From page 550 of the textbook by Florenz D. Regalado Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Civil Procedure, 10th Edition:
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Deep shit in appeals
What must be done to stop a lawyer who enjoys wallowing in appeals much like a carabao wallowing in the mud after a hard day's work? Of course by diswallowing his appeals.
From page 550 of the textbook by Florenz D. Regalado Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Civil Procedure, 10th Edition:
From page 550 of the textbook by Florenz D. Regalado Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Civil Procedure, 10th Edition:
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Saturday typos - be he
From Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, Civil Procedure, 10th Edition by Florenz D. Regalado:
Page 91 -
Page 119 -
Page 91 -
Page 119 -
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Of finals and Patrick
Irregular postings for two weeks now because it is finals season.
Our professor for Civil Procedure, Atty. Rosario Evelyn S. Singco, was still wrapping up our discussions yesterday evening. She even asked his husband to handle the first part of the meeting about replevin and foreclosure which was his expertise. Nice touch!
And this evening is our final exam, the last for this semester.
CivPro has been compressed to four units in the new curriculum. There is so much to digest in the ordinary time allotted that Prof. Singco had to meet with us several times, including yesterday's, outside our schedule.
Methinks that the professor had a good grasp of the subject, she having worked in the Court of Appeals for sometime. She was a UP Cebu professor before that.
Good luck to all of us and see everyone in third year!
Oh, before I forget, I met Patrick Gallito yesterday on my way to class. He is graduating this year. Smart young man; one of the smarties I had the privilege of being a classmate with. I know I will see his name among the new lawyers next March. Right off the bat, I can name ten former classmates who will be lawyers next year.
Our professor for Civil Procedure, Atty. Rosario Evelyn S. Singco, was still wrapping up our discussions yesterday evening. She even asked his husband to handle the first part of the meeting about replevin and foreclosure which was his expertise. Nice touch!
And this evening is our final exam, the last for this semester.
CivPro has been compressed to four units in the new curriculum. There is so much to digest in the ordinary time allotted that Prof. Singco had to meet with us several times, including yesterday's, outside our schedule.
Methinks that the professor had a good grasp of the subject, she having worked in the Court of Appeals for sometime. She was a UP Cebu professor before that.
Good luck to all of us and see everyone in third year!
Oh, before I forget, I met Patrick Gallito yesterday on my way to class. He is graduating this year. Smart young man; one of the smarties I had the privilege of being a classmate with. I know I will see his name among the new lawyers next March. Right off the bat, I can name ten former classmates who will be lawyers next year.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Payment for honor vs acceptance for honor
In the Negotiable Instruments Law subject under Atty. Boligao we were assigned to give oral reports in pairs. Ranel Ramoga and I discussed payment for honor. In the tradition of Dating Daan, Mr. Ramoga was the reader of each section while I did the explaining. We got quite a laugh in the process.
Our main text was The Law on Negotiable Instruments, 2013 Edition by De Leon and De Leon.
On page 294 of the book the authors distinguished payment for honor from acceptance for honor thus:
And this is where our pair faced a problematic question posed by a classmate. She asked why the acceptor is only secondarily liable in the payment for honor but primarily liable in the acceptance for honor. I could not give an honest answer because even the authors are confused.
Section 165 actually refers to acceptance for honor (the latter, not the former, in the above comparison). And Section 62, on the other hand, refers to a regular acceptor, not an acceptor for honor.
Our main text was The Law on Negotiable Instruments, 2013 Edition by De Leon and De Leon.
On page 294 of the book the authors distinguished payment for honor from acceptance for honor thus:
And this is where our pair faced a problematic question posed by a classmate. She asked why the acceptor is only secondarily liable in the payment for honor but primarily liable in the acceptance for honor. I could not give an honest answer because even the authors are confused.
Section 165 actually refers to acceptance for honor (the latter, not the former, in the above comparison). And Section 62, on the other hand, refers to a regular acceptor, not an acceptor for honor.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Preservation vial
From page 722 of The Labor Code With Comments and Cases, Vol. II-A & Vol. II-B, 2013 Edition by Cesario A Azucena Jr.:
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Minor typos from Azucena
From The Labor Code, With Comments and Cases Vol. II-A & II-B, 2013 Edition by Cesario A Azucena Jr.:
Page 102 -
This is how Prof. Riano invariably pronounces motu proprio.
Page 171 -
See the quoted jurisprudence for the correct word.
Page 364 -
Page 102 -
Page 171 -
See the quoted jurisprudence for the correct word.
Page 364 -
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Mother of all typos
From page 423 and 424 of Public International Law, 2006 Edition by Ruben E. Agpalo:
Saturday, February 22, 2014
The purloined letters of international law
From Agpalo's Public International Law, 2006 Edition:
Page 53 -
Page 112 -
Page 409 -
Page 420 -
Page 428 -
Page 53 -
Page 112 -
Page 409 -
Page 420 -
Page 428 -
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Material-men
In discussing Art. 2242 of the New Civil Code, Jurado has this on page 1228 of his book Civil Law Reviewer, 2009 Edition:
Jurado missed a few things here. First, give should be gives. Next, material-men should properly be material men as seen here.
Most importantly, as this is a direct quote, Jurado should have bracketed his insertions which is material-men. He also left out the the word unregistered and used obligor instead of obligors.
The SC decision, from G.R. Nos. L-10817-18 says:
Jurado missed a few things here. First, give should be gives. Next, material-men should properly be material men as seen here.
Most importantly, as this is a direct quote, Jurado should have bracketed his insertions which is material-men. He also left out the the word unregistered and used obligor instead of obligors.
The SC decision, from G.R. Nos. L-10817-18 says:
A close examination of the provision of the Civil Code invoked by appellant reveals that the law gives preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to the real estate upon which the refection or work was made. This being so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created attaches merely to the immovable property for the construction or repair of which the obligation was incurred. Evidently, therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the unpaid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building attaches only to said structure and to no other property of the obligors.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Lazy days, lazy weekend.
No posting today and perhaps tomorrow.
Either the authors are getting better in the last part of their books or I simply missed the typos. What's sure is that semi-finals are due this coming week and we haven't even met since the midterms for one of our subjects that falls on the Friday. It was cancelled yesterday because the undergrads were using the grounds for their Valentine's activity and the noise is just too much inside the classrooms.
Either the authors are getting better in the last part of their books or I simply missed the typos. What's sure is that semi-finals are due this coming week and we haven't even met since the midterms for one of our subjects that falls on the Friday. It was cancelled yesterday because the undergrads were using the grounds for their Valentine's activity and the noise is just too much inside the classrooms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)