The Law Proofessor: April 2017

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Voir dire, yes. Boldereaux, what?

From a commercial law reviewer, 2016 edition, page 379:

I thought this could be a good candidate for what is known as "shock and awe" terms in the bar exams in the mold of "depecage" in the 2015 Civil Law exam. Or the "voir dire" in Remedial Law.

The reviewer does not say much about the word. No problem; there is always google.

However, it seems there is no such word. But there is bordereaux. And it is the plural of bordereau. See for example this entry in the FreeDictionary:

bor·de·reau
(bôr′də-rō′)n. pl. bor·de·reaux (-rō′)A detailed memorandum, especially one that lists documents or accounts.

[French, probably from bord, edge, margin, from Old French bort, of Germanic origin.]

Or this entry from the International Risk Management Institute:

bordereau

A report providing premium or loss data with respect to identified specific risks. This report is periodically furnished to a reinsurer by the ceding insurers or reinsurers.

Well, I guess it's one less "shock and awe" word to worry about.

As for depecage and voir dire, they sure did not shock those who read the San Beda Memory Aids.

Here's depecage on page 574 of the 2014 Memory Aid in Civil Law:

And here's voir dire on page 442 of the 2014 Memory Aid in Remedial Law:

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Saturday typos, 29 April 2017

From a commercial law reviewer, 2016 edition, page 374:

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Not now on docket fees

On page 168 of a remedial law reviewer, vol. 1, 2016 edition:

Section 7, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court actually requires docket fees even for compulsory counterclaims. It seems this was not so before A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC.

I searched high and low for a copy of the A.M. but could only find references to it.

In Korea Technologies Co., vs. Hon. Lerma, G.R. No. 143581, Jan. 7, 2008, the SC made a definitive ruling:

On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its Answer incorporating its counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said counterclaims being compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004 under Sec. 7, Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims.

The "not" could just be a typo and could readily be changed to "now" and everything would be all right. But the quoted jurisprudence would pose a problem.

Update 30 May 2017: After listening to Prof. Tranquil Salvador discussing the jurisdictional importance of docket fees it seems the reviewer is correct after all. OCA Circular No. 96-2009 dated August 13, 2009 says that in a revised issuance of Korea Technologies the second sentence in the above-quoted paragraph (which I emphasized in blue letters in this update) has been deleted.