Torts Module 4 / Persons Liable

TORTS MODULE 4 / PERSONS LIABLE
THE TORTFEASOR/S Insurance paid Columbia the amount of P1.8M as

Both natural and juridical persons may be held insurance indemnity.
liable for quasi-delict.
R&B Insurance, thereafter, filed a complaint for
With respect to juridical persons, the liability damages against both Loadmasters and Glodel before
is always imputed because artificial beings the RTC, seeking reimbursement for the amount it had
act only through their officers, employees’ paid Columbia for the loss of the subject cargo.
agents.
Even the State and its political subdivisions RTC RULING: held Glodel liable for damages for the
loss of the subject cargo; dismissed Loadmasters'
may be subject to civil liability.
counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees against
R&B Insurance
CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE
JOINT TORTFEASORS CA RULING: Loadmasters, as an agent of Glodel, is
likewise held liable to Glodel in the amount of P1.8M
ARTICLE 2194. The responsibility of two or more representing the insurance indemnity Glodel has been
persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. held liable to appellant R&B Insurance Corporation.
Loadmaster Custom Services, Inc. v. Glodel ISSUE:

Brokerage Corp. G.R. No. 179446 (2011) Who, between Glodel and Loadmasters, is liable to
pay R&B Insurance for the amount of the indemnity it
FACTS: paid Columbia?
R&B Insurance issued a Marine Policy in favor of
Columbia to insure the shipment of 132 bundles of RULING:
electric copper cathodes against All Risks. The cargoes At the outset, it is well to resolve the issue of whether
were shipped on board the vessel "Richard Rey" from Loadmasters and Glodel are common carriers to
Isabela, Leyte, to Pier 10, North Harbor, Manila. They determine their liability for the loss of the subject
arrived on the same date. cargo. Under Article 1732 of the Civil Code, common
carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations
Columbia engaged the services of Glodel for the engaged in the business of carrying or transporting
release and withdrawal of the cargoes from the pier passenger or goods, or both by land, water or air for
and the subsequent delivery to its warehouses/plants. compensation, offering their services to the public.
Glodel, in turn, engaged the services of Loadmasters
for the use of its delivery trucks to transport the Based on the aforecited definition, Loadmasters is a
cargoes to Columbia's warehouses/plants in Bulacan common carrier because it is engaged in the business
and Valenzuela City. of transporting goods by land, through its trucking
service. There is no indication that the undertaking in
The goods were loaded on board 12 trucks owned by the contract between Loadmasters and Glodel was
Loadmasters, driven by its employed drivers and private in character. There is no showing that
accompanied by its employed truck helpers. 6 Loadmasters solely and exclusively rendered services
truckloads of copper cathodes were to be delivered to to Glodel. In fact, Loadmasters admitted that it is a
Bulacan, while the other 6 truckloads were destined for common carrier.
Valenzuela City. The cargoes in 6 truckloads for
Valenzuela City were duly delivered in Columbia's In the same vein, Glodel is also considered a common
warehouses there. Of the 6 trucks en route to Bulacan, carrier within the context of Article 1732. In its
however, only 5 reached the destination. 1 truck Memorandum, it states that it "is a corporation duly
loaded with copper cathodes failed to deliver its cargo. organized and existing under the laws of the Republic
of the Philippines and is engaged in the business of
The said truck was later recovered but without the customs brokering." A customs broker is also regarded
copper cathodes. Columbia filed with R&B Insurance a as a common carrier, the transportation of goods being
claim for insurance indemnity in the amount of P1.9M. an integral part of its business.
After the requisite investigation and adjustment, R&B
Loadmasters and Glodel, being both common carriers,
are mandated from the nature of their business and for
Page 1 of 21
reasons of public policy, to observe the extraordinary should, therefore, be held liable with Loadmasters. Its
diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported defense of force majeure is unavailing.
by them according to all the circumstances of such
case, as required by Article 1733 of the Civil Code. What then is the extent of the respective liabilities of
When the Court speaks of extraordinary diligence, it is Loadmasters and Glodel? Each wrongdoer is liable
that extreme measure of care and caution which for the total damage suffered by R&B Insurance.
persons of unusual prudence and circumspection Where there are several causes for the resulting
observe for securing and preserving their own property damages, a party is not relieved from liability, even
or rights. Thus, in case of loss of the goods, the partially. It is sufficient that the negligence of a
common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to party is an efficient cause without which the damage
have acted negligently. This presumption of fault or would not have resulted. It is no defense to one of
negligence, however, may be rebutted by proof that the concurrent tortfeasors that the damage would
the common carrier has observed extraordinary not have resulted from his negligence alone,
diligence over the goods. without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other
concurrent tortfeasor.
Premises considered, the Court is of the view that
both Loadmasters and Glodel are jointly and In this case, however, Glodel cannot succeed in
severally liable to R&B Insurance for the loss of the seeking judicial sanction against Loadmasters because
subject cargo. Under Article 2194 of the New Civil the records disclose that it did not properly interpose a
Code, "the responsibility of two or more persons cross-claim against the latter. Glodel did not even pray
who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary." that Loadmasters be liable for any and all claims that it
may be adjudged liable in favor of R&B Insurance.
Loadmasters' claim that it was never privy to the Under the Rules, a compulsory counterclaim, or a
contract entered into by Glodel with the consignee cross-claim, not set up shall be barred. Thus, a cross-
Columbia or R&B Insurance as subrogee, is not a claim cannot be set up for the first time on appeal.
valid defense. It may not have a direct contractual
relation with Columbia, but it is liable for tort under Who can be considered joint tortfeasors?
the provisions of Article 2176 of the Civil Code on
Joint tortfeasors are all persons who:
quasi-delicts.
command,
It is not disputed that the subject cargo was lost while countenance,
in the custody of Loadmasters whose employees (truck cooperate in,
driver and helper) were instrumental in the hijacking or instigate,
robbery of the shipment. As employer, Loadmasters promote,
should be made answerable for the damages caused
encourage,
by its employees who acted within the scope of their
assigned task of delivering the goods safely to the advise,
warehouse. aid or abet the commission of a tort, or
who approve of it after it is done, if done
To avoid liability for a quasi-delict committed by its for their benefit.
employee, an employer must overcome the They are each liable as principals, to the same
presumption by presenting convincing proof that he
extent and in the same manner as if they had
exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and supervision of his employee. performed the wrongful act themselves.
In this regard, Loadmasters failed.
Joint Tortfeasor by Cooperation
Glodel is also liable because of its failure to exercise Defendants may be considered joint tortfeasors if
extraordinary diligence. It failed to ensure that they cooperated in bringing about a result.
Loadmasters would fully comply with the undertaking
Such cooperation may be by virtue of a written
to safely transport the subject cargo to the designated
destination. It should have been more prudent in agreement. (Chan v. INC)
entrusting the goods to Loadmasters by taking
precautionary measures, such as providing escorts to
accompany the trucks in delivering the cargoes. Glodel
Page 2 of 21
Part of Causal Set paying the obligation, such share shall be borne by all
Defendants may likewise be considered joint his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.
tortfeasors if each of their acts or omissions are
part of a causal set that is sufficient to cause Comparative Negligence Rule Among
damage to the plaintiff. Defendants
They may have acted with prior agreement or As between two persons who are responsible, it
independently but the totality of their acts or can be established that the extent of
omissions collectively caused the damage or participation of one party in causing the loss may
injury. be greater than the participation of another party.
Ex. PUV passenger injured in an accident A 60:40 ratio was used with respect to the
involving another vehicle. The drivers of both liability of banks for forged signatures in
vehicles may be held liable if their respective checks. If the indorser’s signature is forged
negligence are the proximate causes of the and the drawee bank cleared the check
injury. containing the forged indorsement, the
drawer will have the right to claim the
Separate Causal Sets amount debited from his account by the
Persons may be considered joint tortfeasors if drawee bank. Generally, it is the collecting
they acted separately or independently and even bank that must bear the loss because of its
without prior connection with the other. warranty of the genuineness of the signature
of the indorser, except if the drawee bank
REIMBURSEMENT AND APPORTIONMENT OF was likewise negligent.
LIABILITY
MOTOR VEHICLE MISHAPS
The joint tortfeasors owe solidary liability to the
ARTICLE 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is
injured party.
solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in
One of the tortfeasors cannot claim that his the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due
contribution is smaller than the contribution diligence, prevented the misfortune. It is disputably
of the other joint tortfeasors. presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been
No apportionment can be made because one found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic
tortfeasor may be held liable for the entire regulations at least twice within the next preceding two
months.
obligation.
A joint tortfeasor who paid the entire amount If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the
has the right to claim reimbursement. provisions of Article 2180 are applicable.
ARTICLE 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary Solidary liability is imposed on the owner of the
debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more
vehicle not because of his imputed liability but
solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose
which offer to accept. because his own omission is a concurring
proximate cause of injury.
He who made the payment may claim from his co- The test to be applied is whether or not the
debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with owner had reasonable opportunity to prevent
the interest for the payment already made. If the the misfortune.
payment is made before the debt is due, no interest
Still on a case-to-case basis. The test of
for the intervening period may be demanded.
negligence is the omission to do that which the
When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of evidence of his own senses tell him he should
his insolvency, reimburse his share to the debtor do in order to avoid the accident.
Page 3 of 21
The basis of liability is the relationship of pater The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
familias. mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors
or incapacitated persons who are under their authority
GENERAL CONCEPTS and live in their company.
There is vicarious liability where a person is not The owners and managers of an establishment or
enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
only liable for torts committed by himself, but
by their employees in the service of the branches in
also for torts committed by others with whom he which the latter are employed or on the occasion of
has a certain relationship and for whom he is their functions.
responsible.
This doctrine is also called the doctrine of Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by
“imputed negligence.” 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.
Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
The employer is liable not because of his act or The State is responsible in like manner when it acts
omission but because of the act or omission of through a special agent; but not when the damage has
the employee. been caused by the official to whom the task done
What is material is not whether the employer properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Art.
2176 shall be applicable.
exercised due care but the conduct of the
employee. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
The employer cannot escape liability by trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
claiming that he exercised due diligence in pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
the selection or supervision of his employee. remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease

GR: Vicarious liability is generally not governed
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they
by the doctrine of respondeat superior. observed all the diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent damage.
EXCEPTION: Subsidiary civil liability of other
persons. — The subsidiary liability established in ARTICLE 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused
the next preceding article shall also apply to by his dependents or employees may recover from the
latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
the claim.
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, ARTICLE 2182. If the minor or insane person causing
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of damage has no parents or guardian, the minor or
their duties. (Art. 103, RPC) insane person shall be answerable with his own
property in an action against him where a guardian ad
litem shall be appointed.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Child and Youth Welfare Code

New Civil Code
ARTICLE 58. Torts. – Parents and guardians are
ARTICLE 2180. The obligation imposed by Art. 2176 responsible for the damage caused by the child under
(on quasi-delict) is demandable not only for one's own their parental authority in accordance with the Civil
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for Code.
whom one is responsible.
Page 4 of 21
ARTICLE 201. Civil Liability of Youthful Offenders. – by removing the alternative qualification of the
The civil liability for acts committed by a youthful liability of the father and the mother.
offender shall devolve upon the offender’s father and,
Art. 201 of the CYFC should also have been
in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or
in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian. modified by Art. 221 of the FC by removing the
Civil liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a alternative qualification.
relative or family friend of the youthful offender. Parents are liable without preference to the
father.
Family Code
Schools are liable
ARTICLE 219. Those given the authority and The liability of teachers and heads of institutions
responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
under Art. 2180 are likewise modified under Art.
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by
the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The 221 of the FC by making the school itself liable.
parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising The liability extends to acts committed even
substitute parental authority over said minor shall be outside the school so long as it is an official
subsidiarily liable. activity of the school.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the

Revised Penal Code
preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that
they exercised the proper diligence required under the
ARTICLE 101. Rules Regarding Civil Liability in Certain
particular circumstances.
Cases. — The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of article 12
All other cases not covered by this and the preceding
and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not
articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
Code on quasi-delicts.
enforced subject to the following rules:
ARTICLE 221. Parents and other persons exercising

First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12,
parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries
the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or
and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
insane person, and by a person under nine years of
unemancipated children living in their company and
age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of
under their parental authority subject to the
age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve
appropriate defenses provided by law.
upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no
ARTICLE 236. Emancipation shall terminate parental
fault or negligence on their part.
authority over the person and property of the child
who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts
Should there be no person having such insane,
of civil life, save the exceptions established by existing
imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
laws in special cases.
guardianship, or control, or if such person be insolvent,
said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their
Contracting marriage shall require parental consent
own property, excepting property exempt from
until the age of twenty-one.
execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article
from the duty or responsibility of parents and
11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
guardians for children and wards below twenty-one
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
years of age mentioned in the second and third
benefit which they may have received.
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion,

No Alternative Qualifications for Parents the proportionate amount for which each one shall be
The provisions with respect to parents in the 2nd liable.
par. of Art. 2180 is modified by Art. 221 of the FC
Page 5 of 21
When the respective shares can not be equitably Basis of Liability

