LYRIZ SUMALAG EVANGELISTA;

StudentID: 2197271

Strengths and Improvement Opportunities

My Score
(65/100)

QUESTION POINTS
CORRECT INCORRECT PARTIAL CREDIT
One to the Other
1 Explain whether or not partnerships can form a corporation and if corporations can form a partnership. (5 pts) 3/5
Original Order: 1
A: Partnerships can form a corporation and corporations may form a partnership. The Revised Corporation Code provides that a
corporation can be organized by individuals or partnerships and what is only prohibited is for a partnership formed for the exercise
of profession to be forming a corporation. On the other hand, the New Civil Code also recognizes that a person, natural or juridical
can also form a partnership as long as the same would contribute to the money, capital or labor with the intention of dividing the
profits derived therefrom. As long as the partnerships or the corporation froming a corporation and partnership, respectively,
complies will all the requirements and has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, the same cn be registered.
Rationale: Section 10 of the Revised Corporation Code permits any person, partnership, association or corporation, singly or jointly
with one another or others, to organize a corporation for any lawful purpose, except practice of professions. Under the Civil Code,
corporations are not allowed to form partnerships or become partners in a partnership. Only individual, natural persons are
permitted to form partnerships. Instead, corporations, whether domestic or foreign, can resort to joint ventures which they can in
turn incorporate.
Grader Feedback: N/A
Jungkook vs BOD of BTS
2 Jungkook is a stockholder of record of BTS, Inc. During the last annual stockholders' meeting, he openly 5/5
criticized the Board of Directors for mismanagement, abuses and corruption, alleging that the directors are
driving the business of BTS, Inc. to losses while they themselves are receiving and accepting bribes or illegal
"commissions" from suppliers of the company in exchange for favorable votes in favor of these suppliers.
Jungkook claims that he has evidence to back up his allegations. Infuriated by Jungkook's claims, the Board of
Directors recently passed a resolution declaring Jungkook as persona non grata, forfeiting Jungkook's shares
and converting them as treasury shares. His name was stricken off the stock and transfer book later by the
corporate secretary upon instruction of the Board. Are the Board actions against Jungkook valid and proper? (5
pts)
Original Order: 2
A: No. The Board actions against Jungkook is invalid and improper. The stockholders on record are vested with rights such that no
stockholder cannot be removed without due process and will only be removed if he or she has disposed of his shares by selling or
transferring the same. The Board of Directors, even though considered as the central management authority cannot do acts which
is prejudicial to the corporation or to its stockholders, and all decisions through a resolution are void if it is tainted with malice or if it
in excess of their authority. In the case, Jungkook will be protected and afforded with his rights as stockholder of record of BTS,
Inc., despite the resolution passed by the Board of Directors declaring him as person non grata and forfeiting his shares and
converting them as treasury shares, since board acted in excess of their authority and the same is prejudicial to the rights of
Jungkook as a stockholder.
Rationale: The actions of the Board against Jungkook are invalid and improper. Shares of stocks registered in the name of a
stockholder are private property of the latter. Ownership of shares in a corporation represents money or property invested by the
stockholder in the corporation, and carries with it proprietary and other rights and interests demandable against the corporation. The
forfeiture of Jungkook's shares of stocks and their conversion into treasury shares, and the subsequent deletion of his name in the
stock and transfer book amount to unlawful deprivation of his property without due process and valuable consideration. The Board
can be held personally and solidarily liable for damages to Jungkook.
Grader Feedback: N/A
 Chinoy, Inc., Hyun BIn Inc. and Oppa, Inc.
