CASE # 1:

Domingo Ramos is one the drivers of Mabuhay hotel. One of his function is to fetch a guest from
the airport back to the hotel. One day, Domingo Ramos was tasked to fetch Antonio Dela Cruz
from the airport. On their way to the hotel, Domingo Ramos bumps Toledo King, a pedestrian
that caused his instant death.
Can the heirs of Toledo King sue the employer of Domingo Ramos for damages based on quasi-
delicts?

CASE # 2:
Mr. X went to the restaurant of Mr. Y to sell a “diamond ring" worth 1 million pesos. Mr. X
represented that the “diamond ring" is genuine. Mr. X, through insidious words, was able to
convince Mr. Y to buy the same. However, since Mr. Y has only 500,000 pesos at that time, they
executed a contract to sell whereby Mr. Y will pay the remaining 500,000 pesos in two equal
installments. After a week, Mr. Y went to a pawnshop to have the "diamond ring" be checked
whether the same is genuine, the pawnshop declared that the diamond ring is fake.

CASE # 3:
Mr. X entered into a contract of Loan with Mr. Y amounting to 100,000 pesos to be paid on
December 15, 2014. When the said date came, Mr. X failed to pay.Is Mr. X already in legal
delay?

On December 25, 2014, still no payment was made, is Mr. Y already in delay? Can Mr. Y go to
court to demand the fulfilment of the obligation?

Suppose on December 27, 2014, Mr. Y wrote a letter to Mr. X demanding the payment of
100,000 pesos giving Mr. X 5 days from receipt of the demand letter to settle the loan. However,
after 5 days, Mr. X still did not settle. Is Mr. X already in delay? Can Mr. Y go to court to sue
Mr.X to perform the obligation?

CASE # 4:
On July 28, 2013, spouses Mario and Anna Guanio booked one of the function halls of XXX
Hotel in Makati to be used as a reception for their wedding on August 5, 2014. It was agreed that
the foods to be delivered on the said event are black cod, king prawns, and angel nom pasta with
wild mushroom sauce for the main course for 250 guests. On August 5, 2014, only 150 persons
were given foods. Is there a contravention of the tenor of the obligation?

CASE # 5: AIR FRANCE versus RAFAEL CARRASCOSO

On March 28, 1958, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued
to Mr. Carasscoso a "first class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to
Bangkok, Mr.Carrascoso travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the Manager of Air France
airline forced him to vacate the "first class” seat that he was occupying because, in the words of
the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a "white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a “better
right” to the seat. When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, Mr. Carrascoso refused and a
commotion ensued. He was pacified by some Filipino passengers. Mr. Carrascoso reluctantly
gave his “first class" seat in the plane. Is Air France liable for contravention of the tenor of the
obligation?

CASE # 6:
X, Y, and Z are partners in a restaurant business. They need 90,000.00 pesos for their
investments. The Partners entered into a contract of loan with their friends A, B, and C. In the
contract, X, Y and Z agree that their obligation is Joint, to be paid on April 15, 2014.
Can Mr. A compel Mr. X to pay the whole obligation alone?

CASE # 7:
Mr. X and Y are lovers. They decided to get married on December 15, 2014. During their
preparation, they looked for a good wedding reception and found XXX Hotel, a 3 star hotel. X
and Y met Mr. Zobie the event and catering director of the said hotel. Mr. Zobie presented a
proposed quotation worth 100,000.00 pesos inclusive of food and use of function room. The
couple counter offered by asking for a 30% discount, but Mr.Zobie can only offer 10%. Was
there already contract in the above-mentioned case? Suppose the couple agreed on the 10%
discount, and consented on all other terms and conditions. Is there already a contract?

CASE # 8:
Dr. Felipa Pablo, an associate professor in the University of the Philippines, and a research
grantee of the Philippine Atomic Energy Agency was invited to take part at a meeting of the
Department of Research and Isotopes of the Joint FAO-IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in
Food and Agriculture of the United Nations in Ispra, Italy. To fulfill this engagement, Dr Pablo
booked passage with Alitalia, an Italian airline company. She arrived in Milan on the day before
the meeting in accordance with the itinerary and time table set for her by Alitalia She was
however told by the Alitalia personnel there at Milan that her luggage was "delayed inasmuch as
the same xxx (was) in one of the succeeding flights from Rome to Milan."

