You are on page 1of 11

VI PERSONS LIABLE in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it

after it is done, if done for their benefit.


Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort
A. THE TORTFEASOR which they commit. They are each liable as principals, to the
same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed
CIVIL CODE: the wrongful act themselves.
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to ***If several persons jointly commit a tort, the plaintiff or person
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for injured, has his election to sue all or some of the parties jointly,
or one of them separately, because tort is in its nature a
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
separate act of each individual.
existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a Reasoning Defendants fail to recognize that the basis of the
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. present action is a tort. They fail to recognize the universal
(1902a) doctrine that each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable
for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointly liable with
Art. 2081. The guarantor may set up against the creditor all the his tortfeasors. The defendants might have been sued
defenses which pertain to the principal debtor and are inherent separately for the commission of the tort. They might have
sued jointly and severally, as they were. It is not necessary that
in the debt; but not those that are personal to the debtor.
the cooperation should be a direct, corporeal act. **note:
(1853) Ponente used examples of torts as held under common law**
(In a case of assault and battery committed by various
Art. 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are persons, under the common law, all are principals). So also is
liable for quasi-delict is solidary. (n) the person who counsels, aids, or assists in any way the
commission of a wrong. Under the common law, he who aided,
WORCESTER v OCAMPO assisted or counseled, in any way the commission of a crime,
22 PHIL 42 Johnson; Feb. 27, 1912 was as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the
actual tort.
NATURE: Appeal from judgment of CFI - Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort
FACTS which they commit. The person injured may sue all of them, or
- Plaintiff Dean Worcester, member of the Civil Commission of any number less than all. Each is liable for the whole damage
the Philippines and Secretary of the Interior of the Insular caused by all, and altogether jointly liable for the whole
Government commenced an action against defendants damage. It is no defense for one sued alone, that the others
Ocampo, Kalaw, Santos, Reyes, Aguilar, Liquete, Palma, who participated in the wrongful act are not joined with him as
Arellano, Jose, Lichauco, Barretto and Cansipit (owners, defendants; nor is it any excuse for him that his participation in
directors, writers, editors and administrators of a certain the tort was insignificant as compared with that of the others.
newspaper known as “El Renacimiento” or “Muling Pagsilang”) - The courts during the trial may find that some of the alleged
for the purpose of recovering damages resulting from an joint tortfeasors are liable and that others are not liable. The
alleged libelous publication. courts may release some for lack of evidence while
- The editorial “Birds of Prey” was alleged to have incited the condemning others of the alleged tort. And this is true even
Filipino people into believing that plaintiff was a vile despot and though they are charged jointly and severally. However, in this
a corrupt person, unworthy of the position which he held. The case, the lower court, committed no error in rendering a joint
said editorial alluded to him as an eagle that surprises and and several judgment against the defendants. As recognized
devours, a vulture that gorges himself on dead and rotten by Section 6 of Act 277 of the Philippine Commission: “Every
meat, an owl that affects a petulant omniscience, and a author, editor, or proprietor * * * is chargeable with the
vampire that sucks the blood of the victim until he leaves it publication of any words in any part * * * or number of each
bloodless. newspaper, as fully as if he were the author of the same.
- After hearing the evidence adduced during trial, the judge of Disposition Judgment of the lower court modified. Ocampo,
the CFI rendered judgment in favor of petitioner, holding all the Kalaw, Palma, Arellano, Jose, Lichauco, Barretto, and Cansipit
defendants (except for Reyes, Aguilar and Liquete who were held jointly and severally liable for the sum of P25, 000 with
found to be editors but in a subordinate position and found to interest at 6%. Santos absolved from any liability.
have merely acted under the direction of their superiors) liable
jointly and severally for sustained damages on account of ARELLANO, C.J. and MAPA, J. [concurring]
petitioner’s wounded feelings, mental suffering and injuries to - We concur, except with reference to the liability imposed
his standing and reputation in the sum of P35,000 as well as upon Lichauco. The real owner and founder, Ocampo, explicitly
P25,000 as punitive damages. stated that the other so-called founders subscribed and paid
- This judgment prompted defendants to appeal to the SC, sums of money to aid the paper but as to Lichauco, he offered
claiming that the CFI committed several errors in rendering to contribute, but did not carry out his offer and in fact paid
said judgment among which was that the lower court nothing. It is incomprehensible how one could claim the right or
committed an error in rendering a judgment jointly and title to share the earnings or profits of a company when he had
severally against the defendants. put no capital into it, neither is it comprehensible how one
could share in the losses thereof, and still less incur liability for
ISSUE damages on account of some act of the said company, an
WON the defendants, regardless of their participation in the unrestricted liability to the extent of all his property, as though
commission of the actual tort, may be held jointly and severally he were a regular general partner when he was not such.
liable as joint tortfeasors
TORRES [dissenting in part]
HELD - I concur in regard to the defendants Ocampo and Kalaw, but
YES. dissent as regards Palma, Arellano, Jose, Lichauco, Barretto,
Ratio Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, and Cansipit for they had neither direct nor indirect
instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate participation in the act that gave rise to the present suit for
damages, nor were they owners or proprietors of the other hand, if the driver, by a sudden act of negligence, and
newspaper, its press or other equipment. They were donors without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent
who merely contributed a sum of money, as a genuine gift, for the act or its continuance, injures a person or violates the
the purpose of founding, editing, and issuing the said criminal law, the owner of the automobile, although present
newspaper, it is improper to deduce that the contributors herein at5 the time the act was committed, is not responsible,
formed a company of either a civil or commercial nature. either civilly or criminally, therefore. The act complained of
- After Ocampo had accepted the various amounts proffered, must be continued in the presence or the owner for such a
the donors ceased to be the owners of and surrendered all length of time that the owner by his acquiescence, makes his
right to the money donated and to the objects that were driver’s act his own.
acquired therewith. Therefore they can not incur, jointly and Reasoning Defendant's driver was guilty of negligence in
severally with the director and manager. running upon and over the plaintiff. He was passing an
oncoming car upon the wrong side.
Art. 2184, CC. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily - The plaintiff needed only to watch for cars coming from his
liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, right, as they were the only ones under the law permitted to
could have, by the use of the due diligence, prevented the pass upon that side of the street car.
misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was - in the case of Johnson vs. David, the driver does not fall
negligent, if he had been found guilty or reckless driving or within the list of persons in Art.1903 of the Civil Code for whose
violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next acts the defendant would be responsible.
preceding two months. Although in the David case the owner of the vehicle was not
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of present at the time the alleged negligent acts were committed
Article 2180 are applicable. (n) by the driver, the same rule applies where the owner is
present, unless the negligent act of the driver are continued for
CHAPMAN V UNDERWOOD such a length of time as to give the owner a reasonable
27 Phil 374 MORELAND; March 28, 1914 opportunity to observe them and to direct his driver to desist
therefrom.
NATURE - it appears with fair clearness that the interval between the
Appeal from the judgment of trial court finding for the defendant turning out to meet and pass the street car and the happening
FACTS of the accident was so small as not to be sufficient to charge
- The plaintiff-appellant, Chapman, desired to board a certain defendant with the negligence of the driver.
"San Marcelino" car coming from Sta. Ana and bound for DISPOSITION
Manila. Being told by his friend that the car was approaching, The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
he immediately, and somewhat hurriedly, passed into the street
for the purpose of signaling and boarding the car. The car was CAEDO V YU KHE THAI
a closed one, the entrance being from the front or the rear GR NO. L-20392 MAKALINTAL; December 18, 1968
platform. Plaintiff attempted to board the front platform but,
seeing that he could not reach it without extra exertion, NATURE
stopped beside the car, facing toward the rear platform, and Petition for review of the decision of the CFI of Iloilo
waited for it to come abreast of him in order to board. While in FACTS
this position he was struck from behind and run over by the - Bernardo is the driver of Yu Khe Thai. He was driving the
defendant's (Underwood) automobile. latter’s Cadillac along highway 54. On the other side of the
- The defendant entered Calle Herran at Calle Peñafrancia in road, Caedo was driving his Mercury car. He was with his
his automobile driven by his chauffeur, a competent driver. A family.
street car bound from Manila to Sta. Ana being immediately in - A carretela was in front of the Cadillac. Bernardo did not see
front of him, he followed along behind it. Just before reaching the carretela from afar. When he approached the carritela, he
the scene of the accident the street car which was following decided to overtake it even though he had already seen the car
took the switch (there was a single-track street-car line running of the Caedos’ approaching from the opposite lane. As he did
along Calle Herran, with occasional switches to allow cars to so the curved end of his car's right rear bumper caught the
meet and pass each other)- that is, went off the main line to the forward rim of the rig's left wheel, wrenching it off and carrying
left upon the switch lying alongside of the main track. it along as the car skidded obliquely to the other lane, where it
Thereupon the defendant either kept straight ahead on the collided with the oncoming vehicle.
main street-car track or a bit to the right. The car which the - The Caedos were injured. They filed a suit for recovery of
plaintiff intended to board was on the main line and bound in damages against Bernardo and Yu Khe Thai. The CFI ruled in
an opposite direction to that in which the defendant was going. favor of the Caedos and held Bernardo and Yu solidarily liable.
When the front of the "San Marcelino" car was almost in front
of the defendant's automobile, defendant's driver suddenly ISSUES
went to the right and struck and ran over the plaintiff. WON Yu Khe Thai should be held solidarily liable as
- The judgment of the trial court was for defendant. Bernardo’s employer

ISSUE HELD
WON Underwood is responsible for the negligence of his No.
driver. - Bernardo had no record of any traffic violation. No negligence
of having employed him maybe imputed to his master.
HELD - Negligence on the employer’s part, if any, must be sought in
NO. the immediate setting,, that is, in his failure to detain the driver
Ratio An owner who sits in his automobile or other vehicle, and from pursuing a course which not only gave him clear notice of
permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it.
performance of negligent acts, after he has had a reasonable - No negligence can be imputed. The car was running at a
opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease reasonable speed. The road was wide and open. There was no
therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the reason for Yu to be specially alert. He had reason to rely on the
skill of his driver. The time element was such that there was no situation, tried to avoid the collision at the last moment by
reasonable opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risks going farther to the right, but was unsuccessful. The
involved and warn the driver accordingly. photographs taken at the scene show that the right wheels of
- The law does not require that a person must possess a his car were on the unpaved shoulder of the road at the
certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics moment of impact.
of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may
own a motor vehicle. The test of his intelligence, within the ISSUE
meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do that which the 1. WON defendant Rafael Bernardo is liable for the accident.
evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to 2. If YES, WON his employer, defendant Yu Khe Thai, is
avoid the accident. And as far as perception is concerned, solidarily liable with him.
absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that
appears to be fraught with danger to one passenger may HELD
appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another 1. YES. There is no doubt at all that the collision was directly
DISPOSITIVE traceable to Rafael Bernardo's negligence and that he must be
Decision modified. Yu Khe Thai is free from liability held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

CAEDO v. YU KHE THAI 2. NO. If the causative factor was the driver's negligence, the
GR No. L-20392 MAKALINTAL; December 18, 1968 owner of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if
he could have prevented the mishap by the exercise of due
FACTS diligence.
- Marcial was driving his Mercury car on his way from his home - The basis of the master's liability in civil law is not respondent
in Quezon City to the airport, where his son Ephraim was superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory
scheduled to take a plane for Mindoro. With them in the car is that ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to the
were Mrs. Caedo and three daughters. Coming from the master and susceptible of timely correction by him, reflects his
opposite direction was the Cadillac of Yu Khe Thai, with his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent injury
driver Rafael Bernardo at the wheel, taking the owner from his or damage.
Parañaque home to Wack Wack. - The test of imputed negligence under Article 2184 of the Civil
- The two cars were traveling at fairly moderate speeds, Code is, to a great degree, necessarily subjective. Car owners
considering the condition of the road and the absence of traffic are not held to a uniform and inflexible standard of diligence as
— the Mercury at 40 to 50 kilometers per hour, and the are professional drivers.
Cadillac at approximately 48 to 56 kilometers. Their headlights - The law does not require that a person must possess a
were mutually noticeable from a distance. Ahead of the certain measure of skill or proficiency either in the mechanics
Cadillac, going in the same direction, was a caretella owned by of driving or in the observance of traffic rules before he may
a certain Pedro Bautista. The carretela was towing another own a motor vehicle. The test of his intelligence, within the
horse by means of a short rope coiled around the rig's vertical meaning of Article 2184, is his omission to do that which the
post on the right side and held at the other end by Pedro's son, evidence of his own senses tells him he should do in order to
Julian Bautista. avoid the accident. And as far as perception is concerned,
- Rafael Bernardo testified that he was almost upon the rig absent a minimum level imposed by law, a maneuver that
when he saw it in front of him, only eight meters away. This is appears to be fraught with danger to one passenger may
the first clear indication of his negligence. The carretela was appear to be entirely safe and commonplace to another. Were
provided with two lights, one on each side, and they should the law to require a uniform standard of perceptiveness,
have given him sufficient warning to take the necessary employment of professional drivers by car owners who, by -
precautions. And even if he did not notice the lights, as he their very inadequacies, have real need of drivers' services,
claimed later on at the trial, the carretela should anyway have would be effectively proscribed.
been visible to him from afar if he had been careful, as it must - Rafael Bernardo had no record of violation of traffic laws and
have been in the beam of his headlights for a considerable regulations. No negligence for having employed him at all may
while. be imputed to his master. Negligence on the part of the latter, if
- In the meantime the Mercury was coming on its own lane any, must be sought in the immediate setting and
from the opposite direction. Bernardo, instead of slowing down circumstances of the accident, that is, in his failure to detain
or stopping altogether behind the carretela until that lane was the driver from pursuing a course which not only gave him
clear, veered to the left in order to pass. As he did so the clear notice of the danger but also sufficient time to act upon it.
curved end of his car's right rear bumper caught the forward We do not see that such negligence may be imputed. The car
rim of the rig's left wheel, wrenching it off and carrying it along was not running at an unreasonable speed. The road was wide
as the car skidded obliquely to the other lane, where it collided and open, and devoid of traffic that early morning. There was
with the oncoming vehicle. On his part Caedo had seen the no reason for the car owner to be in any special state of alert.
Cadillac on its own lane; he slackened his speed, judged the He had reason to rely on the skill and experience of his driver.
distances in relation to the carretela and concluded that the The time element was such that there was no reasonable
Cadillac would wait behind. Bernardo, however, decided to opportunity for Yu Khe Thai to assess the risks involved and
take a gamble — beat the Mercury to the point where it would warn the driver accordingly.
be in line with the carretela, or else squeeze in between them DISPOSITION Judgment appealed from is modified in the
in any case. It was a risky maneuver either way, and the risk sense of declaring defendant-appellant Yu Khe Thai free from
should have been quite obvious. liability, and is otherwise affirmed with respect to defendant
- It was already too late to apply the brakes when Bernardo Rafael Bernardo, with costs against the latter.
saw the carretela only eight meters in front of him, and so he
had to swerve to the left in spite of the presence of the
oncoming car on the opposite lane. As it was, the clearance
Bernardo gave for his car's right side was insufficient. Its rear
bumper, as already stated, caught the wheel of the carretela
and wrenched it loose. Caedo, confronted with the unexpected
RODRIGUEZ-LUNA V IAC (DELA ROSA) slightly larger than foot-pedaled four wheeled conveyances. It
135 SCRA 242 ABAD SANTOS; February 28, 1985 was error on the part of the CA to have disturbed the
determination of the RTC which it had previously affirmed.”
NATURE: Petition to review a decision of CA Also, it was an error to increase the expenses without
FACTS: Roberto Luna, a businessman, was killed in a increasing the gross income. “It stands to reason that if his
vehicular collision (between Luna, driving a gokart, and Luis annual personal expenses should increase because of the
dela Rosa, 13 years old, driving a Toyota car without a license) ‘escalating price of gas which is a key expenditure in Roberto
at a gokart practice area. R. Luna's social standing’ [a statement which lacks complete
Heirs of Luna brought a suit for damages against Luis and his basis], it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his
father, which the CFI ruled in favor of the Lunas, awarding income would also increase considering the manifold sources
P1,650,000 as unearned net earnings of Luna, P12,000 thereof”
compensatory damages, and P50,000 for loss of his 2. YES
companionship (come on!!), with legal interest from date of the Ratio: The attorney's fees were awarded in the concept of
decision, and attorney’s fees of P50,000 (no interest damages in a quasi-delict case and under the circumstances,
mentioned). (Note: father and son solidarily liable for interest as part thereof may be adjudicated at the discretion of
damages.) the court.
The Dela Rosas appealed in the CA, which affirmed in toto the (The atty’s fees should accrue interest from the date of filing of
RTC. In a MFR filed by the Dela Rosas, the CA modified the the compliant.)
decision, this time reducing the unearned income to P450,000.
Both parties filed separate petitions for review in the SC. Obiter:
Petition of the Dela Rosas was denied for lack of merit. The The Dela Rosas invoke the ruling in Elcano v Hilll, where the
instant petition is the one filed by Lunas, contending that the court held that A2180 applied to Atty. Hill nothwithstanding the
CA erred in reducing the award for unearned income, and that emancipation by marriage of his son, but since the son had
the award for atty’s fees should include legal interest. attained majority, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill
Pending the decision, the SC came out with a resolution became merely subsidiarily to that of his son. The Dela Rosas
ordering the Dela Rosas, in the interest of justice (since the now invoke that the father should also be held only subsidiarily.
death took place in 1970, and 15 years after the process of To this contention, the court is “unwilling to apply equity instead
litigation is still not over), to pay the Lunas P450,000 for of strict law because to do so will not serve the ends of justice.
unearned net earnings, P12,000 compensatory damages, Luis is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine Courts. Also,
P50,000 for loss of companionship, all with legal interest, and he has no property in the Phils or elsewhere.”
atty’s fees of P50,000, within 30 days. Disposition: resolution of CA SET ASIDE, reinstating the
The Dela Rosas failed to pay the amounts, saying that they earlier decision with slight modification regarding the award of
had no cash money. The writ of execution produced only a atty’s fees.
nominal amount. In the meantime, Luis is already of age,
married, with 2 kids, and living in Spain but only causally
employed (“His compensation is hardly enough to support his B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
family. He has no assets of his own as yet”).

ISSUES: QUASI TORTS (Black’s Law Dictionary)


1. WON the CA erred in reducing the unearned income
2. WON the award for atty’s fees should have legal interest

HELD:
1. YES PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 603:THE CHILD AND YOUTH
Ratio: The reduction of the award of net unearned earnings WELFARE CODE
had no basis, thus is void. CHAPTER IV: Liabilities of Parents
Reasoning: the RTC based its computation of the net Article 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for
unearned earnings on 2 factors: life expectancy of the the damage caused by the child under their parental authority
deceased of another 30 years, and an annual net income of in accordance with the Civil Code.
P55,000 (P75,000 gross income less P20,000 personal
expenses). FAMILY CODE:
In coming out with the life expectancy, RTC considered the age
and health of the deceased. However, the CA modified this by Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed
factoring in the “engagement of Luna in car racing,” thus guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute
lowering the life expectancy to only 10 years. parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
WRT to the gross income, RTC considered the various (1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
positions the deceased held at the time of his death, and the (2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age,
trend of his earnings over the span of his last few years, thus unless unfit or disqualified; and
coming up with a potential gross income of P75,000. However, (3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age,
the CA increased the annual personal expenses to P30,000, unless unfit or disqualified.
due to the escalating gasoline expenses, thus lowering the net Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the
annual unearned income to P45,000. property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of
CA erred in ruling that the engagement with car racing reduced preference shall be observed.
the life expectancy. There is nothing on record that supports
the claim that the car racing was a dangerous and risky activity Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
tending to shorten his life expectancy. “That Luna was individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have
engaged in go-kart racing is the correct statement but then go- special parental authority and responsibility over the minor
kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go- child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized committed in their establishments, in all cases where a
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special
entity or institution. (349a) police regulation shall have been committed by them or their
employees.
Art. 129. Those given the authority and responsibility under the Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of
preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof,
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the
persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the
shall be subsidiarily liable. deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his
paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the representative may have given them with respect to the care
proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi- unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
delicts. (n)
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
children living in their company and under their parental servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. discharge of their duties.

Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental Republic Act No. 9344
authority over the person and property of the child who shall AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE
then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE
RPC: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child
exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission
2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However,
this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which the child shall be subjected to an intervention program
shall be enforced subject to the following rules: pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years
liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be
and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted
but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that The exemption from criminal liability herein established does
there was no fault or negligence on their part. not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or enforced in accordance with existing laws.
minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if
such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall CIVIL CODE:
respond with their own property, excepting property exempt Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
from execution, in accordance with the civil law. demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother,
be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children
received. who live in their company.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, their company.
even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
with the consent of the authorities or their agents, employed or on the occasion of their functions.
indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
special laws or regulations. employees and household helpers acting within the scope of
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged
the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be in any business or industry.
primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
that part of their property exempt from execution. the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which
case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
and proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the ISSUE
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Whether defendant Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable,
(1903a) jointly and severally with his son Dante, for damages resulting
from the death of Isidoro Caperiña caused by the negligent act
Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his of minor Dante Capuno.
dependents or employees may recover from the latter what he
has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904) RULING
YES.1
Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has RATIO
no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be Parents shall be liable for the tortious conduct of their minor
answerable with his own property in an action against him children living with them although at the time of the tort, the
where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. (n) children were under the direct control or supervision of an
academic institution. (THIS IS A LANDMARK DOCTRINE,
WHICH WAS LATER MODIFIED BY J CRUZ IN AMADORA
1. PARENTS VS. COURT OF APPEALS)