3 This problem has 5 questions at 4 points each. Please use the numbering of the questions when answering. 8/20
Chinoy, Inc. is a corporation formed and organized under Philippine law. Tan, Lim and Co, all Filipino citizens
own and hold in equal proportion 60% of its total outstanding capital stock. Hyun Bin Inc., a 100% South Korean
corporation, owns and holds the remaining 40% of Chinoy, Inc.'s capital stock. Chinoy, Inc. recently acquired 600
million of the 1 billion outstanding and controlling stock of Oppa, Inc., another corporation formed and organized
under Philippine law. The other 400 million controlling shares of stock in Oppa, Inc. are directly owned by Hyun
Bin, Inc. If challenged today, discuss if Oppa, Inc. can: 1. continue engaging in television and radio broadcasting
business? 2. purchase, own and develop land in major Philippine cities for commercial and residential real estate
business? 3. qualify for a telecommunications franchise? 4. acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of stock and
take over the operations of MERALCO? 5. set-up a health, wellness, massage and sauna spa company in the
Philippines? (End of Problem 1)
Original Order: 3
A: 1. No. Oppa, Inc. cannot engage in television and radio broadcasting. The New Public Service Act expressly provides that media
should be 100% owned and managed by a Filipino corporation. In the case, television and radio broadcasting business falls in the
category of media. Consequently, based on the determination of the nationality of Oppa Inc. pursuant to the grandfather rule, Oppa
Inc. is not 100% Filipino corporation and hence cannot engage in television and radio broadcasting business. 2. No. Oppa, Inc.
cannot purchase, own and develop land in major Philippine cities for commercial and residential real estate business. The law
expressly provides that a foreign corporation or individual is prohibited to purchase land within the Philippines since the same is
reserved to Philippine nationals. However, if the land is obtained by a corporation or individual by reason of the instances provided
by the law including but not limited to succession, or purchased the land before being naturalized in another country, the land can
still be acquired. In the case, applying the grandfather rule, Oppa, Inc. is a foreign corporation. Hence, as a foreign corporation it
cannot purchase, own and develop a land in major Philippine cities. 3. Yes. Oppa, Inc. can qualify for a telecommunication
franchise. The New Public Service Act provides that foreign corporations can qualify for a telecommunication franchise provided
that at least 30% of the outstanding capital stock of the corporation is owned by a Filipino. In the case of Oppa, Inc. it can qualify for
a telecommunications franchise since it has more than 30% outstanding capital stock which is Filipino owned as determined based
on the grandfather rule. 4. No. Oppa, Inc. cannot acquire 100% outstanding sahres of stock and take over the operations of
MERALCO. The New Public Service Act provides that public utilities should be at least 40% of its outstanding capital stock be
owned by Filipino. Moreover, the law expressly includes utilies involved in the transmission of electricities as public utilities.
Consequently, Oppa Inc. cannot acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of stock and take over the operations of MERALCO since
MERALCO being a public utility should be owned by at least 40% Filipino. In the case of Oppa, Inc. more than 60% of its
outstanding capital is a foreign stock. 5. Yes. Oppa, Inc. can set-up a health, wellness, massage and sauna spa company in the
Philippines. The Foreign Investment Act, as amended, does not prohibit any foreign corporations to set-up and conduct business
within the Philippines and it is the State policy to invite foreign investments within the country as long as the purpose of the same is
not contrary to law, public morals, public policy and would have comply in the licensing requirement. In the case, Oppa Inc. can set-
up a health, wellness, massage and sauna spy company in the Philippines since the same is not contrary to laws, public morals or
public policy as long as Oppa Inc. would obtain a license to set-up the same.
