EXCONDE vs CAPUNO

FACTS: Dante Capuno was a member of the BSP and a student of Balintawak Elem School in San Pablo
City. He attended a parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal upon the school supervisor’s instruction. Dante,
with some other students, boarded a jeep. He took hold of the wheel and drove it while the driver sat by
his side. The jeep turned turtle and 2 students died as a consequence. Delfin, father of Dante, was not
with him at the time of the accident nor did he know that he is attending a parade. The mother of one
of the deceased students filed an action for damages against Delfin (Dante’s father) due to the act of his
son.

ISSUE: W/N Delfin is liable for the negligent acts committed by his minor son

HELD: Yes. Art. 2180 provides that the father, and in case of his death, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. This is necessary consequence of
the parental authority they exercise over the minor children. The only way they can escape liability is if
they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. In
this case, Delfin failed to prove such defense.

Meanwhile, the teachers and directors of the school cannot be held liable because the school is an
academic educational institution. It is not the school of arts and trades that is contemplated by law.

RODRIGUEZ-LUNA vs IAC

FACTS: Petitoners are heirs of the deceased Roberto Luna who was killed in a vehicular accident. The
collision took place at the go-kart racing area in San Juan. Involved are the go-kart driven by the
deceased and Toyota car driven by Luis Dela Rosa, a minor without a driver’s license. Heirs of the
deceased filed an action for damages against Jose, father of the minor Luis.

ISSUE: W/N Jose is primarily liable for the act committed by his minor son

HELD: Yes. When the accident occurred, Luis was then a minor. However, respondents invoke equity as
in the case of Elcano v Hll. They contend that considering that Luis is now of legal age and is now
married, the liability of his father should be subsidiary only. However, the Court cannot apply equity
than strict law in this case because to do so would not serve the ends of justice. Luis is abroad and
beyond the reach of Phil courts. Further, he does not have any property in the country or elsewhere.