Sunday, September 30, 2012

Budget Examiner Turned Teacher

In an older post I pointed out a typewriter that turned into a notebook.

Here on page 512 of the Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. I, 2010 Ed. by C. A. Azucena we find that a Budget Examiner might have transformed into a teacher.


As it turned out, the author simply failed to explain that the teacher here was referring to another decision,  Ceniza vs. ECC.

Treasure Wall

If Robert Louis Stevenson had his Treasure Island, Edgardo Paras has his Treasure Wall.

From page 581, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. II, 2008 Ed:

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Note more, note less

The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2008 Ed., by Luis B. Reyes.

Page 306 -


Page 390 -

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Typos, Part 1, from LB Reyes Vol. 2

Minor typos from The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2008 Ed, by Luis B. Reyes:


Page 342

Page 344
 
 
 Page 349. Reyes misses a few words in quoting from PD 483.


Page 366

Page 367

Page 378

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Lustful Solution


The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. 1, 2009 Ed., page 554:




Sunday, September 16, 2012

Lender Must Pay

Page 607, Comments & Cases on Partnership, Agency, & Trust by de Leon, 2010 Edition:


P becomes B, A becomes H

Page 360 and 361, Comments & Cases on Partnership, Agency, & Trust by de Leon, 2010 Edition:



That's what we get for using initials instead of full names.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Confusing the former with the latter

Law books are replete with the use of "former" and "latter" to refer to persons. Many times this result in confusion to readers especially if the persons are only called by letters, not their full names. Sometimes even the author can lose track of the correct person he is referring to.

From page 354 of De Leon's Comments and Cases on Partnership, Agency and Trusts, 2010 Ed. we find an amusing use of the two words.

In this case though, it is easy to pinpoint that LS is the former and TWS is the latter. However, the confusion springs from the statement that LS held herself solidarily liable with TWS for prompt payment of the rental. How could that be since LS is the owner of the premises?

The book attributed the case to Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 171 [1988]. Searching Lawphil.net we get the following passage:

On the strength of a contract (Exhibit A for the appellant Exhibit 2 for the appellees) entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by and between Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the Tourist World Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the first part at Mabini St., Manila for the former-s use as a branch office. In the said contract the party of the third part held herself solidarily liable with the party of the part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on. When the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Una 0. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go to Lina Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc.
It turned out that there is another party aside from TWS and LS (who is actually Lina Sevilla). And this party is the owner of the premises. Problem solved.

But this passage from lawphil.net has obviously a couple of typos and confusing reference of its own such as "former-s", "party of the part",  "Una O. Sevilla". This is typical of the inaccuracies that one encounters with Lawphil materials. The one found in ChanRobles.com is exactly the same. They may have the same source after all.

A check with the Phil. Reports Online shows the correct version:

On the strength of a contract (Exhibit A for the appellant Exhibit 2 for the appellees) entered into on Oct. 19, 1960 by and between Mrs. Segundina Noguera, party of the first part; the Tourist World Service, Inc., represented by Mr. Eliseo Canilao as party of the second part, and hereinafter referred to as appellants, the Tourist World Service, Inc. leased the premises belonging to the party of the first part at Mabini St., Manila for the former's use as a branch office.  In the said contract the party of the third part held herself solidarily liable with the party of the second part for the prompt payment of the monthly rental agreed on.  When the branch office was opened, the same was run by the herein appellant Lina O. Sevilla payable to Tourist World Service Inc. by any airline for any fare brought in on the efforts of Mrs. Lina Sevilla, 4% was to go to Lina Sevilla and 3% was to be withheld by the Tourist World Service, Inc.
That's better! 

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Of noted hat and stress needle

From The Labor Code: With Comments and Cases, Vol. 1, 2010 Ed., byAzucena we see this: