PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Under Bar Bulletin (BB) No. 30, S. 2021, otherwise known as the "Guide and Rules of Conduct to the 2020/21 Bar Examinations (Omnibus Guidelines),"  examinees who present a positive test result for COVID-19 before the first Bar Sunday will not be allowed to take the Bar Examinations , and will be marked "did not finish." They shall be advised to adhere to the local government unit's required health protocols for positive cases. Additionally, the BB No. 30 states that examinees who present a positive COVID-19 test result, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, will automatically be denied entry to the local testing center. They will be required to undergo quarantine based on the guidelines and protocols of the local government unit of their local testing center. Examinees who obtain a positive COVID-19 test result must inform the Office of the Bar Chairperson immediately at barchair202021.sc@judiciary.gov.ph, stating their name and assigned local tes

Regular holidays and special days (also called special holidays) are essential in a law student's study of Labor Standards because certain employee benefits are affected by certain days of the year. Regular holidays Jan. 1 (Saturday) - New Year's Day April 9 (Saturday) - Araw ng Kagitingan (Day of Valor) April 14 - Maundy Thursday April 15 - Good Friday May 1 (Sunday) - Labor Day June 12 (Sunday) - Independence Day Aug. 29 (Monday) - National Heroes' Day Nov. 30 (Wednesday) - Bonifacio Day Dec. 25 (Sunday) - Christmas Day Dec. 30 (Friday) - Rizal Day Separate proclamations for the observance of the Eid'l Fitr and the Eid'l Adha, both regular holidays, once the dates of these Islamic holidays have been determined through the Hijra or lunar calendar. Special non-working days Feb. 1 (Tuesday) - Chinese New Year Feb. 25 (Friday) - EDSA People Power Revolution Anniversary April 16 - Black Saturday Aug. 21 (Sunday) - Ninoy Aquino Day Nov. 1 (Tuesday

According to a well-known expert in the field of civil law, when money in the bank is lost through fraud, it is not the banking public who should shoulder the loss; it is the bank. Atty. Elmer T. Rabuya is an author of civil law textbooks and law review lecturer. His books are available in fine bookstores nationwide. In one Facebook post, Rabuya explained the nature of bank deposits, citing Article 1980 of the Civil Code which says: "Art. 1980. Fixed, savings, and current deposits of money in banks and similar institutions shall be governed by the provisions concerning simple loan." His analysis is quoted below: Interpreting the foregoing provision, the Supreme Court explained that there is a debtor-creditor relationship between the bank and its depositor. The bank is the debtor and the depositor is the creditor. The depositor lends the bank money and the bank agrees to pay the depositor on demand. (Co

In one of the Facebook posts of The Philippine Star, it was reported that an ex-girlfriend sued her ex-boyfriend for damages for wasting her time, following him breaking up with her after a 10-year relationship. Assuming that the the suit was filed in the Philippines and that Philippine laws apply, would the ex-girlfriend's complaint prosper? In other words, should the ex-boyfriend pay her damages for wasting her time -- again, assuming this allegation to be true -- after a 10-year relationship? The answer may be had from the meaning of "injury." In law, "injury" is defined as an act or omission in violation of the rights of another. It may also be an act or omission in breach of one's obligation to other persons. The most basic example of an injury is one suffered by one person by reason of the abuse of right of another person. Hence, for example, even if it is the right of a person to fence his land, s/he would still be liable for damages if, in doing so,

Article 1364 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 1364. When through the ignorance, lack of skill, negligence or bad faith on the part of the person drafting the instrument or of the clerk or typist , the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties, the courts may order that the instrument be reformed. Under the above article, neither party has fault or responsible for the mistake in the contract. Hence, either party may ask for the reformation of the contract.[1] Thus, in a case, the Supreme Court allowed the reformation of a letter written by the plaintiff (contractor) to the defendant, which affirmed a verbal contract between the plaintiff and the defendant relating to the construction of certain buildings, by substituting the dollar ($) sign for the peso (P) sign, it appearing that in said letter, by clerical error and unknown to the plaintiff, the latter sign was used instead of the former and the defendant knew or should have known in the very nature of thi

Reformation is remedy in equity by means of which a written instrument is made or construed so as to express or conform to the real intention of the parties when some error or mistake has been committed.[1] Articles 1362 and 1363 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provide: ART. 1362. If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently or inequitably in such a way that the instrument does not show their true intention, the former may ask for the reformation of the instrument ART. 1363. When one party was mistaken and the other knew or believed that the instrument did not state their real agreement, but concealed that fact from the former , the instrument may be reformed. Under Article 1362, the right to ask for reformation is granted only to the party who was mistaken in good faith. Here, the mistake is not mutual.[2] If one party was mistaken and the other acted fraudulently, the injured party or the mistaken party can ask for the reformation of the contract. Moreover

Reformation is remedy in equity by means of which a written instrument is made or construed so as to express or conform to the real intention of the parties when some error or mistake has been committed.[1] Article 1361 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: ART. 1361. When a mutual mistake of the parties causes the failure of the instrument to disclose their real agreement, said instrument may be reformed. To justify reformation under this article, the following requisites must concur: (1) The mistake must be of fact (Art. 1331.), for if it is one of law, the remedy is annulment (Art. 1334.);  (2) Such mistake must be proved by clear and convincing evidence;  (3) The mistake must be mutual, that is, common to both parties to the instrument; and  (4) The mistake must cause the failure of the instrument to express their true intention.[2][3] Moreover, in Vda. de Gonzales vs. Santos,[4] the Supreme Court held that relief by way of reformation of a written agreement will n