Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • 2.3 The General Banking Law of 2000 PDF

    Încărcat de

    Zhanika Marie Carbonell
    101 vizualizări2 pagini
    G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents. Tirol & Tirol for petitioner.s Nilo S. Sampiano for private respondents. NOCON, J.: The present case involves third year Nursing students who failed to meet the retention policy of the school, that is, minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects. As a consequence, the school refused to re-admit them. In view of the rights granted to students by the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, may they compel the school to allow them to complete their course? The antecedent facts are undisputed: Private respondents Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elaine Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardita Cainoy were third year Nursing students of petitioner University of San Agustin (USA) who were refused re-admission in the summer classes of 1989 and last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 on the alleged ground that they failed to obtain grades of not lower than 80% in Nursing 104 (Nursing Practice II with Related Learning Experience). Its persistent refusal to re-admit them prejudiced their right to freely choose their field of study and finish a college degree and worse, no other school within the city and nearby areas is willing to accept them due to the difference in the curriculum and school residency requirement. Thus, they filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to command petitioner USA to re-admit them. Aside from the prayer for re-admission, they also prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of them. Submitting a joint answer to the petition, petitioner USA and the other petitioners, Dean Concepcion Cajilig and Clinical Instructors Nenalyn Abioda, Mary Espino, Rhodora Azucena, Ma. Dulce Socorro Posa and Cosette Monteblanco admitted having barred private respondents from finishing their Nursing course but justified the decision not to re-admit them as being in pursuance of the school's policy that only students with grades of at least 80% in any major Nursing subject, including Nursing 104, and two minor subjects, are allowed enrollment in the following year. Private respondents were duly informed and forewarned of their below 80% performance rating. To buttress petitioner's stance, they placed reliance on Section 9(2) of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232) which recognizes the right of students to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula, and to continue their course up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations; and Section 13(2) thereof vesting in institutions of higher learning the right to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be the subjects of study and research. Additionally, petitioners contended that private respondents have no cause of action for mandamus under the premises because there is no clear and well-defined right of the latter which has been violated neither do the former have a corresponding ministerial duty to re-admit them, since petitioner USA is a private educational institution not performing public functions and duties. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner USA enjoys the right to academic freedom. The trial court was not persuaded that private respondents are entitled to the relief sought. The dispositive portion of its order dat

    Titlu original

    2.3 The General Banking Law of 2000.pdf

    Drepturi de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents. Tirol & Tirol for petitioner.s Nilo S. Sampiano for private respondents. NOCON, J.: The present case involves third year Nursing students who failed to meet the retention policy of the school, that is, minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects. As a consequence, the school refused to re-admit them. In view of the rights granted to students by the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, may they compel the school to allow them to complete their course? The antecedent facts are undisputed: Private respondents Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elaine Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardita Cainoy were third year Nursing students of petitioner University of San Agustin (USA) who were refused re-admission in the summer classes of 1989 and last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 on the alleged ground that they failed to obtain grades of not lower than 80% in Nursing 104 (Nursing Practice II with Related Learning Experience). Its persistent refusal to re-admit them prejudiced their right to freely choose their field of study and finish a college degree and worse, no other school within the city and nearby areas is willing to accept them due to the difference in the curriculum and school residency requirement. Thus, they filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to command petitioner USA to re-admit them. Aside from the prayer for re-admission, they also prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of them. Submitting a joint answer to the petition, petitioner USA and the other petitioners, Dean Concepcion Cajilig and Clinical Instructors Nenalyn Abioda, Mary Espino, Rhodora Azucena, Ma. Dulce Socorro Posa and Cosette Monteblanco admitted having barred private respondents from finishing their Nursing course but justified the decision not to re-admit them as being in pursuance of the school's policy that only students with grades of at least 80% in any major Nursing subject, including Nursing 104, and two minor subjects, are allowed enrollment in the following year. Private respondents were duly informed and forewarned of their below 80% performance rating. To buttress petitioner's stance, they placed reliance on Section 9(2) of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232) which recognizes the right of students to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula, and to continue their course up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations; and Section 13(2) thereof vesting in institutions of higher learning the right to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be the subjects of study and research. Additionally, petitioners contended that private respondents have no cause of action for mandamus under the premises because there is no clear and well-defined right of the latter which has been violated neither do the former have a corresponding ministerial duty to re-admit them, since petitioner USA is a private educational institution not performing public functions and duties. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner USA enjoys the right to academic freedom. The trial court was not persuaded that private respondents are entitled to the relief sought. The dispositive portion of its order dat