determined, even approximately, or when the liability The basis of liability of parents for the acts or
also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of
omissions of their minor children is the parental
the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events,
whenever the damage has been caused with the authority that they exercise over them.
consent of the authorities or their agents, It imposes upon them the duty of supporting
indemnification shall be made in the manner their children, keeping them in their company
prescribed by special laws or regulations. and educating them in proportion to their
means.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of
They have the right to correct and punish their
article 12, the persons using violence or causing the
fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if children in moderation.
there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the latter that part of their Fuellas v. Cadano G.R. No. L-14409 (1961)
property exempt from execution.
FACTS:
ARTICLE 102. Subsidiary Civil Liability of Innkeepers, Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-
Tavernkeepers and Proprietors of Establishments. — In appellant Agapito Fuellas, were both 13 years old.
default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, They were classmates at St. Mary's High School. One
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations afternoon while Pepito was studying his lessons in the
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their classroom, Rico took the pencil of one Ernesto
establishments, in all cases where a violation of Cabanok and surreptitiously placed it inside the pocket
municipal ordinances or some general or special police of Pepito. When Ernesto asked Rico to return the
regulation shall have been committed by them or their pencil, it was Pepito who returned the same, an act
employees. which angered Rico, who held the neck of Pepito and
pushed him to the floor. A teacher separated the two
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution and ordered them to go home.
of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the When Pepito had just gone down from the
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have schoolhouse, he was met by Rico, still in an angry
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the mood. Angelito Aba, a classmate, told the two to
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods shake hands. Pepito extended his hand to Rico.
within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the Instead of accepting the proffer to shake hands, Rico
directions which such innkeeper or his representative held Pepito by the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito
may have given them with respect to the care of and out of balance and pushed him to the ground. Pepito
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in fell on his right side with his right arm under his body,
case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. While Rico was
persons unless committed by the innkeeper’s in such position, Pepito suddenly cried out "My arm is
employees. broken." Rico then got up and went away. That same
evening Pepito was brought to the Lanao General
ARTICLE 103. Subsidiary Civil Liability of Other Hospital for treatment. An X-Ray taken showed that
Persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the there was a complete fracture of the radius and ulna of
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, the right forearm which necessitated plaster casting.
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their For serious physical injuries sustained by Pepito
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees Cadano, son of plaintiff-appellee Elpidio Cadano, two
in the discharge of their duties. separate actions were instituted, Civil Case No. 583 for
damages against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor
PARENTS AND OTHER PERSONS EXERCISING Rico Fuellas, who caused the injuries, and Criminal
Case No. 1765, against Rico Fuellas, for serious
PARENTAL AUTHORITY
physical injuries. They were tried jointly.
LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF MINORS IN CIVIL RTC RULING: A judgment of conviction in the criminal
LAW case was rendered, finding Rico Fuellas guilty of the
Page 6 of 21
offense charged. No pronouncement as to his civil Balce, below 18 years of age who was living with him.
liability was made, the trial judge having ruled that the Gumersindo was found guilty of homicide for having
same "shall be determined in Civil Case No. 583. The killed Carlos Salen, minor son of plaintiffs. The trial
same court rendered judgment in the civil case liable court rendered judgment dismissing the case, stating
under Art. 2180 of the new Civil Code for damages. that the civil liability of the minor son of the defendant
arising from his criminal liability must be determined
CA RULING: The petitioner-appellant was ordered to under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and
pay damages for the deliberate injury caused by his not under Art. 2180 of the new Civil Code. The SC
son; that the said court held the petitioner liable reversed the decision of the trial court on the
pursuant to par. 2, of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, in following grounds:
connection with Art. 2176 of the same Code.
“It is true that under Art. 101 of the Revised Penal
FUELLAS’ DEFENSE: The minor-Fuellas having been Code, a father is made civilly liable for the acts
convicted of serious physical injuries at the age of 13, committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile,
the provisions of par. 3 of Art. 12, Revised Penal Code, an insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15
could have been applied, but having acted with years of age, who acts without discernment, unless it
discernment, Art. 101 of the same Code can not appears that there is no fault or negligence on his part.
include him. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 of This is because a son who commits the act under any
Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an of those conditions is by law exempt from criminal
imbecile or insane person and by a person under nine liability (Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, Revised
years of age or by one over nine but under fifteen Penal Code). The idea is not to leave the act entirely
years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall unpunished but to attach certain civil liability to the
devolve upon those having such person under their person who has the delinquent minor under his legal
legal authority or control, unless it appears that there authority or control. But a minor over 15 who acts
was no fault or negligence on their part", the appellant with discernment is not exempt from criminal
concluded that this provision covers only a situation liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the
where a minor under 15 but over 9 years old commits a subsidiary liability of his parents should he stand
criminal act "without discernment.” convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the
general law which is our Civil Code.”
ISSUE:
Whether Agapito Fuellas (father of the minor The particular law that governs this case is Article
defendant) can be held liable for damages under 2180, the pertinent portion of which provides: 'The
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. — YES. father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, are responsible for damages caused by the
RULING: minor children who lived in their company.' To hold
In the case of Araneta vs. Arreglado, the Court applied that this provision does not apply to the instant case
the same principle. In this case, the parents of Dario because it only covers obligations which arise from
Arreglado who was indicted by frustrated homicide, quasi delicts and not obligations which arise from
was sentenced to pay damages and attorney’s fees. criminal offenses, would result in the absurdity that
The decision was predicated upon the fact that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes
Arreglado's father had acted negligently in allowing his the father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable
son to have access to the pistol used to injure the for the damage caused by his or her son, no liability
victim. And this was the logical consequence of the would attach if the damage is caused with criminal
case, considering the fact that the civil law liability intent. Verily, the void apparently exists in the
under Article 2180 is not respondeat superior but the Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular
relationship of pater familias which bases the liability of provision of our Civil Code, as may be gleaned from
the father ultimately on his own negligence and not on some recent decisions of this Court which cover
that of his minor son, and that if an injury is caused by equal or identical cases.
the fault or negligence of his minor son, the law
presumes that there was negligence on the part of his The case at bar was also decided by the CA based
father. on the evidence submitted therein by both parties,
independently of the criminal case. And as
In the Salen and Salbanera vs. Jose Balce, the responsibility for fault or negligence under Article
defendant Balce was the father of a minor Gumersindo 2176 upon which the action in the present case was
Page 7 of 21
instituted, is entirely separate and distinct from the make an inventory of personal properties was thwarted
civil liability, arising from fault or negligence under by guards and this Court had to direct the Chief of the
the Penal Code (Art. 2177). Philippine Constabulary to assist in enforcing the writ
of execution. The execution yielded only a nominal
Persons Liable amount.
Liability based on parental authority is not limited
In the meantime, Luis dela Rosa is now of age, married
to parents; the same is also imposed on those
with two children, and living in Madrid, Spain with an
exercising substitute parental authority, like the uncle but only casually employed. It is said: "His
adopter and a court-appointed guardian. compensation is hardly enough to support his family.
It should be noted that parents have the He has no assets of his own as yet.
natural right and duty over the person and
property of their unemancipated children. ISSUE:
Whether or not Jose Dela Rosa’s liability as the father
of Luis should only be subsidiary in the light of Luis
Rodriguez-Luna v. IAC G.R. No. L-62988 (1985)
being of legal age and married. — NO.
FACTS:
RULING:
On January 18, 1970, a go-kart driven by Roberto
Respondents invoke the ruling in Elcano vs. Hill where
Luna, a business executive and a go-kart driven by Luis
it was held that Art. 2180 applied to Atty. Marvin Hill
Dela Rosa, a minor who had no license, collided at the
notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of
go-kart practice area in Greenhills. Roberto Luna was
Reginald Hill his son but since Reginald had attained
killed in the collision.
age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill had
become merely subsidiary to that of his son.
The heirs of Luna filed a suit for damages against Luis
Dela Rosa and his father Jose Dela Rosa with the CFI of
Respondent Jose dela Rosa argues that since Luis dela
Manila.
Rosa, is now married and of legal age, as a matter of
equity the liability as father should be subsidiary only.
RTC RULING: The trial court ordered the defendants
to pay the heirs the sum of P1,650,000.00 as unearned
The SC is unwilling to apply equity instead of strict
net earnings of Roberto Luna, P12,000.00 as
law in this case because to do so will not serve the
compensatory damages, and P60,000.00 for the loss of
ends of justice. Luis dela Rosa is abroad and beyond
his companionship, with legal interest from the date of
the reach of Philippine courts. Moreover, he does
this decision; plus attorney's fees in the sum of
not have any property either in the Philippines or
P50,000.00, and the costs of suit.
elsewhere. In fact his earnings are insufficient to
support his family.
CA RULING: The defendants appealed to the CA
which affirmed the decision of the trial court but
ordered the defendants to pay within thirty (30) days Effect of Absence of Parents
from notice the following amounts adjudged against
them: P450,000.00 for unearned net earnings of the ARTICLE 216. In default of parents or a judicially
deceased; (P12,000.00 as compensatory damages; appointed guardian, the following person shall
P50,000.00 for the loss of his companionship with legal exercise substitute parental authority over the child in
interest from July 3, 1973; and P50,000.00 as the order indicated:
attorney's fees. Both parties appealed for review of the
appellate court’s decision. (1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one
Jose and Luis Dela Rosa failed to pay the amounts and years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and
said they had no cash money when required to (3) The child’s actual custodian, over twenty-one
explain. years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to issue a Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over
writ of execution but the attempt of the special sheriff the property of the child becomes necessary, the same
to enter the respondent's premises so that he could order of preference shall be observed.
Page 8 of 21
Scope of Liability CFI RULING: Dismissed the case for insufficiency of

Their liability for the acts of their children extends evidence.