REASONING
SABINA EXCONDE vs. DELFIN CAPUNO and DANTE The provision “Teachers or directors of arts and trades are
CAPUNO L-10068-70 06291957 BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices
while they are under their custody", only applies to an
FACTS institution of arts and trades and not to any academic
Dante Capuno, son of Delfin Capuno, was accused of double educational institution.
homicide through reckless imprudence for the death of Isidoro Dante Capuno was then a student of the Balintawak
Caperiña and Amado Ticzon on March 31, 1949 in the Court of Elementary School and as part of his extra-curricular activity,
First Instance of Laguna. During the trial, Sabina Exconde, as he attended the parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal upon
mother of the deceased Isidoro Caperiña, reserved her right to instruction of the city school's supervisor. And it was in
bring a separate civil action for damages against the accused. connection with that parade that Dante boarded a jeep with
After trial, Dante Capuno was found guilty of the crime charged some companions and while driving it, the accident occurred.
and, on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. In the circumstances, it is clear that neither the head of that
Dante Capuno was only fifteen (15) years old when he school, nor the city school's supervisor, could be held liable for
committed the crime. the negligent act of Dante because he was not then a student
In line with her reservation, Sabina Exconde filed the present of an institution of arts and trades as provided for by law.
action against Delfin Capuno and his son Dante Capuno The civil liability which the law impose upon the father, and, in
asking for damages in the aggregate amount of P2,959.00 for case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages
the death of her son Isidoro Caperiña. Defendants set up the that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is
defense that if any one should be held liable for the death of obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the parental
Isidoro Caperiña, he is Dante Capuno and not his father Delfin authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the
because at the time of the accident, the former was not under parents the "duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
the control, supervision and custody of the latter. This defense company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to
was sustained by the lower court and, as a consequence, it their means", while, on the other hand, gives them the "right to
only convicted Dante Capuno to pay the damages claimed in correct and punish them in moderation" (Articles 154 and 155,
the complaint. From this decision, plaintiff appealed to the Spanish Civil Code). The only way by which they can relieve
Court of Appeals but the case was certified to the Supreme themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all
Court on the ground that the appeal only involves questions of the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage
law. (Article 1903, last paragraph, Spanish Civil Code). This
It appears that Dante Capuno was a member of the Boy defendants failed to prove.
Scouts Organization and a student of the Balintawak Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense
Elementary School situated in a barrio in the City of San Pablo that defendants Delfin Capuno and Dante Capuno shall pay to
and on March 31, 1949 he attended a parade in honor of Dr. plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of P2,959.00 as
Jose Rizal in said city upon instruction of the city school's damages, and the costs of action.
supervisor. From the school Dante, with other students,
boarded a jeep and when the same started to run, he took hold REYES, J.B.L., J., dissenting:
of the wheel and drove it while the driver sat on his left side. I believe we should affirm the judgment relieving the father of
They have not gone far when the jeep turned turtle and two of liability. I can see no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 of the
its passengers, Amado Ticzon and Isidoro Caperiña, died as a old Civil Code to teachers of arts and trades and not to
consequence. It further appears that Delfin Capuno, father of
Dante, was not with his son at the time of the accident, nor did
he know that his son was going to attend a parade. He only 1The case involves an interpretation of Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code, paragraph 1 and 5, (school’s liability
came to know it when his son told him after the accident that versus parental liability) which provides:
he attended the parade upon instruction of his teacher.
Plaintiff contends that defendant Delfin Capuno is liable for the "ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for personal acts and
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.
damages in question jointly and severally with his son Dante
because at the time the latter committed the negligent act The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by the minor
which resulted in the death of the victim, he was a minor and children who live with them.
was then living with his father, and inasmuch as these facts are
not disputed, the civil liability of the father is evident. And so, xxx xxx xxx
Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices
plaintiff contends, the lower court erred in relieving the father while they are under their custody."
from liability.
academic ones. What substantial difference is there between ISSUES & ARGUMENTS
them in so far as concerns the proper supervision and vigilance W/N the father can be held subsidiary liable to pay
over their pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an the indemnity of P2,000.00 which his son was sentenced
academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching that his to pay in the criminal case filed against him.
pupils do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so
long as they are in a position to exercise authority and HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI
supervision over the pupil. In my opinion, in the phrase Yes.
"teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades" used While the court agrees with the theory that, as a rule, the
in Art. 1903 of the old Civil Code, the words "arts and trades" civil liability arising from a crime shall be governed by the
does not qualify "teachers" but only "heads of establishments". provisions of the Revised Penal Code, it disagrees with the
The phrase is only an updated version of the equivalent terms contention that the subsidiary liability of persons for acts of
"preceptores y artesanos" used in the Italian and French Civil those who are under their custody should likewise be
Codes. governed by the same Code even in the absence of any
If, as conceded by all commentators, the basis of the provision governing the case, for that would leave the
presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 in some culpa in transgression of certain right without any punishment or
vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have sanction in the law. Such would be the case if we would
incurred in the exercise of their authority, it would seem clear uphold the theory of appellee as sustained by the trial court.
that where the parent places the child under the effective A minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not
authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should exempt from criminal liability, for which reason the Code is
be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he
custody, for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to stand convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the
interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority general law which is our Civil Code.
and supervision of the teacher while the child is under The particular law that governs this case is Article
instruction. And if there is no authority, there can be no 2180, the pertinent portion ofwhich provides: "The
responsibility. father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
I submit that the father should not be held liable for a tort that mother, are
he was in no way able to prevent, and which he had every right responsible for damages caused by the minor
to assume the school authorities would avoid. Having proved children who lived in their company."
that he entrusted his child to the custody of school authorities To hold that this provision does not apply to the instant
that were competent to exercise vigilance over him, the father case because it only covers obligations which arise from
has rebutted the presumption of Art. 1903 and the burden of quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from
proof shifted to the claimant to show actual negligence on the criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that while
part of the parent in order to render him liable. for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or
mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage
Padilla and Reyes, A., JJ., concur. caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the
damage is caused with criminal intent.
SALEN V. BALCE Verily, the void that apparently exists in the Revised Penal
G.R. No. L-14414 | April 27, 1960 Code is subserved by this particular provision of our Civil
Code, as may be gleaned from some recent
FACTS decisions of this Court which cover equal or identical cases.
 Plaintiffs brought this action against defendant before the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte to recover the
sum of P2,000.00 FUELLAS V. CADANO
 Plaintiffs are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen
who died single from wounds caused by Gumersindo Nature: Appeal from the Decision of the Trial Court making
Balce, a legitimate son of defendant. defendant therein, now appellant Agapito Fuellas, the father of
 Gumersindo Balce was also Single, a minor below 18 the minor who caused the injuries to Pepito Cadano, also a
years of age, and was living with defendant. As a result minor, liable under Art. 2180 of the new Civil Code for
of Carlos Salen's death, Gumersindo Balce accused and damages.
convicted of homicide and was sentenced imprisonment
and to pay the heirs of the deceased an indemnity in the Facts: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-
amount of P2,000.00. appellant Agapito Fuellas, were both 13 years old, on
 Upon petition of plaintiff, the only heirs of the September 16, 1954. They were classmates at St. Mary's High
deceased, a writ of execution was issued for the School, Dansalan City. They had a quarrel that lead to Pepito’s
payment of the indemnity but it was returned injury, his right arm was broken after Rico pushed him on the
unsatisfied because Gumersindo Balce was insolvent ground.
and had no property in his name. It is contended that in the decision of the Court of
 Thereupon, plaintiffs demanded upon defendant, Appeals, the petitioner-appellant was ordered to pay damages
father of Gumersindo, the payment of the indemnity for the deliberate injury caused by his son; that the said court
the latter has failed to pay, but defendant refused, thus held the petitioner liable pursuant to par. 2 of Art. 2180 of the
causing plaintiffs to institute the present action. Civil Code, in connection with Art. 2176 of the same Code; that
 The trial court held that that the civil liability of the son according to the last article, the act of the minor must be one
of appellee arises from his criminal liability and, wherein "fault or negligence" is present; and that there being
therefore, the subsidiary liability of appellee must no fault or negligence on the part of petitioner-appellant's minor
be determined under the provisions of the Revised son, but deliberate intent, the above mentioned articles are not
Penal Code, and not under Article 2180 of the new applicable, for the existence of deliberate intent in the
Civil Code which only applies to obligations which commission of an act negatives the presence of fault or
arise from quasi-delicts negligence in its commission. Appellant, therefore, submits that
the appellate Court erred in holding him liable for damages for present case was instituted, is entirely separate and distinct
the deliberate criminal act of his minor son. from the civil liability arising from fault of negligence under the
Issue: WON the father is liable civilly for the criminal act of his Penal Code (Art. 2177), and having in mind the reasons behind
son? the law as heretofore stated, any discussion as to the minor's
Held: Yes. In an earlier case (Exconde vs. Capuno, et al., G.R. criminal responsibility is of no moment.
No. L-10132, prom. June 29, 1957), holding the defendants IN VIEW HEREOF, the petition is dismissed, the decision
jointly and severally liable with his minor son Dante for appealed from is affirmed
damages, arising from the criminal act committed by the latter,
this tribunal gave the following reasons for the rule: — GUTIERREZ VS GUTIERREZ
The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father and, in MALCOLM; September 23, 1931
case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages
that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is Nature:
obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the parental an action brought by the plaintiff in the Court of First Instance
authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the of Manila against the five defendants, to recover damages in
parents the "duty of supporting them, keeping them in their the amount of P10,000, for physical injuries suffered as a result
company, educating them in proportion to their means", while of an automobile accident.
on the other hand, gives them the "right to correct and punish
them in moderation" (Arts. 134 and 135, Spanish Civil Code). Facts:
The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this A passenger truck and an automobile of private ownership
liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a collided while attempting to pass each other on the Talon
good father of a family to prevent the damage (Art. 1903, last bridge on the Manila South Road in the municipality of Las
paragraph, Spanish Civil Code). This, defendants failed to Piñas, Province of Rizal. The truck was driven by the chauffeur
prove. Abelardo Velasco, and was owned by Saturnino Cortez. The
In another case, Salen and Salbanera vs. Jose Balce, the automobile was being operated by Bonifacio Gutierrez, a lad
defendant Balce was the father of a minor Gumersindo Balce, 18 years of age, and was owned by Bonifacio's father and
below 18 years of age who was living with him. Gumersindo mother, Mr. and Mrs. Manuel Gutierrez. At the time of the
was found guilty of homicide for having killed Carlos Salen, collision, the father was not in the car, but the mother, together
minor son of plaintiffs. The trial court rendered judgment will several other members of the Gutierrez family, seven in all,
dismissing the case, stating that the civil liability of the minor were accommodated therein. Narcisso Gutierrez was a
son of defendant arising from his criminal liability must be passenger of the bus. He had a fracture on his right leg.
determined under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code It was conceded that the collision was caused by
and not under Art. 2180 of the new Civil Code. In reversing the negligence pure and simple. But, Narcisso Gutierrez blames
decision, this tribunal held: — both the bus and the car while the truck blames the car and the
It is true that under Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a car in turn blames the truck.
father is made civilly liable for the acts committed by his son the youth Bonifacio was in incompetent chauffeur,
only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane, under 9 years of age, that he was driving at an excessive rate of speed, and that, on
or over 9 but under 15 years of age, who acts without approaching the bridge and the truck, he lost his head and so
discernment, unless it appears that there is no fault or contributed by his negligence to the accident. The guaranty
negligence on his part. This is because a son who commits the given by the father at the time the son was granted a license to
act under any of those conditions is by law exempt from operate motor vehicles made the father responsible for the acts
criminal liability (Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, Revised of his son. Based on these facts, pursuant to the provisions of
Penal Code). The idea is not to leave the act entirely article 1903 of the Civil Code, the father alone and not the
unpunished but to attach certain civil liability to the person who minor or the mother, would be liable for the damages caused
has the delinquent minor under his legal authority or control. by the minor.
But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt
from criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to Issue:
the subsidiary liability of his parents should he stand convicted. 1. WON the father of Bonifacio (car) is liable.
In that case, resort should be had to the general law which is 2. WON the owner of the truck is liable.
our Civil Code.
The particular law that governs this case is Article 2180, the Held:
pertinent portion of which provides: "The father and, in case of 1. Yes. In the United States, it is uniformly held that the
his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for head of a house, the owner of an automobile, who
damages caused by the minor children who live in their maintains it for the general use of his family is liable
company." To hold that this provision does not apply to the for its negligent operation by one of his children,
instant case because it only covers obligations which arise whom he designates or permits to run it, where the
from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal car is occupied and being used at the time of the
offenses, would result in the absurdity that while for an act injury for the pleasure of other members of the
where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may owner's family than the child driving it. The theory of
stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her the law is that the running of the machine by a child to
son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with carry other members of the family is within the scope
criminal intent. Verily, the void apparently exists in the Revised of the owner's business, so that he is liable for the
Penal Code is subserved by this particular provision of our Civil negligence of the child because of the relationship of
Code, as may be gleaned from some recent decisions of this master and servant.
Court which cover equal or identical cases. 2. Yes. The liability of Saturnino Cortez, the owner of
the truck, and of his chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests
Moreover, the case at bar was decided by the Court of Appeals on a different basis, namely, that of contract. The
on the basis of the evidence submitted therein by both parties, reason for this conclusion reaches to the findings of
independently of the criminal case. And responsibility for fault the trial court concerning the position of the truck on
or negligence under Article 2176 upon which the action in the the bridge, the speed in operating the machine, and
the lack of care employed by the chauffeur. In its trend of his earnings over the span of his last few years, thus
broader aspects, the case is one of two drivers coming up with a potential gross income of P75,000. However,
approaching a narrow bridge from opposite directions, the CA increased the annual personal expenses to P30,000,
with neither being willing to slow up and give the right due to the escalating gasoline expenses, thus lowering the net
of way to the other, with the inevitable result of a annual unearned income to P45,000.
collision and an accident CA erred in ruling that the engagement with car racing reduced
Disposition the life expectancy. There is nothing on record that supports
In consonance with the foregoing rulings, the judgment the claim that the car racing was a dangerous and risky activity
appealed from will be modified, and the plaintiff will have tending to shorten his life expectancy. “That Luna was
judgment in his favor against the defendants Manuel Gutierrez, engaged in go-kart racing is the correct statement but then go-
Abelardo Velasco, and Saturnino Cortez, jointly and severally, kart racing cannot be categorized as a dangerous sport for go-
for the sum of P5,000, and the costs of both instances. karts are extremely low slung, low powered vehicles, only
slightly larger than foot-pedaled four wheeled conveyances. It
RODRIGUEZ-LUNA V IAC (DELA ROSA) was error on the part of the CA to have disturbed the
135 SCRA 242 ABAD SANTOS; February 28, 1985 determination of the RTC which it had previously affirmed.”
Also, it was an error to increase the expenses without
NATURE: Petition to review a decision of CA increasing the gross income. “It stands to reason that if his
FACTS: Roberto Luna, a businessman, was killed in a annual personal expenses should increase because of the
vehicular collision (between Luna, driving a gokart, and Luis ‘escalating price of gas which is a key expenditure in Roberto
dela Rosa, 13 years old, driving a Toyota car without a license) R. Luna's social standing’ [a statement which lacks complete
at a gokart practice area. basis], it would not be unreasonable to suppose that his
Heirs of Luna brought a suit for damages against Luis and his income would also increase considering the manifold sources
father, which the CFI ruled in favor of the Lunas, awarding thereof”
P1,650,000 as unearned net earnings of Luna, P12,000 2. YES
compensatory damages, and P50,000 for loss of his Ratio: The attorney's fees were awarded in the concept of
companionship (come on!!), with legal interest from date of the damages in a quasi-delict case and under the circumstances,
decision, and attorney’s fees of P50,000 (no interest interest as part thereof may be adjudicated at the discretion of
mentioned). (Note: father and son solidarily liable for the court.
damages.) (The atty’s fees should accrue interest from the date of filing of
The Dela Rosas appealed in the CA, which affirmed in toto the the compliant.)
RTC. In a MFR filed by the Dela Rosas, the CA modified the
decision, this time reducing the unearned income to P450,000. Obiter:
Both parties filed separate petitions for review in the SC. The Dela Rosas invoke the ruling in Elcano v Hilll, where the
Petition of the Dela Rosas was denied for lack of merit. The court held that A2180 applied to Atty. Hill nothwithstanding the
instant petition is the one filed by Lunas, contending that the emancipation by marriage of his son, but since the son had
