Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Maria Teresa Cuadra vs Alfonso Monfort

35 SCRA 160 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Liability of Parents

Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were both classmates in Mabini Elementary
School Bacolod City. In July 1962, their teacher assigned the class to weed the school premises.
While they were doing so, MT Monfort found a headband and she jokingly shouted it as an
earthworm and thereafter tossed it at MT Cuadra who was hit in her eye. MT Cuadra’s eye got
infected. She was brought to the hospital; her eyes were attempted to be surgically repaired but she
nevertheless got blind in her right eye. MT Cuadra’s parents sued Alfonso Monfort (MT Monfort’s
dad) based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The lower court ruled that Monfort should pay for
actual damages (cost of hospitalization), moral damages and attorney’s fees.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monfort is liable under Article 2180.

HELD: No. Article 2180 provides that the father, in case of his incapacity or death, the mother, is
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. The basis of
this vicarious, although primary, liability is fault or negligence, which is presumed from that
which accompanied the causative act or omission. The presumption is merely prima facie and may
therefore be rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last
paragraph of Article 2180, which states “that the responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease
when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage.”

In the case at bar there is nothing from which it may be inferred that Alfonso Monfort could have
prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that he was in any way remiss in the
exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. On
the contrary, his child was at school, where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he
had the right to expect her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as the
act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not unusual among children
at play and which no parent, however careful, would have any special reason to anticipate much
less guard against. Nor did it reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed 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.

JUSTICE BARREDO Dissenting;

MT Monfort is already 13 years old and should have known that by jokingly saying “aloud that
she had found an earthworm and, evidently to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at her,” it
was likely that something would happen to her friend, as in fact, she was hurt. There is nothing in
the record that would indicate that Alfonso had properly advised his daughter to behave properly
and not to play dangerous jokes on her classmate and playmates, he can be liable under Article
2180 of the Civil Code. There is nothing in the record to show that he had done anything at all to
even try to minimize the damage caused upon by his child.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Salen vs. Balce
SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA vs. JOSE BALCE
G.R. No. L-14414. 27 April 1960.
Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Camarines Norte.
Bautista Angelo, J.:

Facts: Plaintiffs are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen who died from wounds caused by
Gumersindo Balce, a legitimate son of defendant who was then single, 18 yrs old and was living
with defendant. As a result of C. Salen's death, G. Balce was accused and convicted of homicide
and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the amount of P2,000.00. Plaintiffs brought this
action against defendant before CFI to recover the sum of P2,000.00, with legal interest.
Defendant, in his answer, set up the defense that the law upon which plaintiffs predicate their right
to recover does not here apply for the reason that law refers to quasi-delicts and not to criminal
cases. CFI sustained the theory of defendant.

Issue: WON appellee can be held subsidiary liable to pay the indemnity in accordance with Art.
2180 of the CC.

Ruling: Judgment reversed.


Art 2180 CC applies in the case at bar. To hold otherwise would result in the absurdity that while
for an act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for
the damage caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with
criminal intent. Verily, the void that apparently exists in the RPC (art.101) is subserved by this
particular provision of our CC, as may be gleaned from some recent decisions of the SC which
cover equal or identical cases.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi