TAG ARCHIVES: COMMON CARRIER

July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Commercial Law
Posted on August 9, 2013 by Hector M. de Leon Jr. Posted in Commercial Law, Philippines Cases, Philippines - Law Tagged banks, common carrier

Here are select July 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on commercial
law:
Banks; outsourcing of functions. D.O. No. 10 is but a guide to determine what functions
may be contracted out, subject to the rules and established jurisprudence on legitimate
job contracting and prohibited labor only contracting.41 Even if the Court considers D.O.
No. 10 only, BPI would still be within the bounds of D.O. No. 10 when it contracted out
the subject functions. This is because the subject functions were not related or not
integral to the main business or operation of the principal which is the lending of funds
obtained in the form of deposits.42 From the very definition of banks as provided
under the General Banking Law, it can easily be discerned that banks perform only two
(2) main or basic functions deposit and loan functions. Thus, cashiering, distribution
and bookkeeping are but ancillary functions whose outsourcing is sanctioned under CBP
Circular No. 1388 as well as D.O. No. 10. Even BPI itself recognizes that deposit and loan
functions cannot be legally contracted out as they are directly related or integral to the
main business or operation of banks. The CBPs Manual of Regulations has even
categorically stated and emphasized on the prohibition against outsourcing inherent
banking functions, which refer to any contract between the bank and a service provider
for the latter to supply, or any act whereby the latter supplies, the manpower to service
the deposit transactions of the former. BPI Employees Union-Davao City-Fubu (BPIEUDavao City-Fubu) v. Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), et al., G.R. No. 174912, July 24,
2013.
Continue reading
Share this post:

Share

August 2012 Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions on Civil Law
Posted on September 12, 2012 by Rose Marie M. King-Dominguez Posted in Civil Law
Tagged common carrier, contract,damages, family home, rescission, support, Torrens title

Here are select August 2012 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on civil law:
Civil Code
Common carrier; damages. The operator of a. school bus service is a common carrier in
the eyes of the law. He is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the conduct of his
business. He is presumed to be negligent when death occurs to a passenger. His liability
may include indemnity for loss of earning capacity even if the deceased passenger may
only be an unemployed high school student at the time of the accident. Spouses
Teodorico and Nanette Perea v. Spouses Nicolas and Teresita L. Zarate, et al.; G.R. No.
157917. August 29, 2012.

Contracts; rescission; consequences are restitution and in this case, each party will bear
its own damage. As correctly observed by the RTC, the rescissory action taken by GSIS
is pursuant to Article 1191 of the Civil Code. In cases involving rescission under the said
provision, mutual restitution is required. The parties should be brought back to their
original position prior to the inception of the contract. Accordingly, when a decree of
rescission is handed down, it is the duty of the court to require both parties to surrender
that which they have respectively received and to place each other as far as practicable
in [their] original situation. Pursuant to this, Goldloop should return to GSIS the
possession and control of the property subject of their agreements while GSIS should
reimburse Goldloop whatever amount it had received from the latter by reason of the
MOA and the Addendum.
Relevant also is the provision of Article 1192 of the Civil Code which reads: In case both
parties have committed a breach of the obligation, the liability of the first infractor shall
be equitably tempered by the courts. If it cannot be determined which of the
parties first violated the contract, the same shall be deemed extinguished,
and each shall bear his own damages. (Emphasis suppied.)