parents.
Libi vs IAC
FACTS:
Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were a sweetheart until the former
broke up with the latter after she found out the Wendell was
irresponsible and sadistic. Wendell wanted reconciliation but was not
granted by Julie so it prompted him to resort to threats. One day,
there were found dead from a single gunshot wound each coming
from the same gun. The parents of Julie herein private respondents
filed a civil case against the parents of Wendell to recover damages.
Trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but
was set aside by CA.
ISSUE: WON the parents should be held liable for such damages.
HELD: YES
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor
children imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code and Art. 101 of
Revised Penal Code covered obligations arising from both quasi-delicts
and criminal offenses. The court held that the civil liability of the
parents for quasi-delict of their minor children is primary and not
subsidiary and that responsibility shall cease when the persons can
prove that they observe all the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage. However, Wendells mother testified that her
husband owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a
drawer in their bedroom. Each of the spouses had their own key. She
likewise admitted that during the incident, the gun was no longer in
the safety deposit box. Wendell could not have gotten hold of the gun
unless the key was left negligently lying around and that he has free
access of the mothers bag where the key was kept. The spouses
failed to observe and exercise the required diligence of a good father
to prevent such damage.
Libi vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 214 SCRA 16
Facts:
On January 14, 1979, Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi died, each
from a single gunshot wound from a revolver licensed in the name of
petitioner Cresencio Libi. The respondents, parents of Julie Ann, filed a
case against the parents of Wendell to recover damages arising from
the latters vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The
trial court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the IAC set aside the
judgment of the lower court dismissing the complaint of Julie Anns
Issue: Whether or not Article 2180 of the Civil Code was correctly
interpreted by the respondent Court to make petitioners liable for
vicarious liability.
Held:
Yes. The petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as parents in
not diligently supervising the activities of their son. Both parents were
wanting in their duty and responsibility in monitoring and knowing the
activities of their son. The petitioners utterly failed to exercise all the
diligence of a good father of a family in preventing their son from
committing the crime by means of the gun which was freely
accessible to Wendell Libi because they have not regularly checked
whether the gun was still under lock, but learned that it was missing
from the safety deposit box only after the crime had been committed.
The civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as
contemplated in Article 2180, is primary and not subsidiary.
Libi vs IAC G.R. No. 70890 September 18 1992
FACTS:
Wendell Libi shot his lover Julie Ann Giotong, both minors, before he
turned the firearm on himself. As a result, the parents of Julie Ann filed
against Wendell's parents to recover damages. The trial court
rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of
evidence. CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the parents of Wendell Libi liable for vicarious
liability.
RULING:
Yes. The subsidiary liability of parents for damages cause by their
minor children is imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, which
covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal
offenses. The parents' liability as being primary and not subsidiary
and liability shall ceased if the parents can prove that they observe all
the diligence of a good father to prevent damage.
In this case, the parents had not exercised due diligence in
supervising the activities of their son. It was only at the time of
Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that he was drug
informant of CANU and that the gun used in the shooting incident was
missing from the safety deposit box. Having been grossly negligent in
preventing Wendell from having access to said gun, the Libis are
subsidiary liable for the natural consequence of the criminal act of
said minor who was living in their company.

Cresencio Libi et al vs IAC et al

Civil Law Torts and Damages Vicarious Liability of Parents

Murder-Suicide of Minor Lovers

Since about 1976, minors Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were
lovers. In December 1978, Julie Ann decided to break up with Wendell
because the latter has violent tendencies. Julie Ann refused to give
Wendell his second chance. On January 14, 1979, both minors were
found dead inside Julie Anns house. Both were only 18 years of age
(age of majority that time was 21).

Apparently, Wendell used his fathers gun to kill Julie Ann and then
later he committed suicide.

The parents of Julie Ann (Felipe and Shirley Gotiong) then filed a civil
case for recovery of damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code
against the parents of Wendell (Cresencio and Amelia Libi).

ISSUE:Whether or not the parents of Wendell are civilly liable?

HELD:Yes. It was determined from the evidence adduced that the

Libis had been negligent in safekeeping their gun. Wendell gained
access to the gun in 1978 and the Libis did not know that their son
had possession of said gun. They only found out about it when the
shooting happened. Further, they were not even aware that their son
is a drug informant of the local Constabulary (police force at that
time). Clearly, the parents were negligent and were not acting with
the diligence required by law (that of a good father of a family) in
making sure that their minor children shall not cause damages against
other persons.

What is the nature of their liability?

In this case, the Supreme Court also clarified that the nature of the
liability of parents in cases like this is not merely subsidiary. Their
liability is primary. This is whether or not what the damage caused by
their minor child arose from quasi-delict or from a criminal act. This is
also the reason why parents can avoid liability if they will be able to
show that they have acted with the diligence required by law because
if their liability is merely subsidiary, they can never pose the defense
of diligence of a good father of a family.