CA erred in reducing the award for unearned income, and that attained majority, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill
the award for atty’s fees should include legal interest. became merely subsidiarily to that of his son. The Dela Rosas
Pending the decision, the SC came out with a resolution now invoke that the father should also be held only subsidiarily.
ordering the Dela Rosas, in the interest of justice (since the To this contention, the court is “unwilling to apply equity instead
death took place in 1970, and 15 years after the process of of strict law because to do so will not serve the ends of justice.
litigation is still not over), to pay the Lunas P450,000 for Luis is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine Courts. Also,
unearned net earnings, P12,000 compensatory damages, he has no property in the Phils or elsewhere.”
P50,000 for loss of companionship, all with legal interest, and Disposition: resolution of CA SET ASIDE, reinstating the
atty’s fees of P50,000, within 30 days. earlier decision with slight modification regarding the award of
The Dela Rosas failed to pay the amounts, saying that they atty’s fees.
had no cash money. The writ of execution produced only a
nominal amount. In the meantime, Luis is already of age,
married, with 2 kids, and living in Spain but only causally LIBI V INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (SPS
employed (“His compensation is hardly enough to support his GOTIONG) 214 SCRA 16 REGALADO; Sept. 18,1992
family. He has no assets of his own as yet”).
NATURE
ISSUES: Petition for review of the decision of the then Intermediate
1. WON the CA erred in reducing the unearned income Appellate Court.
2. WON the award for atty’s fees should have legal interest
FACTS
HELD: - respondent spouses are the legitimate parents of Julie Ann
1. YES Gotiong who, at the time of the deplorable incident which took
Ratio: The reduction of the award of net unearned earnings place and from which she died on January 14,1979, was an
had no basis, thus is void. 18-year old first year commerce student of the University of
Reasoning: the RTC based its computation of the net unearned San Carlos, Cebu City; while petitioners are the parents of
earnings on 2 factors: life expectancy of the deceased of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and 19 years of age
another 30 years, and an annual net income of P55,000 living with his aforesaid parents, and who also died in the same
(P75,000 gross income less P20,000 personal expenses). event on the same date.
In coming out with the life expectancy, RTC considered the age - More than 2 years before their deaths, Julie Ann Gotiong and
and health of the deceased. However, the CA modified this by Wendell Libi were sweethearts until December, 1978 when
factoring in the “engagement of Luna in car racing,” thus Julie Ann broke up with Wendell after she found him to be
lowering the life expectancy to only 10 years. sadistic and irresponsible.
WRT to the gross income, RTC considered the various - January, 1979 - Wendell kept pestering Julie Ann with
positions the deceased held at the time of his death, and the demands for reconciliation but the Julie refused, prompting him
to resort to threats against her. In order to avoid him, Julie Ann > applying A2194 (solidary liability of joint tortfeasors) the
stayed in the house of her best friend, Malou Alfonso parent is also solidarily liable with the child. THE LIABILITY
- January 14,1979 - Julie and Wendell died from a single OF PARENTS FOR FELONIES IS LIKEWISE PRIMARY NOT
gunshot wound inflicted with the same firearm licensed under SUBSIDIARY. A101 RPC SAYS SO
Cresencio Libi, father of Wendell > RULES:
- both set of parents came up with versions of the story + for civil liability from crimes committed by minors under the
Gotiongs: legal authority and control or who live in the company of the
> Wendell caused her death by shooting her and thereafter parents: PRIMARY
turning the gun on himself to commit suicide = premised on A101 RPC fot damages ex delicto by kids 9 or
Libis: under or 9-15 but without discernment
> an unknown third party, whom Wendell may have displeased = premised on A2180 CC for kids 9-15 with discernment or 15-
or antagonized by reason of his work as a narcotics informer of 21 (now 18)
the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), must have + liability effected against father or mother? BOTH PARENTS
caused Wendell's death and then shot Julie Ann to eliminate AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL AUHTORITY
any witness and thereby avoid identification OVER THE MINOR
- CFI Cebu: Gotiongs filed civil case against the parents of = youth welfare code
Wendell to recover damages arising from the latter's vicarious = FC: responsibility of parents
liability under A2180 CC. CFI dismissed the complaint for + for civil liability arising from QDs committed by minors: same
insufficiency of the evidence. rules in A2180 and A2182
- IAC: CFI decision set aside and found Libis subsidiarily liable
Disposition Instant petition is DENIED and the assailed
ISSUE judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED
WON A2180 CC is applicable in making Libi’s liable for
vicarious liability
TAMARGO vs CA (Rubio, Bundoc)
HELD 209 SCRA 518 Feliciano, J; 1992
YES
Ratio The diligence of a good father of a family required by law NATURE: Appeal for review of CA decision
in a parent and child relationship consists, to a large extent, of FACTS
the instruction and supervision of the child. Had the - On October 20, 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then aged ten, shot
defendants-appellees been diligent in supervising the activities Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries which
of their son, Wendell, and in keeping said gun from his reach, resulted in her death. He was charged with reckless
they could have prevented Wendell from killing Julie Ann imprudence resulting to homicide but was acquitted and
Gotiong. Therefore, appellants are liable under A2180 CC. exempted from criminal liability ob the ground that he had
Reasoning acted without discernment. The adopting and natural parents of
- undue emphasis was placed by the lower court on the Jennifer filed a civil complaint for damages against the parents
absence of gunpowder or tattooing around the wound at the of Bundoc.
point of entry of the bullet. It should be emphasized, however, - The parents of Adelberto claimed that they are not the
that this is not the only circumstance to be taken into account indispensable party in the action as their son adopted by the
in the determination of whether it was suicide or not as the spouses Rapisura on November 18, 1982 via an adoption
body was cleaned already in the funeral parlor decree granted by the CFI of Ilocos Sur. The trial Court agreed
- Amelita Libi, mother of Wendell, testified that her husband, with the respondents and dismissed the complaint.
Cresencio Libi, owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit - The case contained procedural questions which were raised
box inside a drawer in their bedroom. Each of these petitioners in the appeal. The SC however decided to hear the appeal
holds a key to the safety deposit box and Amelita's key is based on substantial justice.
always in her bag, all of which facts were known to Wendell.
They have never seen their son Wendell taking or using the ISSUE
gun. She admitted, however, that on that fateful night the gun - WON the spouses Bundoc were indispensable party to the
was no longer in the safety deposit box. We, accordingly, tort action under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
cannot but entertain serious doubts that petitioner spouses had
really been exercising the diligence of a good father of a family HELD-
by safely locking the fatal gun away. Wendell could not have - Yes. The Court held that parental authority did not
gotten hold thereof unless one of the keys to the safety deposit retroactively transfer to and vested in the adopting parents at
box was negligently left lying around or he had free access to the time the shooting incident occurred. The adopting parents
the bag of his mother where the other key was. had no actual or physical custody of Adelberto at the time of
- A2180': The subsidiary liability of parents for damages the incident as they were then in the US were they live. To do
caused by their minor children imposed by A2180 CC covers so and hold them liable for the tortious act when be unfair and
obligations wising from both quasi-delicts and criminal unconscionable.
offenses.'
- BUT Liability is not subsidiary BUT primary Reasoning-
> if the liability of the parents for crimes and QDs of their minor - The act of Adelberto gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-
children is subsidiary, they they can neither invoke nor be delict against him under Article 2176. However, because of his
absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the minority, the provision of Article 2180 would be applicable.
diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damages. Article 2180 reads “ the obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
But if the liability id direct and primary, the diligence would demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also
constitute a valid substantial defense. HENCE, LIABILITY OF for those of persons for whom one is responsible… The father
PARENTS FOR QDS OF THEIR MINOR KIDS AS and, incase of his death or incapacity, the mother are
CONTEMPLATED IN A2180 ID PRIMARY NOT SUBSIDIARY responsible for the damages caused by the children who live in
their company… The responsibility treated of in this Article
shall cease when the person herein mentioned prove that they child was at school, where it was his duty to send her and
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to where she was, as he had the right to expect her to be, under
prevent damage. the care and supervision of the teacher.
- The principle of parental liability is designated as vicarious The act which caused the injury was concerned, it
liability or the doctrine of imputed liability under the Anglo- was an innocent prank not unusual among children at play
American tort law. Thus, under this doctrine, a person is not and which no parent, however careful, would have any
only liable for torts committed by him also torts committed by special reason to anticipate much less guard against. Nor
others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom did it reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait
he is responsibility. Thus parental liability is made a natural or in the child's character which would reflect unfavorably on
logical consequence of the duties and responsibilities of the her upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed
parents which include the instructing, controlling, and to her parents.
disciplining of the child. The presumption under law is that The victim, no doubt, deserves no little commiseration and
when a child under their care commits a tortuous act the sympathy for the tragedy
parents were negligent in the performance of these duties and that befell her. But if the defendant is at all obligated to
responsibilities. As stated, sufficient proof can be presented to compensate her suffering, compulsion of good conscience.
overcome this presumption.
Disposition –
Petition granted. Decision set aside. 2. GUARDIANS