Her luggage consisted of two (2) suitcases: one contained her clothing and other personal items;
the other, her scientific papers, slides and other research material. But the other flights arriving
from Rome did not have her baggage on board.

Feeling desperate, she went to Rome to try to locate her bags herself. There, she inquired about
her suitcases in the domestic and international airports, and filled out the forms prescribed by
Alitalia for people in her predicament. However, her baggage could not be found. Completely
distraught and discouraged, she returned to Manila without attending the meeting in Ispra, Italy.

As it turned out, Dr. Pablo's suitcases were, in fact, located and forwarded to Ispra, Italy, but
only on the day after her scheduled appearance and participation at the U.N. meeting there. Of
course, Dr. Pablo was no longer there to accept delivery; she was already on her way home to
Manila. And for some reason, the suitcases were not actually restored to Prof. Pablo by Alitalia
until eleven (11) months later. Is Dr. Pablo entitled to damages for the negligence committed by
Alitalia?
CASE # 9:
Mr. Danny Ramos, owner of Danny's Grill (a fine dining restaurant), entered into a contract with
Chona Romulo and Michael Aldeguer (proprietors of CM Wine Company) with the following
stipulation:

“In case of failure to deliver the agreed 150 bottles of Emperor's White Wine on or before
December 30, 2007, Chona Romulo and Michael Aldeguer shall be liable to Dan Ramos, joint
and severally, for damages in the total amount of P100,000.00.”

CM Wine Company was not able to fulfill their obligation to Mr. Ramos. For three days that the
wines were not delivered, many complaints arose from dining customers for wines ordered that
were out of stock. Can Mr. Ramos only hold Mr. Aldeguer liable for damages?

CASE # 10:
On January 30, 1911, a firm known as JR & Company, engaged in a retail garment business,
found itself in such difficult financial condition that its creditors, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Fox,
together with many others, agreed to take over the business, incorporate it and accept stocks
therein in payment of their respective credits. When this was done, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Fox
became the two largest stockholders in the new corporation called JR & Co., Incorporated. A few
days after the incorporation was completed, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Fox entered into the following
agreement:

"Whereas the undersigned are, respectively, owners of large amounts of stock in JR & Co., Inc.;
and,
"Whereas it is recognized that the success of said corporation depends, now and for at least one
year net following, in the larger stockholders retaining their respective interests in the business of
said corporation:
"Therefore, the undersigned mutually and reciprocally agree not to sell, transfer, or otherwise
dispose of any part of their present holdings of stock in said JR & Co., Inc., until after one year
from the date hereof.
“Either party violating this agreement shall pay the other the sum.of one thousand (P1,000) pesos
as liquidated damages, unless previous consent in writing to such sale, transfer, or other
disposition be obtained."

Notwithstanding this contract, Mr. Fox on October 19, 1911, sold his stock in the said
corporation to E. D. McCullough of the firm of E. C. McCullough & Co. of Manila, a strong
competitor of the said JR & Co., Inc. This sale was made by Mr. Fox against the protest of Mr.
Lambert and with the warning that he would be held liable under the contract hereinabove set
forth and in accordance with its terms.

Is Mr. Lambert entitled to the liquidated damages in the amount of P1,000.00?

CASE # 10:
On November 6, 1968, Philippine Airlines' (PAL's) Fokker 'Friendship' PICMactan City for the
City of Manila. After the plane had taken off, Florencio O. Villarin NBI Agent who was also a
passenger of the said plane, noticed a certain “Zaldy,' a sus killing of Judge Valdez, seated at the
front seat near the door leading to the cockpit of th 'Zaldy had used the name 'Cardente,' in his
plane ticket and had three companions the plane Villarin then scribbled a note addressed to the
pilot of the plane requesting th to contact NBI duty agents in Manila for the said agents to ask the
Director of the NBL about six NBI agents to meet the plane because the suspect in the killing of
Judge Valde on board the plane. The said note was handed by Villarin to the stewardess who in
tu the same to the pilot. After receiving the note, which was about 15 minutes after take o pilot of
the plane came out of the cockpit and sat beside Villarin at the rear portion of the n and
explained that he could not send the message because it would be heard by all oro aircraft
stations. Villarin, however, told the pilot of the danger of commission of violent acts on board
the plane by the notorious 'Zaldy' and his three companions. While the pilot and Villarin were
talking, 'Zaldy' and one of his companions walked to the rear and stood behind them The pilot
then stood up and went back to the cockpit. “Zaldy' and his companions returned to their seats.
Soon thereafter an exchange of gunshots ensued between Villarin and ‘Zaldy and the latter's
companions. “Zaldy' announced to the passengers and the pilots in the cockpit that it was a
"hijack.” The hijackers divested the passengers of their belongings. Upon landing at the Manila
International Airport, Zaldy and his three companions succeeded in escaping.