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    101 vizualizări2 pagini

    2.3 The General Banking Law of 2000 PDF

    Încărcat de

    Zhanika Marie Carbonell
    G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994 UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents. Tirol & Tirol for petitioner.s Nilo S. Sampiano for private respondents. NOCON, J.: The present case involves third year Nursing students who failed to meet the retention policy of the school, that is, minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects. As a consequence, the school refused to re-admit them. In view of the rights granted to students by the provisions of Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, may they compel the school to allow them to complete their course? The antecedent facts are undisputed: Private respondents Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elaine Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardita Cainoy were third year Nursing students of petitioner University of San Agustin (USA) who were refused re-admission in the summer classes of 1989 and last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 on the alleged ground that they failed to obtain grades of not lower than 80% in Nursing 104 (Nursing Practice II with Related Learning Experience). Its persistent refusal to re-admit them prejudiced their right to freely choose their field of study and finish a college degree and worse, no other school within the city and nearby areas is willing to accept them due to the difference in the curriculum and school residency requirement. Thus, they filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to command petitioner USA to re-admit them. Aside from the prayer for re-admission, they also prayed for actual and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of them. Submitting a joint answer to the petition, petitioner USA and the other petitioners, Dean Concepcion Cajilig and Clinical Instructors Nenalyn Abioda, Mary Espino, Rhodora Azucena, Ma. Dulce Socorro Posa and Cosette Monteblanco admitted having barred private respondents from finishing their Nursing course but justified the decision not to re-admit them as being in pursuance of the school's policy that only students with grades of at least 80% in any major Nursing subject, including Nursing 104, and two minor subjects, are allowed enrollment in the following year. Private respondents were duly informed and forewarned of their below 80% performance rating. To buttress petitioner's stance, they placed reliance on Section 9(2) of the Education Act of 1982 (B.P. Blg. 232) which recognizes the right of students to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula, and to continue their course up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations; and Section 13(2) thereof vesting in institutions of higher learning the right to determine on academic grounds who shall be admitted to study, who may teach, and what shall be the subjects of study and research. Additionally, petitioners contended that private respondents have no cause of action for mandamus under the premises because there is no clear and well-defined right of the latter which has been violated neither do the former have a corresponding ministerial duty to re-admit them, since petitioner USA is a private educational institution not performing public functions and duties. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner USA enjoys the right to academic freedom. The trial court was not persuaded that private respondents are entitled to the relief sought. The dispositive portion of its order dat

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    REPUBLIC ACT NO.

    8791

    May 23, 2000

    AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS OF BANKS, QUASI-BANKS, TRUST ENTITIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 40. Requirement for Grant Of Loans or 0ther Credit Accommodations. Before granting a loan or other credit accommodation, a bank must ascertain that the debtor is capable of fulfilling his commitments to the bank. Toward this end, a bank may demand from its credit applicants a statement of their assets and liabilities and of their income and expenditures and such information as may be prescribed by law or by rules and regulations of the Monetary Board to enable the bank to properly evaluate the credit application which includes the corresponding financial statements submitted for taxation purposes to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Should such statements prove to be false or incorrect in any material detail, the bank may terminate any loan or other credit accommodation granted on the basis of said statements and shall have the right to demand immediate repayment or liquidation of the obligation. In formulating rules and regulations under this Section, the Monetary Board shall recognize the peculiar characteristics of micro financing, such as cash flow-based lending to the basic sectors that are not covered by traditional collateral. (76a) Section 41. Unsecured Loans or Other Credit Accommodations. - The Monetary Board is hereby authorized to issue such regulations as it may deem necessary with respect to unsecured loans or other credit accommodations that may be granted by banks. (n) Section 42. Other Security Requirements for Bank Credits. - The Monetary Board may, by regulation, prescribe further security requirements to which the various types of bank credits shall be subject, and, in accordance with the authority granted to it in Section 106 of the New Central Bank Act, the Board may by regulation, reduce the maximum ratios established in Sections 36 and 37 of this Act, or, in special cases, increase the maximum ratios established therein. (78) Section 43. Authority to Prescribe Terms and Conditions of Loans and Other Credit Accommodations. - The Monetary Board, may, similarly in accordance with the authority granted to it in Section 106 of the New Central Bank Act, and taking into account the requirements of the economy for the effective utilization of long-term funds, prescribe the maturities, as well as related terms and conditions for various types of bank loans and other credit accommodations. Any change by the Board in the maximum maturities, as well as related terms and conditions for various types of bank loans and other credit accommodations. Any change by the Board in the maximum maturities shall apply only to loans and other credit accommodations made after the date of such action. The Monetary Board shall regulate the interest imposed on micro finance borrowers by lending investors

    and similar lenders such as, but not limited to, the unconscionable rates of interest collected on salary loans and similar credit accommodations. (78a) Section 44. Amortization on Loans and Other Credit Accommodations. - The amortization schedule of bank loans and other credit accommodations shall be adapted to the nature of the operations to be financed. In case of loans and other credit accommodations with maturities of more than five (5) years, provisions must be made for periodic amortization payments, but such payments must be made at least annually: Provided, however, That when the borrowed funds are to be used for purposes which do not initially produce revenues adequate for regular amortization payments therefrom, the bank may permit the initial amortization payment to be deferred until such time as said revenues are sufficient for such purpose, but in no case shall the initial amortization date be later than five (5) years from the date on which the loan or other credit accommodation is granted. (79a) In case of loans and other credit accommodations to micro finance sectors, the schedule of loan amortization shall take into consideration the projected cash flow of the borrower and adopt this into the terms and conditions formulated by banks. (n)

    S-ar putea să vă placă și