1. NO, Caloy cannot avoid the liability.

Article 2183 states that possessor of an animal whoever may make use
of the same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only
in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault
of the person who has suffered the damage.
It is undisputed in this case that Caloy is the possessor of the dog
named Doggie which got lost and bit Ekels. It would be presumed that
it is the negligence of the possessor of the animal, if the animal is lost
or escaped. The negligence of the possessor was the direct and
proximate cause of Ekels injury. Since the possessor of the animal is
legally bound by its obligation in anything that the animal would do,
the possessor of the animal is liable for any damage that it may do,
unless otherwise provided by law such as damage would come from
force majeure or from the fault of the person who suffered the damage.
Therefore, Caloy is liable to Ekel since Caloy is the possessor of the
animal named Doggie even if indeed it was lost, unless such damage
would come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has
suffered the damage. For liability under Article 2183, what must be
determined is the possession of the animal, regardless of the
ownership.
2. Yes, Fredo is considered solidarily liable with his driver, Gardo.
Under Article 2184, In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have,
by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of
reckless driving or avoiding traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceeding two months.
In the case at bar, Fredo was in the vehicle when Gardo while driving,
hit another car causing damage and injuries to the occupants of the
car. Gardo was texting his girlfriend on his cellphone when he hit
another car, there was negligence on Fredos part when he let Gardo
use his cellphone while driving. Such negligence was the proximate
cause of the misfortune.

Therefore, Fredo as the owner of the vehicle, who was in the vehicle
when the misfortune happened, is considered solidarily liable with the
driver, Gardo.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provision of article 2180
is applicable.
Under Article 2180, the owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damage caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter is
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damage cause by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
Therefore, if Fredo was not in the car at the time of the accident and
Gardo was acting within the scope of his employment, Fredo will still be
responsible for the damage caused by Gardo. It is presumed that every
employer is responsible in the supervision of their employees which
makes them responsible for the damaged caused by their employees.
To dispute this presumption, the employer must present adequate and
convincing proof that he exercised care and diligence in the selection
and supervision of his employees.
The doctrine states that the liability of the employer only arises when
the negligence of the employee occurred while the employee is acting
within the scope of his employment.
3. The Manufacturer Coca Cola Philippines is solidarily liable with the
owner of the 7-11 store.
Under Article 2187, Manufacturers and processors of foodstuffs, drinks,
toilet articles and similar goods shall be liable for death or injuries
cause by any noxious or harmful substances used, although no
contractual relation exists between them and the consumers.
It is undisputed that since Coca Cola Philippines is the manufacturer of
the coke that Harry was drinking, it is liable for any injuries that Harry
may suffer from the coke that he drunk. It is the manufacturers
negligence to produce coke which has cockroach inside the bottle. This

negligence caused the bottled of coke to be manufactured with a

cockroach inside it.
Therefore, Coca Cola Philippines is liable to any injuries that Harry may
sustained due to the bottled coke that he drunk which contained a
cockroach inside even if there is no contractual relationship between
him and Coca Cola Philippines.
On the other hand, Under Article 97, which is the Consumer Act and
Liability for defective products. Any Filipino or foreign manufacturer,
producer, and any importer shall be liable for redress, independently of
fault for damaged caused to consumers by defects resulting from
design, manufacturer, construction, assembly and erection formulas
and handling and making up, presentation or packing of their products,
as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and
hazards thereof.
Thus, 7-11 store owner cannot escape liability even if the manufacturer
of the bottled coke is Coca Cola Philippines. There is a contractual
relationship between the 7-11 owner and Harry who drunk a bottled
coke with cockroach inside.
4. The city (Quezon City) should be held liable for the injuries sustained
by Aling Ising.
Under Article 2189, Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable
for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by
reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public
buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.
It is undisputed in the case that Aling Ising suffered injuries when she
fell into the open drainage manhole in the local palengke of Bgy.
Tatalon in Quezon City. Since the supervision and maintenance of the
manhole was the duty of the city engineer, the city should be held
liable. It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong to
the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. It only requires
that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road
or street.
Thus Quezon City should be held liable for the injuries sustained by
Aling Ising due to the manhole in the Palengke. Strict liability is
observed in such doctrine.