1. Article 2189 of the Civil Code states that:

"Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of defective conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision."

Section 4 of the City Charter of Manila which was enacted before the Civil Code provides:

"The City shall not be liable or held liable for damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the failure of the Mayor, the Municipal Board or any other city officer, to enforce the provisions of this Chapter, or any other law or ordinance or from negligence of said Mayor, Municipal Board or other officers while enforcing or attempting to enforce said provisions."

Jack fell into an open manhole in the City of Manila and sued the City for damages, citing the Civil Code provision. The City of Manila in its defense, said that the City Charter should prevail, since it is a specific law. If you were the judge, how would you rule? Explain why.

2. Archie was running for the Senate. The Comelec disqualified him for using a pre-recorded campaign song during his sorties, citing a law which makes it illegal for candidates to "purchase, produce, request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans, hats, matches, cigarettes and the like, whether of domestic or foreign origin." The Comelec said the pre-recorded song falls under the generic term "and the like" and hence, is included in the prohibition. You are Archie's lawyer. How would you argue in his defense?

3. Henry's marine insurance policy states that it was insuring against "perils of the seas, men of war, enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, jettisons, barratry of the master and mariners, and of all the perils, losses and misfortunes that have or shall come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said goods and merchandise or any part thereof."

Henry's goods were damaged while being transported on his ship. Investigation revealed the cause to be water-damage arising from failure of Henry to properly maintain his ship; hence, sea water seeped in and damaged the goods. Henry filed a claim against the insurer, based on the above-quoted insurance policy provision. Will his claim prosper? Why or why not?

4. The Roman Catholic Archbishop sought an exemption for all Catholic charities, and all religious and charitable institutions operated by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, from compulsory coverage under the Social Security Law, claiming that it is a labor law and does not cover religious and charitable institutions but is limited to businesses and activities organized for profit.

The law provides for compulsory coverage upon all employees, and defines the term "employer" as "any natural or juridical person, domestic or foreign, who carries on in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, undertaking or activity of any kind, or uses the services of another person who is under his orders as regards employment, except the Government."

The Archbishop contends that following the principle of ejusdem generis, the term "employer" should be limited to those who carry on undertakings which have the element of profit or gain, or which are pursued for profit or gain, because the phrase "activity of any kind" in the definition is preceded by the words "any trade, business, industry, undertaking". Is the Archbishop correct? Why or why not?

5. Franco sued Martin for breach of contract in the Regional Trial Court of San Juan. Martin sought the dismissal of the case, because the contract states:

"All actions arising out of, or relating to this contract may be instituted in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City."

The trial court ruled in Martin's favor and dismissed the case. Was the trial court correct in dismissing the case? Why or why not?

6. A Regional Trial Court of the Philippines rendered a decision in favor of Company Y. The bases for the decision were: (a) the Philippine law on corporations; and (b) a US Supreme Court decision, interpreting a US Law upon which the Philippine law was based.

The losing party appealed the decision, claiming that the court erred in citing a US decision, given that US cases have no bearing in the Philippines. Is the appellant's contention correct? Why or why not?

7. The Philippine Commission on Good Relations (PCGR) issued a writ of sequestration against Company Z. The writ was signed by only one of the Commissioners. The validity of the writ was questioned by Company Z, claiming that the PCGR's rules of procedure require the signature of at least two commissioners. The PCGR said these rules were promulgated after the questioned writ was issued, and hence, could not apply. The PCGR's constitutive document states that it is composed of one Commissioner and two deputy commissioners. Is the PCGG's contention correct? Why or why not?

8. Marciano, a policeman was charged before the court martial for a crime committed while he was on duty. The basis for being haled before the court martial was Presidential Decree 1850 which confers upon courts-martial, jurisdiction over crimes and offenses involving members of the police. This Decree was in effect at the time the crime was committed.

Marciano questioned the court martials jurisdiction, citing a subsequent law, Executive Order No. 1040 which gives city and municipal governments (as the case may be), operational supervision and direction over members of the Integrated National Police.

Marciano cited Section 3 of the Executive Order No. 1040 which states: "All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other enactments, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order are hereby repealed, amended and modified accordingly." Is Marciano's contention correct? Why or why not? What are the requisites for the validity of an implied repeal?

9. What are the requisites for a valid repeal?