Fortune Motors vs.

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, and CA

Facts:
Fortune Motors obtained loans from Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company; Petitioner mortgaged certain real estate in favor of
respondent bank to secure obligation.
Respondent Bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding due
to financial constraints of petitioner, in effect foreclosed the real
estate mortgage
Petitioner filed a complaint for the annulment of the extrajudicial
foreclosure; annulled by Trial Court which was then reversed by
the decision of Court of Appeals.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, raised an issue that the
CA erred in declaring that the publication of the notice of
extrajudicial foreclosure was valid.

Issue:
WON New Record newspaper complied with the Requirements of
Publication.

Held:
There was sufficient compliance with the requirement of the law
regarding publication of the notice in a newspaper of general
circulation as evidenced by affidavit of publication executed by the
New Records publisher. It was testified that a) New Records
contains news; b) that it has subscribers from metro manila and
from all over the Philippines; c) it is published once a week of four
times a month; and d) had been connected with the said newspaper
since 1958, an indication that the said newspaper had been in
existence even before that year.

Paper should be in general circulation in the place where the
properties to be foreclosed are located in order that publication may
serve the purpose for which it was intended.
Under P.D. 1079, for a newspaper to qualify, it is enough that it be
a newspaper or periodical which is authorized by law to publish and
which is regularly published for at least one year before the date of
publication
*Daily Record Inc: Publisher
*New Record: Name of Newspaper
The executive judge of the court of first instance shall designate a
regular day and a definite time each week during which the said
judicial notices or advertisements shall be distributed personally by
him for publication to qualified newspapers or periodicals.., which
distribution shall be done by raffle.


Albino Co vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm a check drawn against the
Associated Citizens Bank. The check was deposited but it was
dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the
bank: CLOSED ACCOUNT.
Criminal complaint for violation of BP. 22 was filed with the RTC of
Pasay City.
Co appealed to the CA. He sought exoneration upon the theory that
it was reversible error for the RTC to have relied as basis for its
verdict of conviction, on the ruling rendered on 1987 that a check
issued merely to guarantee the performance of an obligation is
nevertheless covered by BP. 22. It was because at the time of the
issuance of the check on 1983, 4 years prior to the promulgation of
the judgment on 1987, the delivery of bouncing check as guarantee
for an obligation was not considered a punishable offense, an official
pronouncement made in a Circular of the Ministry of Justice.
Held:
Court resolved:
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided Article 4.
The assailed decision of the CA and RTC are reversed and set aside,
and the criminal prosecution against the accused-petitioner is
dismissed.












People of the Philippines vs. Donato
Facts:
Salas aka NPAs Ka Bilog was arrested and was charged for
rebellion. He was charged together with the spouses Concepcion.
Salas, together with his co-accused later filed a petition for the
writ of habeas corpus. A conference was held thereafter to hear each
partys side.
It was later agreed upon by both parties that Salas will withdraw
his petition for the writ of habeas corpus and that he will remain in
custody for the continued investigation of the case and that he will face
trial.
The SC then, basing on the stipulations of the parties, held to
dismiss the habeas corpus case filed by Salas. But later on, Salas filed to
be admitted for bail and Judge Donato approved his application for bail.
Judge Donato did not bother hearing the side of the prosecution.
The prosecution argued that Salas is estopped from filing bail
because he has waived his right to bail when he withdrew his petition or
habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will be held in custody.
Issue: WON the right to bail of the accused may be waived.
Held:
The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be
waived. It is a right which is personal to the accused and whose waiver
would not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
Other rights may be waived provided that will not offend Article 6
of the Civil Code.
The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he
withdrew his petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. The
contention of the defense that Salas merely agreed to be in custody and
that the same does not constitute a waiver of his right to bail is not
tenable. His waiver to such right is justified by his act of withdrawing his
petition for writ of habeas corpus.


Cui vs. Arellano University
Facts:
Emeterio Cui was a law student at the Arellano University. He
finished the first three years of his law degree at said law school. He was
an academic scholar and so at the end of every semester he was being
refunded his tuition fee.
Meanwhile, in 1949, the Director of Private Schools issued a
Memorandum ordering schools not to hold back the credentials of former
student scholars who choose to transfer to other schools if said students
fail to pay their tuition.
The Memorandum states that the amount in tuition and other fees
corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged
to the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to
another institution.
Scholarships should not be offered merely to attract and keep
students in a school.
In 1951, Cui and Arellano University entered into an agreement
whereby Cui agreed to waive his right to transfer to another school
unless he would refund the school the scholarship granted to him.
But then when Cui was about to be a senior student, he decided to
transfer to Abad Santos Law School. He finished his law degree at Abad
Santos.
In order to take the 1953 bar exams, Cui must obtain his
transcripts from Arellano University but the latter refused to issue his
credentials unless he pay them back the amount of his scholarship. Cui
paid in protest.

ISSUE: Whether or not the waiver made by Cui is valid.
HELD:
No. The waiver is not valid for being contrary to public policy.
The waiver was repugnant to sound morality and civic honesty.
The policy enunciated in the Memorandum issued by the Director
of Private Schools is sound policy. Scholarships are awarded in recognition
of merit not to keep outstanding students in school to bolster its prestige.
In the understanding of Arellano University, scholarships award is a
business scheme designed to increase the business potential of an
education institution.
Such understanding is not only inconsistent with sound policy but
also good morals. Arellano University is hence ordered to refund what Cui
paid with interest.