Rationale: When doubt exists or challenge is raised, the nationality of a corporation is tested through the Grandfather Rule. Under
the Grandfather Rule, the percentage that the Filipino grandfather shareholders own in the child corporation or its subsidiary must
be multiplied by the percentage that the latter owns in the grandchild corporation. This is to determine the exact percentage of
Filipino ownership in the grandchild corporation. Thus, the 60% that Tan, Lim and Co own in Chinoy, Inc. multiplied by the 60% that
Chinoy, Inc. owns in Oppa, Inc. will result to only 36% Filipino ownership of the said 60% that Chinoy, Inc. owns in Oppa, Inc. Hyun
Bin, Inc.'s direct and indirect stockholdings in Oppa, Inc. amounts to 64%. 1.1 Oppa, Inc. cannot continue its TV and radio
broadcasting business because under the 1987 Constitution and the Foreign Investment Negative List A, mass media must be
100% owned and controlled by Filipinos. No foreign equity is allowed. 1.2 Oppa, Inc. cannot purchase, own and develop lands in
the Philippines because land ownership is reserved by the 1987 Constitution and the Foreign Investment Negative List A for
corporations where at least 60% of the controlling stock is owned and held of record by Filipino citizens. 1.3 Oppa, Inc. is qualified
for a telecommunications franchise. Under the new Public Service Act, telecommunications is a public service that is not a public
utility, but classified as critical infrastructure. As such, full foreign ownership is allowed, provided that their country affords reciprocity
to Philippine nationals, Absent such reciprocity, foreigners can only own up to 50% of a critical infrastructure. 1.4 Oppa, Inc. cannot
acquire 100% of the controlling stock and take-over the operations of MERALCO. MERALCO is a electric power distributor and is
expressly classified as a public utility under the new Public Service Act. As a public utility, the same is reserved by the 1987
Constitution and the Foreign Investment Negative List A to corporations where at least 60% of the controlling stock is owned by
Filipinos. 1.5 Oppa, Inc. cannot set-up a wellness, health, massage and sauna spa company in the Philippines. Due to implications
on public health and public morals of such kind of business, it is reserved to corporations where at least 60% of the controlling stock
is owned by Filipino citizens. This is imposed under Foreign Investment Negative List B established under the Foreign Investment
Act.
Grader Feedback: N/A
 Gong Yu
4 6. Gong Yu is a stockholder and one of the incorporators of Ampogee, Inc. He owns 6,000 common shares of 2/5
stocks covered by Stock Certificate No. 2 which was issued to him on 30 June 2010, shortly after Ampogee was
granted its Certificate of Incorporation. Because of it, he holds 60% of the controlling stock of the corporation and
got consistently elected as Director and President. In 2020, Gong Yu sold 5,000 of his shares to Jo Insung by way
of a notarized Deed of Sale. As Chairman of the Board and President, he instructed the corporate secretary Atty.
Woo to cancel Stock Certificate No. 2. Thus, Stock Certificate No. 6 was issued to Gong Yu for the remaining 1000
shares while Stock Certificate No. 7 was issued in the name of Jo Insung for the transferred 5,000 shares. After
the two new certificates were issued, Atty. Woo requested Gong Yu to indorse and surrender Stock Certificate No.
2 so that it can be physically cancelled. He never did. The following year, Gong Yu was not re-elected as director
and was ousted by the new Board as the President. Jo Insung was voted in as director and new President, and
has done so for the past two successive terms. The names of the new directors and new president are contained
in the General Information Sheet (GIS) submitted by Ampogee, Inc. to the SEC. Gong Yu is now questioning his
ouster and the election results on the ground that he still owns Stock Certificate No. 2 which he never indorsed
and delivered to Jo Insung, further claiming that Stock Certificate Nos. 6 and 7 were invalidly issued. Is Gong Yu
correct?
Original Order: 4
A: Yes. Gong Yu is correct. A stock certificate is said to be a quasi-negotiable instrument by reason of the mode of transferring
ownership. It is settled that for a valid transfer and issuance of stock certificate, the twin requirement of endorsement and delivery
should be observed. In the case, the argument of Gong Yu is meritorious since Stock Certificate No. 2 was never issued and
delivered to Jo Insung. By reason of the failure to comply with the twin requirement of indorsement and delivery, Stock Certificate
No. 2 was invalidly issued. Consequently, Stock Certificate Nos. 6 and 7 were also invalidly issued since no legal right can arise
from an invalid certificate.
Rationale: Gong Yu is incorrect. Shares of stock are personal property and may be transferred by delivery of the certificate or
certificates indorsed by the owner or his attorney-in-fact or other person legally authorized to make the transfer. However, a
certificate of stock is not necessary to render one a stockholder in corporation. Here, Jo Insung has already exercised rights as a
stockholder of Ampogee, Inc. following the sale of the 5,000 shares by Gong Yu to him and the issuance of Stock Certificate No. 7.