to both negligent acts and intentional acts.
IAC RULING: On appeal, the IAC set aside the lower
court’s judgment and ruled in favor of spouses
Nature of Liability Gotiong.
Both parents are primarily liable for the damages
caused by their child. ISSUE:
Whether or not Art. 2180, CC was correctly interpreted
Libi v. IAC G.R. No. 70890 (1992) by IAC to make petitioners liable for vicarious liability.
— YES.
FACTS:
For more than 2 years before their deaths, Julie Ann RULING:
Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts until Petitioners claim that they had exercised due diligence
December 1978 when Julie Ann broke up with Wendell of a good father of a family, hence, they should not be
after she found him to be sadistic and irresponsible. civilly liable for the crime committed by their minor
During the first and second weeks of January 1979, son. However, such defense is not borne out by the
Wendell kept pestering Julie Ann with demands for evidence on record.
reconciliation but the latter persisted in her refusal,
prompting the former to resort to threats against her. Petitioner Amelita Yap Libi, mother of Wendell,
In order to avoid him, Julie Ann stayed in the house of testified that her husband, Cresencio Libi, owns a gun
her best friend, Malou Alfonso, at the corner of Maria which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer
Cristina and Juana Osmeña Streets, Cebu City, from in their bedroom. Each of these petitioners holds a key
January 7 to 13, 1978. to the safety deposit box and Amelita's key is always in
her bag, all of which facts were known to Wendell.
On January 14, 1979, Julie Ann and Wendell died, They have never seen their son Wendell taking or using
each from a single gunshot wound inflicted with the the gun. She admitted, however, that on that fateful
same firearm, a Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in night the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box.
the name of petitioner Cresencio Libi, which was The Court, accordingly, cannot but entertain serious
recovered from the scene of the crime inside the doubts that petitioner spouses had really been
residence of private respondents. exercising the diligence of a good father of a family by
safely locking the fatal gun away. Wendell could not
Due to the absence of an eyewitness account of the have gotten hold thereof unless one of the keys to the
circumstances surrounding the death of both minors, safety deposit box was negligently left lying around or
their parents posited respective theories drawn from he had free access to the bag of his mother where the
their interpretation of circumstantial evidence, available other key was.
reports, documents and evidence of physical facts.
The diligence of a good father of a family required by
Private respondents submitted that Wendell caused law in a parent and child relationship consists, to a
her death by shooting her with the aforesaid firearm large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the
and thereafter, turning the gun on himself to commit child. Petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as
suicide. Petitioners rejected the imputation and parents in not diligently supervising the activities of
contended that an unknown third party, whom Wendell their son, despite his minority and immaturity, so much
may have displeased or antagonized by reason of his so that it was only at the time of Wendell's death that
work as a narcotics informer of CANU, must have they allegedly discovered that he was a CANU agent
caused Wendell’s death and then shot Julie Ann to and that Cresencio's gun was missing from the safety
eliminate any witness. deposit box. Both parents were sadly wanting in their
duty and responsibility in monitoring and knowing the
As a result of the tragedy, spouses Gotiong filed a case activities of their children who, for all they know, may
against the parents of Wendell to recover damages be engaged in dangerous work such as being drug
arising from the latter’s vicarious liability under Art. informers, or even drug users. Neither was a plausible
2180, CC with CFI Cebu. explanation given for the photograph of Wendell, with
a handwritten dedication to Julie Ann at the back
thereof, holding upright what clearly appears as a
Page 9 of 21
revolver and on how or why he was in possession of That in both quasi-delicts and crimes the parents
that firearm. primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by
the corresponding provisions in both codes that the
The Court agreed with the conclusion of IAC that minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond
petitioners should be held liable for the civil liability with his own property only in the absence or in case of
based on what appears from all indications was a crime insolvency of the former. Thus, for civil liability ex quasi
committed by their minor son. However, it clarified the delicto of minors, Art. 2182, CC states that "if the
portion of its decision where it cited Fuellas v. Cadano, minor causing damage has no parents or guardian, the
which held that the liability of parents for damages minor…shall be answerable with his own property in an
caused by their minor children under Art. 2180, CC as action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
being subsidiary and not primary in nature. This stems appointed." For civil liability ex delicto of minors, an
from the Court’s concern that if liability of parents for equivalent provision is found in the third paragraph of
crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is Art. 101, RPC, to wit: "Should there be no person
subsidiary, then the parents can neither invoke nor be having such…minor under his authority, legal
absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent,
with the diligence of a good father of a family to said…minor shall respond with (his) own property,
prevent damages. On the other hand, if such liability is excepting property exempt from execution, in
imputed to parents is considered direct and primary, accordance with civil law.”
that diligence would constitute as a valid and
substantial defense. On the issue of civil liability of parents for crimes
committed by their minor children (a) over 9 but under
The Court held that under the civil liability of 15 years of age, who acted with discernment, (b) and
parents under Art. 2180, CC is primary and not those 15 years of age or over, since these situations are
subsidiary. In fact, if we apply Art. 2194 which not covered by Art. 101, RPC, both instances should
provides for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors, the be resolved in accordance with Art. 2180, CC. To hold
persons responsible for the act or omission, in this that the civil liability under Art. 2180 would apply only
case the minor and the father and, in case of his to quasi-delicts and not to criminal offenses would
death of incapacity, the mother, are solidarily liable. result in the absurdity that in an act involving mere
Accordingly, such parental liability is primary and negligence the parents would be liable but not where
not subsidiary, hence the last paragraph of Art. the damage is caused with criminal intent.
2180 provides that "the responsibility treated of in
this article shall cease when the persons herein NOTE: On IAC’s reliance on Fuellas case - it was not
mentioned prove that they observed all the exactly accurate to say Fuellas provided for subsidiary
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent liability of the parents therein. What the respondent
damages.” court quoted verbatim was the syllabus on the law
report of said case which spoke of subsidiary liability.
Also, the liability of the parents for felonies However, such categorization does not specifically
committed by their minor children is likewise appear in the text of the decision.
primary, not subsidiary. Art. 101, RPC provides: “…
the civil liability for acts committed by . . . a person Under the foregoing considerations, therefore, we
under nine years of age, or by one over nine but hereby rule that the parents are and should be held
under fifteen years of age, who has acted without primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such offenses committed by their minor children under their
person under their legal authority or control, unless legal authority or control, or who live in their company,
it appears that there was no fault or negligence on unless it is proven that the former acted with the
their part.” diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such
damages. That primary liability is premised on the
Accordingly, just like the rule in Art. 2180, CC under provisions of Art. 101, RPC with respect to damages ex
the foregoing provision the civil liability of the delicto caused by their children 9 years of age or
parents for crimes committed by their minor under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted
children is likewise direct and primary, and also without discernment; and, with regard to their children
subject to the defense of lack of fault or negligence over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted with
on their part, that is, the exercise of the diligence of discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21 years of
a good father of a family.
Page 10 of 21
age, such primary liability shall be imposed pursuant to under without need to determine if the minors
Article 2180 of the Civil Code. who are over 9 but under 15 acted with
discernment.
Under said Art. 2180, the enforcement of such liability
shall be effected against the father and, in case of his All minors who are 15 years and below are
death or incapacity, the mother. This was amplified by conclusively presumed to have acted without
the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that discernment. (Sec. 6, RA 9344)
the same shall devolve upon the father and, in case of Art. 101 RPC therefore applies in relation to
his death or incapacity, upon the mother or, in case of Art. 221 FC without need to determine if the
her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the
offender acted with discernment.
liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative
or family friend of the youthful offender. However,
under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without Children over 15 years but below 18
such alternative qualification, the responsibility of the Persons who are exercising legal authority are
parents and those who exercise parental authority over primarily liable for acts of their children who are
the minor offender. For civil liability arising from quasi- over 15 years but under 18 who acted with
delicts committed by minors, the same rules shall apply
discernment.
in accordance with Art. 2180 and 2182, as so modified.
“Children in Conflict with the Law”
Other Requirements If the minor who is over 15 did not act with
Under existing laws, there is no longer any discernment, the liability can also be imposed
instance when a minor may be emancipated under Art. 221 FC.
before he reaches the age of majority (18 years
old). Children below 21
The liability of parents and other persons Parents and guardians are likewise primarily liable
exercising parental authority is present only if for acts of their children who are above 15 but
the child is living in their company. under 21 years of age under Art. 2180 CC.
LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF CHILDREN OF Defense of Exercise of Due Diligence

