Barganza

2 anak minors- still iable because they pretended to be of legal age/ did not disclose, passive
misrepresentation,

1/3 to be paid by mom,

Balesteros

Swift foods Spouses mateo

Agreement tracking- 100k cash bond

Warehousing agreement- property in Bulacan to stock feeds (swift pays spouses)

Spouses cant release without clearance from swift but theyre were missing feeds coz they released to
customers without consent -> terminated contract, to pay missing feeds

Spouses agreement –

Initial- in favor of spouses coz it is negligence of swift’s, failure to train people in the warehouse

CA- spouses coz no basis of terminating warehouse agreement, sudden termination -> bad faith

Swift argument: umamin spouses, and 100k tracking agreement has no proof of receive, and land title

Final Ruling: spouses breached the contract, amin Jose did not read the contract -> negligence, swift lost
2M of feeds but did not have enough evidence to prove so,

Swift liable to spouses for actual damages, spouses to pay 150k for nominal damages and interest 100k
tracking agreement, moral damages in favor of spouses 50k because swift held the land title

Serra vs. CA, RCBC