The change in the ownership and the subsequent election of Jo Insung having been reported to the SEC, there is no further need
for physical indorsement and delivery of Stock Certificate No. 2. (Tan v. SEC)
Grader Feedback: N/A
Ilocano Builders
5 Baket, Lakay and Balasang formed Ilocano Builders, a partnership established for the purpose of qualifying, 5/5
bidding for and securing a DPWH accreditation for the P3Billion contract to constuct the new Baguio City-Tuba,
Benguet-Malico, San Nicolas, Pangasinan Road. Fortunately, Ilocano Builders won the bid and finished
construction of the project. The infrastructure was turned over to the government, through the DPWH, on 15
December 2022. On 15 March 2023, Manong filed a collection suit against Baket for the P150 million unpaid
balance of materials supplied by Manong to and used by Ilocano Builders in the road project. Baket countered
that the suit must be against Ilocano Builders itself. Manong replied by claiming that since the partnership has
been effectively dissolved, the action should be considered personal to any or all of the former partners. Resolve.
(5 pts)
Original Order: 5
A: I will resolve in favor of Baket. The term of a partnersihp can be a partnership at will or one which will be dissolved upon the will
of the partners or a partnership of particular undertaking or on which is dissolved upon completion of the project or undertaking. In
the case, the Ilocano Builders was formed for the construction of the Baguio City-Tuba, Benguet-Malico, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
Road which was completed on December 15, 2022. The partnership should be dissolved upon completion of the contsruction, as a
rule, however, the partnership can still exists for purposes of setlling the liabilities. The partnership even if dissolved by operation of
law can still be made liable for purposes of collecting the unpaid balance of materials. The suit must be filed against Ilocano
Builders, together with Baket, Lakay and Balasang.
Rationale: The collection suit against Baket must be given due course. Article 1816 of the Civil Code provides that all partners shall
be liable pro rata with all their property after all the partnership assets have been exhausted to pay for obligations arising from
contracts entered into in the name of and for the account of the partnership. Further, Article 1829 emphasizes that a dissolved
partnership is not terminated outright but continues until liquidation and winding up is completed. Thus, even if Ilocano Builders has
been dissolved by the accomplishment of the undertaking for which it was formed, it continues for the purposes of winding up of its
affairs and liquidation of its assets, including payment of partnership obligations. Baket may thus be held liable for her proportionate
burden in the partnership debt payable to Manong.
Grader Feedback: N/A
 Umma Philippines, Inc.
6 This problem contains two questions at 5 points each. Please follow the numbering of the questions when 4/10
answering. Umma Philippines, Inc. is a Philippine SEC-registered trading company that adopts the B2B (business-
to-business) model in its commercial dealings. 100% of its capital stock is owned by Umma Global, Inc., a large
and prosperous South Korean trading company. Umma Philippines, Inc. is an importer and wholesaler of goods,
merchandise, equipment, tools and other goods that it sells and delivers to retailers and large end-customers,
here and abroad, including Philippine government offices and agencies. Under what conditions can Umma
Philippines, Inc. qualify for incentives and benefits under the law, as: 1. an Export Enterprise? 2. a Domestic
Market Enterprise? (End of Problem 2)
Original Order: 6
A: 1. Umma Philippines, Inc. can qualify for incentives and benefits under the law as an export enterprise when it will organize itself
as a corporation which will only be producing goods, merchandise, equipment, tools and other goods abroad. The Foreign
Investment Act (FIA), as amended, provides that the goods manufactered and produced shall only be distributed abroad even
though it was manufactured in the Philippines. Moreover, the FIA , as amended, also provides that in order for a corporation to
qualify for incentives and benefits it must be registered with the SEC and BOI. 2. Umma Philippine, Inc. can qualify for incentives
and benefits under the law as a domestic market enterprise when it will organize itself as a corporation which will only be producing
goods, merchandise, equipment, tools and other goods domestically or within the Philippine jurisdiction. The Foreign Investment Act
provides that corporations would also have to apply with the SEC and BOI in order to qualify for incentives and benefits under the
law.