MAJORITY AGE Parents and other persons exercising parental
authority can escape liability by proving that they
Parents or guardians can still be held liable even observed all the diligence of a good father of a
if the minor is already emancipated by reaching family to prevent damage.
the age of 18 provided that he is below 21 years Their fault or negligence is presumed from that
of age. which accompanied the causative act or
Parents are still being made liable because omission although the presumption is merely
they are persons who are financially capable of prima facie.
satisfying any judgment obligation.
Cuadra v. Monfort G.R. No. L-24101 (1970)
The fact that they no longer exercise parental
authority, the age of the actor and his level of FACTS:
maturity are circumstances that should be Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfort,
considered in determining the degree of 13, were classmates in Grade Six at the Mabini
diligence required of the parents. Elementary School in Bacolod City. On July 9, 1962
their teacher assigned them, together with three other
classmates, to weed the grass in the school premises.
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PARENTS EX DELICTO
While thus engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a
plastic headband, an ornamental object commonly
Children 15 years and below worn by young girls over their hair. Jokingly she said
Persons exercising parental authority are liable for aloud that she had found an earthworm and, evidently
the civil liability of minors who are 15 years and to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at her. At
Page 11 of 21
that precise moment the latter turned around to face contemplated, and how does a parent prove it in
her friend, and the object hit her right eye. Smarting connection with a particular act or omission of a minor
from the pain, she rubbed the injured part and treated child, especially when it takes place in his absence or
it with some powder. The next day, July 10, the eye outside his immediate company? Obviously there can
became swollen and it was then that the girl related be no meticulously calibrated measure applicable; and
the incident to her parents, who thereupon took her to when the law simply refers to "all the diligence of a
a doctor for treatment. She underwent surgical good father of the family to prevent damage," it
operation twice, first on July 20 and again on August 4, implies a consideration of the attendant circumstances
1962, and stayed in the hospital for a total of twenty- in every individual case, to determine whether or not
three days, for all of which the parents spent the sum by the exercise of such diligence the damage could
of P1,703.75. Despite the medical efforts, however, have been prevented.
Maria Teresa Cuadra completely lost the sight of her
right eye. In the present case there is nothing from which it
may be inferred that the defendant could have
In the civil suit subsequently instituted by the parents prevented the damage by the observance of due
in behalf of their minor daughter against Alfonso care, or that he was in any way remiss in the
Monfort, Maria Teresa Monfort's father, the defendant exercise of his parental authority in failing to
was ordered to pay P1,703.00 as actual damages; foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. On
P20,000.00 as moral damages; and P2,000.00 as the contrary, his child was at school, where it was his
attorney's fees, plus the costs of the suit. duty to send her and where she was, as he had the
right to expect her to be, under the care and
ISSUE: supervision of the teacher. And as far as the act which
Whether Morfort’s father is liable under Arts. 2176 and caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent
2180. — NO. prank not unusual among children at play and which no
parent, however careful, would have any special reason
RULING: to anticipate much less guard against. Nor did it reveal
The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease any mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they child's character which would reflect unfavorably on
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family her upbringing and for which the blame could be
to prevent damage. attributed to her parents.
The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article The victim, no doubt, deserves no little commiseration
2176 is the fault or negligence accompanying the act and sympathy for the tragedy that befell her. But if the
or the omission, there being no willfulness or intent to defendant is at all obligated to compensate her
cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is suffering, the obligation has no legal sanction
that of one person for whom another is responsible, enforceable in court, but only the moral compulsion of
the latter then becomes himself liable under Article good conscience.
2180, in the different cases enumerated therein, such
as that of the father or the mother under the LIABILITY OF GUARDIANS OF INCAPACITATED
circumstances above quoted. The basis of this ADULTS
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 Guardian — a person in whom the law has
presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore entrusted the custody and control of the person
be rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that or estate or both of infant, insane, or other
may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180, persons incapable of managing his own affair.
which states "that the responsibility treated of in this The word incompetent includes the following:
Article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
1. persons suffering the penalty of civil
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent damage." interdiction;
2. hospitalized lepers;
Since the fact thus required to be proven is a matter of 3. prodigals;
defense, the burden of proof necessarily rests on the
defendant. But what is the exact degree of diligence
Page 12 of 21
4. deaf and dumb who are unable to read Persons Liable

