a warning to the holder that the

check has been issued for a definite purpose so that the holder thereof

must inquire if he has received the check pursuant to that purpose;

otherwise, he is not a holder in due course. (Dino vs. Loot, G.R. No.

170912, April 19, 2010, [Carpio, J.])

Duty of the collecting bank when dealing with crossed checks

In Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. Court of Appeals and

Ford Phils., Inc.,[1] it was held that: “the crossing of the check with the

phrase “Payee’s Account Only,” is a warning that the checks should be

deposited only in the account of the CIR. Thus, it is the duty of the

collecting bank PCIBank to ascertain that the check be deposited in

payee’s account only. Therefore, it is the collecting bank (PCIBank) which

is bound to scrutinize the check and to know its depositors before it could

make the clearing indorsement “all prior indorsements and/or lack of

indorsement guaranteed.
 In Banco de Oro and Mortgage Bank vs. Equitable Banking

Corporation,[2] we ruled:

“Anent petitioner’s liability on said instruments, this court is in full accord

with the ruling of the PCHC’s Board of Directors that:

‘In presenting the checks for clearing and for payment, the defendant made

an express guarantee on the validity of “all prior endorsements.” Thus,

stamped at the back of the checks are the defendant’s clear warranty: ALL

PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS AND/OR LACK OF ENDORSEMENTS

GUARANTEED. Without such warranty, plaintiff would not have paid on

the checks.’

No amount of legal jargon can reverse the clear meaning of defendant’s

warranty. As the warranty has proven to be false and inaccurate, the

defendant is liable for any damage arising out of the falsity of its

representation.”[3]

What may be the ways of crossing a check?

The crossing may be “special” wherein between the two parallel

lines is written the name of a bank or business institution, in which case the

drawee should pay only with the intervention of that bank or company.
 It may also be “general” wherein between two parallel diagonal lines

are written the words “and Co.” or none at all, in which case the drawee

should not encash the same but merely accept the same for deposit. (Bank

of America, NT & SA, vs. Associated Citizens Bank, G.R. No. 141001,

141018, May 21, 2009, [Carpio, J.])

[1] G.R. Nos. 121413, 121479, 128604, January 29, 2011

[2] 157 SCRA 188 (1988)

[3] Id. at 194

B.

Yes. The checks that Interco issued in favour of Special Steel were all
crossed checks made payable to Special Steel’s order and contained the
notation “account payee only.” This creates a reasonable expectation that
the payee alone would receive the proceeds of the checks and that
diversion of the check would be averted. The nature of crossed checks
should place a bank on notice that it should exercise more caution to
ascertain whether the payee on the check has authorized the holder to
deposit the same in a different account since the banking business is
impressed with public interest. The highest degree of diligence is expected
of the bank.
 III.
A.

No. The Emergency Rule states – one who suddenly finds himself in a
place of danger and is required to act without time to consider the best
means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of
negligence. If he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may
appear to have been a better method unless the emergency in which he
finds himself is brought about by his own negligence. Here, the emergency
was brought upon by the Fuso truck’s negligence. Given the wet and
slippery condition of the road that night, the Fuso truck driver should have
been prudent to reduce his speed and increase his distance from the car.

B.

No. Regardless of whoever one claims to be the actual owner of the Fuso
by reason of a contract of sale. It is, nevertheless, primarily liable for the
damages or injury the truck registered under it have caused pursuant to the
Registered Owner Rule. A victim of recklessness on the road is usually
without means to identify the person causing the injury or damage other
than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicle Office to
determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to
him would become illusory by disproving his ownership. Besides, the
registered owners have to be indemnified by the real owner via filing a third
party complaint against the new owner.

IV.
A.

Plaintiff may bring the action for damages before –

1. The court where the carrier is domiciled;

2. The court where the carrier has its principal place of business;
3. The court where the carrier has an establishment by which the
contract has been made; or,
4. The court of the place of destination

B.
Yes. As the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction. British Airways is
domiciled in the United Kingdom. It is also where it has its principal place of
business. The ticket was brought in Italy and the place of destination is
Italy. Just because the plaintiff is a Filipino does not mean Philippine courts
have jurisdiction.

V.
A.

“Collateral source rule” means the defendant is prevented from

benefitting from the plaintiff’s receipt of money from other sources. If an
injured person receives compensation for his injuries from a source wholly
independent of the tortfeasor, the payment should not be deducted from
the damages which he would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor.

The collateral source rule, or collateral source doctrine, is

an American case law evidentiary rulethat prohibits the admission
of evidence that the plaintiff or victim has received compensation
from some source other than the damages sought against the
defendant.