Favorite Bar Areas of Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando based on 2009, 2011, and 2016 Bar Examinations in Commercial Law [PART 1] Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando. [...] Fulfilling further a deeper childhood aspiration, Justice Hernando joined the Academe at about the same time that he started his service in government. Since 1992, he has been a Professor of Law in Civil Law, Remedial Law and Commercial Law in various law schools [...] "He shared his expertise in Commercial Law as a Bar Examiner in that subject in the 2009, 2011 and 2016 Bar Examinations." (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office) The following are the preferred bar areas of "Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando" according to the 2009, 2011, and 2016 Commercial Law Bar Examinations: What does "doing business in the Philippines" under the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 mean?  (2016, Bar) -  Doctrine of "first to file" rule and Doctrine of "prior use" in good faith. (Trademark Law). (2016, 2011 Bar) - Holistic and Dominancy Test. (Trademark Law). (2016, Bar) - Unfair competition. Is the hoarding of a competitor's product containers punishable as unfair competition under the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code, Republic Act No. 8293) that would entitle the aggrieved party to a search warrant against the hoarder? Read: [G.R. No. 154491 November 14, 2008] COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILS., INC. (CCBPI), Naga Plant vs. QUINTIN J. GOMEZ, a.k.a. "KIT" GOMEZ and DANILO E. GALICIA, a.k.a. "DANNY GALICIA" (2016, Bar) Trademark Law - No violation of trademark of the companies [are not engaged in the same line of business]. (2011, Bar). - the owner of a well-known mark registered in the Philippines has rights that extends even to dissimilar kinds of goods. (2011, Bar). - A, the proprietor of a fleet of ten taxicabs, decides to adopt, as his business name, "A Transport Co., Inc." May this be allowed ANS. [No, it would be deceptive since he is a proprietor, not a corporation]. (2011, Bar). Common carrier - Common Carrier; fortuitous event; Required due diligence; Limited Liability Rule (2016, 2009, Bar) - Require diligence; during stop-over (2011, Bar). - The liability of a common carrier for the goods it transports begins from the time of either actual or constructive receipt. (2011, Bar). - In a contract of carriage, the common carrier is liable for the injury or death of a passenger resulting from its employee’s fault although the latter acted beyond the scope of his authority. This is based on the [rule that the carrier has an implied duty to transport the passenger safely]. (2011, Bar). - B, while drunk, accepted a passenger in his taxicab. B then drove the taxi recklessly, and inevitably, it crashed into an electric post, resulting in serious physical injuries to the passengers. The latter then filed a suit for tort against B's operator, A, but A raised the defense of having exercised extraordinary diligence in the safety of the passenger. Is his defense tenable? Ans. [No, as in tort actions, the proper defense is due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee by the employer.] (2011, Bar)/ - [...] Can P sue the MRT for contractual breach as she was within the MRT premises where she would shortly take her ride home? ANS. [No, since P had no intention to board an MRT train coach when the incident occured] (2011, Bar). - One of the passenger buses owned by Continental Transit Corporation (CTC), plying its usual route, figured in a collision with another bus owned by Universal Transport, Inc. (UTI). Among those injured inside the CTC bus were: Romeo, a stow away; Samuel, a pickpocket then in the act of robbing his seatmate when the collision occurred; Teresita, the bus driver’s mistress who usually accompanied the driver on his trips for free; and Uriel, holder of a free riding pass he won in a raffle held by CTC. Will a suit for breach of contract of carriage filed by Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel against CTC prosper? Explain. (3%) Do Romeo, Samuel, Teresita, and Uriel have a cause of action for damages against UTI? Explain. (3%) What, if any, are the valid defenses that CTC and UTI can raise in the respective actions against them? Explain. (3%) (2009, Bar). - Last clear chance doctrine (2016, Bar) - Merger and consolidation (2016, Bar) - De facto merger (2016, Bar) Life Insurance and Health Insurance - life insurance; incontrstsbility clause; fraud; concealment; misrepresentation (2016, 2011, 2009 Bar). - Insurable interest (2011, Bar). - Perfection of life (including property) insurance contract; Cognition Theory. (2016, 2011, 2009 Bar). - Estoppel; Waiver of rights; Insurer's acceptance of premium notwithstanding the insured's misrepresentation (2009, Bar). [ END OF PART 1] fb_@PhilJuris https://bit.ly/3hg0Zxc