and write; The persons liable under the FC are the school,
5. those who are of unsound mind, even administrators, teachers or the individual, entity
though they have lucid intervals; or institution engaged in child care.
6. persons not being of sound mind, but by This is without distinction if it is a non-academic
reason of age, disease, weak mind; and or academic school.
7. other similar cause who cannot, without Administrators include the principal and other
aid, take care of themselves and manage persons who are involved in the supervision of
their property, becoming thereby an easy the child.
prey for deceit and exploitation. (Sec. 2 Ex. day-care centers, establishments found in
Rule 92, ROC) shopping malls that charge on a per hour basis
for taking care of children
ARTICLE 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state If the school is being sued together with
of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction administrators and teachers, the liability is joint
are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not
and solidary.
exempt the incapacitated person from certain
obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or
from property relations, such as easements. St. Joseph’s College v. Miranda G.R. No. 182353
(2010)
ARTICLE 39. The following circumstances, among
others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, FACTS:
imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the
prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, afternoon inside St. Joseph College's (SJC) premises,
insolvency and trusteeship. x x x the class to which respondent Jayson Val Miranda
belonged was conducting a science experiment about
fusion of sulphur powder and iron filings under the
NOTE: Not all guardians of incompetents are tutelage of petitioner Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the
vicariously liable. subject teacher and employee of petitioner SJC. The
In Art. 101 RPC, liability is imposed only on adviser of Jayson's class is Estefania Abdan.
guardians of imbecile and insane persons.
Art. 2180 CC limits the liability of guardians to Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment
without having adequately secured it from any
acts of incapacitated persons who are under
untoward incident or occurrence. In the middle of the
their authority and who live in their company. experiment, Jayson, who was the assistant leader of
one of the class groups, checked the result of the
SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND experiment by looking into the test tube with
ADMINISTRATORS magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one
of his group mates who moved it close and towards
the eye of Jayson. At that instance, the compound in
VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE FAMILY
the test tube spurted out and several particles of which
CODE hit Jayson's eye and the different parts of the bodies of
some of his group mates. As a result thereof, Jayson's
ARTICLE 218. The school, its administrators and eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left eye,
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend
engaged in child are shall have special parental for his medication.
authority and responsibility over the minor child while
under their supervision, instruction or custody. Jayson and his parents suffered sleepless nights,
mental anguish and wounded feelings as a result of his
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized injury due to petitioners’ fault and failure to exercise
activities whether inside or outside the premises of the the degree of care and diligence incumbent upon each
school, entity or institution. one of them. Also, Jayson sent a demand letter to
petitioners for the payment of his medical expenses as
Page 13 of 21
well as other expenses incidental thereto, which the Court, however, understands that these other students
latter failed to heed. Hence, Jayson was constrained to cannot testify for Jayson because Jayson is no longer
file the complaint for damages. Petitioners, therefore, enrolled in said school and testifying for Jayson would
should likewise compensate Jayson for litigation incur the ire of school authorities. Estefania Abdan is
expenses, including attorney’s fees. equally at fault as the subject adviser or teacher in
charge because she exercised control and supervision
RTC RULING: The RTC ruled in favor of Jason, over [petitioner] Tabugo and the students themselves.
prompting petitioners to file an appeal to the CA. It was her obligation to insure that nothing would go
wrong and that the science experiment would be
CA RULING: The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. conducted safely and without any harm or injury to the
students. Petitioner Sr. Josephini Ambatali is likewise
ISSUE: culpable under the doctrine of command responsibility
Whether or not the CA erred in not finding that because the other individual petitioners were under
Jayson’s injury was his own doing. — NO. her direct control and supervision. The negligent acts
of the other individual petitioners were done within the
RULING: scope of their assigned tasks.
In this case, petitioners failed to show that the
negligence of Jayson was the proximate cause of the Petitioners' negligence and failure to exercise the
latter's injury. We find that the immediate cause of the requisite degree of care and caution is demonstrated
accident was not the negligence of Jayson when he by the following:
curiously looked into the test tube when the chemicals 1. Petitioner school did not take affirmative steps to
suddenly exploded which caused his injury, but the avert damage and injury to its students although it
sudden and unexpected explosion of the chemicals had full information on the nature of dangerous
independent of any intervening cause. Petitioners science experiments conducted by the students
could have prevented the mishap if they exercised a during class;
higher degree of care, caution and foresight. The court 2. Petitioner school did not install safety measures to
a quo correctly ruled that: protect the students who conduct experiments in
class;
"All of the petitioners are equally at fault and are liable 3. Petitioner school did not provide protective gears
for negligence because all of them are responsible for and devices, specifically goggles, to shield
exercising the required reasonable care, prudence, students from expected risks and dangers; and
caution and foresight to prevent or avoid injuries to the 4. Petitioner Tabugo was not inside the classroom the
students. The individual petitioners are persons whole time her class conducted the experiment,
charged with the teaching and vigilance over their specifically, when the accident involving Jayson
students as well as the supervision and ensuring of occurred. In any event, the size of the class--fifty
their well-being. Based on the facts presented before (50) students-- conducting the experiment is
this Court, these petitioners were remiss in their difficult to monitor.
responsibilities and lacking in the degree of vigilance
expected of them. Petitioner subject teacher Rosalinda Subsidiary Liability of Parents
Tabugo was inside the classroom when the class The parents are only subsidiary liable because
undertook the science experiment although Jayson
persons exercising special parental authority
insisted that said petitioner left the classroom. No
evidence, however, was presented to establish that replace the primary authority of the parents when
petitioner Tabugo was inside the classroom for the the minor is under their custody.
whole duration of the experiment. It was unnatural in Although parental authority remains, the parent
the ordinary course of events that Jayson was brought is not supposed to interfere with the discipline
to the school clinic for immediate treatment not by of the school nor with the authority and
petitioner subject teacher Rosalinda Tabugo but by
supervision of the teacher while the child is
somebody else. The Court was inclined to believe that
petitioner subject teacher Tabugo was not inside the under instruction.
classroom at the time the accident happened. The
Court is also perplexed why none of the other students
(who were eyewitnesses to the incident) testified in
Court to corroborate the story of the petitioners. The
Page 14 of 21
Supervision, Instruction, or Custody CA RULING: reversed the decision and all the
The responsibility and authority of the school and defendants were absolved. CA found that Article 2180
was not applicable as the Colegio de San Jose-
other persons exercising special parental
Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but an
authority shall apply to all authorized activities academic institution of learning. It also held that the
whether inside or outside the premises of the students were not in the custody of the school at the
school, entity or institution. time of the incident as the semester had already
ended, that there was no clear identification of the fatal
Amadora v. CA G.R. No. L-47745 (1988) gun, and that in any event the defendants had
exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the
FACTS: injury.
On April 13, 1972 while they were in the auditorium of
their school, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletes, ISSUES:
Alfredo Amadora was shot by a classmate, Pablito 1. Whether or not Article 2180 of the Civil Code
Daffon, with a gun that mortally hit him. The victim was covers even establishments which are technically
only seventeen years old. Daffon was convicted of not school of arts and trades but an academic
homicide thru reckless imprudence. institution of learning. — YES.
2. Whether or not Alfredo Amadora was within the
Petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action school’s custody even if the semester had already
for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code ended. — YES.
against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, 3. Whether or not the remaining respondents are
the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. — NO.
physics teacher, together with Daffon and two other
students, through their respective parents. The RULING:
complaint against the students was later dropped. 1. The provision in Article 2180 of the Civil Code
should apply to all schools, academic as well as
The petitioners contend that their son was in the non-academic. Where the school is academic rather
school to finish his physics experiment as a prerequisite than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility
to his graduation on April 16, 1972; hence, he was for the tort committed by the student will attach to
then under the custody of the private respondents. The the teacher in charge of such student, following the
private respondents submit that Alfredo Amadora had first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In
gone to the school only for the purpose of submitting other words, teachers in general shall be liable for
his physics report and that he was no longer in their the acts of their students except where the school
custody because the semester had already ended. is technical in nature, in which case it is the head
thereof who shall be answerable. There is really no
It is not denied by the respondents that on April 7, substantial distinction between the academic and
1972, Sergio Damaso, Jr., the dean of boys, the non-academic schools insofar as torts
confiscated from Jose Gumban an unlicensed pistol committed by their students are concerned. The
but later returned it to him without making a report to same vigilance is expected from the teacher over
the principal or taking any further action. The the students under his control and supervision,
petitioners contend that this was the same pistol that whatever the nature of the school where he is
had been confiscated from Gumban and that their son teaching.
would not have been killed if it had not been returned 2. The student is in the custody of the school
by Damaso. The respondents say, however, that there authorities as long as he is under the control and
is no proof that the gun was the same firearm that influence of the school and within its premises,
killed Alfredo. whether the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended. As long as it can be shown that the
CFI RULING: held the remaining defendants liable to student is in the school premises in pursuance of a
the plaintiffs in the sum of P294,984.00, representing legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a
death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment
litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary of a legitimate student right, and even in the
damages, and attorney's fees. enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the
responsibility of the school authorities over the
student continues.
Page 15 of 21
3. The rector, the high school principal and the dean occurred was a member of the Board of Directors of
of boys cannot be held liable because none of the institute; Valenton, the president; Quibulue,
them was the teacher-in-charge as previously instructor of the class to which the deceased belonged;
defined. Each of them was exercising only a and Daffon, a fellow student of the deceased.
general authority over the student body and not
the direct control and influence exerted by the The foregoing is the substance of the testimony of
teacher placed in charge of particular classes or Desiderio Cruz, the lone witness to the incident: The
sections and thus immediately involved in its deceased Palisoc and the defendant Daffon were
discipline. The evidence of the parties does not classmates. They, together with another classmate,
disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending Cruz, were in the laboratory room during recess. Cruz
student was. The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora and Daffon were working on a machine while Palisoc
had gone to school that day in connection with his was merely looking on at them. Daffon made a remark
physics report did not necessarily make the physics to the effect that Palisoc was acting like a foreman.
teacher, respondent Celestino Dicon, the teacher- Because of this remark Palisoc slapped slightly Daffon
in-charge of Alfredo's killer. On the contrary, the on the face. Daffon, in retaliation, gave Palisoc a strong
private respondents have proved that they had flat blow on the face, which was followed by other fist
exercised due diligence, through the enforcement blows on the stomach. Palisoc retreated apparently to
of the school regulations, in maintaining that avoid the fist blows, but Daffon followed him and both
discipline. The dean of boys cannot be linked to exchanged blows until Palisoc stumbled on an engine
the shooting of Amador as it has not been shown block which caused him to fall face downward. Palisoc
that the confiscated and returned pistol was the became pale and fainted. First aid was administered to
gun that killed the petitioners' son. him but he was not revived, so he was immediately
taken to a hospital. He never regained consciousness;
In any event, it should be noted that the liability finally he died.
imposed by this article is supposed to fall directly
on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and The postmortem findings of Dr. Singian of the Manila
trades and not on the school itself. The teacher is Police Department who performed the autopsy re
held answerable by the law for the act of the "Cause of death: shock due to traumatic fracture of
student under him regardless of the student's age. theribs (6th and 7th, left, contusion of the pancreas
If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be and stomach with intra-gastric hemorrhage and slight
held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of subarachnoid hemorrhage on the brain," and his
the head thereof under the general principle of testimony incfers that these internal injuries of the
respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate deceased were caused "probably by strong fist blows.”
itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the
diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such defense is, CFI RULING: found defendant Daffon liable for the
of course, also available to the teacher or the head quasi delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code;
of the school of arts and trades directly held to however, absolved from liability the three other
answer for the tort committed by the student. As defendant officials of the Manila Technical Institute.
long as the defendant can show that he had taken
the necessary precautions to prevent the injury ISSUE:
complained of, he can exonerate himself from the Whether or not the trial court erred in absolving
liability imposed by Article 2180. defendants-school officials instead of holding them
jointly and severally liable as tortfeasors with defendant
Palisoc v. Brillantes G.R. No. L-29025 (1971) Daffon, for the damages awarded as a result of son’s
death. — YES.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs-appellants as parents of their 16-year old son, RULING:
Dominador Palisoc, and a student in automotive The case at bar was instituted directly against the
mechanics at the Manila Technical Institute, Manila, school officials and squarely raises the issue of liability
had filed on an action for damages arising from the of teachers and heads of schools under Article 2180,
death of their son at the hands of a fellow student, Civil Code, for damages caused by their pupils and
defendant Virgilio L. Daffon, at the laboratory room of students against fellow students on the school
the said Institute. Defendants are: "Brillantes, at the premises.
time when the incident which gave rise to his action
Page 16 of 21
The rationale of such liability of school heads and lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in
teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and Exconde) on which it relied, must now be deemed to
students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that have been set aside by the present decision.
they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils and
students, in loco parentis and are called upon to VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER THE NEW CIVIL
"exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of CODE
the child." This is expressly provided for in Articles
349, 350 and 352 of the Civil Code. In the law of
torts, the governing principle is that the protective Rules Under Article 2180
custody of the school heads and teachers is Teachers and heads are liable for acts of
mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and students and apprentices whether the latter are
hence, it becomes their obligation as well as that of minors or not.
the school itself to provide proper supervision of The teacher-in-charge is liable for the acts of
the students' activities during the whole time that
his students. The school and administrators are
they are at attendance in the school, including
recess time, as well as to take the necessary not liable.
precautions to protect the students in their custody By way of exception. it is only the head of the
from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be school, not the teacher, who is held liable
anticipated, including injuries that some student where the injury is caused in a school of arts
themselves may inflict willfully or through and trade.
negligence on their fellow students.
The liability of the teacher subsists whether the
As tersely summarized by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in his school is academic or non-academic.
dissenting opinion in Exconde vs. Capuno, "the basis Liability is imposed only if the pupil is already
of the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 [now in the custody of the teacher or head. The
2180] is some culpa in vigilando that the parents, student is in the custody of the school
teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the authorities as long as he is under the control
exercise of their authority" and "where the parent
and influence of the school and within its
places the child under the effective authority of the
teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the premises, whether the semester has not yet
one answerable for the torts committed while under his begun or has already ended.
custody, for the very reason that the parent is not
supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school Pasco v. CFI G.R. No. L-54357 (1988)
nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher
while the child is under instruction." The school itself, FACTS:
likewise, has to respond for the fault or negligence of On August 24, 1979 at about 5:00 o'clock in the
its school head and teachers under the same cited afternoon, petitioner, together with two companions,
article. while walking inside the campus of the private
respondent Araneta University, after attending classes
The lower court therefore erred in law in absolving in said university, was accosted and mauled by a group
defendants-school officials on the ground that they of Muslim students led by Abdul Karim Madidis alias
could be held liable under Article 2180, Civil Code, "Teng." Said Muslim group were also students of the
only if the student who inflicted the fatal fist blows on Araneta University. Petitioner was subsequently
his classmate and victim "lived and boarded with his stabbed by Abdul and as a consequence he was
teacher or the other defendants officials of the school." hospitalized at the Manila Central University (MCU)
The phrase used in the cited article is — "so long as Hospital where he underwent surgery to save his life.
(the students) remain in their custody"- means the
protective and supervisory custody that the school and On October 5, 1979, petitioner, assisted by his father
its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and Pedro Pasco, filed a complaint for damages against
students for as long as they are at attendance in the Abdul Karim Madidis and herein private respondent
school, including recess time. There is nothing in the Gregorio Araneta University which was docketed as
law that requires that for such liability to attach the Civil Case No. SM-1027. Said school was impleaded as
pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live a party defendant based on the aforementioned
and board in the school, as erroneously held by the provision of the Civil Code.
Page 17 of 21
Respondent school filed a Motion to Dismiss on the As stated by him, my view is that while the educational
following grounds: institution is not directly liable, yet the school, as the
1. The penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the employer, may be held liable for the failure of its
New Civil Code under which it was sued applies teachers or school heads to perform their mandatory
only to vocational schools and not to academic legal duties as substitute parents (Article 2180, Civil
institutions; Code). The school, however, may exculpate itself from
2. That every person criminally liable for a felony is liability by proving that it had exercised the diligence
also civilly liable under Article 100 of the Revised of a good father of the family.
Penal Code. Hence, the civil liability in this case
arises from a criminal action which the defendant Salvosa v. IAC G.R. No. 70458 (1988)
university has not committed;
3. Since this is a civil case, a demand should have FACTS:
been made by the plaintiff, hence, it would be Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF, hereafter) is an
premature to bring an action for damages against academic institution. Within the premises of the BCF is
defendant University. an ROTC Unit, the Baguio Colleges Foundation
Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) Unit, which is
CFI RULING: issued an Order granting said Motion to under the full control of the Armed Forces of the
Dismiss. Petitioner moved to reconsider the Order of Philippines. The ROTC Unit, by way of accomodation
Dismissal but the motion was likewise denied on the to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), pursuant
ground that there is no sufficient justification to disturb to Department Order No. 14, Series of 1975 of the
its ruling. Hence, this instant Petition for certiorari Department of Education and Culture, is provided by
under Republic Act No. 5440, praying that judgment the BCF an office and an armory located at the
be rendered setting aside the questioned order of May basement of its main building.
12, 1980 dismissing the complaint as against
respondent school and the order of July 17, 1980 The Baguio Colleges Foundation ROTC Unit had
denying the reconsideration of the questioned order of Jimmy B. Abon as its duly appointed armorer. As
dismissal, with costs against respondent school. armorer of the ROTC Unit, Jimmy B. Abon received his
appointment from the AFP. Not being an employee of
ISSUE: the BCF, he also received his salary from the AFP, as
Whether or not the university or school is liable under well as orders from Captain Roberto C. Ungos, the
Art. 2180. — NO. Commandant of the Baguio Colleges Foundation
ROTC Unit, concurrent Commandant of other ROTC
RULING: units in Baguio and an employee (officer) of the AFP.
We find no necessity of discussing the applicability of Jimmy B . Abon was also a commerce student of the
the Article to educational institutions (which are not BCF.
schools of arts and trades) for the issue in this petition
is actually whether or not, under the article, the school On 3 March 1977, at around 8:00 p.m., in the parking
or the university itself (as distinguished from the space of BCF, Jimmy B. Abon shot Napoleon Castro a
teachers or heads) is liable. We find the answer in the student of the University of Baguio with an unlicensed
negative, for surely the provision concerned speaks firearm which the former took from the armory of the
only of "teachers or heads." ROTC Unit of the BCF.11 As a result, Napoleon Castro
died and Jimmy B. Abon was prosecuted for, and
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting: convicted of the crime of Homicide by Military
I dissent. Paragraph 5 of Art. 2180 may be construed Commission No. 30, AFP.12 Subsequently, the heirs of
as the basis for the liability of the school as the Napoleon Castro sued for damages, impleading Jimmy
employer for the failure of its teachers or school heads B. Abon, Roberto C. Ungos (ROTC Commandant),
to perform their mandatory legal duties as substitute Benjamin Salvosa (President and Chairman of the
parents. Herrera, J. concurring (Amadora et al. vs. Board of BCF), Jesus Salvosa (Executive Vice President
Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47745, citing of BCF), Libertad D. Quetolio (Dean of the College of
Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts & Damages, 1978 ed., Education and Executive Trustee of BCF) and the
p. 201). Baguio Colleges Foundation, Inc. as party defendants
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting: RTC RULING: The Trial Court rendered a decision, (1)
I join Justice Sarmiento in his dissent. sentencing defendants Jimmy B. Abon, Benjamin
Page 18 of 21
Salvosa and Baguio Colleges Foundation, Inc., jointly Besides, the record shows that before the shooting
and severally. incident, Roberto B. Ungos ROTC Unit Commandant,
AFP, had instructed Jimmy B. Abon “not to leave the
CA RULING: On appeal by petitioners, the respondent office and to keep the armory well guarded.” Apart
Court affirmed with modification with regard to the from negating a finding that Jimmy B. Abon was under
monetary award the decision of the Trial Court. the custody of the school when he committed the act
for which the petitioners are sought to be held liable,
ISSUE: this circumstance shows that Jimmy B. Abon was
Whether or not petitioners can be held solidarity liable supposed to be working in the armory with definite
with Jimmy B.Abon for damages under Article 2180 of instructions from his superior, the ROTC Commandant,
the Civil Code, as a consequence of the tortious act of when he shot Napoleon Castro.
Jimmy B. Abon. — NO.
OTHER BASES OF LIABILITY OF SCHOOLS
RULING:
Under the penultimate paragraph of Art. 2180 of the
Civil Code, teachers or heads of establishments of arts Liability of schools include:
and trades are liable for “damages caused by their 1. Liability for quasi-delict under Art. 2176 CC;
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they 2. Vicarious liability as the entity exercising
remain in their custody.” The rationale of such liability special parental authority under Art. 2180 CC
is that so long as the student remains in the custody of and Art. 219 FC;
a teacher, the latter “stands, to a certain extent, in loco
3. Vicarious liability as employer under Art. 2180
parentis [as to the student] and is called upon to
exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of CC;
the student.” Likewise, “the phrase used in [Art. 2180 4. Liability based on contract under the CC;
—‘so long as (the students) remain in their custody’ 5. Liability for abuse of right and acts contra
means the protective and supervisory custody that the bonus mores under Arts. 19 and 21 CC; and
school and its heads and teachers exercise over the 6. Vicarious liability under Art. 101 RPC.
pupils and students for as long as they are at
attendance in the school, including recess time.
Liability of School as Employer
In line with the case of Palisoc, a student not “at The school can escape liability if it can establish
attendance in the school” cannot be in “recess” that it exercised due diligence in the selection
thereat. A “recess,” as the concept is embraced in the and supervision of their employees (including
phrase “at attendance in the school,” contemplates a teachers) under Art. 2180 CC.
situation of temporary adjournment of school activities
where the student still remains within call of his mentor
and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or Liability of Schools Based on Contract
the area within which the school activity is conducted. The school, as a contracting party, may be held
Recess by its nature does not include dismissal. liable even if a non-student inflicted the injury.
Likewise, the mere fact of being enrolled or being in In culpa contractual, the mere proof of the
the premises of a school without more does not existence of the contract and the failure of its
constitute “attending school” or being in the
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding
“protective and supervisory custody” of the school, as
contemplated in the law. right of relief.
Part of the obligation of the school is to
Upon the foregoing considerations, we hold that provide a safe campus and there is prima facie
Jimmy B. Abon cannot be considered to have been “at proof of breach of contract if an outsider injures
attendance in the school,” or in the custody of BCF, the student.
when he shot Napoleon Castro. Logically, therefore,
petitioners cannot under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be
held solidarity liable with Jimmy B. Abon for damages
resulting from his acts.
Page 19 of 21
Soliman v. Hon. Tuazon G.R. No. 66207 (1992) 2. Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
FACTS: pupils, their students or apprentices, so long as
Soliman, the petitioner, was in the campus grounds they remain in their custody.
and premises of Republic Central Colleges as he was
still a regular enrolled student taking his classes, while The first paragraph quoted above offers no basis for
Solomon, the defendant, was also on the said premises holding the Colleges liable for the alleged wrongful
performing his duties as a security guard under the acts of security guard Solomon inflicted upon Soliman,
employment and supervision of R.L. Security Agency, Jr., Colleges was not the employer of Jimmy Solomon.
Inc., headed by Mr. Serrano attacked, assaulted, struck The employer of Solomon was the R.L. Security Agency
and shot Soliman in the abdomen with a .38 Caliber Inc., while the school was the client or customer of the
Revolver. Soliman was rushed and treated at Angeles R.L. Security Agency Inc. It is settled that where the
Medical Center, Angeles City . He was advised that he security agency, as here, recruits, hires and assigns the
will not be able to attend his classes and will be work of its watchmen or security guards, the agency is
incapacitated for a duration of 3-4 months before his the employer of such guards or watchmen. Liability for
wounds be completely healed. illegal or harmful acts committed by the security
guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to
Soliman filed a civil complaint for damages against the clients or customers of such agency.
Republic Central Colleges, R.L. Security Agency and
Solomon. Since there is no question that Solomon was not a
pupil or student or an apprentice of the Colleges, he
Colleges contends that they are free from any liability being in fact an employee of the R.L. Security Agency
for injuries sustained by Soliman for the reason that the Inc., the other above-quoted paragraph of Article 2180
school was not the employer of Solomon. It added that of the Civil Code is similarly not available for imposing
Art. 2180(7) of the Civil Code did not apply, since said liability upon the Republic Central Colleges for the acts
paragraph holds teachers and heads of establishment or omissions of Solomon.
of arts and trades liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices, while security In the case of PSBA v. CA, the Court held that Article
guard Solomon was not a pupil, student or apprentice 2180 of the Civil Code was not applicable where a
of the school. student had been injured by one who was an
outsider or by one over whom the school did not
RTC RULING: Ruled in favor of Colleges and dismissed exercise any custody or control or supervision. At
the complaint on grounds that Solomon was not an the same time, however, the court stressed that an
employee of the school which accordingly could not implied contract may be held to be established
be held liable for his acts or omissions. between a school which accepts students for
enrollment, on the one hand, and the students who
ISSUE: are enrolled, on the other hand, which contract
Whether or not colleges should be held liable under results in obligations for both parties. However, in
Art. 1280 of the Civil Code. — NO. the interest of justice, Soliman must be allowed to
prove acts constituting breach of an obligation ex
RULING: contractu or ex lege on the part of the Colleges.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the obligation to Hence, the Court remand the case to the respondent
respond for damage inflicted by one against another judge in order to avoid the possible substantial
by fault or negligence exists not only for one's own act miscarriage of justice.
or omission, but also for acts or omissions of a person
for whom one is by law responsible. Among the Liability of School Based on Quasi-Delict
persons held vicariously responsible for acts or Even in the absence or presence of contract, the
omissions of another person are the following:
school may still be liable as employer under Art.
1. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused 2176.
by their employees and household helper, acting The two basis of liability — contract and quasi-
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even delict — may even concur; in which case, the
though the former are not engaged in any business injured student may choose to file an action for
or industry.
Page 20 of 21
breach of contract or for quasi-delict subject