Cuadra v. Monfort FAMILY CODE:


Makalintal G.R. L-24101 | Sept. 30, 1970 |
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed
FACTS guardian, the following person shall exercise substitute
Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfort, parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
13, were classmates in Grade Six. Their teacher assigned (1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
them, together with three other classmates, to weed the (2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age,
grass in the school premises. Maria Teresa Monfort unless unfit or disqualified; and
found a plastic headband. Jokingly she said aloud that she (3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age,
had found an earthworm and, to frighten the Cuadra girl, unless unfit or disqualified.
tossed the object at her. At that precise moment the latter Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the
turned around to face property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of
her friend, and the object hit her right eye. preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)
Smarting from the pain, she rubbed the injured part
and treated it with some powder. The next day, the eye Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or
became swollen and it was then that the girl related the abused children and other children similarly situated, parental
incident to her parents, who thereupon took her to a doctor authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to
for treatment. She underwent surgical operation twice, first heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar institutions
on July 20 and again on August 4, 1962, and stayed in the duly accredited by the proper government agency. (314a)
hospital for a total of twenty-three days, for all of which
the parents spent the sum of P1,703.75. Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
Despite the medical efforts, however, Maria Teresa individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have
Cuadra completely lost the sight of her right eye. special parental authority and responsibility over the minor
In the civil suit subsequently instituted by the child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
parents in behalf of their minor daughter against Alfonso
Monfort, Maria Teresa Monfort's father, the defendant was CIVIL CODE:
ordered to pay P1,703.00 as actual damages; P20,000.00 as Arts 2180-2181: supra
moral damages; and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus the
costs of the suit.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS


W/N the parents are liable for the acts of their minor child
when the act or omission of the child is committed in the
absence of the parents.

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI: NO.


There is no meticulously calibrated measure
applicable; and when the law simply refers to "all the
diligence of a good father of the family to prevent
damage," it
implies a consideration of the attendant circumstances in
every individual case, to determine whether or not by the
exercise of such diligence the damage could have been
prevented.
There is nothing from which it may be inferred that the
defendant could have prevented the damage by the
observance of due care, or that he was in any way remiss
in the exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee
such damage, or the act which caused it. On the contrary, his