Rationale: For Umma, Philippines, Inc. to qualify as: 2.1 an export enterprise, it must establish that as a trader, it purchases
products domestically and exports sixty per cent (60%) or more of such purchases; 2.2 a domestic market enterprise, it must prove
that it produces goods for sale, or renders services to the domestic market entirely or if exporting a portion of its output, it fails to
consistency export at least 60% thereof.
Grader Feedback: N/A
MB NCBA
7 The stockholders of a bank would like to question the notice of closure issued to its bank by filing a temporary 5/5
restraining order with the Regional Trial Court because it claims that it can still be rehabilitated. What would your
advice be to the stockholders about jurisdiction and the merit of this course of action?
Original Order: 7
A: I would advice the stockholders that the action will not prosper. The close now hear later principle provides that the notice of
closure issued to a bank is final and executory such that the bank would have to abide and comply with the same. This is to avoid
injury to the public by reason of the continuous operation of the bank. Moreover, it is also settled that the issuance of a temporary
restraining order is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court and not with the Regional Trial Court. In the
case, the stockholders would have to comply with the notice of closure issued to the bank and any claims arising therefrom will be
heard later on. Also, the filing of the temporary restraining order will be dismissed since the Regional Trial Court lacks jurisdiction
over the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
Grader Feedback: N/A
MB INSURANCE
8 Dr. Cha discovered that her husband, John, had been having an affair for almost two decades with one of his 3/5
colleagues. She was able to confirm her hunch when she saw that they refer to each other on their phones as
"husband" and "work-wife" during one of their dinners where the mistress was invited. Dr. Cha was trying to
extricate herself from the marriage by first collating all of their properties when she discovered that John had
insured the life of his mistress and that he had been using conjugal funds to pay for the premium. Should Dr. Cha
cause the termination of the insurance policy, does she have a legal basis?
Original Order: 8
A: Yes. Dr. Cha can cause the termination of the insurance policy. The Insurance Code provides that an insurance is a an
agreement entered into by one who indemnifies another for consideration upon the happening of an unknown risk or contingent
event. An insurance contract is perfected once the premium has been made and there is the meeting of the minds. It can be
terminated if the premium has not been paid. In the case, Dr. Cha may not cause the termination of the insurance policy since she
is not the real party in interest. The insurance contract is between the insurer and the mistress. Moreover, the insurance policy will
only be terminated if the premiums are no longer being paid. Dr. Cha cannot cause the termination of the insurance policy since she
is not the party even if conjugal funds are being used to pay for the premium.
Grader Feedback: The law states that insurable interest for life insurance may only be over himself, his spouse and his children.
The other circumstances under the law which would show insurable interest would be when there is pecuniary interest of the
assured in the life of the insured or if the insured has an obligation to the assured. Why is there a discussion on premiums?
MB PPSA
9 Identify two changes to security agreements introduced by the PPSA and explain in no more than one sentence. 3/5
Original Order: 9
A: The PPSA introduced that the use of pledge and chattel mortgage are already combined as security agreement and that the
movable property subject of chattel mortgage can already be held in possession by the creditor without conducting an auction.
Grader Feedback: N/A
 MB TRANSPORTATION
10 A cargo train carrying feminine hygiene products is travelling from Manila to La Union. In the bill of lading, they 3/5
specified the amount that can be recovered in case of damage which is PHP 5,000,000.00. Unfortunately, the train
lost control and slammed into a tunnel. The shippers are claiming indemnity from the train company which is
refusing to pay because it argues that fault must be proven due to the limited liability. Is the common carrier
correct?
Original Order: 10
A: No. The common carrier's argument is untenable. The New Civil Code expressly provides that the diligence required for a
common carrier is extraordinary diligence. Consequently, failure of the common carrier to observe the diligence required gives it the
presumption of negligence. Moreover, it is also settled that the diligence required cannot be reduced by the presence of a bill of
lading. In the case, the shipper erred when it said that its fault must be proven due to limited liability. A train is considered as a
common carrier which must observe extraordinary diligence in transporting the goods to its destination. When the train lost control
and slammed into the tunnel, there is a presumption of negligence arising against the train. The train must be able to prove that it
exercised extraordinary diligence in order to be not made liable.
Grader Feedback: You failed to answer issue on why the stipulation on liability, though valid, did not lessen the degree of diligence
and remove the presumption of fault.
MB PATENT
11 The invention's purpose is to communicate with life outside of this terra firma, Earth. Assuming that this is novel 4/5
and involves an inventive step. Is it patentable?
Original Order: 11
A: Yes. The invention is patentable. The Intellectual Property Code defines patent as a technical solution to human problems which
involves an inventive step and industrially applicable. The requisites for patentability are as follows: a. the invention must be novel;
b. there must be an inventive step; c. the invention must be industrially applicable, and d. the object should be patentable. In the
case, the invention which is primarily for communication with life outside Earth is patentable since all the requisites are present. The
invention is novel and involves an inventive step. Moreover, the invention is also industrially applicable since there has been
movements on the determination on whether or not there can be life outside Earth.
Grader Feedback: How about that there should be a patentable subject matter?
MB GBL
12 The investment desk of banks who are charged with investing the money deposited by its clients have been 5/5
determined to have invested in highly volatile stocks without exerting efforts to conduct their own research. The
depositors are questioning these actions and even made claims that the bank should be sanctioned for unsafe
and unsound practices for failing to observe the required diligence from them. The bank claims that it cannot be
held liable because the investments were made in good faith and that the outcome of these kinds of investments
is unpredictable. Is the bank correct?
Original Order: 12
A: No. The bank is not correct. The General Banking Law provides that banks should observe extraordinary diligence since banking
affects the economy. The bank should not enter into unsafe and unsound practices which may put in danger the deposits of the
clients and ultimately affects the economy. In the case, the bank failed to conduct their own research when it entered into an
investment which involves a highly volatile stock. The bank's argument on the ground that the investment was made in good faith is
untenable since the same is not an available ground for them to be exonerated. Moreover, the argument that the outcome of the
investment is unpredictable is also erroneous since as banks which are engaged in investments, it should already have knowledge
or records on the volatility of the stocks in the market.
Grader Feedback: N/A
MB ECOMMERCE
13 To transact with a bank online, a client would have to agree to the terms and conditions which appear before the 5/5
transaction is processed. If this is not ticked, the transaction would not push through. Part of these terms and
conditions would be giving permission to obtain the email address of the client and share it for targeted
marketing. When Choding received an email from an insurance company, she argued with the bank but the bank
pointed out that in every transaction she permitted the sharing of her email address by agreeing to the terms and
conditions. Among several counterarguments, Choding contends that she cannot be bound by the terms and
conditions since it was not a valid contract as it was not in a written form. Is Choding correct?
Original Order: 13
A: No. Choding is not correct. By the passage of the Electronic Commerce Act, it provides that electronic documents is treated with
the same binding effect and can be enforced validly. In the case, the contention of Choding that she cannot be bound by the terms
and conditions since it was not a valid contract as it was not in written form is erroneous since the terms and conditions even though
electronically shown has the binding effect. By her overt act, of ticking the box, it shows that she is agreeing to the terms and
conditions during the transaction.
Grader Feedback: N/A
 MB AMLA AND BSA
14 Charles transferred PHP 600,000 to his son's account. When prompted by the bank teller to provide the source of 3/5
income, Charles bristled and got angry. Nonetheless, this transaction was reported to the Anti Money Laundering
Council (AMLC) because Charles could not provide the lawful source of the money deposited. Based solely on
this report, the AMLC is now requiring the bank to provide the statement on Charles' bank deposits. The AMLC
says this is an exception under the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act while the bank is asking for an order from a
competent court. Who is correct?
