I(a)

I will advise Jean to file a case for damages not against the Manager nor the Security Guard but
of the Purebold on the ground that it is the employer who is liable for the malicious act of their
employees in the performance fo their duty.

I(b)
Yes. Jean may file directly against the Purebold for the negligent act of his employees on
the basis of Doctrine of Vicarious Liability.

II(a).
No. Nelly may file an action for damages on the basis of either contra bonus mores or
Breach of Contract of Transportation.

The law has given the plaintiff the option either to file an action

II(b)
The counterclaim filed by Charlie against Nelly will not prosper on the ground that the
act of Charlie was not in violation of his right in respect to his religion because the statement of
Nelly is based on the facts given by the authorities and legitimate News Stations, both
international and domestic.

II(c)
Yes. Nelly may file a separate action for damages on the basis of Quasi-delict against
ABC Corp. and simultaneously a criminal case against Charlie for reckless imprudence resulting
to Physical Injuries.

ABC Corp. as an employer of Charlie, who also owned the taxi he drove, is also liable for
the damages caused by his employee because of his negligence in the selection and supervising
of his employees, under the doctrine of vicarious liability.

II(d)
There is no Solutio Indebiti in this case on the ground that to established a solution
indebiti, the delivery must be done by mistake. There is no act of delivery in this case instead
Charlie found the bag of Nelly.

Unjust enrichment is present in this case on the ground that Charlie unjustly enriched by
his wrongful act against Nelly when he found her bag, and Nelly suffered loss, and Charlie has
no intention to return the same to the former.

II(e)
Yes. ABC Corp may be civilly liable against Nelly on the basis of criminal act of Charlie.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the employer shall be subsidiarily liable for the damages of
caused by his employer. Hence, ABC Corp as the employer of Charlie is subsidiarily liable for
damages against Nelly.

III(b).
 YES. Tere may file an action for damages against the Supreme Court for grave mistake.
Under the Civil Code, a person who causes damages against another by fault or
negligence, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

In the instant case at bar, the Supreme Court has acted negligently in posting a list of bar
passers without checking the same thoroughly. It is known that the preparation for the bar, taking
the exam and waiting for the results had already causes the plaintiff a lot of sacrifices, efforts,
and stress. And when she found out that her name was on the list of the bar passers, because of
her happiness and excitement she did not only celebrated with her family but also with her
friends and posted the same to the her social media account. She even bought a tailored dress
and a car to celebrate her success. Hence, the anguish and emotional damage suffered by Jenny
knowing thereafter that she did not really passed the bar and her name was only mistakenly
included in the list after she celebrated with her family and friends, announcing it on the public
and letting her to the oath is undeniable.

Considering the humiliation and psychological anguish suffered by Tere because of the
grave mistake committed by the employee of the Supreme Court is unreasonable and
unjustifiable despite the fact that the court was understaffed.

III(b).
Tere cannot file against the employee in her personal capacity on the ground that the
mistake committed was in the performance of his official duty as a staff of the Human Resource
Department of the Supreme Court. Hence, he may only be subjected to disciplinary action
conducted by the Supreme Court, but it is the former who should be liable for the damages
suffered by Tere for the mistake done by the employee.

VI.
NO. Jenny cannot held Judge Dela Rosa for damages for ordering her conviction.

Under the Civil Code, a judge may only be sued for the commission of criminal acts and
not by performing his official duty.

In the case at bar, Judge Dela Rosa has acted in the performance of his official duty as a
judge to render judgement to cases assigned to him based on facts and evidenced presented
before him. Further, there can be no injury sustained by Jenny such the deprivation of his
freedom and property because such deprivation is her punishment for the commission of a crime.
Hence, Judge Dela Rosa is not liable.

V(a).
YES. The five dismissed employees may file an action against their employees for illegal
dismissal and abuse of rights.
 Under the Civil Code, every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties must, act with justice, give everyone his due, observe honesty and
good faith. Further, every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damages,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.

In the instant case at bar, there is an abuse of right on the part of the employer when he
dismissed the five employees without due process and just cause and for the malicious intention
to disrupt the planned to strike of the employees. The act of the employer is unreasonable,
malicious and oppressive as to the right of the employees to redress their grievance through
strike which is expressly granted and protected by our Constitution.

Hence, the employer is guilty of abuse of his right to terminate his employees because his
conduct is tainted with a malicious intent to disrupt the intended strike and to threatened the
employees.

V(b)
NO. The employees may not file an action against the law enforcement.

Under the Civil Code, it is a basic rule that public officers/officials cannot be held liable
for damages causes in the performance of their official duty.

In the instant case at bar, it is the official duty of our law enforcement to maintain peace
and order. Hence, the action of the law enforcement in disrupting the strike which causes
nuisance to the public cannot be a cause of action for claiming damages of the sustained by the
strikers because they have acted in the performance of their official duty in executing the order
given to them.

VI(a).
As the lawyer of Barbara’s restaurant, I will suggest to file directly an action for damages
against the parents of Gerard and Jay.

The New Civil Code and the family imposes liability to parents/guardians of minors who
cause damages to another.

In the instant case at bar, Jay and Gerard are both minors, hence, their parents are liable
for the damages cause by their children to the property of Barbara’s restaurant.

(alternative answer)

Barbara’s Restaurant may also file an action against OBMC High School and SJA High
School.

Under the Civil Code, School Administrators, Advisers, Teachers are liable for damages
cause their students when the same happens while the students are within their premises or
supervision.
 In the instant case at bar, the fight which causes damage to the property of Barbara’s
Restaurant happens during field trips conducted by their schools. Since Jay and Gerard were both
under the supervision of their adviser/school teachers, their school is liable for the damages
caused by their students because the teachers have acted negligently in supervising their students
to prevent the fight.

VI(b).
The parents of Jay and Gerard may file a claim against their schools.

Under the Civil Code, School Administrators, Advisers, Teachers are liable for injury
suffered by the students when the former acted negligently in supervising and failed to ensure the
safety of their students.

In the instant case at bar, Jay and Gerard got into a fight and suffered injury during their
fieldtrip, an official event of their respective schools and while they were under the supervision
of their advisers and teachers. Hence, it is presumed that the teachers have acted negligently
when they failed to prevent the fight of Jay and Gerard which caused them injuries. Hence, the
parents may file an action for damages against the schools for the injury suffered by their
children.