Legal & Judicial Ethics, 2018 Bar — Question XVI

ESSAY

On March 1, 2017, sisters and business partners Carmina and Celeste Corominas borrowed PhP500,000 from Carmen Carunungan. It was agreed that the amount will be paid in full one year after, or on March 1, 2018, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, without necessity of a demand. They also agreed to be bound jointly and severally. For this purpose, they executed a promissory note, secured by a postdated check in the amount of PhP550,000 drawn from their joint account, which check was dated March 1, 2018. When the debt became due, Carmen deposited the check but it was dishonored for insufficient funds. Carmen then sued Carmina and Celeste for estafa through falsication of a commercial document. After nding probable cause, the prosecutor filed a criminal case in court, where the sisters were required to file their joint Judicial Affidavit. In their affidavit, they raised the defense that they could not be guilty of estafa because: (i) the check was issued only as a form of security; (ii) even if issued as payment, it was for a pre-existing debt; and (iii) it was only upon Carmen's insistence that they issued the check. Before the case could be decided, the sisters offered to settle their debt through a dacion en pago. They offered a Honda CRV which they jointly owned in full settlement of the loan. Carmen agreed. Prepare the following documents in legally acceptable and enforceable forms, based on the above facts: (a) The Promissory Note; (b) The Judicial Affidavit; and (c) The Dacion en Pago.

You can write freely without an account. Sign in to reveal the suggested answer and track your progress.