INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE* RA 8293 as amended by RA 9150

A. Intellectual Property in general – Sec 4.1

1. Intellectual Property Rights
2. Differences between Copyright, Trademark and Patent
 Kho v CA GR 115758 Mar 11, 2002

3. International Law application

4. IPO : jurisdiction, powers and functions

B. Patents
1. Patentable Inventions v non-patentable
– Sec 21, 22, 23; Sec 24 (prior art) Sec 26 (inventive step) , Sec 27 (industrial applicability)
2. Ownership, Grant and Limitations of a Patent
a) Right to a Patent – Sec 28
b) First-to-File Rule – Sec 29
c) Inventions Created Pursuant to a Commission – Sec 30.2
d) Application and Grant; Right of Priority – Sec 32.2; Sec 50
e) Acts that do not violate patent rights
– Sec 72.1, 72.2, 72.3, 72.4, 72.5
f) Prejudicial disclosure
 Creser Precision Systems v CA 286 SCRA 13; Sec 25.1

3. Voluntary licensing and TTA – Sec 4.2, 86, 87, 92

4. Compulsory licensing – Sec 4; Sec 93-93.6, 95.1
5. Grounds for Cancellation of a Patent – Sec 61
6. Remedies of the True and Actual Inventor – Sec 68
7. Rights Conferred by a Patent; limitations – Sec 71.1
8. Patent Infringement – Sec 76.1
a) Literal Infringement
b) Doctrine of Equivalents
 Kline Eckman Corp v CA GR 126627 Aug 14, 2003

 Smith Kline v CA

9. Defenses in Actions for Infringement – Sec 81

10. Assignment and Transmission of Rights – Sec 87, 88

C. Trademarks
1. Definition of Marks, Collective Marks, Trade Names – Sec 12;
 Coffee Partners Inc v San Francisco Cofee and Roastery Inc. GR 169504 Mar 3, 2010

2. Registrable v unregistrable marks – Sec 123;

 Marvez Commercial v Petra Hawpia 18 SCRA 1178

Doctrine of secondary meaning – Sec 123.2

 Arce & Sons v Selecta 110 Phil 858

3. Tests to Determine Confusing Similarity between Marks

a) Dominancy Test
 UFC Phils v Barrio Fiesta Mfg GR 198889 Jan 20, 2016;

 Amigo Mfg v Cluett Peabody Co GR 139300 Mar 14, 2001;

 Skechers USA Inc v InterPacific Industrial Trading Corp Gr No. 164321

 b) Holistic Test
 Great White Shark Ent v Cavalde GR 192294 Nov 21, 2012
c) Confusion of goods v confusion of business
 Mighty Corp v E&J Gallo 434 SCRA 473 (2004)

d) Aural effects
 Dermaline v Myra Pharmaceuticals GR 190065 Aug 16, 2010

4. Nice Classification of Goods

 Taiwan Kolin Corp v Kolins Elecronics GR 209843 Mar 25, 2015;

Related v non-related goods – Sec 147.1

5. Process of acquiring rights in a mark
– Sec 122; Sec 145 (actual use); Sec 168.1, 168.2 and 169
6. Rights Conferred by Registration – Sec 138, 147, 148
7. Distinguish infringement of trademark from unfair competiton
– see Art 27 of the NCC
 Superior Comm Enterprises Inc v. Kunman Enteprises Ltd GR 169974 Apr 20, 2010

D. Copyright – Sec 171

1. Basic Principles
– Secs 1, 93.1, 174 (publisher’s rights), 177 (economic rights) , Sec 193 ( moral rights), Sec 181 , Sec 203 (performer’s rights)
2. Copyrightable v unprotected works – Sec 175;
 Joaquin v Drilon GR 108946 Jan 28, 1999;

 Olano v Co GR 195835 Mar 14, 2016;

 Pearl & Dean v Shoemart Inc et al GR 148222 Aug 15, 2003

a) Original Works – Sec 178

b) Derivative Works – Sec 173
c) Acts that do not infringe copyright
3. Owner – Sec 172.1, 178 and 179
4. Limitations on Copyright – Sec 184, 213 and 214
5. Doctrine of Fair Use – Sec 185;
 ABS CBN v Gozon et al GR 195956 Mar 11, 2015

E. Infringement and Remedies – Sec 155 , 168, 216, 218;

 Habana v Robles GR 131522 July 19, 1999;

 Del Monte Corp v Ca et al GR 78325 Jan 25, 1990, 181 SCRA 410;

 Rubber Corporation v Jacinto Rubber and Plastics Co 97 SCRA 158;

 ABS CBN v PMMSI Jan 19, 2009;

 Prosource Intl v Horphag Reseasrch GR 180073 Nov 25, 2009

 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW

A. Form and Interpretation – Secs. 1 to 23

1. Negotiable document vs. negotiable instrument
2. Characteristics of a negotiable instrument *
a) Negotiability
b) Accumulation of secondary contracts
3. Formal requisites of a negotiable instrument: *****
a) Written and signed
b) Unconditional promise – when document is subject to a term not a condition still a negotiable instrument (find case)
c) Payable in a sum certain in money
d) Payable on demand or at a fixed time
e) Payable to order or bearer – Sec. 9
When deemed payable to bearer
4. Addressed to a named drawee
5. Negotiable instrument v. non-negotiable document *
a) Common forms of negotiable instruments - promissory note, bill of exchange, check;
b) Limited negotiability - L/C, treasury warrant, postal money order, bill of lading, certificate of stock, warehouse receipt;
c) A check is evidence of indebtedness and can be used in lieu of and for the same purpose as a promissory note
 Pua v. Spouses Benito Tang GR 198660 Oct 23, 2013

6. Certain sum ** – Sec. 2

7. What will or will not affect negotiability *** – Secs. 4, 5 and 6
8. Presumption as to date (find case) – Sec 11
Ante-dated and post-dated; – Sec 12
Insertion of date; – Sec 13
9. When blanks may be filled referring to incomplete instrument but delivered; – Sec 14
Incomplete instrument; – Sec 15
Complete not delivered **** – Sec 16
a) Completion and Delivery
 Asia Brewery Inc. Equitable PCI Bank GR 190432;

 Dev Bank of Rizal v Sima Wei 219 SCRA 736 Mar 9, 1993;

NIL Sec 16 states that when an instrument is no longer in the possession of the person who signed it and it is complete in its
terms a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
b) Insertion of Date
c) Completion of Blanks
d) Incomplete but delivered Instrument – Sec. 14
Where instrument is incomplete but delivered; holder authorized to complete; right of holder in due course defeats claim that
instrument not filled up in accordance with authority given nor within a reasonable time
e) Incomplete but Undelivered Instrument – Sec. 15
Where an incomplete instrument has not been delivered it will not, if completed and negotiated, without authority be a valid
contract in the hands of any holder, as against any person whose signature was placed thereof before delivery
10. Where instrument is vague, rules on interpretation; doubt resolved in favor of negotiability *** – Sec. 17
11. Signature – Secs. 18 to 23
a) Signing in Trade Name
b) Signature of Agent; Procuration – Secs 20, 21
c) Indorsement by Minor or Corporation; other incapacitated persons
12. Forgery – Sec. 23
Forged signature no effect, exceptions;
 San Carlos Milling v Bank of PI and China Banking 59 Phil 59;

 Jai-Alai Corp v Bank of PI 66 SCRA 229;

 Republic Bank v Ebrada 65 SCRA 680;

 PNB v Quimpo GR Mar 14, 1988 *****

B. Consideration – Secs 24 to 29
  China Banking Corporation v Padilla et al GR 202532 Oct 21, 2015;

 Ubas v Chan GR 215910 Feb 6, 2017

1. Disputable presumption that every party to an instrument acquired the same for a valuable consideration; find case – an illicit cause or
consideration does not adversely affect the negotiability of the bill especially in the hands of a holder in due course; – Sec 24
 Pua v Spouses Benito Tong GR 198660 Oct 23, 2013 **

2. Value is an consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. A pre-existing debt constitutes value whether instrument is payable
on demand or in the future * – Sec 25
3. Failure of consideration v want of consideration * – Sec. 28
4. Accommodation Party – Sec. 29 ****
a) Who is an accommodation maker; accommodation drawer; accommodation acceptor; accommodation indorser
b) Accommodation party is liable even if holder knew him to be such;
 Virata v Ng Wee et al GR 220926 Jul 5, 2017 (read only relevant portions of this case)

 Gonzales v PCIB GR 180257 Feb 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 180;

 Ang Tiong v Lorenzo Ting 22 SCRA 713;

 Republic Bank v Ebrada 65 SCRA 680

c) “without receiving value therefor”; accommodation party v regular party;

 Clark v Sellner 42 Phil 384

C. Negotiation – Secs 30 to 50
1. Modes of transfer
a) Issue – Sec 191
b) Negotiation – Sec 30
c) Assignment – Civil Code Arts 1624 to 1635
2. How negotiated ** – Sec. 30
a) by delivery
b) by indorsement completed by delivery
3. Kinds of Indorsements – Sec 31 to 44
a) Entire instrument must be indorsed; – Sec 32
 Montinola v PNB 88 Phil 178

b) Blank indorsement – Sec 33, 35

c) Special or specific indorsement; * – Sec. 34
d) Restrictive indorsement – Sec 36, 37
e) Qualified indorsement – Sec 38
f) Conditional indorsement – Sec 39
g) Indorsement of bearer instrument * – Sec 40
h) All payees or indorsers, not partners, must endorse jointly unless the one indorsing is authorized by others * – Sec 41
i) Other circumstances of indorsement – Secs 42 to 50

D. Rights of the Holder – Secs 51 to 59

1. Holders simply – Sec 51
2. Holders for value – Sec 26
3. Who is a holder in due course – Sec 52, 57;
 Atrium Management v CA, GR 353 SCRA 23 (2011);

 RCBC v. Hi-Tri Dev Corp 687 Phil 481 (2012);

 Mesina v. IAC 229 Phil 495 (1986);

  UCPB v IAC ft 60;

 RCBC Savings Bank v Odrada GR 219037 Oct 19, 2016

Is the payee a holder in due course, contrary view v affirmative view; is the drawee a holder in due course *****
4. Who is not a holder in due course; – Sec 53
Notice of defect, meaning of “good faith” – Sec 56
 De Ocampo v Gatchalian 3 SCRA 596, 1961;
What are the rights of a holder in due course; real defenses v personal defenses; immediate, remote and prior parties; fraud in factum v
fraud in inducement; “shelter principle” a person, as long as he is not part of the fraud or illegal consideration, but stepped into shoes
of a holder in due course, acquires the rights of the latter ***
– Sec 57
5. When holder deemed a holder in due course *** – Sec 59

E. Liabilities of Parties – Secs 60 to 69

Primarily liable; secondarily (conditionally) liable; not liable
1. Maker – Sec 60
Primarily liable; obliged to pay to admitted payee and his capacity to indorse **
2. Drawer – Sec 61
By signing admits payee and his capacity to indorse, and will accept or pay or both, in case of dishonor the holder or indorser *
3. Acceptor – Sec 62
Liable if he does not pay according to tenor of acceptance;
 PNB v Quimpo 158 SCRA 582;

 Allied Banking Corporation v Lim Sio Wan GR No 133179, Mar 27, 2008

4. Indorser – Sec 63 to 68 ***

a) irregular v general indorser – liabilities; warranties
 Metropolitan Bank v Junnel’s Marketing Corporation GR 235511 and 235565 Jun 20, 201;

 BDO Unibank Inc. v Engr. Selwyn Lao GR 227005 Jun 19, 2017

b) order of liability among indorsers

F. Presentment for Payment – Secs 70 to 88

1. Necessity of /dispensation with presentment for payment – Sec 70
Effect of want of demand on principal debtor
2. Requisites of sufficient presentment – Sec 72 **
a) By holder or authorized person
b) Reasonable hour business day time – see cases on stale checks; effect of prescription
c) Proper place
d) To person primarily liable
3. Manner of presentment – Secs 73, 74;
American jurisprudence
 Robinson v Lancaster 138 Atl 58

Presentment requires personal face to face demand at proper place exhibiting the instrument to the maker or acceptor from whom
payment is demanded. *

G. Notice of Dishonor – Secs 89 to 118

1. Where, when and to whom * – Secs 103 and 104
2. When notice need not be given * – Sec 114

H. Discharge of Negotiable Instrument – Secs 119 to 125

1. Grounds – Sec 119 ;
 Salazar v JY Brothers GR 171998 Oct 20, 2010 *
 2. Discharge of Parties Secondarily Liable – Sec 120
3. Right of Party who Discharged Instrument – Sec 121
4. Renunciation by Holder – Sec 122
5. Alteration
– Secs 124, 125 ***
a) Effect of alteration of instrument – Sec 124
b) An alteration is said to be material if it alters the effect of the instrument or changes the items required to be stated in NIL Sec. 1
– Sec 125
 PNB v CA 256 SCRA 491

Bills of Exchange *

I. Form and Interpretation – Secs 126 to 131

1. Addressed to more than one drawee – Sec 128

J. Acceptance – Secs 132 to 142

1. Liability of returning or destroying bill – Sec 13
K. Presentment for Acceptance – Secs 143 to 151
L. Protest – Secs. 152 to 160
M. Acceptance for Honor – Secs 161 to 170
N. Payment for Honor – Secs 171 to 171
O. Bills in Set – Secs 178 to 183
P. Promissory Notes and Checks – Secs 184* to 189
1. Promissory note v check; check v ordinary bill of exchange
– Secs 184, 185
2. Special types of checks:
Crossed check –
 Republic v PNB 3 SCRA 851;

Cashier check –
 New Pacific Timber v Seneris 101 SCRA 686;

Manager’s check –
 Tan v CA Dec 20, 1994 **;

Crossed check -
 Chan Wan v Tan Kim 109 Phil 706

3. Effects of crossing check ****

a) Only for deposit
b) May be negotiated only once
c) Specific purpose
 State Investment House Inc v IAC 175 SCRA 310

4. When check must be presented – Secs 186;

Stale check;
 Papa v. Valencia, 348 Phil 700 (1998);

 Evangelista v Screenex, Inc. GR 211564 Nov 20, 2017;

5. Effect of forged check –

 Asia Brewery and Go v Equitable PCI Bank GR 190432 Apr 25, 2017;

6. Liability of drawer bank and collecting bank –

 Associated Bank v. CA GR 107382 and 107612 Jan 31, 1996
  Associated Bank v. CA 284 Phil 615 (1992);

a) The drawee bank becomes liable to the drawer of the amount of the checks but the drawee bank in turn can seek reimbursement
from the collecting bank under Sec 66 NIL
 Bank of America v Associated Citizens Bank ft 21 [leading case on collecting bank and drawee bank or sequential liability]

b) As distinguished from doctrine of comparative negligence which limits the extent of reparation that may be recovered by a
person who is guilty of contributory negligence
 BPI v CA GR 102383 Nov 26, 1992

c) Where the drawee bank cannot seek reimbursement because it was negligent
 Allied Bank v Lio Sim Wan GR No 133179, Mar 27, 2008

d) Unauthorized payment of valid checks –

 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v GR 235511 and 235565 Jun 20, 2018

7. General Provisions – Secs 190 to 198

 LETTERS OF CREDIT

1. Governing laws: provisions;

– Arts. 2, 50, 567 to 572 of the Code of Commerce;
– ICC Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits [UCP600];
– URC 322 ft 107;
General civil law; usage and customs

 HSBC v. NSC et al GR No. 183486 February 2, 2016;

 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. De Reny Fabric Indsutries, Inc. GR No. L-24821, October 16, 1970;

 Feati Bank and Trust Company v. CA, GR 94209, April 30, 1991;

 MWSS v. Daway GR 160732, June 21, 2004

a) Definition and Nature of Letter of Credit – Article 567 of the Code of Commerce
 HSBC vs. NSC et al GR No. 183486 February 24, 2016;

 Bank of America NT & SA v. CA GR No. 105395 December 10, 1993 ;

b) Parties to a Letter of Credit

i) Rights and Obligations of Parties - who among the parties bears the liability to pay the amount stated in the L/C
 HSBC vs. NSC, et al;

 Marphil Export Corp., et al v. Allied Bank/PNB GR 187922, September 21, 2016

c) Basic Principles of Letter of Credit

i) Doctrine of Independence – Article 17 of UCP400 (get latest version UCP600)
 Transfield Philippines v. Luzon Hydro Corp. 485 Phil 699 [2004];

 PNB v. SMC GR 186063 January 15, 2014

2. Fraud Exception Principle

3. Doctrine of Strict Compliance
 TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

1. Governing law : PD 115

 Hur Tin Yang v People GR No 195117 Aug 14, 2013

2. Definition/Concept of a Trust Receipt Transaction

– PD 115 Sec 4 ;
 Rosario Textile Mills Corp v. Home Bankers Savings and Trust Co. - a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and
retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not
be able to acquire credit except through utilization as collateral of the merchandise imported or purchase; Ibid. a security agreement
that secures an indebtedness and there can be no such thing as security interest that secures no obligation

a) Loan/Security Feature
 Land Bank v. Perez, et al, GR 166884, June 13, 2012;

 Rosario Textile Mills Corporation v Home Bankers GR 137232 June 29, 2005

b) Ownership of the Goods, Documents and Instruments under a Trust Receipt

3. Rights of the Entruster

i. Validity of the Security Interest as Against the Creditors of the Entrustee/Innocent Purchasers for Value

4. Obligations and Liabilities of the Entrustee

 Robles v. CA GR 59640 July 15, 1991;

 Spouses Dela Cruz v. PPI GR 158649 Feb 18, 2013

5. Payment/Delivery of Proceeds of Sale or Disposition of Goods, Documents or Instruments

 Ng v People GR 173905 April 23, 2010

6. Return of Goods, Documents or Instruments in Case of Sale

7. Liability for Loss of Goods, Documents or Instruments
8. Penal Sanction if Offender is a Corporation
9. Remedies Available
 Colinares v CA GR 90828 Sep 5, 2000

10. Warehouseman’s Lien

 TRANSPORTATION LAW – New Civil Code

A. Common Carriers*** – Art. 1732

 Sps Perena v Sps Nicolas GR 157917 Aug 29, 2012;

 De Guzman v CA 168 SCRA 612 (1988);

 Sps Cruz v Sun Holidays GR 186312 Jun 29, 2010

B. Extraordinary Diligence Required of Common Carriers – Art 1733, 1734, 1735

 Y Transit Co Inc v NLRC 299 SCRA 508;

 First Malayan Leasing v CA 209 SCRA 660;

– Art 1756 presumption of negligence; Art 1755, 1757 contrary stipulations

1. Safety of passengers – Art 1755
 Dangwa Transportation v CA GR 95582 Oct 7, 1991, 202 SCRA 574;

– Art 1763 responsibility for acts of strangers or co-passengers; stowaways; companion

2. Vigilance over Goods

C. Liabilities of Common Carriers** – Art 1734, 1739 (fortuitous event)

1. Contributory Negligence
2. Duration of Liability of the Common Carrier – Arts 1736, 1737 and 1738
 Aboitiz Shipping v CA 179 SCRA 95 (1989)

3. Liability for acts of employees and passengers – Arts 1759 and 1763
4. Void stipulations against liability* – Art 1744, 1745
i. Limitation of Liability to Fixed Amount *
– Art 1749; 1753 (applicable law)
ii. Limitation of Liability in Absence of Declaration of Greater Value
iii. Liability for Baggage of Passengers – Arts 1733 to 1753; 1754
 Maritime Commerce – Code of Commerce Art. 3*

A. Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law

 Chua Yek Hong v IAC GR 74811 Sep 30, 1988;

 Phil Shipping Co v Vergara 6 Phil 28

B. Kinds
i. Charter Party* – Art 652, 689;
 Planters Products Inc v Ca et al 226 SCRA 476;

 Caltex Phil v Sulpicio Lines 315 SCRA 709;

 Saludo Jr v CA 207 SCRA 498;

Rescission* – Art 689

1. Bareboat/Demise Charter *
2. Time Charter
3. Voyage/Trip Charter

C. Liability of Ship Owners and Shipping Agents

i. Liability for Acts of Captain
ii. Limited Liability Rule – Arts 587 *, 643* and 837*;
 Monarch Ins. Co v CA GR 927735 Jun 8, 2000;

 De La Torre v CA 653 SCRA 714 (2011)

iii. Exceptions to the Limited Liability Rule

 Monarch Ins. Co v CA GR 927735 Jun 8, 2000;

 Pedro Vasquez v CA 138 SCRA 553;

 Aboitiz Shipping v New India Assurance Co GR 156978, May 2, 2006;

 Abueg v San Diego 77 Phil 730;

 Mecenas v CA 180 SCRA 83

D. Transshipment of goods – Art 373*

E. Accidents and Damages in Maritime Commerce

i. General or gross and particular or simple average**
– Arts 808, 809, 811, 815 (jettison), 816 (general average entitlement; Jason clause)
ii. Collisions*
– Arts 827, 828 (doctrine of inscrutable fault), 830 (fortuitous event), 835 (maritime protest), 836

F. Bill of Lading* – Arts 352, 706

 Compania Maritima v Ins Co of North America 12 SCRA 213;

 Keng Hua Paper Products Co v CA Feb 12, 1998

 i. “on board” bill of lading
ii. “received shipment” bill of lading
iii. Clean bill of lading
 Eastern Shipping Lines v BPI/MS Insurance Corp GR 182864 Jan 12, 2015

G. Claims – Art 66;

Prescriptive period*** – Sec 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA);
 Federal Express Corporation v Luwalhati R Antonino et al GR 199455 Jun 27, 2018;

 Insurance C of NA v ATI GR 180784 Feb 15, 2012;

 Maritime Co v CA 164 SCRA 593;

 Dole Phil v Maritime Co 148 SCRA 118 (1987);

 Fil Merchants v Alejandro 145 SCRSA 42;

 Mayer Steel Pipe v CA 274 SCRA 432;

 Mitsui v CA 287 SCRA 366

The Warsaw Convention* (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the International Carriage by Air) and Civil
Aviation Authority Act or RA 9497

a. Philippine Jurisprudence
 Mapa v CA 275 SCRA;

 Pan Am v Rapadas 209 SCRA 67;

 Alitalia v IAC 192 SCRA 9

b. Limitation of Liability – Sec 18 WC

i. Liability to Passengers – Sec 17 and 19
ii. Liability for Checked Baggage – Sec 18 (1) and 19
iii. Liability for Handcarried Baggage
c. Jurisdiction – Art 28 (1)
d. Prescription of action
 United Airlines v Uy Nov 19, 1999;

 PAL v Judge Savillo Jul 4, 2008

 OTHER LAWS

A. Foreign Investments Act (R.A. No. 7042)

i. Policy of the Law
ii. Definition of Terms
1. Philippine national – Sec 3(a)
2. Export enterprise – Sec 3 (e)
3. “Doing Business” in the Philippines – Sec 3 (d); continuity test
iii. Domestic Market Enterprise – Sec 7

B. Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (R.A. No. 8792) and A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC or the Rules on Electronic Evidence

C. Philippine Competition Act (R.A. No. 10667)

 PLDT v PCC

D. Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) of 2010 (R.A. No. 10142)
1. State policy – Sec 2
2. Definitions – Sec 3
3. Types of Rehabilitation Proceedings – Sec 12, 13, 76, 90, 91, 94, 103, 105
4. Rehabilitation Receiver
5. Management Committee
6. Rehabilitation Plan – Sec 62
7. Cram Down Effect – Sec 69, 82 and 86
8. Commencement and Stay or Suspension Order – Sec 16, 21;
 PAL v Sps Kurongking GR 146698 Sep 24, 2002;

 Rubberworld Phil v NLRC 305 SCRA 721 (1999);

 Sps Sobrejuanite v ASB Dev Corp GR 165675 Sep 30, 2005;

Exceptions – Sec 18
9. Court intervention – Sec 25
10. Suspension of Payments– Sec 94, 95, 96 and 97
11. Liquidation
a) Voluntary or Involuntary Liquidation
b) Effects of the Liquidation Order – Sec 112, 113
12. Rights Of Secured Creditors – Sec 114
13. Cross-Border Insolvency – Sec 139, 140, 141