Jimmy Solomon, a security guard employed by RL Security Agency, shot Soliman on the premises of Republic Central Colleges. Soliman filed a complaint for damages against the school, security agency, and guard. The trial court dismissed the case against the school, finding that it could not be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code since Solomon was not an employee of the school. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in only considering liability under Article 2180 and in dismissing the case without allowing Soliman to prove a breach of obligation by the school based on an implied contract between the school and its students. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Jimmy Solomon, a security guard employed by RL Security Agency, shot Soliman on the premises of Republic Central Colleges. Soliman filed a complaint for damages against the school, security agency, and guard. The trial court dismissed the case against the school, finding that it could not be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code since Solomon was not an employee of the school. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in only considering liability under Article 2180 and in dismissing the case without allowing Soliman to prove a breach of obligation by the school based on an implied contract between the school and its students. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Jimmy Solomon, a security guard employed by RL Security Agency, shot Soliman on the premises of Republic Central Colleges. Soliman filed a complaint for damages against the school, security agency, and guard. The trial court dismissed the case against the school, finding that it could not be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code since Solomon was not an employee of the school. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in only considering liability under Article 2180 and in dismissing the case without allowing Soliman to prove a breach of obligation by the school based on an implied contract between the school and its students. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Jimmy Solomon, a security guard employed by RL Security Agency, shot Soliman on the premises of Republic Central Colleges. Soliman filed a complaint for damages against the school, security agency, and guard. The trial court dismissed the case against the school, finding that it could not be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code since Solomon was not an employee of the school. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in only considering liability under Article 2180 and in dismissing the case without allowing Soliman to prove a breach of obligation by the school based on an implied contract between the school and its students. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
Soliman v.
Tuason, 209 SCRA 47 (1992)
Jimmy Solomon, security guard of Republic Central Colleges under RL Security
Agency, shot Soliman Soliman filed a complaint for damages against PR Republic Central Colleges, RL Security Agency and Jimmy Solomon RCC filed a motion to dismiss Soliman had no cause of action since RCC wasnt the employer of Solomon o Art 2180 wont apply since Solomon isnt a pupil, student or apprentice of the school TC granted motion to dismiss Solomon not an employee of the school so school cant be held liable for his acts/omissions
W/N trial judge committed GAD when he refused to apply provisions of Art 2180 and 349,350 and 352 of CC and when he granted the motion to dismiss NO Art 2180 on employers College cant be held vicariously liable for Solomons acts under this paragraph since there is no EER between the Colleges and Solomon Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by security guards attaches to employer agency and not to clients/customers of such agency Art 2180 on teachers/heads of establishments College cant be held liable under this provision since Solomon wasnt a pupil, student or apprentice of RCC Arts 349, 350 and 352 Cant hold Colleges liable since Jimmy Soloman wasnt a pupil, student or apprentice and therefore the school had no substitute parental authority over Solomon W/N the Colleges could be held liable on another basis in law? YES Recent case of PSBA vs CA an implied contract may be held to be established between a school w/c accepts students for enrollment and the students who are enrolled and the contract results to an obligation for both parties Respondent judge was in error when he supposed that P could have no cause of action other than Art 2180 of the CC He shouldnt have granted the motion to dismiss but should have allowed P to prove acts constituting a breach of an obligation ex contractu or ex lege on the part of respondent College RULING: Grant due course to Petition, treat comment of R as its answer, reverse and set aside TC order and remand case to TC for further proceedings