Original Order: 14
A: The Anti Money Laundering Council (AMLC) is correct. The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act provides that as a rule, all transactions
entered into by clients shall remain confidential. However, an exception to the rule is when there is when there exists a probable
cause that the amount to be deposited is derived from an unlawful transaction. A covered transaction is when the amount
transferred or deposited amounts to more than P500,000 wherein the bank is mandated to take necessary inquiry in order to
determine whether or not the amount deposited is not derived from an unlawful transaction. In the case, it is shown that the amount
transferred by Charles to his son's account is P 600,000 and the acts of Charles when the bank teller inquired as regards the source
of income gave rise to an assumption that the source is not lawful. He got angry and cannot provide proof for the lawful source of
money. Consequently, the bank may provide for the records on the bank deposits of Charles since there was a probable cause on
the lawful source of the money deposited and the same will not be a violation of the Secrecy of the Bank Deposits.
Grader Feedback: This is a question of bank inquiry by the AMLC. It is not a question on the propriety of reporting to the AMLC.
MB COPYRIGHT
15 The set-up of a noontime show is as follows: The Executive Producer supervises the creative content and are 3/5
responsible for hiring talents, financing the show, and have the authority to hire and dismiss employees including
the hosts, and the producers. The hosts: Tito, Vic and Joey are hired because of their popularity and their wit.
They are paid a fixed salary and commission, and restrictions on what they can and cannot do are implemented.
The producers come up with segments of the show and handle the logistics, management of the crew and
supervision of the talent. They likewise are charged with getting adverts. The flow of the shows is set by the
scripts written by the writers and the producers before the start of the show. Tito is claiming that the term Eat
Bulaga is owned by Joey because he coined it for the show. What intellectual property asset is this and does
Joey own it?
Original Order: 15
A: Eat Bulaga which is a term coined for the show is a trademark. The Intellectual Property Law defines trademark as a visible sign
which distinguishes a good and a service. The law on trademark provides that a descriptive term can also be protected when it
acquires secondary meaning and is registered with the Intellectual Property Office. In determing the owner of a trademark, the law
provides that it would be the employer if the mark was made by reason of the functions of the employee. However, if the mark was
made outside the functions, then the mark will be owned by the employee. In the case, the hosts were hired and paid a fixed salary
and commission and since their are restrictions on what they can and cannot do. Moreover, as hosts, Joey was hired to implement
the flow of the show and the scripts and not to coin a term for the show. Hence, the term Eat Bulaga is owned by Joey since he was
the one who coined it for the show.
Grader Feedback: In this case, the Executive Producer is the owner because it is the one who owns the product which is the
noontime show. Read up on Emzee and who owns marks.
MB TRADEMARK
16 The set-up of a noontime show is as follows: The Executive Producer supervises the creative content and are 4/5
responsible for hiring talents, financing the show, and have the authority to hire and dismiss employees including
the hosts, and the producers. The hosts: Tito, Vic and Joey are hired because of their popularity and their wit.
They are paid a fixed salary and commission and restrictions on what they can and cannot do are implemented.
The producers come up with segments of the show and handle the logistics, management of the crew and
supervision of the talent. They likewise are charged with getting adverts. The flow of the shows is set by the
scripts written by the writers and the producers before the start of the show. Tito is claiming that as the hosts
they own the copyright of the show which includes the content and its broadcast. Is Tito correct?
Original Order: 16
A: No. Tito cannot claim that they own the copyright of the show. The Intellectual Property Law refers to copyright as a protection
given to literary or artistic arts which arises from the moment of creation by the author. In the case, Tito cannot claim copyright over
the content and its broadcast since the creative content and its broadcast is made and fixed by the producers and script writers. The
authors of the content and broadcast, regardless of the supervision and instruction, is to be creditted to the producers and script
writers. Tito and the other hosts cannot claim for the copyright since they merely executes the expression.
Grader Feedback: Are they employees, who owns the work if they are employees?

©2023 ExamSoft Worldwide LLC. All Rights Reserved.