<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:09:15 +0000</lastBuildDate><category>philippine legal form</category><category>recent laws passed</category><category>election law</category><category>digested case/case digest (constitutional law)</category><category>commercial law notes</category><category>digested case/case digest (commercial law)</category><category>digested case/case digest (legal ethics)</category><category>remedial law notes</category><category>legal maxims</category><category>digested case/case digest (tax law)</category><category>legal ethics notes</category><category>criminal law notes</category><category>need-to-know things</category><category>labor law notes</category><category>political law notes</category><category>definition of legal terms</category><category>digested case/case digest (civil law)</category><category>republic acts</category><category>tips</category><category>digested case/case digest (remedial law)</category><category>taxation law notes</category><category>bar matters</category><category>digested case/case digest (labor law)</category><category>digested case/case digest (political law)</category><category>answers to bar (civil law)</category><category>civil law notes</category><category>legal doctrines</category><title>Philippine Law Case Digests</title><description /><link>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>120</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw" /><feedburner:info uri="howwelldoyouknowphilippinelaw" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-6870219542270211904</guid><pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 15:31:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2011-05-30T08:42:04.761-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">philippine legal form</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Contents of a Memorandum a Philippine Legal Form</title><atom:summary>The 2011 Philippine Bar Examination consists of new sets of exam.  There's the multiple choice questions, legal opinion and the memorandum type.  The question is, do bar examinees know how to make a memorandum?  Do you?In Bayan vs Romulo decided March 29, 2005, the contents of a memorandum were enumerated.  A memorandum is one of the Philippine legal forms, which bar examinees are admonished to </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/01UgiIQ_s7A/contents-of-memorandum-philippine-legal.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/01UgiIQ_s7A" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2011/05/contents-of-memorandum-philippine-legal.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-8272989495761834222</guid><pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:04:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2011-03-15T01:16:42.846-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Philippine Bar Examination Result/Passers for September 2010 Exam</title><atom:summary>According to the official website of GMA news, "The results of the 2010 Bar examinations will be released on Thursday, the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday.  At a news briefing, SC Public Information Office deputy chief Gleoresty Guerra said that Chief Justice Corona has called for a special en banc (full court) session on Thursday morning for the decoding of the 2010 Bar examinations results."</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/cKCTmOOgwpI/philippine-bar-examination.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/cKCTmOOgwpI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2011/03/philippine-bar-examination.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-802706609102937650</guid><pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:31:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2011-01-21T05:19:19.085-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (remedial law)</category><title>Antonio Lejano vs People of the Philippines G.R. No. 176389/People of the Philippines vs Webb, et. al. G.R. No. 176864</title><atom:summary>A case digest on Evidence decided by the Supreme Court December 14, 2010.FACTS:Jessica Alfaro was the state witness of the popular case of Vizconde massacre.  She was an asset of the NBI prior to being a witness in the Vizconde massacre.  Jessica Alfaro positively identified Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb along with the other accused as among those who participated in the commission of the crime charged </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/kf609OmzMt4/antonio-lejano-vs-people-of-philippines.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/kf609OmzMt4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2011/01/antonio-lejano-vs-people-of-philippines.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-3100961623563420722</guid><pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-07-22T11:00:04.110-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">election law</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (constitutional law)</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (political law)</category><title>Quinto vs Comelec G. R. No. 189698</title><atom:summary>A case digest on Election Law decided by the Supreme Court February 22, 2010.FACTS:This is a motion for reconsideration filed by the Commission on Elections.  The latter moved to question an earlier decision of the Supreme Court declaring Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 unconstitutional.  Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 provides that, "Any person holding a public </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/wIcRWEksJMY/quinto-vs-comelec-g-r-no-189698.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/wIcRWEksJMY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2010/07/quinto-vs-comelec-g-r-no-189698.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-7032142951233211459</guid><pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:10:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-04-01T10:20:02.955-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Philippine Bar 2010 Passers/Results (September 2009 Bar Exam)</title><atom:summary>When is the exact date of the release of the September 2009 Philippine Bar Examination?  This question is the most asked one today and probably in the next days to come until the date of the release will officially be announced by the Supreme Court.Today, text messages, emails, blog comments and the like are saying that the result will be released March 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM (Philippine Time).  </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/7Cyl48e5q94/philippine-bar-2010-passersresults.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/7Cyl48e5q94" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2010/03/philippine-bar-2010-passersresults.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-8842804577093697352</guid><pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:21:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-03-08T20:36:55.253-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (remedial law)</category><title>Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat vs NPC</title><atom:summary>(G.R. No. 167415, February 26, 2010) For purposes of this digested case, the author will focus on topics discussed in remedial law.  As you can see from the facts of the case, no particular substantive law was mentioned to give way to the procedure applied by the petitioner in reaching his case before the highest tribunal of the land.FACTS:Petitioner, Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat instituted this </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/nhkf2dVp6-I/atty-mangontawar-m-gubat-vs-npc.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/nhkf2dVp6-I" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2010/03/atty-mangontawar-m-gubat-vs-npc.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-6344871012453411154</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:02:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-09T21:08:50.525-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>2009 Bar Questions in Labor Law</title><atom:summary>Below is the 2009 Bar Questions in Labor Law. If you wanna share some answers to the bar questions, please do leave a comment.PART II TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)   1. An employment contract prohibiting employment in a competing company within one year from separation is valid.</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/oajl1aeWrHc/2009-bar-questions-in-labor-law.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>1</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/oajl1aeWrHc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/09/2009-bar-questions-in-labor-law.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-6957603978305556705</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:50:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-09T21:00:01.197-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>2009 Bar Questions in Political Law</title><atom:summary>Below is the 2009 Bar Questions in Political Law.  If you wanna share some answers to the bar questions, please do leave a comment.PART II TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences.   (5%)   1. A law making "Bayan Ko" the new national anthem of the Philippines, in lieu of "Lupang Hinirang," is </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/-5adtQwq_6s/2009-bar-questions-in-political-law.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/-5adtQwq_6s" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/09/2009-bar-questions-in-political-law.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-3346197819605762278</guid><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:56:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-09T21:09:33.815-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Preparing for the September 2009 Philippine Bar Examination</title><atom:summary>Have you observed how time passes by.  It seemed like it was just days ago that I posted about the Philippine Bar 2008 Passers.  Sometime soon I will be updating this blog for the Philippine Bar Exam 2009 Passers.  This year's bar exam will start September 6, 2009 and will end on September 27, 2009.  There are rumors that the Philippine Bar Exam on September, 2009 will be held in the Mall of Asia</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/KkJexCwK2fw/preparing-for-september-2009-philippine.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/KkJexCwK2fw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/08/preparing-for-september-2009-philippine.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-7702901717489366946</guid><pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:50:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2010-03-18T23:39:10.887-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Philippine Bar 2009 Passers Final List</title><atom:summary>The day that bar examinees are waiting.  The Philippine bar exam results will be released this April 3, 2009 per Supreme Court announcement.  A total of 6,364 examinees are expecting to pass the bar.  There is no mention yet of the passing percentage rate as to how many from these 6,364 examinees will successfully achieve their dream and become a lawyer.  It is said that Supreme Court Justices </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/cHxje2u8yes/philippine-bar-2009-passers-final-list.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/cHxje2u8yes" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/04/philippine-bar-2009-passers-final-list.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-8417752124073515439</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:01:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-01-19T03:22:36.167-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Product Liability Lawyer Website</title><atom:summary>Have you heard of the product liability lawyer?  Do you have any idea of what a product liability lawyer can do to you?  This is the time that you should be aware of the role of a product liability lawyer.  To begin with, everyday we encounter different situations which are mostly unexpected.  But not all unexpected happenings are good news.  Some of them are not.  Every minute detail that we do,</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/1W-A0kaQiC0/product-liability-lawyer-website.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/1W-A0kaQiC0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/01/product-liability-lawyer-website.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-6426579437544523328</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:44:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-01-19T01:53:32.991-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (civil law)</category><title>Concepcion vs. Concepcion</title><atom:summary>(G. R. No. 147928, January 11, 2005)FACTS:The land under dispute in the case at bar is the Zulueta property.  The trial court in the partition case filed by Jose Concepcion, father of herein respondents, declared Jose entitled to a part of the land under dispute and ordered petitioners to contribute proportionately to satisfy said claim.  Petitioners failed to comply said order.  Hence, Jose </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/IsSHBnqb3Ak/concepcion-vs-concepcion.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/IsSHBnqb3Ak" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/01/concepcion-vs-concepcion.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-4536075078821379627</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:25:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-01-19T00:39:29.305-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (labor law)</category><title>LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA - PINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG PROMO NG BURLINGAME vs. BURLINGAME CORPORATION</title><atom:summary>(G. R. No. 162833, June 15, 2007)FACTS: Petitioner in this case sought to represent all rank-and-file promo employees of respondent.  It alleged that said group of employees is not represented by a Union.  So, they filed a petition for certification election before the Department of Labor and Employment.  Respondent, however, opposed said petition on the ground that there exists no </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/359eym8i0hQ/lakas-sa-industriya-ng-kapatirang.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/359eym8i0hQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/01/lakas-sa-industriya-ng-kapatirang.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-3782609576957735311</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:06:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-04-03T06:16:05.867-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><title>Philippine Bar 2009 Passers (September, 2008 bar exam)</title><atom:summary>Are you excited to know who are the Philippine Bar 2009 Passers (September, 2008 bar exam)?  Actually, the author is not sure as to what will be the possible searches online.  It may either be Philippine Bar 2009 Passers or Philippine Bar 2008 Passers.  But the right keyword to choose must be Philippine Bar 2008 Passers.  Why?  Because the exam was taken last year.Anyway, of course as of this </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/TLS7JBI8WsU/philippine-bar-2009-passers-september.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>3</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/TLS7JBI8WsU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/01/philippine-bar-2009-passers-september.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-3468164637929962843</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:28:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-01-07T20:31:05.687-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (civil law)</category><title>ANITA UNGAB-VALERO vs. AMANCIA-UNGAB GRADO</title><atom:summary>(G. R. No. 163081, June 15, 2007)FACTS:Timoteo Ungab, deceased, owned a parcel of land 14.3375 hectares in Binuni, Bacolod, Lanao Del Norte.  Petitioner is the only direct heir while respondents are heirs of the brothers and sisters of Timoteo except one named Felix.  There is a showing that petitioner and her mother signed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment recognizing the rights of the brothers and</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/VlXuzzfgXLQ/anita-ungab-valero-vs-amancia-ungab.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>2</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/VlXuzzfgXLQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2009/01/anita-ungab-valero-vs-amancia-ungab.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-4405303107168208488</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:59:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-25T01:48:47.875-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (labor law)</category><title>FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (FAMIT) vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MIT</title><atom:summary>(G. R. No. 164060, June 15, 2007)  This is a labor law digested case.FACTS:Petitioner and private respondent entered in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  The specific provision, among others, subject to this controversy, is the development by private respondent Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) of a faculty ranking and compensation system which however is subject to the proviso that </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/gOp-sQ-7Cxw/faculty-association-of-mapua-institute.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/gOp-sQ-7Cxw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/faculty-association-of-mapua-institute.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-3328494941424381839</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:24:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-20T02:45:13.956-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (remedial law)</category><title>BELTRAN vs. PEOPLE</title><atom:summary>(G. R. No. 175013, June 1, 2007)FACTS:This case is a consolidated case.  However, the facts of the case will be focused on the Beltran petition, for which the Supreme Court premised its decision.  On the other hand, the ruling is applicable to all three cases, that is, Ladlad vs. Velasco, Maza vs. Gonzalez and this petition of Beltran.The facts of the case are as follows:Petitioners were all </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/v0n5ITXfEko/beltran-vs-people.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/v0n5ITXfEko" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/beltran-vs-people.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-6915382064794463396</guid><pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:12:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-19T03:29:36.385-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">digested case/case digest (labor law)</category><title>AKAP vs. DOMINGUEZ</title><atom:summary>(G. R. No. 164198, June 15, 2007 - This digested case focuses on the right of an employee for notice and hearing insofar as Labor Laws are concerned.) FACTS:Petitioner Alay sa Kapatid International Foundation, Inc. (AKAP) is a non-stock, non-profit, and charitable corporation run by religious sisters.  It employed Romulo Dominguez herein respondent as a community organizer.  It appearing that </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/N7qH0tyMqno/akap-vs-dominguez.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/N7qH0tyMqno" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/akap-vs-dominguez.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-4798198863419032347</guid><pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:20:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-14T21:34:47.940-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">republic acts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">taxation law notes</category><title>COMPLETE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC 8424</title><atom:summary>Sometime in August, the author posted a summary of Republic Act 8424.  Recently, it has come to her knowledge that Republic Act 8424 is the new bible of Taxation law.  It means that this act superseded certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, which must be taken into consideration so as to avoid using wrong provisions of laws in answering bar questions or in the study of </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/WD1mWj3kPF0/complete-provisions-of-republic-8424.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/WD1mWj3kPF0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/complete-provisions-of-republic-8424.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-8935648948218515823</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:08:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-13T04:18:49.036-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">answers to bar (civil law)</category><title>ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW (1989)</title><atom:summary>This bar examination question is the number 2 question in the 1989 Philippine bar examination.  The number 1 question is already published previous to this post which you can read by clicking HERE.  So now let's proceed with question number 12:BAR QUESTION:  While "X," an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, was vacationing in Cebu City, he was requested to solemnize the marriage of Serge </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/-d77j9PYeXc/answers-to-bar-examination-questions-in_13.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/-d77j9PYeXc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/answers-to-bar-examination-questions-in_13.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-6111454731156634505</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:49:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-13T04:07:49.413-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">answers to bar (civil law)</category><title>ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW (1989)</title><atom:summary>BAR QUESTION:  Robert and Evelyn, both Filipinos, met in Los Angeles, California.  They agreed to get married on June 10, 1989.  On June 7, 1989, Robert flew to New York due to an urgent business matter but intended to return to Los Angeles on June 9, 1989, in time for the wedding.  The business emergency of Robert, however, laster longer than he expected so that he failed to return to Los </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/qK9RSmUcB0k/answers-to-bar-examination-questions-in.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/qK9RSmUcB0k" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/answers-to-bar-examination-questions-in.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-28552739941384695</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:23:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-11T05:48:14.942-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">bar matters</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">tips</category><title>BAR EXPENSES</title><atom:summary>While the 2008 bar examinees are waiting for the 2008 Philippine Bar Exam Results, the upcoming 2009 bar examinees are preparing mentally, emotionally and financially for the 2009 Philippine Bar Examination Questions.  There are a lot of factors that should be considered in taking the bar exams.  Of course, it is obvious that in order to pass the bar exam, one must read, read and read.  Its </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/Rtm3K_8OWck/bar-expenses.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/Rtm3K_8OWck" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/bar-expenses.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-4223185467276267495</guid><pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:37:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-02T01:41:50.543-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">republic acts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">civil law notes</category><title>REPUBLIC ACT 8552</title><atom:summary>REPUBLIC ACT 8552:  An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on the Domestic Adoption of Filipino Children and for Other PurposesARTICLE IGENERAL PROVISIONSSection 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the "Domestic Adoption Act of 1998."Sec.  2. Declaration of Policies. — (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure that every child remains under the care and custody of </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/mp0D7pcwLqY/republic-act-8552.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/mp0D7pcwLqY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/republic-act-8552.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-2660889287931286071</guid><pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 08:23:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-11-02T01:37:35.766-08:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">republic acts</category><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">civil law notes</category><title>REPUBLIC ACT 8043</title><atom:summary>REPUBLIC ACT 8043:  An Act Establishing the Rules to Govern Inter-Country Adoption of Filipino Children, and for Other PurposesARTICLE IGENERAL PROVISIONSSection 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995."Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide every neglected and abandoned child with a family that will </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/88sUE6YQjYM/republic-act-8043.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/88sUE6YQjYM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/11/republic-act-8043.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7338950409412127214.post-3329646221192985537</guid><pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:48:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2008-10-31T02:53:16.190-07:00</atom:updated><category domain="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#">tips</category><title>TIPS IN ANSWERING BAR QUESTIONS</title><atom:summary>If you are asked to define a particular legal term, it is recommended that you must define it in accordance with what is provided in the law.  That is, if possible you can give a verbatim definition of the legal term asked.  In that way, that definition you have given will not be rebutted for it is what is provided in the law.However, in case you failed to memorize the definition of the legal </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~3/M6fjLybq8As/tips-in-answering-bar-questions.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (bestre)</author><thr:total>0</thr:total><description>&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/HowWellDoYouKnowPhilippineLaw/~4/M6fjLybq8As" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description><feedburner:origLink>http://philippine-law.blogspot.com/2008/10/tips-in-answering-bar-questions.html</feedburner:origLink></item></channel></rss>