only to the proscription against double
recovery.
Liability in the Exercise of Special Parental

Authority
The school and other persons exercising special
parental authority may be liable for their failure to
exercise due diligence in the performance of the
duties that are concomitant with the exercise of
special parental authority.
There is a corresponding responsibility to take
care of the minor student with the diligence of
a good father of a family.
There is a duty of the school to provide the
students with adequate security and safe
facilities.
If due care is not exercised, damages may be
imposed under Arts. 19, 20, 21, and 2176 CC.
Liability of Teachers Under the Revised Penal

Code
Art. 103 provides that the subsidiary liability of
the employer under Art. 102 shall also apply to
teachers for felonies committed by their pupils.
Since the rule regarding employers shall apply,
the requirement of insolvency of the accused
as well as other elements is also applicable to
teachers.
Since there is no distinction, a teacher is liable
whether he is employed in an academic or non-
academic institution and whether the pupil is a
minor or not.
EMPLOYERS
OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF

ESTABLISHMENTS
STATE
Page 21 of 21

Torts Module 4 / Persons Liable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Module 4 / Persons Liable

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts Module 4 / Persons Liable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TORTS MODULE 4 / PERSONS LIABLE

THE TORTFEASOR/S Insurance paid Columbia the amount of P1.8M as

Loadmaster Custom Services, Inc. v. Glodel ISSUE:

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease

Child and Youth Welfare Code

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the

ARTICLE 221. Parents and other persons exercising

Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate

The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion,

When the respective shares can not be equitably Basis of Liability

Scope of Liability CFI RULING: Dismissed the case for insufficiency of

LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF CHILDREN OF Defense of Exercise of Due Diligence

4. deaf and dumb who are unable to read Persons Liable

breach of contract or for quasi-delict subject

Liability in the Exercise of Special Parental

Liability of Teachers Under the Revised Penal

OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF

You might also like