In Vda. de Quirino v. Palarca,  it was ruled that consignation referred to in Article 1256 of the Civil Code is inapplicable to a lease with option to buy because said provision refers to consignation as one of the means for the payment or discharge of a "debt," whereas the lessee was not indebted to the lessor for the price of the leased premises. The lessee merely exercised a right of option and had no obligation to pay said price until execution of the deed of sale in his favor, which the lessor refused to do.

Rape is an accusation easy to make, hard to prove but harder to defend by the accused, though innocent. The evidence for the prosecution must be clear and convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Rape is an offense to which, as is often the case, only two people can testify, thus requiring the most conscientious effort on the part of the arbiter to weigh and appraise the conflicting testimonies. If a reasonable doubt exists, the verdict must be one of acquittal.

The information herein is violative of Section 13 Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure which states that a complaint or information must charge but one offense except in certain cases. The four accused are charged with two separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and robbery with homicide. When each one of two offenses committed is punishable by two different laws, they cannot be charged in one information as a complex crime but must be regarded as two separate and distinct offenses, each one to be the subject of separate informations. When duplicity of offenses exists in an information the accused must present his objection by filing a motion to quash the information on the ground of duplicity of offenses. If the accused fails to object and goes to trial under the information which contains a description of more than one offense, the general rule is he thereby waives the objection and may be found guilty of and should be sentenced for, as many offenses as are charged in the information and proved during trial (People v. Medina 59 Phil. 134; People v. Miana 50 Phil. 771). This rule however shall apply only if the accused is formally arraigned and required to plead on all the offenses as are charged in the information. Otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted of the offenses with respect to which he was not properly arraigned.

UFE completely misses the underlying principle embodied in Art. 264(g) on the settlement of labor disputes and this is, that assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. This extraordinary authority given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to labor disputes, without jeopardizing national interests.

The petitioner-carrier, not being privy to any transaction between HSBC and CMI, cannot be expected to look beyond what is contained on the face of the bill of lading in question and guess which of the many banks in Metro Manila or some other unrevealed corporation could possibly be the consignee. To consider otherwise would not be sound business practice as petitioner would be forced to wait for the real owner of the goods to show up, perhaps in vain. In Macondray and Company Inc. v. Acting Commissioner of Customs, it was held that a bill of lading is ordinarily merely a convenient commercial instrument designed to protect the importer or consignee. And in Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd. v. United States Lines, it was held that as a receipt, a bill of lading recites the place and date of shipment, describes the goods as to quantity, weight, dimensions, identification marks, condition, quality and value.