Norberto Quisumbing, Sr., one of the passengers of the plane filed an action against Philippine
Airlines to recover the value of jewelry, other valuables and money taken from him by four (4)
armed robbers on board of the latter's airplane while on a flight from Mactan City to Manila, as
well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. Such loss is a
result of breach of PAL's contractual obligation to carry him and his belongings and effects to
the Manila destination without loss or damage, and constitutes a serious dereliction of PAL's
legal duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the same. In its defense,
Philippine Airlines alleges that the robbery during the flight and after the aircraft was forcibly
landed at the Manila Airport did indeed constitute force majeure.

Is the incident on board the airplane Flight Fokker ‘Friendship' PIC-536 considered force
majeure which exempts Philippine Airlines (PAL) from liability?

CASE # 11:
Can a hotel evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by
having these guests execute written waivers holding the establishment or its employees free from
blame for such loss?

Maurice McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist sued Tropicana Copacobana

Apartment Hotel (Tropicana) for the loss of his American and Australian dollars deposited in the
safety deposit box of Tropicana. Mr. McLoughlin is also demanding for liquidating damages,
moral and exemplary damages with attorney's fees. It appears that the safety deposit box could
only be opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and
the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel. When a registered guest
wishes to open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request the management who
then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the
safety deposit box with the two keys. In its defense, Tropicana denies liability, relying on the
conditions for renting the safety deposit box as signed by Mr. McLoughlin, to wit:
“Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box,"|
“2. To release and hold free and blameless Tropicana Apartment Hotel from any liability arising
from any loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever,
including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be
lost;
“4. To return the key and execute the release in favor of Tropicana Apartment Hotel upon giving
up the use of the box."

Is Mr. McLoughlin entitled to his claims despite the written waiver which he signed in favor of
Tropicana Apartment Hotel?

CASE # 12: Immormino v. McDonald's

Plaintiff Mary Lee Immormino alleges injury due to a hot water spill from a cup served by
defendant McDonald's fast food franchise. The incident in question occurred on September 24,
1993. Plaintiff and her husband purchased several food products from the drive-thru window at
McDonald's, including hot tea for the plaintiff herself. Plaintiff, who was a front-seat passenger,
executed a series of maneuvers to steep her tea. As she was replacing the lid on the cup, she
spilled the tea on her lap causing injury. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant failed to
warn consumers of the temperature of the beverage. According to the uncontradicted evidence,
the cup contained - the following legend: "CAUTION-CONTENTS MAYBE HOT". The
warning was printed in two locations on the cup. Can the restaurant be held liable? Why or why
not?

CASE #13: Hudechek v. Novi Hotel Fund Limited

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet sidewalk while leaving defendant's hotel at the conclusion of a
professional seminar. The sidewalk had been painted. Plaintiff acknowledged during his
deposition that the painted condition of the sidewalk was readily observable. He also
acknowledged that as he was exiting the hotel, he observed people running from the parking lot
to avoid becoming wet from rain. Plaintiff sustained head, neck and back injuries as a result of
his fall. Can the plaintiff sue the hotel for the injury?

CASE # 14: David Hanson v. Hyatt Corp.

Plaintiff was not a registered guest at defendant's hotel. He entered the pool area sometime after
9:30 p.m. through a gap/hole in a fence surrounding the pool. It was dark, and the lights around
the pool area were off. He dove into Hyatt's pool and sustained injuries which rendered him a
quadriplegic; he was 19 years old at the time of the accident. Hanson argues that he properly
alleged the element of duty based upon Hyatt's "implied invitation" to him to enter upon its
premises "for the purpose of inspection and use of its restaurant, gift shop, meeting rooms,
lobbies, and swimming pool," as a licensee or invitee. The implied invitation concerning his use
of Hyatt's swimming pool is specifically based on the allegation that the pool "was not fully
enclosed and was open to access by the public at large...."

Can the hotel be held liable?