Civil law vs. Common Law (1997)
How would you compare the Civil Law system in its governance and trend with that of the Common Law system?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As regards “governance”: Governance in Civil Law is codal, statutory and written law. It is additionally derived from case law. Common law is basically derived from case law. As regards “trend”: Civil law is now tending to rely more and more on decisions of the courts explaining the laws. Common law is now codifying laws more and more. So they are now merging towards similar systems.
Additional Answers:
1. COMMON LAW refers to the traditional part of the law as distinct from legislation; it refers to the universal part of law as distinct from particular local customs (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 7).
On the other hand, CIVIL LAW is understood to be that branch of law governing the relationship of persons in respect of their personal and private interests as distinguished from both public and international laws.
In common law countries, the traditional responsibility has for the most part been with the judges; in civil law countries, the task is primarily reposed on the lawmakers. Contemporary practices, however, so indicate a trend towards centralizing that function to professional groups that may indeed, see the gradual assimilation in time of both systems. [Vitug, Civil. Law and Jurisprudence, p. XX)
2. In Civil Law, the statutes theoretically take precedence over court decisions interpreting them; while in Common Law, the court decisions resolving specific cases are regarded as law rather than the statutes themselves which are, at the start, merely embodiments of case law. Civil Law is code law or written law, while Common Law is case law. Civil Law adopts the deductive method – from the general to the particular, while the Common Law uses the inductive approach – from the particular to the general. Common Law relies on equity. Civil Law anchors itself on the letter of the law. The civilists are for the judge-proof law even as the Common Law Is judge-made law. Civil Law judges are merely supposed to apply laws and not interpret them.
Effect of Obiter &Dissenting Opinion; SC Decisions (1994)
2) What are the binding effects of an obiter dictum and a dissenting opinion?
3) How can a decision of the Supreme Court be set aside?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
2) None. Obiter dictum and opinions are not necessary to the determination of a case. They are not binding and cannot have the force of official precedents. It is as if the Court were turning aside from the main topic of the case to collateral subjects: a dissenting opinion affirms or overrules a claim, right or obligation. It neither disposes nor awards anything it merely expresses the view of the dissenter (Civil Code, Paras).
3) A decision of a division of the Supreme Court maybe set aside by the Supreme Court sitting en banc, a Supreme Court decision may be set aside by a contrary ruling of the Supreme Court itself or by a corrective legislative act of Congress, although said laws cannot adversely affect those favored prior to the Supreme Court decision (Civil Code, Paras).
Effectivity of Laws (1990)
After a devastating storm causing widespread destruction in four Central Luzon provinces, the executive and legislative branches of the government agreed to enact a special law appropriating P1 billion for purposes of relief and rehabilitation for the provinces. In view of the urgent nature of the legislative enactment, it is provided in its effectivity clause that it shall take effect upon approval and after completion of publication in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The law was passed by the Congress on July 1, 1990. signed into law by the President on July 3, 1990, and published in such newspaper of general circulation on July 7, 1990 and in the Official Gazette on July 10, 1990.
(a) As to the publication of said legislative enactment, is there sufficient observance or compliance with the requirements for a valid publication? Explain your answer.
(b) When did the law take effect? Explain your answer.
(c) Can the executive branch start releasing and disbursing funds appropriated by the said law the day following its approval? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The law itself prescribes the requisites of publication for its effectivity, and all requisites have been complied with. (Article 2, Civil Code)
(b) The law takes effect upon compliance with all the conditions for effectivity, and the last condition was complied with on July 10, 1990. Hence, the” law became effective on that date.
(c) No. It was not yet effective when it was approved by Congress on July 1, 1990 and approved by the President on July 3, 1990. The other requisites for its effectivity were not yet complete at the time.
Equity follows the Law (2003)
It is said that “equity follows the law” What do you understand by this phrase, and what are its basic implications?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“Equity Follows the law” means that courts exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard them. (Arsenal v. IAC,143 SCRA 40 [1986]). Equity is applied only in the absence of but never against statutory law. (Toyota Motor Phil. v. CA 216 SCRA 236 [1992]).
Ignorance of the Law vs. Mistake of Fact (1996)
Is there any difference in their legal effect between ignorance of the law and ignorance or mistake of fact?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a difference. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse for not complying with it, ignorance of fact eliminates criminal intent as long as there is no negligence (Art, NCC). In addition, mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith (Art. 526. NCC). Mistake of fact may, furthermore, vitiate consent in a contract and make it voidable (Art. 1390. NCC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. ignorance of the law differs in legal effect from Ignorance or mistake of fact. The former does not excuse a party from the legal consequences of his conduct while the latter does constitute an excuse and is a legal defense.
Inferior Courts Decisions (1994)
Are decisions of the Court of Appeals considered laws?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1) a) No, but decisions of the Court of Appeals may serve as precedents for inferior courts on points of law not covered by any Supreme Court decision, and a ruling of the Court of Appeals may become a doctrine (Miranda vs. Imperial 77Phil.1066).
b) No. Decisions of the Court of Appeals merely have persuasive, and therefore no mandatory effect. However, a conclusion or pronouncement which covers a point of law still undecided may still serve as judicial guide and it is possible that the same maybe raised to the status of doctrine. If after it has been subjected to test in the crucible of analysis, the Supreme Court should find that it has merits and qualities sufficient for its consideration as a rule of jurisprudence (Civil Code, Paras).
Prejudicial Questions (1997)
In the context that the term is used in Civil Law, state the (a) concept, (b) requisites and (c) consequences of a prejudicial question.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Concept
A prejudicial question is one which must be decided first before a criminal action may be instituted or may proceed because a decision therein is vital to the judgment in the criminal case. In the case of People vs. Adelo Aragon (L-5930,Feb.17,1954), the Supreme Court defined it as one which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issues involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal (Paras, Vol. 1, Civil. Code Annotation, 1989 ed. p, 194).
(b) Requisites
1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court.
2. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and
2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
(c) Consequences
The criminal case must be suspended. Thus, in a criminal
case for damages to one’s property, a civil action that involves the ownership of said property should first be resolved (De Leon vs. Mabanag. 38 Phil. 202).
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CIVIL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.
