CUADRA vs.

MONFORT
The case is about a suit for damages instituted by the parents of Ma. Teresa
Cuadra against Alfonso Monfort, the father of her classmate Ma. Teresa
Monfort. The minors, Cuadra and Monfort were classmates, one day at
school, they were asked by their teacher to weed the grass, while weeding,
Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband and she jokingly shouted that it as
an earthworm and to frighten Cuadra, Monfort then tossed the headband at
Cuadra which hit her in the eye. The next day Cuadra’s eye became swollen
and she was brought to a doctor for treatment; She underwent surgical
operation twice but nevertheless completely lost sight of her right eye.
In behalf of their minor child, Cuadra’s parents filed a suit for damages
under Articles 2176 and 2180.
Issue:
Whether or not the father, Alfonso Monfort is liable for damages under
Articles 2176 and 2180 for the act of his minor child.
Ruling:
The court ruled in the negative, stating that the provision of Art. 2176
states that “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”
While Paragraphs 1&2 of Art. 2180 provide that “The obligation imposed by
article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company.”
The court reasoned that the basis of this vicarious, although primary liability
is, as in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is presumed from that which
accompanied the causative act or omission. The court however explained,
that the presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted as
inferred in the last paragraph of Art. 2180
Therefore, in view of the fact that the child was in school, under the care and
supervision of the teacher when the incident happened, there is nothing that
the father could have done by observance of due care, to prevent the
damage, or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental
authority in failing to foresee such damage.
And in relation to the act which caused the injury, it was an innocent prank
which is not unusual among children at play and no parent, however careful,
would have any special reason to anticipate much less guard against. Nor
did it reveal any inclination of mischief, or any trait in the child's character
which would reflect unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the blame
could be attributed to her parents.
Lastly, the court said that if the defendant Monfort is, in any way, obligated
to compensate for the suffering of Cuadra brought about by the unfortunate
incident, such obligation has no legal sanction enforceable in court, but only
the moral compulsion of good conscience.